Codes of Ethics in Discussion Forums

Author(s):  
Cãlin Gurãu

The development of the World Wide Web has created new opportunities for interpersonal interaction. The Internet allows one-to-one (e-mail), one-to-many (Websites, e-mail lists) or many-to-many (online discussion forums) interaction, which represent a unique feature in comparison with traditional communication channels (Armstrong & Hagel, 1996). On the other hand, the Internet has specific characteristics, such as interactivity, transparency, and memory. These characteristics permit the development of online or virtual communities?groups of people with similar interests who communicate on the Web in a regular manner (Armstrong & Hagel, 1996; Goldsborough, 1999a, 1999b; Gordon, 2000). This article attempts to investigate, analyze and present the main patterns of the codes/rules of ethics used in the public discussion forums, otherwise known as Newsgroups, and their influence on the profile and functioning of the community.

2008 ◽  
pp. 1434-1442
Author(s):  
Calin Gurau

The development of the World Wide Web has created new opportunities for interpersonal interaction. The Internet allows one-to-one (e-mail), one-to-many (Web sites, e-mail lists) or many-to-many (online discussion forums) interaction, which represent a unique feature in comparison with traditional communication channels (Armstrong & Hagel, 1996). On the other hand, the Internet has specific characteristics, such as: • Interactivity: The Internet offers multiple possibilities of interactive communication, acting not only as an interface, but also as a communication agent (allowing a direct interaction between individuals and software applications) • Transparency: The information published online can be accessed and viewed by any Internet user, unless this information is specifically protected • Memory: The Web is a channel not only for transmitting information, but also for storing information¾in other words, the information published on the Web remains in the memory of the network until it is erased. These characteristics permit the development of online or virtual communities¾groups of people with similar interests who communicate on the Web in a regular manner (Armstrong & Hagel, 1996; Goldsborough, 1999a, 1999b; Gordon, 2000). Many studies deal with the ethics of research in Cyberspace and Virtual Communities (Bakardjieva, Feenberg, & Goldie, 2004), but very few publications relate with the Codes of Ethics used in Public Discussion Forums (Belilos, 1998; Johnson, 1997). Other specialists have analyzed specific categories or uses of online discussion forums, such as online learning (Blignaut & Trollip, 2003; DeSanctis, Fayard, Roach, & Jiang, 2003) or the creation of professional communities of practice (Bickart & Schindler, 2001; Kling, McKim & King, 2003; Millen, Fontaine, & Muller, 2002), and in this context, have also discussed briefly the importance of netiquette and forum monitoring (Fauske & Wade, 2003, 2004). The difference between these online communities and public discussion forums is the degree of control exercised on the functioning and purpose of the forum by a specific individual or organization. This article attempts to investigate, analyze and present the main patterns of the codes/rules of ethics used in the public discussion forums, otherwise known as Newsgroups, and their influence on the profile and functioning of the community.


Author(s):  
Cãlin Gurau

The development of the World Wide Web has created new opportunities for interpersonal interaction. The Internet allows one-to-one (e-mail), one-to-many (Web sites, e-mail lists) or many-to-many (online discussion forums) interaction, which represent a unique feature in comparison with traditional communication channels (Armstrong & Hagel, 1996). On the other hand, the Internet has specific characteristics, such as: • Interactivity: The Internet offers multiple possibilities of interactive communication, acting not only as an interface, but also as a communication agent (allowing a direct interaction between individuals and software applications) • Transparency: The information published online can be accessed and viewed by any Internet user, unless this information is specifically protected • Memory: The Web is a channel not only for transmitting information, but also for storing information¾in other words, the information published on the Web remains in the memory of the network until it is erased. These characteristics permit the development of online or virtual communities¾groups of people with similar interests who communicate on the Web in a regular manner (Armstrong & Hagel, 1996; Goldsborough, 1999a, 1999b; Gordon, 2000). Many studies deal with the ethics of research in Cyberspace and Virtual Communities (Bakardjieva, Feenberg, & Goldie, 2004), but very few publications relate with the Codes of Ethics used in Public Discussion Forums (Belilos, 1998; Johnson, 1997). Other specialists have analyzed specific categories or uses of online discussion forums, such as online learning (Blignaut & Trollip, 2003; DeSanctis, Fayard, Roach, & Jiang, 2003) or the creation of professional communities of practice (Bickart & Schindler, 2001; Kling, McKim & King, 2003; Millen, Fontaine, & Muller, 2002), and in this context, have also discussed briefly the importance of netiquette and forum monitoring (Fauske & Wade, 2003, 2004). The difference between these online communities and public discussion forums is the degree of control exercised on the functioning and purpose of the forum by a specific individual or organization. This article attempts to investigate, analyze and present the main patterns of the codes/rules of ethics used in the public discussion forums, otherwise known as Newsgroups, and their influence on the profile and functioning of the community.


