![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by pseudoname on March 7, 2006, at 15:21:46
Back in December http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/591225.html,
toph asked what if you post a link to a site with non-civil content and you warn about the content of that page? Is that okay?Bob said: “Hmm, that's an idea, what do others think?”
But the question wasn't resolved.
(a) Even WITH a warning, how bad a site should we be allowed to link to?
(b) Are we only responsible for the link we give and NOT for links on that page?
(c) What kind of a warning will suffice?
Due to Larry's checkbox posts, I'm much more aware of others' possible reactions to content.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 9, 2006, at 20:39:17
In reply to question on LINKS, posted by pseudoname on March 7, 2006, at 15:21:46
Interesting that that hasn't been resolved yet, because I got a PBC for that very same thing!
I guess that it is at the whim of the board owner rather than having anything to do with what others think.... or is it that if others haven't spoken, it's automatically uncivil?
So is it resolved, unresolved, solved by fiat?
hmmmmmm.
Posted by pseudoname on March 10, 2006, at 12:12:02
In reply to Re: question on LINKS, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 9, 2006, at 20:39:17
Hey, Dee. Thanks for replying.
> I got a PBC for that very same thing!
Can you point me in the general direction of where that was? What board or about how long ago? I'm trying to collect examples PBCs for links, just to get a sense of what's considered a violation.
I've seen Babble posts where enough description is given so someone could Google a page, but there is no actual link. I think that's a good compromise for a lot of iffy situations.
Of course, that technique hasn't been ruled on yet. I don't think I'd even give that much info to point people toward some super-extreme sites.
I think Bob was waiting for more people to comment about linking before coming down one way or another himself. But even if no one else comments in the next week or so, I hope he will give me some guidance.
I also want to post to my blog.
Would there be stricter linking standards because I myself have control over my blog's content? What if the exact post I link to is fine, but my OTHER posts (which you'd have to voluntarily click on after you got there) were not? What if I warned about exactly that?
And I can't stop strangers from putting uncivil stuff in the blog's Comments. Could I be PBC'd for stuff that someone else LATER puts in my Comments?
Posted by 10derHeart on March 10, 2006, at 15:16:07
In reply to Re: question on LINKS » deirdrehbrt, posted by pseudoname on March 10, 2006, at 12:12:02
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060204/msgs/608622.html
on this thread. Is that the one you're thinking of, Dee?
Posted by 10derHeart on March 10, 2006, at 15:19:22
In reply to Re: question on LINKS » deirdrehbrt, posted by pseudoname on March 10, 2006, at 12:12:02
a few posts down, Dr. Bob stated posting certain sorts of links was uncivil.
Posted by pseudoname on March 10, 2006, at 15:31:14
In reply to I think it was here.... » pseudoname, posted by 10derHeart on March 10, 2006, at 15:16:07
Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 10, 2006, at 15:57:56
In reply to Re: question on LINKS » deirdrehbrt, posted by pseudoname on March 10, 2006, at 12:12:02
Actually, I don't remember now what exactly the PBC was for, but here is the link to post where I was told that links are uncivil:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060204/msgs/610179.htmlI really think that links to information shouldn't be considered uncivil, unless we're supposed to be advocates of burrying our heads in the sand and pretending that nothing bad ever happens. Outside links are clearly not part of this site, and clearly are not subjects of Dr. Bob. Viewing links is strictly voluntary; No-one is compelled to view them.
Links can also provide a basis in fact for statements made on the board. If it's uncivil to quote a public leader, then a reference to that quote, to be visited by those making an educated choice to do so, ought to be permitted. Simply burrying the truth smacks of the dark-ages church leaders who did not permit individuals' reading of the Bible or independent thought.
I think we've grown up a bit since the. This board is made up of many faiths and many beliefs, and many political persuasions. Some, perhaps many of us also suffer mental illness; that doesn't mean we can't behave like adults.
I'm a minority: A witch, liberal, transgendered, woman, recovering alcoholic, part Native American, etc. Lots of people disagree with, or find something at fault with much of who I am. If they are going to say something about who I am, or what I believe, I wouild like to see links pointing to where they find their information.
