I had just assumed that when well-respected publications like Education Week decide to allow people to write anonymously under their good name, they make it clear that you can't do stuff like this. Apparently not.
Update: As I should have noted above, the post in question looks like it went up before the blog migrated to Ed Week. So they may very well have a "no sock puppet" rule.
7 comments:
Kevin,
You need to read the entry in question. I read it twice through, and at no point did Jennings-as-Eduwonkette defend or even mention Jennings-as-Jennings. And Springer's piece quoted Jennings but did not replicate the work.
So where is there sock puppetry?
The best thing about the eduwonkette outing is that it is giving bloggers like you and Jay Greene the opportunity to show your true colors, as if that wasnt already clear to most readers.
Sherman -
I'm surprised you're okay with that. She published a journal article that came to certain conclusions about the triage issue. Springer published an article that came to very different conclusions about the same issue, and explicitly quoted her article as a way of establishing for the reader the position he was opposing. Then she wrote a pseudonymous blog post critiquing Springer's article, on grounds of methodology and, ironically, credibility. That's above board as long as she doesn't mention herself by name? That strikes me as a distinction without a difference.
What if I set up a new blog under an assumed name dedicated to praising my posts and attacking my detractors? That's intellectually honest as long as I say "this person attacking this post at TQATE is full of it," as opposed to "this person attacking this post written by Kevin Carey at TQATE is full of it" ? Really?
Kevin,
Apart from your criticism of Jennings' posting anonymously, I think you're stretching both the previous uses of "sock puppetry" as a term. She can be criticized for not looking for the longer (and refereed) Springer article released online before her entry -- that's one of Greene's points, if I remember correctly. But if she's supposed to avoid all discussion of any article related to what she's written professionally or that quotes her or cites her or breathes too close to her... I think that means she would have had to avoid writing about Texas as well as triage, and New York City in case she's using that for her dissertation, or about any faculty member in Teachers College, or maybe any faculty member in New York City, period.
So, to take an example, was it kosher for her to point to Andy Beveridge's work? She's worked with Beveridge, so maybe that's sock puppetry. But I just don't think so.
Kevin, Sherman [and Jay Greene] - everyone would do well to re-read Jennings original post, which I found here (not on Edweek):
http://eduwonkette2.blogspot.com/2007/11/whos-afraid-of-educational-triage.html
I quote: "From reading the Economics of Education Review paper, I concluded that the study lacks a design that would enable one to identify the presence or absence of educational triage..."
Was this not clear enough that she is in part addressing the journal article?
The problem with the Springer paper is one of methodology, and Jennings goes on to make a strong case for this, that anyone can read themselves.
What is becoming apparent is that the Careys and Greenes of the world have little to offer themselves in the way of substance, and have to resort to personalized attacks to make up for it.
Sherman,
I think the principle is clear enough: nobody is neutral in a dispute in which they're a party, and shouldn't pretend otherwise. As a rule of thumb, I'd say one shouldn't anonymously criticize an article that criticizes you (or praise one that directly praises you). This is obviously distinct from an article that simply touches on a topic you've addressed, mentions someone you've worked with, etc. Sure, one can imagine cases that are tough calls, but that's the price you pay for refusing to identify yourself. It's why anonymous writing is in most cases a bad idea, particularly when you're simultaneously publishing under your own name.
Kevin,
I'm glad you recognize that there IS a judgment call involved, and I wish you had made the point without calling it sock puppetry.
Post a Comment