I have a BA in Criminal Justice. My interest in the justice system started in high school, when I took the Government class required by the state of Ohio in order to graduate. The class was taken by seniors, and it had a reputation for being incredibly hard. I went into it without a lot of knowledge or interest in the subject, but I left the class wanting to be a Government teacher. I found the subject matter engaging and interesting, and I often got As on my work. I did the extra credit assignments that the teacher regularly gave because they sounded interesting, not because I needed the credit. When I got to college, I quickly changed my major to Criminal Justice. My aim was to become a lawyer, and I went as far as to take the LSAT and apply to several law schools. Ultimately, I decided to “take a year off” (famous last words), and never went back. But I’ve never lost my interest in government and specifically in the court system.
My work is now in social media and online communities, and some would say there’s some overlap there. So it is with interest that I read this article by Kathy Ossian about the use of social media by jury members, and how that can and cannot affect the impartiality of the jury and ultimately, trial outcomes.
Juries are typically instructed not to access, discuss, or read any information about the case or the subject matter of the case while they are assigned to the jury. Where this would be difficult-to-impossible, juries are sequestered. That’s pretty rare though — most jury members serve during the day and go home at night. But access to social networking, and even the web at large, is starting to play a role in motions for mistrial.
While two of the three cases that Kathy Ossian cited are in regards to jury members accessing informational websites (United States vs. Hernandez, and United States vs. Siegelman), but she also cites a civil case in Arkansas where a court determined that a party was deprived of the right to a fair trial when it was found that a jury member sent messages via Twitter indicating that he was biased against one of the parties.
As services like Twitter grow in popularity, courts will have to face this more and more. Mistrials are expensive and time consuming. As jury members, it’s important that we abide by the directions given to us by the judge, and refrain from seeking information about the case or discussing the case with anyone — including Facebook friends and Twitter followers.
I really do believe that social networking and online community can open up lots of avenues of communication, but there are some avenues that need to remain closed for the sake of fairness and justice.
Photo by http://www.flickr.com/photos/candiedwomanire
I’ve been thinking about starting a PhD. This is the point where everyone who knew me while I was working on my MBA starts shaking their head. Being a full-time grad student while working full-time wasn’t easy, and I’m sure being a PhD student while working full-time is even more difficult. Outside of the time, money, and sanity issues involved, I have another problem. I don’t know what to study. There are really no degrees in social media or online community. I already have a degree in business and marketing. (Also, criminal justice, which some might say comes in handy at times too.)
I had never really thought much about anthropology until I saw this video of Michael Wesch speaking at the Library of Congress about the anthropology of YouTube. It’s a long video (55 minutes), but if you haven’t seen it and you’re at all interested in culture and social media, I highly recommend it.
Culture is one of my favorite things to speak about at conferences or when talking to people about their online communities. A lot of “behavioral” issues with members boil down to culture issues. Have a troll wreaking havoc on your forums? He’s violating your community’s culture. Your users are all being mean to the new people? They’ve gone off on their own and formed their own culture and norms. Culture is one of the most overlooked things in setting up and forming community.
It’s easy to think of the internet as having one culture (how many times have you heard the phrase “internet culture”?) but it’s not really true. The internet is full of smaller groups, each with their own distinct culture. For example, the behavior that is expected on LinkedIn is different than what is expected on I Can Has Cheezburger.
Because of my interest in the cultural differences on the internet, I read this article an Microgeist with much enthusiasm. The walkthroughs of society, culture, norms, language, values, status, roles and other anthropological items in relation to social media is fascinating, and so true. I agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion — when dealing with the mostly-impersonal internet, it’s easy to forget that you’re still just talking about people and behavior. We should all keep this front-of-mind as we build, manage, and maintain communities. Because it’s what community is ultimately all about — people, behavior, and relationships.
The article states that communities and social media have not received a lot of anthropological study. I really wonder why, because it seems both timely and absolutely fascinating. I am so inspired by Michael Wesch’s videos and work. Maybe I should think seriously about that PhD again.
As an online community manager, I long ago came to terms with the fact that my personal life and professional life will overlap. The tools that many of us use in our personal lives (such as Facebook and Twitter), I also use in my professional life. You can try to keep your personal and professional worlds separated, but that only goes so far. There is inevitable overlap — your co-workers will friend you on Facebook, your community members will find your Twitter, and your boss will look you up on LinkedIn.
