Being the Internet generation, we don’t often think about creating the most elaborate bibliography with our postings on the net. This should be pretty obvious, considering that the Internet has been a ‘no rules’ playground for so long now and none of us have really ever been introduced to the Internet Police (until maybe after we started hearing about Napster court cases).
Reading Rebecca Blood’s article on Weblog Ethics, it was interesting to note how many specifics go into the logistics of Internet publishing that we may not always pay attention to. For example, Blood mentions that whenever we post blog articles, we need to provide links to all referenced material – whether we agree with them or not. Of course a link means that my readers are a click away from visiting this person’s site and giving him attention that I may not agree that he deserves. I am glad that the author addresses the issue of driving traffic to this unfavorable reference just by linking to theirs (not smart in the world of marketing, so wouldn’t be the greatest idea to basically advertise that person on your site).
So what happens when whatever I link to is incorrect or one of my own statements is false? Well, according to Blood and Templeton, there should be a clear note on the article of the false information and absolutely NO DELETING. But assuming that I want to maintain my good reputation as a blogger, why would I go through all of the effort and have my future readers relive the article’s mistakes, when I can easily just ‘clean up’ the blog post? This is a question that must go through the minds of many online bloggers and it is interesting for me to know how many actually abide by the “Weblog Ethics.”
Are Weblog Ethics something that you feel convicted to abide by? And if so (or not), what is your reasoning behind it?
Recall a moment when it was more advantageous not to abide by the ever increasing blog ethics. What were the circumstances and their benefits?