Comments on: Do we really need a blogger badge for integrity?

By: Riley

Riley — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:43:14 +0000

Hey, I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say GREAT blog!…..I”ll be checking in on a regularly now….Keep up the good work! :)

I’m Out! :)

By: Shawn K. Quinn

Shawn K. Quinn — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:09:30 +0000

"Intellectual property" is also a vague and misleading term that plays into the hands of large corporations like Disney, Microsoft, Apple, etc. that want copyright to last forever instead of a long but limited time.

The problem with "all of the above" terminology is that it begs the question "all of what?" I feel like it makes no more sense to lump copyright in with other laws that are just different enough to be confusing than it would make to lump together motor vehicle, boating, aviation, etc. under "transportation laws" and refer to them as a group. One example of the potential for confusion: the concept of right of way is completely different for boats versus motor vehicles on land (on a boat right of way includes the *obligation* to maintain course and speed).

By: Liz

Liz — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:52:45 +0000

Great question Shawn. it's not a legal document. And so, we stayed away from "copyright" and 'trademark" language because we're not a legal governing board. Intellectual property is the term used by most bloggers to widely convey an "all of the above" sort of reference to ideas and content. In the blog world–particuarly with personal bloggers who identify as part of a community–I believe there's a certain level of respect we afford one another based on common decency and courtesy, and not law. That's what we were going for.

BWI isn't intended to please all of the people all of the time. If it's not relevant for you, so be it. But glad that it's gotten a conversation going.

By: Shawn K. Quinn

Shawn K. Quinn — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:08:47 +0000

I wrote the e-mail at least a few days prior to reading Neil's post, so it's a bit out of date compared to what I posted here.

However, the one constant between that e-mail and my post is the issue of the use of the ambiguous and loaded term "intellectual property" which you have neatly sidestepped. Maybe someone should comment here on why the originators of BWI chose that term instead of specifically stating copyright and/or trademark law as appropriate?

By: Liz

Liz — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:30:28 +0000

Hi and thanks so much for your feedback. No doubt someone will get back to you shortly on your email – it's been a busy week!

As one of the originators of BWI I can assure you it's not a "mommy blogger" movement except for the fact that the four of us happen to be mothers. We also happen to be writers who care deeply about the blogosphere and the negative aspersions often cast on us.

The spirit of the website is entirely benevolent – it's less regulatory than it is educational, and probably less educational than it is introspective. I've been so delighted seeing bloggers who never before considered their own policies about transparency now doing so, even so far as writing their own promises – to themselves – on their own blogs. I've been delighted to see those who naiively had ethical transgressions email us asking for guidance and looking for help to do things better. Or to rethink the degree to which they copied full posts instead of paraphrasing.

The best of what bloggers can do is lift one another up and inspire each other through dialogue and support. That's our only hope. Line in the sand? Holier than thou? Soviet-style caste system?

Bah. Not my style.