Cyberjournalist.net posted a proposed A Bloggers’ Code of Ethics. It has three sections: be honest and fair; minimize harm; and be accountable. All good. All reasons why I don’t blog my opinions very often.

Here is a partial list of from the “Be Honest and Fair” section:

• Never plagiarize.
• Identify and link to sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.
• Make certain that Weblog entries, quotations, headlines, photos and all other content do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
• Never publish information they know is inaccurate — and if publishing questionable information, make it clear it’s in doubt.
• Distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.

Our newspapers are ethical? News reporting on television is ethical? They check their facts? Maybe they do and then just claim afterwards that they didn’t, when and if their story backfires. Should blog people be held to a higher standard? Or, am I misunderstanding this?

I would like to give it a try, and I usually do try to provide a number of links that will provide a more unbiased view on an issue. Mostly, I avoid anything that is an emotional or subjective-prone issue, as doing the research requires time that I don’t have.

Before I started blogging, I read Rebecca Blood’s 2002 book, The Weblog Handbook: Practical Advice on Creating and Maintaining Your Blog. I have used what I can remember from it as a guide in my postings. From Blood’s book I learned about crediting links, don’t personally attack another weblogger, check your facts, and publically correct any misinformation. She also states, “Write every entry as if it could not be changed; add to, but do not rewrite or delete, any entry” (p.118). That is why you see people using strikeover type, which Blood says she saw on Cory Doctorow’s entries on Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things. Blood discusses ethics and why it is good for you on pages 114-121.

You don’t want your library leader to think of you as a Gorman-view blogperson, do you? Of course, it depends on the Web site and your intended purpose. You have to decide how much credibility you want—and what your readership thinks is creditable credible. If you have an intentionally biased Web site and your readers know your bias, then like intentionally biased newspapers and television programs, you are creditable credible.

Ethics really depends on your viewpoint, your culture, your local community of peers, and the time in which you live. What was it we studied in ethics class in college? Greatest good for the greatest number or is ethics what the populace believes is ethical?

[Via Neat New Stuff on the Net by Marylaine Block.] If you visit Block’s Web site, look over her Ex Libris: issue 242; Family Feud posting on Gorman’s attack.