jrussel

Pearson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have a big confession to make! > I didn't read it... > > Why don't you just post it up here? Sorry for the delay. Unfortunately I have been hospitalised for a few weeks as a result of an incident on another forum. The reason I can't post the article here is that it would be an infringement of copyright - my apologies for this. I believe the Telegraph will send out back issues at a nominal cost if you are interested in seeing it.

So what did you guys think of the article?

Ok, well, I'm now back, a little jet lagged which is why I am posting at a slightly strange hour, but to cut to the chase, the article wasn't published as you all found out when you looked for it (thank you for being interested enough to actually look for it though). Shortly after I'd set off on my vacation I got a call from my editor saying that the piece wasn't going to be included as originally intended due to another feature becoming more extensive than originally anticipated. But the good news is that it will now be published in next Sunday's paper! I won't be away that weekend so look forward to discussing it with you lot on the day or soon after. Sorry for the anti-climax! I know some people were looking forward to reading it. But you don't have to wait much longer now!

I will be interested to discuss with you all what you thought of the piece, of course. But I am going away on holiday (I need one after all this!) for a couple of weeks so that will have to wait until I get back. Don't think I am being rude by not responding this weekend!

Good news - the piece is now finished and it should be published in the "Seven" supplement in this Sunday's Telegraph. One or two of you get a mention but you'll have to wait until Sunday to find out who!

Sorry I haven't replied more promptly but things are very busy at the moment, what with trying to get my piece finished, and dealing with some unrest on a much bigger and busier board than this one. The reason I can't link you to the thread I think you would be amused by is that that forum has very specific rules which disallow linking to or from other forums. The reason for this is that the moderators don't want what they call "board wars" which is something they have had problems with before. In any case, when you read the piece (which should be out pretty soon!) you will be able to see the other places I have been posting nad check them out for yourselves. It kind of amuses me that some of you think I'm still a "troll" and that this thread is a wind-up. I guess I did my job a bit too well! I'll enjoy seeing you backtrack when the article is published.

Just been catching up on this thread. It's been a busy week. I think some of you guys on here would be amused to see how the discussion has developed on the equivalent thread on a certain other forum!

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >Fair use (US law) explicitly includes commercial > use > > I didn't know that. Thanks. It will be > interesting to see its scope. > > In my set of conceptual pigeonholes: "fair use" - > a general term, referring to the set of > provisions, however named, in any legislation, > that permit the use of material otherwise > protected by copyright. > > It turns out that US law uses the same phrase as > its specific legal term; hence a possible > confusion. I'd have used "fair dealing" if I'd > remembered it at the time, as I don't like causing > confusion. > > I think the article's ok'ish. Writers have to > deal with other legislations as well. And if you > manage to get to para 6 before erupting, you're > firmly in UK territory. :) > > I hope everyone reads at least the "fair dealing" > summary that it links to, as I feel there's a lot > of misunderstanding here. In my unauthoritative > opinion, JR or anyone is fully justified in using > any words we've writ here, without our permission, > if s/he wants to perform research or produce any > analytic or critical review or commentary thereon. > And an absolutely vital and necessary provision > that is. > > Notwitstanding that right of fair dealing, each of > us retains the copyright in our own wordy > emissions. Not even the forum admins have the > right to assign copyright in them to, or license > their use by, anyone else. > > If JR's product turns out to be wonderful, we can > quote and extol it. If rubbishy, we can quote and > ridicule it. If it grossly misrepresents, we can > seek correction and complain to its publisher > and/or any relevant regulatory body. If it > defames any of us, we can spend our life savings > on seeking redress through the courts, and ask > that JR be banned from the forum. And if it > doesn't appear at all, we can be very very rude to > him. > > BTW, whatever happened to investigative > journalism? This is a good post, and considerably more well-informed than most inn the last page or so. People, even if you read my article and reckon it's all a load of rubbish, maybe this has at least prompted you to have a think about how public anything you post on the internet is. I'm frequently surprised about just how naive and unrealistic many people are when it comes to their beliefs about what 'rights' they have in relation to their postings and in their expectations when it comes to privacy. Someone said something about this being a 'private forum open to the public'... you what!?

Where have you got that idea from, expat? The main thing the law is concerned with is whether quoting something diminishes the market value of the original. This is clearly not an issue when quoting a forum post. The other issue is that of privacy, and as this is a public forum, everything is public anyway so I have no concerns in this regard. As a matter of courtesy I will attribute all quoted material to the relevant user name.

