Re: Privacy or publicity (WC archive)

[Wes Chapman <wchapman@titan.iwu.edu>]

Let me respond to a couple of good points that Cliff makes:

> I've always been aware that my posts were available to anyone who wanted to
> take the time and trouble to untangle the net.  Guess I just figured it
>was a
> user beware sort of thing.

The question is, are ALL of us always aware?  Are all new subscribers aware
that their words could come back to haunt them?  Is it true that even the
most seasoned veterans really NEVER forget themselves in the heat of
passion?

> I prefer the full monty when it comes to threads on WCENTER, for rhetorical
> reasons; otherwise, I'm not seeing the full context from which the thread
> grows, and am afraid that it would be like trying to read declassified
> documents where significant portions were deleted.  Those of us who sne snip
> and paste in order to contextualize our responses would be limited by
>whether
> or not the snippee wanted to delete their message archived or not.

This is an excellent point.  I too would prefer to see the full context,
and anything that would lead to ROUTINE editing of the archives would be a
mistake.  But I'm not suggesting anything like routine editing.  I'm
talking about those once-in-a-blue-moon occasions when one says to oneself
in horror, "oh my God, I've just called my provost, petty and vindictive
tyrant that he is, a brainless ass with a drinking problem who has set back
education fifty years, even though I know he nixed So-and-so's tenure case
for standing up to him in a faculty meeting, and worse yet, I called him
that BY NAME even though he's such an egotist that he routinely searches on
Alta Vista for mentions of his name!"  You know, that kind of thing.  IT
HAPPENS ON THIS LIST--I've seen it, at least the ranting part.  (And of
course it would, wouldn't it, because what's wonderful about wcenter, more
so than any other list I know, is its friendly and supportive atmosphere;
it's a place where you can say anything, ask about any problem, and get a
sympathetic response.  So of course people DO say anything, anything at
all.  I thought about searching the archives for words like "idiot" and
"moron," just to make this point clear, but you all know it.  If you've had
one of these moments, especially, you know.)

> I'm also kinda wondering what you felt was so unscrupulous about folks who
> want an accounting from faculty members--I may not endorse the method,
>but the > aim seems reasonable, doesn't it?  And, couldn't the faculty
>present their own
> e-evidence as appropriate and prudent use of their time?

I'm all in favor of accountability, so long as it's fair.  But I find it
unlikely that anyone who is willing to hack into someone's private email
account looking for "inappropriate" letters is really trying to see
someone's career--much less higher education in general--objectively and in
full.  And a faculty member can only present countering evidence if the
situation evolves into a formal hearing; in this case, the letters were
simply made available to legislators before a vote.

Off my soapbox now, I hope,

Wes Chapman