There has been quite a bit of discussion in the blogosphere since Tim O’Reilly published his draft Blogger Code of Conduct, and – apart from the incredibly naff logo – with good reason. (On the logo, though, do you think that a sheriff’s badge is really the right sort of image that bloggers would want to slap on their blogs? Doesn’t it remind you of a style of rhetoric that is particularly, well, redneck?)
Anyway, there has been quite a lot of comment, but I think Allan Jenkin’s summed it up best, in his rather colourfully titled post, Tim O’Reilly can eat my ethical shorts:
I make ethical judgements about what I write, and about what I allow others to write on my blog, every damned day. I think I do pretty good. My “badge,” in other words, is Desirable Roasted Coffee. Read it… if you think I am ethical, keep reading. If you think I am unethical, don’t read it.. and let me know. I don’t need a badge to proclaim my honesty. If I did, you’d have every right to be skeptical.
As public sector communicators, we already have a code: it governs not just the way we blog, but every facet of the way that we work (and to a limited extent, the way we conduct ourselves out of the office as well). But in this age of the increasing proliferation of social media, it is not a bad idea to think about some of the issues raised by O’Reilly’s proposal.
When I posted the principles for public sector social media, I touched on the notion of acceptable comment, but I wasn’t nearly as prescriptive as O’Reilly. The reason for this is that, much like Allan Jenkins, I believe that public sector communicators are acutely aware of their ethical responsibilities and this sort of thing does not need to be spelled out. [Nate Anderson at Ars Technica has a good piece on why this sort of prescriptivism will not succeed in the private sector either. Robert Scoble also has some pretty good points from a bloggers perspective.]
What does it mean for us in the public sector? Certainly, we are not immune to ugly blogging, and indeed given our profile are probably more at risk to elements of this.
It means being particularly vigilant when we do launch social media: 9-5 just won’t make the cut, you need to moderate after hours and on weekends to maintain (or develop) your credibility and to ensure that the space is one that is ethically pristine.
It means that we link out cautiously and develop relationships that reflect the integrity of our endeavour – and we do this by engaging before we launch and remaining sedulously active thereafter.
And finally it means that by modelling the behaviour that we would like to see in the social media we participate in, we contribute to making our online society a more inclusive, welcoming and enjoyable space for everyone. Just like the rest our job, really.
I can see why Tim O’Reilly wants a code of conduct for bloggers. I just don’t agree that we need one, and I certainly don’t think that an attempt to regulate people’s behaviour on the Internet is either feasible or necessarily desirable.
