[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Privacy guidelines

Sorry, David, seems a bit off.  No insistence on radio silence here.  No plebiscite on sexual predation, either.  You must be thinking of something or someplace else?

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2016 11:56 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Privacy guidelines

I got a very interesting post from an xmca correspondent this morning and I am very tempted to share it, but I gather it was sent off list because the correspondent doesn't want to disturb people who are canvasing votes.

With all due respect, Martin. This is an international listserve. Yes, America is one important factor in global life, but for many of us it is by no means a central factor. Even in the USA, the person at the head of a government is one important factor in national life, but for many of us it is by no means a central factor. (I for example voted for a party and a programme and not against a personality--and that was not just because I vote in a state that is safe for Hillary.)

In Seoul, there are a quarter of a million people in the street and Bak Geunhye has probably become the very first dictator in history to record an actual 0% approval rating while still (supposedly) in power (although now there is some question about whether she ever was really in power at all).
For me, this is more pressing than the American plebiscite on sexual predation. But I don't insist that xmca maintain radio silence on other important issues until the South Korean crisis is resolved one way or another.

David Kellogg
Macquarie University

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>

> Can I suggest -- tactfully, with all due respect — that it is (as 
> usual) Mike who has his priorities straight. Spending time just now, 
> three days before the election, debating discourtesies here on the 
> listserve when one could be helping to get out the vote is, it seems 
> to me, rather like fiddling while Rome burns. That is to say, it is 
> time wasted. If the election turns out badly, we will in a few years 
> be looking back fondly on the good days of rude talk on xmca.  I 
> currently live outside the US, but I’ve navigated the baroque 
> requirements to file an absentee ballot. This election seems like it 
> may perhaps be an important one. For life on this planet.
> Martin
> > On Nov 5, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Christopher Schuck <
> schuckthemonkey@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That's what I assumed, but then feared I might be mistaken. Thanks 
> > for clarifying.
> >
> > I guess one other consideration is that I have actually been toying 
> > with the idea of putting together some kind of presentation or paper 
> > at a
> future
> > conference that would center around challenges involved in academic 
> > listserves, including gender dynamics and some of the other things 
> > that have come up lately. Most likely I would focus on the other 
> > discussion board I have been part of (Society for Theoretical and 
> > Philosophical Psychology), but in truth the online participation and 
> > dialogue here
> seems
> > richer and I would love to draw upon XMCA as a case study, maybe 
> > even promote dialogue between the two communities. It's interesting 
> > to observe how these communities differ, and what ends up generating 
> > the most heat
> on
> > the listserve. For instance, over there the question of how to 
> > discuss
> the
> > election and how far we could go in naming names and airing 
> > opinions, and what was appropriate for psychologists to venture 
> > about candidates using psychological language, became a huge saga 
> > with multiple installments,
> but
> > over here Mike shrugged and said, "Yeah, I suppose we shouldn't talk
> about
> > X, but these are extraordinary times. Oh well." - and that was that.
> >
> > But, perhaps there are issues with venturing "outside," quoting 
> > people, appropriating for a different context, etc....I have no 
> > experience with this sort of thing. So, if anyone has done this 
> > before or there are important considerations aside from obvious ones 
> > of basic respect, accuracy, academic integrity, etc., feel free to 
> > weigh in. All of this is very hypothetical at this point, anyway.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil 
> > <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Chris,
> >>
> >> all posts are listed in a public domain, the xmca webpages. But, if 
> >> am
> not
> >> wrong, a given post can be removed from them. Otherwise, posts go 
> >> to the private mail boxes of each member of the list. I think most 
> >> of the subscribers to xmca will be familiar to standards and codes 
> >> for academic integrity in research, including respecting 
> >> confidentiality. But I
> guess I
> >> should research bit more of this. Other more experienced voices?
> >>
> >> Alfredo
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu 
> >> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of mike cole 
> >> <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> >> Sent: 06 November 2016 03:51
> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Privacy guidelines
> >>
> >> Anything on this appears on google!
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> On Saturday, November 5, 2016, Christopher Schuck < 
> >> schuckthemonkey@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I just realized I named the academic institution of a member who 
> >>> does *not *specifically have a link to their personal website on 
> >>> XMCA; this was an oversight on
> >> my
> >>> part. If this constitutes a major violation of privacy, I'm so sorry!!
> >>>
> >>> Is there any formal code when it comes to mentioning details, 
> >>> confidentiality, etc., that I should be aware of? I always assumed 
> >>> that nothing posted on this list can be repeated elsewhere, but 
> >>> since it's public maybe that's not true?
> >>>
> >>> Just wondering about the rules for privacy and confidentiality. 
> >>> Again,
> I
> >>> apologize if I erred.
> >>>
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>

Status: O