Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘comments’

During yesterday’s GTEC session on the Public Sector Social Workplace, I tweeted:

#gtec John Myers: social media in the org. No training needed. We,ve all learned how to use these on the public internet 11:41 AM Oct 7th from UberTwitter

At the time, this sounded like a good tactic to keep in mind when selling social media adoption in the workplace. After all, not needing training means lower costs associated with the roll-out of social tools in the org.

But then I opened up the paper (yes the print kind – gasp!) this morning to the following headline: “27% blind to online legalities – Many Canadians don’t know they’re liable for comments: Poll.”

A new survey released yesterday shows that while more Canadians are conversing online, over one-quarter of people believe they aren’t legally accountable for their online comments.

Twenty-seven per cent told a TD Insurance poll they believe they aren’t legally accountable for their comments on blogs, message boards and social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook.

An alarming number of people are ignorant of the responsibility and legal liability, said Klaus Pohle, a professor of journalism specializing in media law at Carleton University.

So, a good reminder — at least some of us haven’t really learned how to use social media after all.

I’d say that this is due to the mental models we bring to participating online. Often we approach it the same way as if we were having a face to face conversation. To wit:

“Most people approach online commenting as though they were chatting in person, completely unaware of the risks they’re taking,” says Henry Blumenthal , Vice President and Chief Underwriter, TD Insurance. “A good rule of thumb when you’re posting online is to ask yourself, how would I feel if this was printed in the newspaper with my name next to it?”

But sometimes we use online mediation as a shield, thinking we can get away with being more outspoken online:

When asked if they behave the same online as they do in person, the majority of Canadians (75%) said yes, but 9% did admit to being more opinionated behind the keyboard. Younger Canadians (18 – 34) are more likely to say they are more opinionated in person than online – 25% compared to 14% of 35 – 54 year olds and 7% of 55+ year olds. Yet, they’re most likely to regret something they posted online (29% vs. 16% of 35 – 54 year olds and 5% of 55+ year olds).

I’d wager that it’s a rare person who hasn’t tweeted something they never would have said out loud to another.

Bottom line: social media is not the same as face-to-face conversation. When you comment online, your words can have real-world consequences. People will still need to be reminded of this as the org goes social.

Getting back to the question of training: while it might be true in a strict sense that people won’t necessarily need training on how to use social media (with most social software, it’s blindingly obvious where you are supposed to click or type), it’s still pretty key to educate users on the norms and risks associated with participating online.

Read Full Post »

The other day, the local paper published (yet another) piece on the frequency of staff turnover in the federal public service.

I received an email today from a fellow public servant about this story. They have kindly allowed me to reproduce it:

Hi there, Not sure if you have already read this, but wanted to share this article with you from the Ottawa Citizen on March 31.

Article:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/focus+attention+turnover+within/1446275/story.html

Comment stream only:
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/soundoff/archive/2009/03/31/282766.aspx

I went back today to send it to a colleague and re-read the comments which had more than doubled in number.   I found it particularly interesting how public servants are contributing to the dialogue happening outside of our walls. Not like a letter to the editor which may or may not be published. But rather, published instantaneously. This is one of the best examples I have seen of Canadian public servants participating in an outside dialogue as public servants and as individual citizens. Public servants no longer need to start a blog or ask permission from their departments to share their opinions, they seem to be doing so in responding directly to the media, however anonymously they are doing so.  

Food for thought: We sometimes think about how public servants should participate in social media – the limits of what they say that could be damaging to the business of government and we generally use the code of values and ethics.   Acknowledging that these public servants are contributing to a very important dialogue on this issue, if we are trying to renew public service and compete for the best and the brightest in the knowledge economy, we may eventually need to participate in the dialogue and share what is good about working in the federal public service through comment streams.

UK has civil participation guidelines (attached) and here:
http://beta.civilservice.gov.uk/about/work/codes/participation-online.aspx
. Not sure what their experience has been with news stories and their staff commenting.

This is a neat insight, as a lot of the angst around use of social media in government centers on the idea of blogging or tweeting bureaucrats. But now that most major news sites have added minimally moderated commenting, the bar has been lowered even further and there’s virtually no barrier to participation in high profile conversations online.

Need to think about this more, as I generally welcome increased online participation by my peers. However, in this case particularly, a quick perusal of the comment stream leaves me disappointed. There’s a lot of common stereotypes about the federal PS being reinforced. And some misguided generational angst thrown in for good measure. As is common on news sites, this story appears to be a magnet for folks with axes to grind.

(Not saying there’s not a problem with staff turnover — there clearly is. A 42%  annual churn rate is a bit crazy. More that the tone I’m seeing here is not exactly constructive. )

Read Full Post »

Swarm of starlings in evening sky

Swarm of starlings in evening sky -- loud and skittish

(Source: vapour trail on Flickr)

Attended Tod Maffin’s talk on the “web swarm” via IABC webinar today. Basically he was looking at doing crisis communications in today’s online environment.

What is a web swarm? As I understood it, it’s basically when a bunch of people congregate in one spot on the web to basically trash a given target, be it a politician, a company, a brand, an individual or whatever. (Here’s some examples.) Common swarm spots include social news sites like Digg or Reddit, social networks like Facebook, YouTube, and in the blogosphere or on forums – anywhere that people can contribute comments, links or other content.

(It’s basically similar to the concept of the “blog storm,” but expanded to include all the other places on the participatory web that are not commonly understood as being part of the blogosphere.)

Tod provided a handy methodology for crafting response posts when dealing with a web swarm.

S- Sweeten the Honey Pot.
Use a friendly tone with no jargon. “Thanks for pointing out our goof—we’re not perfect, but we’re trying.”

W- Win-Win.
Make them feel like they have the upper hand. “You were right to feel irritated.”

A- Advise Them What You’ve Changed.
Do this within the first few sentences. “Thanks to your posting, we’re changing our policy.”

R-Right Wrongs
Correct online inaccuracies. Don’t let errors stand on the internet forever. Several popular web sites (including one run by Google) take snapshots of online content and store them in a searchable cache—forever.

M-Make Friends
E-mail some of the individual contributors and invite them to keep in contact. “I hope you’ll continue to share your insights with me.”

This is a convenient checklist for how to actually go into the swarm and hopefully calm the waters.

But he said something else that I found interesting about operating in this environment. Basically that most of the time you should comment only once. So if for instance, there’s a swarm happening on Digg, you should only drop a single comment in the thread. And then you are out.

Not sure I completely agree here. I do understand that there’s a need to avoid being drawn into a tit-for-tat debate on details. And that a decent, timely response will get amplified as some posters in the swarm start to take your part. But I don’t think that a single comment dropped in a lively thread will satisfy the more aggressive participants – it could even give them more ammunition to keep up the pressure.

Maybe it’s because I work for The Man, a very large and very easy target that basically doesn’t “get it.” But I could imagine that continued silence after the initial comment may also do more harm then good. It’ll make that human, conciliatory post you made look insincere, incomplete. Again government not listening.

I guess I’m wondering that to be really successful in dealing with the swarm, a bit more of a sustained presence will be necessary?

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.