Comments on: Foundation Blogs

By: proud to be anonymous

proud to be anonymous — Sat, 05 May 2007 01:31:06 +0000

Can you imagine that I would NOT blog Gates Keepers anonymously? http://gateskeepers.civiblog.org

By: Sean Stannard-Stockton

Sean Stannard-Stockton — Thu, 03 May 2007 15:05:33 +0000

I agree Phil. I especially like a persistent pseud because then a really personality develops. I just think that foundations are missing out on an important opportunity to further the sector by not encouraging their employees to blog.

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 03 May 2007 02:05:16 +0000

Persona management gets complicated when you have professional responsibilities and personal opinions. How a person does that strikes me as a personal choice. A persistent pseud tied to an email address is more like discretion than deception.

By: Mark Petersen

Mark Petersen — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:07:43 +0000

Yes, I agree with Bruce. We are making progress even though incrementally.

Even worse than blogging is joining facebook which already has given me pause as I have a few potential grantees who have asked me to be ‘friends’.

By: Bruce Trachtenberg

Bruce Trachtenberg — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:41:13 +0000

In reading the exchange between Tom and Don, it makes me think too much is being made about the anonymity issue. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that for far too long nobody wanted to provide insider’s commentary about foundation work. And, if for now, for the very smart reasons Don says he wants to stay hidden, let’s still be grateful for the fact that he — and others I know of who also write under a disguised name — are helping push the door open wider. Several years ago when I was at a foundation and blogging was still in its infancy, I would routinely share some of the better and more provocative anonymous postings with colleagues. Their comments — including from my boss — were often “bravo.” Anonymous blogging may not be ideal. But it’s a start. And a positive one.

By: Don

Don — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 03:02:03 +0000

Tom - More than anything else, I’m just trying to protect myself and my employer from any problems that might arise from people confusing my personal positions with those of the foundation for which I work. It’s not a simple matter of using a different e-mail address; anybody with basic Google skills and my full name can put me together with my foundation in about ten seconds. (Yup — if I use my full name and the word “foundation”, we’re the first hit on Google; if I use my first name with the word “foundation”, there are too many hits to count before we show up.)

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, shaping the direction and policies of my foundation are tasks that fall above my pay grade, so two problems can potentially arise if I’m linked to my foundation:

1) no matter how clearly or often I disclaim, people might take my words as representing the foundation in a formal capacity (I’m exploring these issues on my own, not with any official sanction from my employer) and

2) as Bruce points out, blogging about work — irrespective of one’s field — can result in unemployment.

I’ve been pushing my bosses to explore blogging as a way of getting feedback and creating dialog for our foundation, but they’re not on board yet. Maybe someday, but for now I’m participating as best I can.

Until then, relative anonymity is the only way I can participate in these discussions without exposing the foundation or myself to potential harm.

Don

By: tom Belford

tom Belford — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:33:32 +0000

Sorry, I just can’t get around the anonymity issue. Foundation staff can always get a Gmail or Yahoo account if they want to keep distance from their shop. If you have something worth saying and your intent is to influence or guide others, put your name on it. Otherwise we have a bunch of sheep talking to sheep.