Categories: uncategorized
Date: 19 October 2007 10:45:12
No, this isn't me having another one of my insecurity moments and looking for the approval of both my readers ;) I have been struck, again, by the question are there circumstances where it is better not to blog or whether it is better to blog but responsibly? The question hasn't been raised by any of my own posting but rather by a post I read elsewhere yesterday - which I think it would be irresponsible for me to link to.
I found the post in question as I searched through my blog favourites list to see what was now inactive and could be deleted in an attempt to springclean. It was just over a week old and on a site which is infrequently updated, so it had been easy to for me to miss. As I read the post and felt the depth of pain that had been poured into it I felt tears coming to my eyes. It was a post which contained the level of public honesty one rarely finds in life. Yet it was that level of honesty I found disturbing and made me question whether the writer should have gone anywhere near a computer that day.
The topic was an important one and to be honest the message within it was something I think everybody who is or has ever been part of a church should be forced to sit down and listen to, yet as I say I queried whether it should be there. Or if it was right for posts like that to be put up but should it have been less personalised? Should we have had a bland message without the obvious pain of the writer or should the writer have used a site or forum where they couldn't have been clearly identified and perhaps was a bit less public?
How do we decide when, how and what to blog? I know at different points I have used this site as an emotional vehicle to try and sort out my head, and at times perhaps have been a little too honest for the readers comfort. At certian points (as with this post when I resigned my church membership) I have consciously sought to explain to people I knew in real life, aswell as my "friends" on the net what was going on through this blog and on atleast one occassion have directed somebody to the post to "avoid" having to have the conversation in the flesh. Yet there are other times I know I have avoided the computer, or gone for a very bland book review to ensure I didn't spill my guts in an inappropriate way.
In terms of how to blog I guess we all have our own set of guidelines which may overlap, aswell as having to adhere to the rules of the site we use to post on. It has to be acknowledged these guidelines change overtime and adapt according to the situation we find ourselves in.
My personal guidelines are as follows:
1. Whilst I am not unhappy for people in most circles to know my identity I would rather that my students could not easily find me. Therefore, I use the webname rather than my real one and don't talk about my location of work directly (although anybody who was determined enough could probably work it out quite quickly from what I do post occassionally).
2. I don't blog about my place of work or people I work with. The only occassional references to work are either subject specific stuff I think is relevant or rants about social policy that are screwing up the sector I work in. This relates to a whole host of issues but basically comes down to the idea of professionalism
3. I try to not blog specifically about others, unless it is appropriate to do so in relation to a shared event or I am picking up on something they have blogged.
4. I try not to blog in anger and ask myself before I save would I be happy people coming back to me on this. You don't know who will access the information you post or when. Therefore, being too honest on a public forum could potentially be difficult.
5. I try to be honest, but within boundaries. I will only truly spill my guts if I think it will be of use to others and if it relates to issues I have constructively dealt / am dealing with. There is no point posting something which adds to your problems by just giving you something else to worry about.
6. If I am uncomfortable about anything I have written after I've posted it I re-read and if I can see no problem but am mildly uncomfortable I will archive it. If I can see the problem I will edit it & possibly archive. If I am really uncomfortable with it and continue to question myself on whether I should have written it I will delete it.
7. I try to be constructive and add links to help people when I can and not to criticise others directly (unless they are politicians or media types for whom it is part of the job)
8. I try not to blog when drunk (I have experienced the morning after the night before editing experience)
9. Whilst I blog for others to read I am basically blogging for me. It is a way of recording my life, but in a different way to a diary or a prayer journal.
10. Knowing I am naff at spelling and grammar when I blog I try to give myself enough time to properly re-read it and make the necessary corrections.
Please note the word try before lots of these things. Generally I adhere to these personal rules, but sometimes it's hard.
So going by these criteria should the post I started off have been written? I don't know, I just wish they'd had a comments section so I could have sent a virtual hug and engaged with what they were saying.