Saturday, November 04, 2006

It seems to me that attempts to create any kind of code all sort of resemble on another and maybe don't address the issues of the sheer wildness of unsupervised blgging. Meanwhile, I think one of the key areas is privacy and use of information. When you look here, make sure to click on the Rosen NYT article. That gives us a lot to go on. But, in a way, we're a living lab right here. What can you post about what goes in in class and out of class? Everything? What kinds of protections do we have. What happens when Jason (or somebody) reads something and wants to meet us?

In this interview, Jay Rosen -- different Rosen -- offers this:


You speak of a “low barrier to entry and a high degree of anonymity for the author.” But for most users the higher the anonymity factor for the author, the higher the barrier of trust.
What some people can’t seem to get over is that other people can say any damn thing they want on the Internet! How can you trust any of it? is their natural reaction to all open systems. Closed systems—and professional journalism is one—develop trust in one way. Open systems have to do it a much different way. Expecting one to look like the other is unreasonable

3 comments:

dsterner said...

Looking back on Wikipedia, here's what another critic has done (this also relates to ethics):
http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/plagiarism-uncovered-on-wikipedia/2006/11/04/1162340080487.html

scottahb said...

funny you mention wikipedia...i read the first subsection of the bloggers code of ethics and thought to myself, "hmm...what would jason say about this and wikipedia?"

scottahb said...

http://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/archives//007473.html#302905

The discussion on the article is pretty interesting.