May I See Your ID?

Jacquie Henry, librarian at Gananda Central School District, Macedon, NY, sent the following plea to LM_Net: I have Jacquie’s permission to quote her here.

I have been trying to come up with criteria for evaluating blogs. I am at a loss as to how to grade [unattributed] sites according to the first two criteria on my grading rubric: Accuracy and Authority and Advocacy and Objectivity.

In a follow-up e-mail, she writes:

I … get disgusted with the lack of information about the author's credentials. I am sure that sometimes it is sheer laziness on the author's part. Other times, I think the author actually wants to be anonymous. [It’s] so much easier that way to say outrageous things and not be held accountable. I teach my students that if they are unable to find anything about the author or if there is no reputable organization standing behind the information, then the site is unacceptable for research. Period. End of story.

Jacquie, I share your feelings. After exploring a number of new blogs over the weekend, I found over half of them contained no link to the author/creator’s biography, credentials or affiliation. "What are they hiding?" asked meself.

I left a brief, and I hope polite, note on those blogs, expressing my concern about the lack of credentials easily found on the site. I’ve just decided I won’t read anybody who doesn’t tell me where s/he is coming from. Why should I pay any attention to a person who does not have experience or may have some sort of hidden agenda that colors her/his writings? (If the agenda is stated, no problem. See My Biases and John Pederson’s biases . Will Richardson has his “Disclaimer” .)  Damn fine and shining examples of good behavior, we are.

As I remember when I did my little study on blogging ethics, a blogger should state his biases upfront. How about a campaign to get a little more transparency in blogs. If all of us left a polite note on a blog which has no link to either biography or bias, asking the author to include them, might we, the readers, be better able to more quickly determine if a blog is worth perusing - eventually?

Transparently yours, Doug

(December 21 - Excellent follow-up post by Liz Ditz.) 

Comments

[Liz Ditz]

Oh, the thorny problem of blogging anonimity! I blog publicly and transparently, but I do not have a problem with those who blog anonymously. On the other hand, I'm not a student, I'm an adult. I'm not relying upon blogs to fulfill coursework requirements (for example).

Jacquie might look for a blogger's blogging principles or ethics (I think I did a pretty comprehensive statement myself, and roundup here):

http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2005/12/blogging_princi.html

I hold forth pretty strongly on non-proven "treatments" for dyslexia...but darn, I have exactly zero objective qualifications. I have a BA in anthropology, an MBA, some coursework in psychology ....but no certificate to speak to learning disabilities issues....I do it anyway.

I personally object to blogs that do not have a way to contact the author(s), either by email or comments. I prefer both.

At any rate, blogs are like newspapers: some good and accurate, some good reads but not necessarily accurate, and some just fishwrap.

[Laura]

While I (for the most part) agree with you about anonymous blogging and how the "owner" should state any biases/deeply held principles up front, for many a blog is a way to vent. There is a difference between a blog used for public discourse and thought-provocation, and one used for personal angst and blathering. The former needs to be more transparent, because they're inviting unknown people into the conversation in an exchange of ideas. The latter is merely, well, venting.

One could say that Bitch PhD should "out" herself. Does it really matter, though? I don't think people read her blog for anything more than vicarious thrills. People read yours (or Will R.'s, or Colby Cosh's) to become better informed. There is a difference, despite the sameness of the media. Do we really care who wrote the article in National Enquirer? No. But we do care about one in the NYTimes. Same thing with blogs.

[Doug Johnson]

Laura,

This makes good sense. Too often we confuse (make that, I am confused) about whether a blog is a format or a blog is content.

Should we have blog labels that say "For entertainment/venting purposes only. Not to be used for the gleaning of factual information?"

Appreciate the comments!

Doug

PS. Are you saying people don't read this blog for vicarious thrills. I am crushed!

[Doug Johnson]

Hi Liz,

I so appreciate your blogging principles. You made me reflect on my own practice here. I hope lots of people study them.

Fun to try to get one's head around a new medium of communication.

All the very best,

Doug

[Christian Long]

Doug -- Figured it was worth re-visiting the conversation, although I would like to echo one key thought I added in our email exchange. This, by the way, will in NO way minimize the larger ethical/transparency challenge you are offering -- keep that up!

What I want to stress is that like so many 'adventures' -- which blogging is when someone first enters such a conversational sphere, there is no way to predict how it will take off. I started to blog simply because I wanted some 'velcro' to keep hold of the many research items I kept losing track of...but in time it grew and grew and people 'showed up' and suddenly it's not just a list of things I'm curious about but it's really a 2-way street.

Well, along the way I forgot to detail the 'About' section. There was a reason early on. I simply didn't want my research to be seen as marketing on any level or in any way...and that kept me from offering the blatant connections to my real world, my real job, my real networks, my real clients, my real projects. Just wanted it to be simple. But, and this is where I return to the key point -- you are making a hugely important and justified point with this 'debate' and challenge -- the blog grew and grew and conversations followed and you showed up and pointed out something pretty just and true.

So, I re-thought about it from a new point of view, took time to figure out what 'story' was relevant from my bio, my biases, my experiences, my networks, et al...and promptly updated my information. Hopefully you found it to be of value, but either way I think it's been a further reminder of the greater impact of having so many eyes 'potentially' show up in one's Web2.0 world. Sort of like being a walking/breathing Wiki in some ways.

So, consider agreement coming from my corner...but do recall that original frustation aside, many of us probably just didn't have the full concept in hand when we started to dip into the blog pool. Posts and links and comments were priorities. The 'About' page was lost way back in the 'set up a template' phase. I almost forgot how to re-write it, which made me laugh, but eventually I located the right door and took care of business.

So, lesson learned. Backstory better explained. And the world is free from one more ounce of evil.

Be well...and keep up the good efforts! Cheers,
Christian Long

[Doug Johnson]

Thanks, Christian.

Not quite sure that anonymous blogging qualifies as evil - too many genuinely evil things going on that this pales by comparison.

All the best,

Doug

[Gladys Baya]

I LOVE Christian Long's comment, explains my own story as a blogger so well! :D
I've just come across an interesting article by Esther Dyson on anonymity on the Web and thought somebody here might appreciate it: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3188

Just one excerpt, to spark your curiosity: "The Web is empowering individuals to engage with others not just as consumers picking from what’s on offer, but as active negotiators, defining specifications for others to meet."

Gladys