Stephen Downes wrote in Getting Down to It about a Code of Ethics posted by Dave Warlick
"Dave Warlick posts a "Student and Teacher Information Code of Ethics." I personally think that a code of ethics is not useful, because if one believes in the ethics, the coded is not needed, and if one doesn't, the code will not be followed. Moreover, there is no need, again in my view, for an "Information" code of ethics - the basic principles apply in all areas of life: be honest, and take care not to harm others."
I am sympathetic to some of what Stephen says (I found the code a little stodgy) but there is an interesting discussion to be had about 'what and whose code of ethics'. He seems to be saying that he has a simple code of ethics and it is universal (for him at least). I wouldn't like to label him as such (that's his call), but when a libertarian ethic dominates online communication that does not give everyone the opportunity to avoid harm and feel able to be 'honest' i.e. say what they think. A lot of the research that was done on early CMC on USenet had a somewhat skewed demographic of mainly youngish white middle class males. This is obviously changing but a code or some recognition that ethics is important to the group. It's difficult to achieve but (as Kim and Preece have said) codes/social policies can have a place (alongside observing norms from people's behaviour) as long as they are developed by the collective.
The other thing Dave Warlick seemed to be doing was guiding students on being critical consumers of information and reliable providers of it. That has to be a good thing, though there are other ways to achieve it.
Keywords: ethics, Stephen Downes, universalism
