Joho the Blog
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
October 31, 2005
In the lefthand column, I have a link to my disclosure statement, a practice I recommend. But, although I'm honest in it, it doesn't really get at the truth. For example, I'm on Technorati's board of advisors. But that's not the relevant fact. Yes, I'll make some money if Technorati goes public or gets bought. I'm not sure how much, but not enough to consciously affect my behavior. What does affect my behavior and disposes me to like Technorati, despite their flaws, is that some of the people who work there are my friends. Even then, I wouldn't knowingly lie or go out of my way to mention the company. But I like helping my friends, even in tiny ways. The possibility of making some money actually serves as an inhibitor: Before I post something about Technorati, I think about my motives. (And, yes, I generally add a disclosure statement in brackets.) So, in the interest of transparency, I propose a standardized Disclosure Code to get at the actual influences that affect one's blogging. Entries would include:
Anyone know how to submit a proposal for an ISO standard? Posted
by D. Weinberger at October 31, 2005 08:00 AM
|
Comments
Stopped taking your meds again, huh?
Posted by: Terry Heaton | October 31, 2005 08:36 AM
it would be great if these could be done as tags, so one didnt need to keep repeating the disclosure.
not sure about HMS and the latter entries, but i do think the core idea has some value.
Posted by: james governor | October 31, 2005 08:52 AM
I suppose you should make a Request For Comments first and see where people take it from there.
Posted by: Cody Hess | October 31, 2005 09:00 AM
Good idea! (Just SUT) :)
[hmm. need a way to extend this with specifiers. SUT-who? Proposed extensions: SUT-TB = I'm sucking up to them, where "them" is This Blogger]
Posted by: YanivG | October 31, 2005 09:48 AM
Bravo Dave! Excellent concept. It's a shame folks are not able to let a blog be a blog, grasp the notion that the blogger is offering their pov and all that might go with it. The danger is "adult supervision" too often seeks to suck the fun out of everything without any real need to do so.
Posted by: David Martin | October 31, 2005 01:45 PM
Very funny. But I do think that I smell a new microformat cooking.
Posted by: Brian Del Vecchio | October 31, 2005 11:55 PM
Maybe the following syntax might be more intuitive and flexible:
"$SigOther1 just got ranted on from $SigOther1->Kid2 because $SigOther1 said things and mentioned $SigOther1->Kid2 and some past history involving $SigOther1->ExSpouse1 and $SigOther1->Kid1 as well as $SigOther1->Kid2..."
Picked up from here: http://www.flutterby.com/archives/comments/8322.html
TBD
Posted by: Hanan Cohen | November 1, 2005 03:33 AM
I LOVE THIS! It's the algebra I never was able to learn!
Posted by: jeneane | November 1, 2005 04:22 PM
Ginger ale, right out the nose...
But really, on some level, that's what we want from people: come clean on your associations.
Issues from the nonprofit sector could add a good ten categories to this list. (Competed with them for funding, won/lost; Potential funding source; Former funding source; etc.)
Posted by: kgs![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 1, 2005 04:24 PM
If only our government officials had to abide by such disclosures!
For example, when asked about his Hallibuton connections, Cheney states he quit working there to run for VP and sold his stock in the company. What he doesn't state is that he's still got friends there and stock OPTIONS (which have grown from $200k to $10mil since the start of the Gulf War).
Posted by: Benjy | November 3, 2005 12:08 PM
B0GU bend over and grease up (act)
Posted by: /pd | November 4, 2005 02:02 PM
I agree with you the way you view the issue. I remember Jack London once said everything positive has a negative side; It is also interesting to see different viewpoints & learn useful things in the discussion.
Posted by: penis stretcher | November 11, 2005 08:53 AM