[Xmca-l] Re: Privacy guidelines

[Martin John Packer]

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
>>> 
>>