Tactical Transparency

Ethics in Blogging Workshop at BlogWorldExpo

I'm currently sitting in a session at BlogWorldExpo moderated by Amy Gahran from Contentious.com. 

Interesting information about Astroturfing which I first heard about via the New PR Wiki.

Other issues that came up during the session:

-Idea that there could be a central place online to list journalistic/other code of ethics. -Idea that bloggers need to move past the mentality that they can write about anything without backing up their facts. -Idea that there might be an organization that bloggers could join to state their standards. -Business Marketing: WOMMA has a code of ethics. 
-The Media Blogger's Association (Bob Cox runs this).  Working to help bloggers get insurance (folks from non mainstream media) to help protect libel laws.
-Ethic: Don't be lazy (from the panel).
-Lynne from Fast Company: talked about Wikipedia and someone who had asked to have a comment deleted. At first she wasn't going to do it as this is her personal blog, but after considering the person's request she may either take it down or add some of the other person's thoughts as a way of registering that person's concern.
-Another panelist talked about the need for privacy for people whose words/images you use.  If they ask to take things down, you should take things down.
-Question from the audience: Should people do "fictional" blogs or are these fake blogs?  Tris Hussey coined the term, "character blog." 
-Military/soldier blogs: soldiers will often post with a pseudonym. 
-Panelists talked about Tim O'Reilly's Code of Ethics and other codes of ethics like these here:  (www.bloggingcode.org) and (yourcodeofethics.com).
-Free speech in peril in Paris, Texas.  Blogger being sued.
-Barbara Hickey case brought up.
-Electronic Frontier Organization is something to join as a blogger.
-Question of user experience versus blogger ethics; when you say, "this is fiction" or provide full disclosure, when does that ruin the reader experience?
-Issue of when ethics and law collide: copyright law.
-Federated Media; discussion on marketers paying for chats as well as blog posts.

Snarkicons

I'd like to write a section in the book with something I've dubbed, "Snarkicons" - what I define as the practice of using emoticons as punctuation to a sentence that completely modify the meaning of the sentence. The real Snarkicons I love are the ones that contradict the words that come before the placement of said Snarkicon. Let me give you an example. Here's a sentence you could write as a comment on a blog:

Nice post. Really appreciate the research you did on the subject.

Now insert a Snarkicon and a heavy dose of irony:

Nice post. Really appreciate the research you did on the subject. ;)

Isn't that fun? So although it's obvious, here's the definition of what people were actually saying to the person who they were leaving a comment for with these two examples:

"Nice post" version one - "I want to support you and thank you for writing this well thought out piece."

"Nice post" vesion two - "You're an idiot."

In regards to transparency, I don't think it's a secret that I think snarkicons are a total online copout. If you think someone is an idiot, tell them in a way that adds value and helps them understand your perspective. "Leaving a winkie" only serves to arouse anger or feelings of low self-esteem.