Last week God Save Virginia asked that question after listing what it meant to them:

It means kindness to your fellow man.

It means respecting the host, the visitors, and the subjects.

It means a respect for the opinion of others but also a respect for differences in those opinions. That respect does not mean you don’t debate, it simply means that ones approach to the debate needs to be framed by the issues and an understanding that both parties are at their core good people who are strong in their convictions.

It means being able to admit when you are wrong.

It means being able to separate yourself from those elements that you feel cause harm to yourself and others. This does not mean removing yourself from differing opinions, but if you feel a site does not meet your personal criteria for ethical actions, why continue to visit, promote, and discuss that site?

While those views are certainly a good start, they don’t really get at the core of what is necessary for them to be followed.

It all starts at the blogger.

Kenneysian ethical blogging has always aimed at transparency, authenticity, and containment. As Kenney the Elder put it:

Transparency is a question of who is doing the writing. Nothing more.

Authenticity is whether what is being written is a true and honest account, not just in what is being written but why it is being written.

Containment is an action then placed upon the reader; why is this person asking me to believe their account of events?

The last two are strongly based on the first point, transparency. If the reader does not know who the author is, does not know the author’s intention or background, then the rest is moot. You can not believe the account or intent without knowing the source.

The Virginia Federalist has touched on the question of blogger identity:

The Virginian Federalist strives to improve discourse in the Virginia blogosphere in a similar fashion. We hope to build a strong reputation not so much for ourselves as for our ideas. If we reduce ourselves to making baseless personal attacks against others on our blog, then we might not personally suffer, but the credibility of our arguments will be damaged irrevocably. I have this same consideration when I am commenting on other sites as “Lumen” - it is not my real name, but “Lumen” represents my thoughts in the blogosphere.

I expect that most other anonymous or pseudonymous bloggers share this motivation to have their thoughts or ideas read and considered seriously. Therefore, I do not think that anonymous blogs pose much threat to civility in serious discussion on blogs. Those anonymous bloggers who expose a tendency to post nonsense will be ignored, just like obnoxious people who write under their real name. Anonymous writers who post thoughtful commentary deserve to be read and considered for the merits of what they write.

But there will always be that doubt. Just as the doubt exists for sites like God Save Virginia. But there’s a difference between anonymous bloggers speaking in grand terms that cross party lines and those that try and argue for certain candidates or issues.

If an anonymous blogger blogs for a candidate but is then revealed to be a paid staffer of that candidate, the credibility and value of their work is gone. Whereas, if they were honest and upfront with their readers to begin with, people know what they’re getting.

Writers have to be honest with their readers if they expect to be taken seriously. People need a face to value it.

June 28th, 2007 at 10:50 am | Tags: Uncategorized