Author(s):  
Calin Gurau

The development of the World Wide Web has created new opportunities for interpersonal interaction. The Internet allows one-to-one (e-mail), one-to-many (Web sites, e-mail lists) or many-to-many (online discussion forums) interaction, which represent a unique feature in comparison with traditional communication channels (Armstrong & Hagel, 1996). On the other hand, the Internet has specific characteristics, such as: • Interactivity: The Internet offers multiple possibilities of interactive communication, acting not only as an interface, but also as a communication agent (allowing a direct interaction between individuals and software applications) • Transparency: The information published online can be accessed and viewed by any Internet user, unless this information is specifically protected • Memory: The Web is a channel not only for transmitting information, but also for storing information¾in other words, the information published on the Web remains in the memory of the network until it is erased. These characteristics permit the development of online or virtual communities¾groups of people with similar interests who communicate on the Web in a regular manner (Armstrong & Hagel, 1996; Goldsborough, 1999a, 1999b; Gordon, 2000). Many studies deal with the ethics of research in Cyberspace and Virtual Communities (Bakardjieva, Feenberg, & Goldie, 2004), but very few publications relate with the Codes of Ethics used in Public Discussion Forums (Belilos, 1998; Johnson, 1997). Other specialists have analyzed specific categories or uses of online discussion forums, such as online learning (Blignaut & Trollip, 2003; DeSanctis, Fayard, Roach, & Jiang, 2003) or the creation of professional communities of practice (Bickart & Schindler, 2001; Kling, McKim & King, 2003; Millen, Fontaine, & Muller, 2002), and in this context, have also discussed briefly the importance of netiquette and forum monitoring (Fauske & Wade, 2003, 2004). The difference between these online communities and public discussion forums is the degree of control exercised on the functioning and purpose of the forum by a specific individual or organization. This article attempts to investigate, analyze and present the main patterns of the codes/rules of ethics used in the public discussion forums, otherwise known as Newsgroups, and their influence on the profile and functioning of the community.


Author(s):  
Jerzy Lepa ◽  
Arthur Tatnall

Around the world the proportion of older people is growing, and this group is accessing the World Wide Web more and more for a variety of purposes including e-mail, finance, health information and genealogy. There are several different definitions of what constitutes an “older person,” but for the purposes of this article we will define older people as those over sixty-five years of age and no longer in the full-time workforce. The proportion of older people in Australia will increase dramatically over the next twenty-five years and Foskey (1998) notes that since the nineteenth century there has been a “longevity revolution” in the Western world. In Australia during the past decade the over sixty-five age group living in non-metropolitan areas has seen the greatest rate of growth (Foskey 1998).


2011 ◽  
pp. 1781-1787
Author(s):  
Jerzy Lepa ◽  
Arthur Tatnall

Around the world the proportion of older people is growing, and this group is accessing the World Wide Web more and more for a variety of purposes including e-mail, finance, health information and genealogy. There are several different definitions of what constitutes an “older person,” but for the purposes of this article we will define older people as those over sixty-five years of age and no longer in the full-time workforce. The proportion of older people in Australia will increase dramatically over the next twenty-five years and Foskey (1998) notes that since the nineteenth century there has been a “longevity revolution” in the Western world. In Australia during the past decade the over sixty-five age group living in non-metropolitan areas has seen the greatest rate of growth (Foskey 1998).


2011 ◽  
pp. 203-212
Author(s):  
Luis V. Casaló ◽  
Carlos Flavián ◽  
Miguel Guinalíu

Individuals are increasingly turning to computermediated communication in order to get information on which to base their decisions. For instance, many consumers are using newsgroups, chat rooms, forums, e-mail list servers, and other online formats to share ideas, build communities and contact other consumers who are seen as more objective information sources (Kozinets, 2002). These social groups have been traditionally called virtual communities. The virtual community concept is almost as old as the concept of Internet. However, the exponential development of these structures occurred during the nineties (Flavián & Guinalíu, 2004) due to the appearance of the World Wide Web and the spreading of other Internet tools such as e-mail or chats. The justification of this expansion is found in the advantages generated by the virtual communities to both the members and the organizations that create them.


2011 ◽  
pp. 3340-3345
Author(s):  
Bruce Rollier ◽  
Fred Niederman

Although the Internet has been in existence since 1969, it was not widely used for educational purposes in its first two decades. Few students had access to e-mail, and few educators could visualize its value as a teaching tool. Programs to serve students from remote locations, often called “distance education,” became popular; these were generally delivered synchronously through television broadcasts and did not involve the Internet. When the World Wide Web was created in the early 1990s (Berners-Lee, 1999) and the first browsers became available (Waldrop, 2001), the enormous potential for education began to be recognized. New global users came online at a fantastic pace, and the value of all this connectivity was increasing even more rapidly in accordance with Metcalf’s Law (Gilder, 1996). Nearly all students used e-mail regularly, and college professors were putting syllabi and course assignments online and creating Web pages with increasing sophistication. Soon entire programs were offered completely via the Internet, with students from all over the globe taking courses together.


