XARK 3.0

  • Xark began as a group blog in June 2005 but continues today as founder Dan Conover's primary blog-home. Posts by longtime Xark authors Janet Edens and John Sloop may also appear alongside Dan's here from time to time, depending on whatever.

Xark media


  • ALIENS! SEX! MORE ALIENS! AND DUBYA, TOO! Handcrafted, xarky science fiction, lovingly typeset for your home printer!

  • XARK TV

  • XARKAGANDA

  • XARKTOONS
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2005

Statcounter has my back

« Reading William Irwin Thompson | Main | Intent, art and the 21st century »

Friday, August 05, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5d3453ef015390762528970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Transparency journalism: an FAQ:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

TimW2JIG

I think there is a strong link between making smaller claims of credibility; and transparency in the qualifications, experiences, and biases of the journalist for building trust.

I will also add that when Dan's writing blatantly contradicted his "manifesto", he destroyed the trust and credibility of Xark.

Dan

Yes, as you keep saying. But apparently your reading comprehension is highly selective.

SECTION II: RULES

1. Everyone believes that their perspective is more valid than those of others. This is practically universal. However, not all perspectives are equal on all subjects, and they should not be treated as if they are. Even the best auto mechanic is a lousy oncologist.

2. How do you tell the difference? By deciding. Xarkers create themselves by making decisions in response to every question that interests them.

3. On this blog, subjective decisions about whether certain perspectives should be considered seriously or left behind are made by the proprietors. Those who disagree with the decisions of the proprietors are free to go be smug, belligerent jerks on a dazzling array of high-quality blogs and websites located elsewhere.

4. Spirited dissent is welcome here; trollish intransigence is not.

This used to be a small group blog that had a small following. The way you treated conversations on this blog caused the other participants and members to write me emails with questions like "Who is this guy?" and "What's his problem?" and "Why do you put up with this bullshit?"

Eventually you got so rude in comments that I banned you, so you went elsewhere and wrote about what a jerk I was, what a hypocrite I was. It's a big Internet. Have at it.

But those are the rules. Clearly stated in the founding document.

The comments to this entry are closed.