Posted by name on January 30, 2001, at 6:16:39
In reply to Re: please be civil » name, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2001, at 2:49:11
As I understand the warning, the first two passages cited were okay, because one "was a general statement, and it's true" and the other was "just an implication and doesn't seem to me to refer to anyone specific, and it's true," but that another, though it seemed "vague," "does accuse people here of being vicious," so it warrants a warning.
I don’t share the feeling that such a statement would, in the world at large, be considered uncivil, but I do agree to refrain from writing here that anyone’s behavior here is "vicious." And while I might not agree that such a statement is uncivil, I can recognize your preference, Dr. Hsuing, that people not make statements here that accuse people here.
In a reality check, to better understand what is considered civil on the Net, I checked Virginia Shea’s old standard "Netiquette."
Shea wrote that:
"Does Netiquette forbid flaming? Not at all. Flaming is a longstanding network tradition (and Netiquette never messes with tradition). Flames can be lots of fun, both to write and to read. And the recipients of flames sometimes deserve the heat.
But Netiquette does forbid the perpetuation of flame wars -- series of angry letters, most of them from two or three people directed toward each other, that can dominate the tone and destroy the camaraderie of a discussion group."
Shea's standard, though, includes an element of a "series of angry letters," and anger is not the emotion I intended to convey in that or any post related to reducing harm in on-line discussions. I also hope not to appear glib.
Perhaps I can rephrase the concern in general terms that do not accuse anyone here of being "vicious" or anything else. In a study about "The Nature and Prevention of Harm in Technology-Mediated Self-Help Settings," three authors identify types of harm that might result in such settings. They identify harm to individuals, relational harm and harm to the group. One type of relational harm identified as possible in on-line self-help groups is harm to "external" relationships.
According to Waldron, Lavitt and Kelley, of Arizona State University West:
"Support group members sometimes shared secrets or asked for advice about their relationships outside the network. For example, some shared marital problems or criticized their spouses in their postings. Correspondents then offered diagnoses of relational problems and frequently supported the member's interpretation of the situation. Postings of this type create the possibility for several types of relational harm."
That is the kind of possible harm that came to mind when I first read the post at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20001031/msgs/2592.html. It was not in a spirit of incivility that I hastily chose an adverb to describe a person’s statement which asserted that an associate of a group member "was no friend" and which said "shame on that person." I don’t know if I totally agree that pointing others to posts here can be "a terrible violation of ... privacy" (as suggested in that thread). I suppose downloading them onto a disc could be a copyright violation. But the adverb I chose to describe the exchange was not chosen in a spirit of incivility. It was instead a result of not having learned a more effective way to describe concerns related to the exchange. Being unlearned is not uncivil, though learning better communication skills can help us to be more civil. Since studying this page, and other sources, all day, I have learned more about the nature and prevention of harm in technology-mediated self-help settings.
To avoid possible harm from their own efforts, in the study by Waldron, Lavitt and Kelley, the authors carefully avoided focusing their critique on any identifiable group members. "All member and group names and all identity-compromising comments have been changed to protect the participants. In no case is a member's actual utterance reproduced in its original form."
The search engine here readily allows any phrase from this site to be traced to the post where it originated. By not repeating any member's utterence in its actual form, the Arizona State authors set a challenging standard for maintaining anonymity in a research setting. It is not a standard I would easily construe from advice to "please be civil." It is not even advice I might have learned studying literature about Netiquette, reviewing other available research about on-line self-help, or reviewing discussions of ethics in the research of on-line self-help. Many of us are making decisions about on-line behavior based on intuition, and not based on experienced guidance, on literature or on research. As the Arizona State authors say:
"Much of the research to date has concerned itself with the quantity of Internet use and the types of social support provided by online groups (Braithwaite et al., 1999). Although suggestive, this work is limited by its failure to consider the quality of communication in on-line support groups. In particular, discussions of harmful and protective features of these support groups would be enhanced by qualitative data demonstrating the types of on-line behavior exhibited in real groups."
So, Dr. Hsuing, I, along with many other Net users are studiously trying to learn the very unique skills necessary to "restrain" ourselves so as to avoid all harm in on-line communication. Thank you for the inspiration toward continued study.
By the way, identifying this handle as belonging to a person you believe you have previously blocked seems to contradict your promise that "I won't release any identifying information to anyone else." Please respect my privacy.
Thank you,
The Arizona State authors identified the following kinds of harm that *might* occur in on-line self-help settings:
Harm to Individuals
Excessive dependence; On-line emotional distress; Loss of anonymity/confidentiality; Barriers to external medical and therapeutic expertiseRelational Harm
Harm to "external" relationships and displaced aggression; Premature intimacy and emotional intensity; Access and availability in mediated relationships; Potentially unsafe relationshipsHarm to the Group
Infiltration and hidden identities; Technological failure/complexityThe site was down last time I tried, but the study, “The nature and prevention of harm in technology-mediated self-help settings: Three exemplars,” published in Journal of Technology and Human Services was on-line at:
http://www.unh.edu/social-work/SW810/Waldron.htm
Vincent R. Waldron (Ph.D., Ohio State University) is Associate Professor of
Communication Studies, Melissa Lavitt (D.S.W., Tulane University) is Associate Professor and Chair of Social Work, and Douglas Kelley (Ph.D., University of Arizona) is Assistant Professor of Communication Studies, all at Arizona State University West. The authors may be reached at:
College of Human Services, Arizona State University West, 4701W. Thunderbird
Rd., Phoenix, Arizona, 85069.
poster:name
thread:403
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/425.html