Writing governance statements for e-participation projects
From:
Jill Sanders
Date:
2007 Jun 15 06:25 UTC
Short link
Everyone who contributes on our site, whether citizen journalist,
councillor, individual, police officer, camfpaigner, does so in their own
name and everyone knows who that is. I think it fair that if accountability
is expected, everyone should be prepared to be accountable for what they put
in the public domain and why. We find this works very well in every way on
our local community network at www.oncom.org.uk and is the only real
guarantee of achieving credibility, courtesy and effectiveness. This has
always been our policy. Those who aren't prepared to stand up and be
counted don't participate, which is their choice. When people are
publishing direct, they must do it in their own name because it is their
responsibility, not Oncom's. Oncom provides the platform; the people
participating write the script.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Thomson" <Pete.Thomson@wolverhampton.gov.uk>
To: <ukie@groups.dowire.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Writing governance statements for e-participation
projects
Geoff Reid wrote:
> At 'TS' we're a bit bemused by sites that deliberately limit
> input to discussion and seeks, or hints that they might
> 'validate' identity. We can't see the point. A valid point is
> a valid point regardless of whether it's made by Geoff Reid
> or Jumping Jack Flash.
For private individuals, I agree. But there is some point in validating
the identity of someone who claims to hold a significant position -
local councillor or senior police officer, for instance. The
expectations of them in the forum would be partly about the office they
hold, not them as individuals - and it would be unfair if bad online
behaviour by someone pretending to be them was held against the real
person.
Although maybe that last thought is shading towards the more paranoid
argument for validating everyone's identity, which is that the ultimate
sanction for bad online behaviour is to ban them from participating, and
that's meaningless if they can immediately resubscribe with a different
identity. I don't know of any instance where this has been demonstrated
in practice.
Regards, Peter.
--
Peter Thomson
Policy Officer (e-government), Office of the Chief Executive,
Wolverhampton City Council, Civic Centre, Wolverhampton WV1 1SH, UK
Tel: (+44) 1902 554048 Fax: (+44) 1902 554030 Web:
http://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This email and files transmitted are
confidential and are intended solely for the use of the
intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient, or the person responsible for delivering it to
the intended recipient, you may not copy, disclose,
distribute or use it in any unauthorised manner. If you
have received this email in error please notify us by
email to <email obscured> and then delete
it and any attachments accompanying it. Please note that
Wolverhampton City Council cannot guarantee that this
message or any attachments are virus free or have not been
intercepted and amended.
Any views or opinions expressed within this email are
those of the author and may not necessarily reflect those
of Wolverhampton City Council and no contractual
arrangement is intended to arise from this communication.
==============================================================================
Member profile for Pete Thomson:
http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/petethomson
-----------------------------------------
Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/main/groups/ukie
Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all posts
on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/
For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.