In today's Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan comments on the boorishness of publishing private emails. He's right--for as long as I've been on Usenet (many years), posting an email without the sender's permission has been considered a gross breach of netiquette. Somehow, this well-established courtesy has not leaked over to the web, and people who are more recent Internet users (such as much of the journalism community). In a world of tiny digital cameras, and instant mass production of anyone's electronic musings, privacy is becoming a scarce commodity (as is trust).

So I want to establish the policy for this web site. I always follow the rule of not publishing emails on Usenet, unless granted permission, but at this site, I've always assumed that if someone sends me a comment about it, that they have no problem with republishing it--sort of like a letter to the editor. Now I want to make it explicit: if I receive commentary on the site, the default will be that it is publishable, using the sender's name, unless a specific request is made to not publish it, or to publish it but allow retention of anonymity.

And as a note to all webloggers, it might be useful to come up with some common policies or netiquette, if we can reach a consensus, and maintain it at a website somewhere (perhaps hosted by Blogspot?) for both bloggers and readers.

given that a blog is generally a personal thing, I'd be hesitant to publish names along with comments unless specifically autorised.

With google and such, things that we may say to someone we agree with, or have a relationship with (of some kind) can be viewed by anyone at all.

I really like andrew sullivan's policy where emails are fair game, but names are not unless specifically authorised. You should also be clear with people as to what will get published. As most correspondents are not public figures, they should be given greater control over their permanently stored public image. Just some anon comments

Well several sites like Natalie Solent say that they will publish emails unless told NOT to do so by the person emailing. I think that is a good yard-stick to go by. I have posted parts of emails in anonymous form on my blog.

I think it is probably a good idea to say what your policy is one way or the other as you have done.

BTW: thanks for the link to Dodgeblog.

Andrew

Well, my rule so far (with no complaints to date) is to freely publish any emails I receive that are related to the site, and to use names, unless I'm criticizing the content, in which case I leave it anonymous. But I assume that people who send me email expect that it may get published, particularly since I've done that in the past, now I've made a formal statement of the policy.

I don't want to have to reply to emails, and wait for a response, every time I want to use something, to ask them for explicit permission, and I don't think that it's necessary in this context.

I think e-mails clearly directed 'at the blog' are reasonable to publish but I would certainly not publish the result of an exchange of e-mails without asking first. I think the context is quite important when making that kind of call.

"I think e-mails clearly directed 'at the blog' are reasonable to publish but I would certainly not publish the result of an exchange of e-mails without asking first. I think the context is quite important when making that kind of call."

Right. That's what I'm saying also, in case it wasn't clear. I wouldn't publish an email discussion unrelated to the weblog, but I consider unsolicited emails that are either notifying me of something for the log, or responding to something in it, fair game.

I just posted this on my site in a visible, permanent place:

"All email considered as released for publication unless specified otherwise."

I may make case by case modifications as to what I choose to publish or not, but I think it's only fair to let emailers know that as a basic rule, if they want to write in, what they send is fair game.