Perhaps community managers just faced this problem earlier than most people. After all, we were using these tools for business long before everyone else. However, now it’s become more common for people to mix the business with the personal on social media. Companies are starting to see all of their employees as potential spokespeople — with all the positive and negative things that come along with that. Companies can choose to focus on the positive benefits of that, or to focus on the negative implications. Both are inherently there, it’s just a difference in point of view. Think of it as “glass half full” vs. “glass half empty”.
Two things happened last week to drive this point home to me. First, I was on a panel at Community 2.0 with Kelly Ripley Feller from Intel, who shared Intel’s social media guidelines for their employees. Second, I read an article on Mashable about the Wall Street Journal’s new social media policy. To me, the difference between the two is striking. And the first indication of how they differ is right there in the name — guidelines vs. policy. Guidelines are the bumpers on the side of the road — you have a wide road to go down, but the guidelines will nudge you back on track when you stray. Policies are hard lines that must not be crossed.
Intel’s Guidelines
Intel’s guidelines come from the position of assuming that their employees will participate, and encouraging that, but wanting to provide some ground rules and best practices for doing so. In other words, Intel is focused on how employees participating in community and social media can help the company, and how to equip them with the best knowledge and practices for doing so.
Many of Intel’s policies are straightforward and should be obvious — respecting proprietary and confidential information, not spamming or posting offensive remarks, for example. But there are other guidelines that are maybe not as expected from a large public corporation.
“Be Transparent” is probably not something you’d expect to hear from Intel. Of course, this is not to say that employees are encouraged to disclose company secrets… but they are expected to use their real name, identify that they work at Intel, and be clear about their role.
“It’s a Conversation” is another guideline that a lot of companies could learn from. Intel encourages people to show their individual personalities, to encourage comments, and talk to readers like they are talking to real people. So many companies have their blogs and social media participation incredibly sanitized, approved, and PR-ified. Intel gets that showing the personalities inside the company is showing off some of their best differentiating assets.
Other guidelines, such as adding value and creating excitement, are also something you don’t see in most policies. But they’re really important parts of an open and engaging social media program.
Wall Street Journal’s Policy
WSJ’s policies come from a place of grudgingly accepting that their employees are going to participate in social media, and wanting to protect themselves against anything bad that might happen. They are not interested in helping their reporters and editors be more engaged in social media with best practices. They simply provide guidance on what not to do — unlike Intel, there’s no corresponding “what to do” advice.
Again, some of the things included are obvious. Most people know not to use a false name or to recruit friends and family to promote or defend their work. But there are other guidelines here that seem… well, antiquated.
Reporters and editors are not allowed to discuss how an article was reported, written or edited. They cannot discuss articles that have not been published, meetings they’ve attended or plan to attend, or interviews they’ve conducted. They are not to mix “business and pleasure” on sites like Twitter. I can understand needing to protect proprietary information about workflow and competitive information such as sources and upcoming articles. But surely that can be done in a way that doesn’t forbid all communication about it across the board. By flatly disallowing all conversations about these items, the WSJ is missing huge opportunities for their reporters and editors to connect with their readers, and for their readers to make deeper connections to their reporters, editors, and the WSJ brand.
In terms of mixing business and pleasure on Twitter… well, frankly, that’s one of the things that I like best about Twitter. Celebrities and other well-known figures (if they’re doing it right, and doing it themselves) mix professional and personal posts that give their readers some insight into the personality and real life of the poster. For example, I know that:
I could continue on and on with examples. The point is that none of these posts would pose a threat to the companies they work for. And they all give me, the reader, some behind-the-scenes info on them as people. Rightly or wrongly, I feel that I know them better because I have this information. This makes me feel more connected to them on a personal level. And having employees/celebrities with large fan bases is a boon to any company that employs that person.
What You Can Do
Does your company have a social media policy? I don’t think it’s a must for every company, but it is necessary for many. If you don’t, and you think you need one, make sure that it encourages and guides people to participate in positive ways instead of just telling people what they can’t do. If you don’t have any community or social media experts in your company, there are plenty of independent consultants in the field that can help you draft good policies. Think about how to empower your employees to show their personalities, be thought leaders and subject matter experts, and create positive experiences around themselves and the company’s brand.
If you have a policy that is more closed than open, talk to your company’s social media expert (or your boss/executive, if you are the company’s expert) to make some changes. You know your own situation and restrictions best, but take every opportunity to educate and train your people on the best practices for contribution, instead of just giving them a list of things they can’t do.
What policies are in place in your company that you love or hate? Know of other companies with particularly good or bad guidelines and policies around social media participation? Let me know in the comments.
So it is with interest that I read this article by Kathy Ossian about the use of social media by jury members, and how that can and cannot affect the impartiality of the jury and ultimately, trial outcomes.