Author(s):  
Ioannis Tarnanas ◽  
Vassilios Kikis

That portion of the Internet known as the World Wide Web has been riding an exponential growth curve since 1994 (Network Wizards, 1999; Rutkowski, 1998), coinciding with the introduction of NCSA’s graphically based software interface Mosaic for “browsing” the World Wide Web (Hoffman, Novak, & Chatterjee 1995). Currently, over 43 million hosts are connected to the Internet worldwide (Network Wizards, 1999). In terms of individual users, somewhere between 40 to 80 million adults (eStats, 1999) in the United States alone have access to around 800 million unique pages of content (Lawrence & Giles, 1999), globally distributed on arguably one of the most important communication innovations in history. Yet even as the Internet races ambitiously toward critical mass, some social scientists have begun to examine carefully the policy implications of current demographic patterns of Internet access and usage (Hoffman & Novak, 1998; Hoffman, Kalsbeek, & Novak, 1996; Hoffman, Novak, & Venkatesh, 1997; Katz & Aspden, 1997; Wilhelm, 1998). Looming large is the concern that the Internet may not scale economically (Keller, 1996), leading to what Lloyd Morrisett, the former president of the Markle Foundation, has called a “digital divide” between the information “haves” and “have-nots.” For example, although almost 70% of the schools in this country have at least one computer connected to the Internet, less than 15% of classrooms have Internet access (Harmon, 1997). Not surprisingly, access is not distributed randomly, but correlated strongly with income and education (Coley, Cradler, & Engel 1997). A recent study of Internet use among college freshman (Sax, Astin, Korn, & Mahoney 1998) found that nearly 83% of all new college students report using the Internet for school work, and almost two-thirds use e-mail to communicate. Yet, closer examination suggests a disturbing disparity in access. While 90.2% of private college freshman use the Internet for research, only 77.6% of students entering public black colleges report doing so. Similarly, although 80.1% of private college freshman use e-mail regularly, only 41.4% of students attending black public colleges do. Further, although numerous studies (e.g., CyberAtlas, 1999; Maraganore & Morrisette, 1998) suggest that the gender gap in Internet use appears to be closing over time and that Internet users are increasingly coming from the ranks of those with lower education and income (Pew Research Center, 1998), the perception persists that the gap for race is not decreasing (Abrams, 1997). We now raise a series of points for further discussion. We believe these issues represent the most pressing unanswered questions concerning access and the impact of the digital divide on the emerging digital economy. This article is intended to stimulate discussion among scholars and policymakers interested in how differences in Internet access and use among different segments in our society affect their ability to participate and reap the rewards of that participation in the emerging digital economy. In summary, we have reviewed the most recent research investigating the relationship of race to Internet access and usage over time. Our objective is twofold: (1) to stimulate an informed discussion among scholars and policymakers interested in the issue of diversity on the Internet, and 2) to propose a research agenda that can address the many questions raised by this and related research.


Author(s):  
Catherine M. Ridings ◽  
David Gefen

Online virtual communities have existed on the Internet since the early 1980s as Usenet newsgroups. With the advent of the World Wide Web and emphasis on Web site interactivity, these communities and accompanying research have grown rapidly (Horrigan, Rainie, & Fox, 2001; Lee, Vogel, & Limayem, 2003; Petersen, 1999). Virtual communities arise as a natural consequence of people coming together to discuss a common hobby, medical affliction, or other similar interest, such as coin collecting, a devotion to a rock group, or living with a disease such as lupus. Virtual communities can be defined as groups of people with common interests and practices that communicate regularly and for some duration in an organized way over the Internet through a common location or site (Ridings, Gefen, & Arinze, 2002). The location is the “place” where the community meets, and it can be supported technologically by e-mail listservs, newsgroups, bulletin boards, or chat rooms, for example. The technology helps to organize the community’s conversation, which is the essence of the community. For example, messages in a community supported by a listserv are organized in e-mails, sometimes even grouping together several messages into an e-mail digest. In bulletin board communities, the conversation is organized into message threads consisting of questions or comments posted by members and associated replies to the messages.


Author(s):  
Romayne Smith Fullerton ◽  
Maggie Jones Patterson

Crime stories attract audiences and social buzz, but they also serve as prisms for perceived threats. As immigration, technological change, and globalization reshape our world, anxiety spreads. Because journalism plays a role in how the public adjusts to moral and material upheaval, this unease raises the ethical stakes. Reporters can spread panic or encourage reconciliation by how they tell these stories. Murder in Our Midst uses crime coverage in select North American and Western European countries as a key to examine culturally constructed concepts like privacy, public, public right to know, and justice. Working from close readings of news coverage, codes of ethics and style guides, and personal interviews with almost 200 news professionals, this book offers fertile material for a provocative conversation. The findings divide the ten countries studied into three media models. The book explores what the differing coverage decisions suggest about underlying attitudes to criminals and crime and how justice in a democracy is best served. Today, journalists’ work can be disseminated around the world without any consideration of whether what’s being told (or how) might dissolve cultural differences or undermine each community’s right to set its own standards to best reflect its citizens’ values. At present, unique reporting practices persist among the three models, but the Internet and social media threaten to dissolve distinctions and the cultural values they reflect. There is a need for a journalism that both opens local conversations and bridges differences among nations. This book is a first step in that direction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document