|
Post by Admin Team on May 10, 2005 13:20:23 GMT
This thread is obviously aimed at LU staff who have access to the Intranet and, therefore, information that is not available to the general public. I've started this thread following a discussion on the 'Wrong Stick' thread at districtdave.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=District&action=display&thread=1115425376&start=15. I've decided that it is not appropriate for items of information to be quoted word for word, though of course I appreciate that many of the answers here will be using internal material as 'informed source', but can I suggest that there be a little considered editing and rewording as is appropriate when using such sources. I have no wish to dilute the quality of answers and discussions, but I think a little care should be exercised. I'm open to comments and alternative views on the topic.
|
|
|
Post by Hutch on May 10, 2005 14:43:40 GMT
I think it is the same in any industry and that a little paraphrasing of information is always required to protect the innocent and not so innocent alike. It also allows a degree of plausible deniability. Copyright, professional ethics, company policies and/or standing orders could be compromised by verbatim quotes. It could land the quoting party in hot water, or the subject of discussion or even someone entirely innocent as the offended organisation thrashes around looking for a victim. The web site host/author could end up feeling somewhat uncomfortable also. The interest behind the story need not be compromised by the bare facts. Paraphrasing allows you to claim that you are merely repeating what someone has told you and you never realised it was confidential/sensitive. As implausible as it may sound, you must always maintain plausible deniability!
|
|
|
Post by piccadillypilot on May 10, 2005 14:49:16 GMT
As implausible as it may sound, you must always maintain plausible deniability! Quite, lawyers and other people do it all the time and is, I suspect, why politicians get labelled as liars. Using phrases such as "I understand" or "I have been led to believe" allow one the get out that one's understanding was incorrect or the source material was incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by igelkotten on May 10, 2005 19:01:32 GMT
I'd say that it would depend on what sort of material is being quoted. A list of signal numbers between, say, Finchley Central and East Finchley can hardly cause any problem, and could in my opinion be quoted verbatim -provided copyright etc is respected.
On the other hand, quoting lengthy passages from incident reports or ongoing accident investigations is somethign that might very well invite disaster -especially if personal information, or information that can lead to identification of individuals is quoted.
My opinion, for whatever it is worth, is that the most important thing is that all posters show a bit of common sense and think beforehand about what they are posting, and what possible effects it might have.
/Igelkotten
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,309
|
Post by Colin on May 10, 2005 19:49:48 GMT
So we all agree with Dave then?
|
|
|
Post by citysig on May 10, 2005 20:33:47 GMT
Well I certainly do, given I made a point about it.
On top of the obvious "public attention" certain phrases from such reports can bring, certain reports I have monitored over recent months have contained slight inaccuracies - including the one quoted most recently.
Therefore, for the sake of the reporter's lack of research, we could be hanging ourselves for no good reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2005 23:43:30 GMT
So we all agree with Dave then? I do. Such internal documents re internal for a reason, and would be on the website if every tom, dick and harry was allowed to see them...
|
|