Would it be uncivil for someone to point out to me that "The Bible says 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'"? (Ex. 22:18) What about a link to a bible site that says that? Being a Witch, I'm ready to look at that, and to offer a realistic interpretation. To me, this is opportunity for discussion, a chance to show how translation errors and temporal bias come into play. I think lots of good discussion gets stifled at the altar of civility where instead quality discussion could have taken place.
Having the opportunity to view the source of quotations, indictments, etc helps the process while keeping negative or inflamatory information off of the board. I don't mind, nor do I shrink back from honest questioning and legitimate belief. I find it hard to believe that I'm unique.
Oh well, I've got a terrible headache. I've got to get to a meeting, and I'm rambling again. Such is life.
TTFN,
Dee
Posted by pseudoname on March 10, 2006, at 16:44:43
In reply to Re: question on LINKS, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 10, 2006, at 15:57:56
In Dee's Fred Phelps post, there were prominent warnings about the link content. But what confuses me is that Bob didn't actually PBC the post with the Fred Phelps link; he just restated the policy. So was the link actually okay, since it wasn't PBC'd? Or maybe the link wasn't okay, but in the context of that discussion it didn't merit a PBC. So, even AFTER toph's question & that discussion, it's settled law that warnings DON'T make a link okay?
I'm confused.
Dee makes a very good argument about sometimes needing to provide a reference to uncivil content in order to have a discussion.
I want a way to point people accurately to a page that's relevant to understanding a particular issue under discussion or may otherwise be helpful while making sure people aren't inadvertently disturbed by off-site content.
What if it's not an actual hyperlink but just URL information? Like…
"The uncivil info is at www.uncivilsite.edu"
Would that make a difference? With warnings, of course.
Putting in a warning and making the URL plain text (not hyperlink), together, would seem to make it *enormously* safe for any reader. But would it safe for the writer?
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2006, at 16:06:02
In reply to more confused than before, posted by pseudoname on March 10, 2006, at 16:44:43
> What if the exact post I link to is fine, but my OTHER posts (which you'd have to voluntarily click on after you got there) were not? What if I warned about exactly that?
I think we decided that a page that's linked to needs to be OK, but that it would be too much to require that pages that that page links to be OK, too.
> So, even AFTER toph's question & that discussion, it's settled law that warnings DON'T make a link okay?
My feeling is that if it would need a warning, it's better just not to link to it.
> I want a way to point people accurately to a page that's relevant to understanding a particular issue under discussion or may otherwise be helpful while making sure people aren't inadvertently disturbed by off-site content.
How about if people ask others to babblemail them if they're interested in something like that?
Bob
Posted by pseudoname on March 12, 2006, at 15:36:13
In reply to Re: links, posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2006, at 16:06:02
Thanks, Bob, for ruling on two of the questions I raised. I appreciate having a better idea of what you want. I will state the conclusions I drew.
> if it would need a warning, it's better just not to link to it.
> it would be too much to require that pages that that page links to be OK, too
As stated, those rulings allow a hyperlink —without any warnings— to a Google results page (for certain keywords) that itself includes a link to a relevant un-civil page.
I think much better, and also allowed under these rulings, would be to give the same keyword information as plain text so that the reader's independent Google search could find the page. That would be clearly civil under these rules because NO link is involved AND the Google results page itself is civil (even if the link on it may not be).
I will supply warnings anyway — not just about civility, but also for "triggery" content.
This seems much safer for the reader than the Babblemail-request method you suggest. You said
> How about if people ask others to babblemail them if they're interested in something like that?
I can't tell if that's an actual question or just a gentle way of ending the discussion. But I'll answer that some problems in using Babblemail that way would be:
•Interested LURKERS can't use it
•Interested SHY PEOPLE won't use it
•Interested friends who don't want to add to the poster's workload, etc, won't use it
•It doesn't require a warning, so the link could STILL be hurtful to the reader!
•It violates the principle that all posting rules apply to BabblemailLike I said, I appreciate clarity about what's required. Your commitment to civility has made Babble possible, even if the details of policy and enforcement can sometimes be confusing or upsetting. Thanks; be well.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.