In response to those raising questions about ethics and so forth. Let's be clear that I am under no obligation whatsoever to state to members of which codes I choose to abide by. And let's be clear about the difference between what the law says and whatever codes various bodies offer up for voluntary adoption. All I will say is that I agree in principle with the NUJ code of conduct and follow it on a voluntary basis. I am not however a member of the NUJ, and ultimately I make my own decisions about what is right and acceptable. The paper which will be publishing my work has its own legal team and they will be the ones who decide whether or not anything is problematic. Finally, the suggestion that I might be breaching "intellectual copyright" by quoting any of what's been written in response to me on this forum - come on!

Karrie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear J. Russel > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIZ-SGljHik&feature > =related > > I hope you?ve had a nice weekend off from > trolling. > > While I am waiting for your paper?s code of > ethics, so I can decide how I feel about your > intrusion, I thought I?d view all your posts. I > have done a summary of the profile that you > portray to me. I have done it in a PDF format as a > keep-sake for you, because you must be very proud > of your achievements, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, > lol. Dear Karrie, Thank you very much for the lovely CV. As far as ethical issues are concerned - I'm not sure what you think I've done wrong. Obviously if I were to be publishing private messages that would not be on, but the only bulletin board content that will be included in my feature will be what has been posted up for all to see on what is after all a public forum. It's all there for anyone with an internet connecttion to view already. Therefore I do not see how I am broaching anyone's privacy. Furthermore, in none of my postings on here have I discussed other posters' personal issues of private lives (and if I had, I would not include it in my piece). Do let me know if there is something I've overlooked.

DJKillaQueen, why are you getting so worked up about something you haven't even read yet? Maybe you would benefit from remaining a little more open minded. Much interesting stuff comes from the study of the apparently mundane, or from looking in places most people would not expect to find much of consequence. Ask Alexander Fleming! And the EDF is not a "control group" for my purposes - that's an odd remark to make.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > " You describe my field of investigation as "quite > narrow" - maybe, but that doesn't mean that there > isn't a lot to mined from that particular seam. By > the way I'm not quite sure why you see the two > quotes you isolate as contradictory. The > differences between communities will be examined > through the lens of their reaction to the troll. > The piece will be about both the troll and the > communities he interacts with." > > How much can you usefully learn about a community > simply by witnessing a range of individual > reactions to overtly contrived provocation? The > two quotes are not contradictory, but this: > > "The contrasting responses I have encountered will > be used in my analysis of what unites and > separates these disparate groups" > > is more than a little disingenuous. Unless you > really believe that how people react to obvious > trolls tells you more about them than...how they > react to obvious trolls. > > The significance of the online vs real persona > point is that it seems obvious to me that your > project is fundamentally ego-driven - it's not > about any real examination of, or interest in, > communities or individuals, it's about how they > react to YOU. Again, not exactly rare in the > world of journalism, but it kind of undercuts any > pretence to your piece being serious investigative > work. I understand why you might be sceptical that there is much to be learned from my work, but all I can really say is - wait till it is published, and maybe you will change your mind.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jrussel Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Articles in the mainstream printed press about > > internet trolling are far and few between. I > have > > been able to find very few. But if you are > aware > > of it being a frequently written about subject > - > > please link me to any relevant pieces. > > If that was in reference to my comment about its > being after the fact, I'm not sure that I have > seen any articles on the subject. But this > forum's been going for a good few years, I was on > other forums for a good few years before that - my > point is that it's not terribly au courant. > What you say is true. Online forums have been in existence for some years now, and so has the phenomenon of the internet troll. However, in the past few years the situation has changed somewhat - largely due to the increasing prevalence of Facebook (and similar social networking sites). Whereas (at least for people under a certain age) interaction via Facebook is the norm, interaction via online forums has always been, and still is, practised by a minority. The rise of Facebook has brought the practice of online interaction to the masses and along with it the notion of the troll, although the way Facebook works means that trolling does not take place in quite the same way, nor is the term "troll" as widely understood. It has certainly brought the notion of the online versus "real" persona to a greater proportion of the population (although with a degree of the anonymity factor removed). It's with this context in mind that my feature will be presented, and presented to a mainstream (rather than internet-savvy) audience.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jrussel Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Mick Mac: > > > > When I talk about "socio-economic circumstances" > I > > refer to a tendency across the membership of > the > > discussion board. This is not judged on the > basis > > of trying to second-guess what the > circumstances > > of individual members are. It is judged on the > > basis of the predominant themes visible in > > discussions across the boards. > > > Yes - I know that was what you meant. But since > you professed to be able to guage this on a forum > by forum basis I thought I'd challenge you to put > your abilities to the test on a more specific > basis. I could, but to be honest I'd rather not. Firstly because I don't want to offend individuals and secondly because it wouldn't be productive as far as the progress of my work is concerned.