A Blogger's Code of Ethics?

Cyberjournalist has drafted a code of ethics for bloggers. And I applaud them for doing so. Take a quick read over it, and tell them what you think:

Cyber Journalist's Blogger's Code of Ethics:

Be Honest and Fair. Bloggers should be honest and fair in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. Bloggers should:

  • Never plagiarize.
  • Identify and link to sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
  • Make certain that Weblog entries, quotations, headlines, photos and all other content do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
  • Never distort the content of photos without disclosing what has been changed. Image enhancement is only acceptable for for technical clarity. Label montages and photo illustrations.
  • Never publish information they know is inaccurate -- and if publishing questionable information, make it clear it's in doubt.
  • Distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.
  • Distinguish factual information and commentary from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.

Minimize Harm. Ethical bloggers treat sources and subjects as human beings deserving of respect. Bloggers should:

Counter-Culture and Capitalism

Jon Lebkowsky's book recommendation reminded me of a post I had cited earlier from Yul Heibel's blog.


Welcome to Wonderspace! Where ideas can hang out, and do whatever!

Or not, but at least we're getting there.

Yes, this is a work in progress, and in no way constitutes a finished blog. However, you might at least notice how much faster it is. The PBAHQ will be moved in full ASAP, and you will not believe how much you will notice things working for you in life once again.

Sergei Rachmaninoff: Ossia Cadenza from Piano Concerto No. 3 in d-minor Op. 30

Sergei Rachmaninoff: Ossia Cadenza from Piano Concerto No. 3 in d-minor Op. 30

Performed by Nick Lewis

Ossia Cadenza from Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto [Listen in MP3]The Original God Awful Recording from a year ago

Notes: Since the release of the movie Shine, Sergei Rachmaninoff's Third Piano Concerto has enjoyed the reputation as "The Mount Everest of Piano Literature". The “Rach 3” runs about 45 minutes, and requires a full orchestra. On average, it contains more notes per second than any other piano concerto. In this recording, I play the Ossia Cadenza from the first movement. A cadenza is a section in a concerto where the orchestra stops playing; the idea is to give the soloist the full stage to show off. Rachmaninoff wrote two cadenzas for his third piano concerto; the first cadenza is shorter, softer, and fluid; in contrast, the ossia cadenza (played here) is longer, grander, and more difficult. Rachmaninoff did not play the Ossia Cadenza. Somewhere, I read that he thought the ossia cadenza sounded too much like an ending, and was thus inappropriate for the first movement. It's also rumored that he muttered, "and it's too damn hard..."Since I am a self-taught pianist, my recording of the Ossia Cadenza contains numerous errors. I hope the listeners will forgive me for them; at some points in this cadenza, there are literally over 70 notes per measure. I consider this recording a first draft. However, in the interest of educating the listeners, I have provided recordings of both cadenzas by two of the 20th Century's greatest piano virtuosos: Sergei Rachmaninoff, and Vladimir Ashkenazy.Original Cadenza: Performed by Sergei Rachmaninoff

The Progressive Blog Alliance Mission Statement

The PBA is an emergent, self-organized network of independent activists, journalists, and writers. We do not exclusively identify ourselves with a single nation, but rather our world society as a whole. We recognize that on a fundamental level, we are all one.

We demand our members to show complete intolerance for oppression, bigotry, ignorance, violence, corruption, and exploitation. We may choose to deny membership to individuals who support certain politicians; for example, George W. Bush. However, we will never require our members to subscribe to any list of creeds, tenets, or dogmas. We are not a political cult. Progressive libertarians are just as welcome as progressive socialists.

We do not represent any particular ideology. By "ideology" we firstly mean political opinions which are based upon the assumptions and biases of philosophers living between the 17th and 19th century; and in turn using their antiquanted manifestos and treatises as the lenses through which one judges the world. But secondly -- and this is far more important -- we mean those systems of thought which squelch one's individuality; while at the same time shrinking one's possible range of thought. The majority of ideologies were designed to turn followers into unthinking, obedient drones, all of whom quack the same slogans. The PBA is bound by its common principles, not its ideological labels.

On American Nationalism

Where as the majority of nationalisms are founded upon a belief in ethnic or cultural superiority; the American Nationalist believes in the superiority of our political ideal. This would make sense, as we feel a great deal of pride in our nation's cultural and ethnic diversity. America is the great "melting pot", so the cliche goes... Thus, George W. Bush's claim that Bin Laden attacked us because he "hated freedom", provides the prototypical example of

The Living Web

Those who attempt to predict the future generally fall under one of four categories: Technologists, Spiritualists, Futurists, and Historians. The Technologists are opitimized by people like Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs. Technologists are interested in buzzwords, and “killer apps”; they don’t so much predict the future, as much as they attempt to invent it. They enjoy making far reaching claims such as “by 2012, the Home Entertainment Center will be fully controlled by the Personal Computer.” So here at the beginning I tell the reader not to worry: I’m no technologist.Then there are the Spiritualists. Their predictions are usually based upon an eclectic mixture of metaphysical energies that are focused through crystals, and directed towards the third eye of a psychic. The psychic has a “vision” which provides an astrologer with a “key” to read the stars. The astrologer then reports his findings to a guru who in turn informs the public of “the approaching age of Aquarius”. I never went to wizard school, so I’m not qualified to give such predictions.The more scientific cousins of the spiritualists are the futurists. When the futurists aren’t attending their weekly Klingon classe, or preparing their Borg costume for the next Star Trek Convention; they will be found creating technologically advanced nowhere lands. However, this group has lost considerable authority since the building of space needles at world fairs went out of style.


Subscribe to Nick Lewis: The Blog RSS