At 16:48 21/05/2004, Jennifer Stromer-Galley wrote:
(from Dewey) the public sphere is called into being whenever two (or more) people are involved in a conversation, and that conversation has unintended consequences that reach beyond the originators of the conversation.
And that is already the "public sphere"! I merely argue that material on the WWW/Usenet is *public* and may (or may not) enter the "public sphere".
Thomas and Eero, as I understand them, continue to argue that what is posted online is inherently public. As a result, following guidelines for attributing sources, it's A-OK to do what we will with it.
I am unsure, what your concept of "posted online" is, but if you mean Usenet and most parts of the WWW and observe the limitations (minors, mentally ill, etc.) I listed and am willing to extend on, if you present me with suitable cases, that sums it up for me.
My position is that although posts online are durable, persistant, and visible, it does not mean they are inherently public such that researchers can do with the posts what they will. Now, I agree with Nancy that researchers should not have to get consent from participants in a discussion group, such as Usenet, that are open to anyone to participate and to read, and where identities (that is, first and last names and identifying information) is generally unavailable, rendering the posts anonymous. But, there are many grey areas, as others have identified, like the AoIR list. Few of us are anonymous on this email list. Our posts have email addresses and names (usually first and last) attached to them.
So, I point back to Dannah's eloquent post, that the *experience* of participating online, the *perceptions* of those involved in the interaction, need to become the primary concern in determining how to proceed with research. If the conversation between Sally, Kate, and Jamaal had happened in a support group for gays and lesbians, I'm unconvinced that many participants would feel it okay for a stranger to record, analyze, and publish the discussion, just as they likely would not feel okay if someone secretely recorded the conversation at Starbucks. But, that is a question that requires a researcher to know and understand the group and abide by the norms the group has established.
Now, here is my puzzle. Suppose, I post something really nasty about you or a group dear to you on the Usenet and attach my full name to it (in fact, in my experience, it is a piece of cake to find out the RL identity of most usenet posters, even if they use pseudonyms), but I am unaware that anybody except the buddies I know in the Usenet group would read that stuff, so I perceive it as "private". Along come hundreds of people, who get a bad impression about you and/or your group, among them a couple of your friends or associates, who decide upon reading my rant to leave your group or circle of friends. Along comes a researcher, who investigates, why your group is rapidly losing support. She figures that a host of rumors that originates the postings of me and my buddies have seriously damaged the reputation of your group. She could write an article that would explain, why your group has lost support, but, alas, she cannot infringe on the *presumed* privacy of the conversation. Next day, a journalist comes across my posting. He thinks it's funny and links to it on the webpage of his paper, and he is not bound by some code of ethics that makes privacy the default assumption. Now, thousands of people laugh about your group based on the posting. My posting, which was intended to be "private" has generated very real public consequences.
At the heart of this, I'm urging that the primary consideration when engaging in research of people online is not if posts are durable, archived, visible, public, then they are fair game for research, but how do those who participate in the conversation perceive their participation?
My point is, I guess, that *not* only the posters are partaking in the conversation, but the lurkers, too. They might be many and most of them will perceive the posting as public. Thomas