Although there are many who think I was an actual witness to the event, I was not there when Achilles’ mother, Thetis, tried to make him immortal by dipping him in the river Styx. In holding him by the heel she failed to make him totally immortal. The term Achilles Heel has come to mean a place where something or someone is vulnerable to attack of serious consequence.
Moving from the mythological world to the digital world of the 21st Century, we may be able to link the two in regard to Twitter. Educators familiar with Twitter and who use it as a means of sources and collaboration may have personally experienced a similar act, as I cite this example to support my point.
For those of you less familiar with Twitter, it is a place where educators may make statements or pass on information in the form of short URL links to other educators. This is probably an oversimplified explanation, but it should establish an understanding. If a person Tweets out a thought (limited to 140 Characters) it travels out to anyone who is following that person. If a follower finds value in that tweet, they may pass it on to their followers in the form of a Re-Tweet (RT).
The RT credits the original sender for the idea or link. The person who RT’s the Tweet may need to abbreviate the original if it exceeds 140 characters. It is understood however, that the intent of the original idea is to be kept intact. Many tweeters comment on an RT, but it is usually clear that the comment is separated from the original tweet or idea. Usually, it is an acknowledgement of agreement to the idea. If there is strong disagreement then the tweeter will usually put out a new, original tweet expressing a different point of view. This has always been my understanding of the process and it is how I explain it to others when I am in the position to do so.
In that context I now offer my experience on Twitter yesterday. As I looked over my TweetDeck column of all of the tweets that mention me, I came across a tweet resembling one of mine that was RTed. It credited me with an idea that I supposedly tweeted. The problem that I had with it, and the thing that brought about a 20 second tirade of screen-screaming, was that I never tweeted what this person said I did. This person was rewording my original tweet with his/her viewpoint and crediting me as saying it. When I pointed out to this tweeter that I never said what he/she was crediting me with, I received a few replies. I was told that everyone comments on Tweets in RT’s and that there are no Rules on Twitter. I would imagine some other educators on Twitter may have had similar experiences.
It is true that there are no rules on Twitter. It is true that comments are made on RT’s. It is also true that people do not bastardize other’s tweets for their own purpose, or to serve their agenda. There are however, certain rules of civilized society that should govern conversation or discourse on Twitter. We have to assume that Twitter participants are people of integrity who do not distort the truth. We need to assume that we are respectful of others and their ideas, even if we disagree. We need to believe that people make every effort to be accurate in their attempt to share information. We need to believe that our passions for a topic or idea will not allow us to disrespect others with opposing points of view. Those same opposing points of view are what force our reflections to strengthen or change our views on that same subject.
If we are to expose ourselves as educators to the world on Social Media, we need to remember we are professionals dealing with ideas and learning. We need to model our respect for these things. Even in the passion of discourse, we cannot stoop to name-calling or petty bickering. We need to be truthful and honest. We can be passionate about the subject and still have integrity and show respect for others even in disagreement.
Yes it is true, Twitter has no rules. We, as educators however, have guidelines which we need to live by in order to model for others. I am sure that this person who distorted my tweet believed he/she had every right to do so, because Twitter has no rules. We must rise above that thinking however, if we are to trust others in what we have developed as our Personal Learning Network. Like the students who we teach, we need a safe and comfortable learning environment that we can trust. Let us not allow anyone’s lack of ethics be our Twitter Achilles Heel.
My Island View 
I agree with your opinion. While we as educators work hard to teach kids Digital Citizenship, we as older humans need to live by that too, and operate within those rules too. It’s too bad that some adults abuse the words of others to express their ideas. Thanks for reminding us to practise what we teach.
I do hope the person mentioned is not an educator. Not how we would want our students to be so not how we should be.
I have taken on the passion and desire to teach children Digital Citizenship. Retweeting after tweaking the words of others is not partaking in the cyberworld as a respectful citizen. I think that having such experiences as yours is one that the younger generations should be made aware of. But in all reality, people will misrepresent others to benefit themselves or ideas. Being used for that is hurtful. I hope that you continue to take this experience and teach others the understood rule of digital citizenship.
You might find this blog interesting:
http://budtheteacher.com/blog/2010/09/10/on-curmudgeonliness-or-why-im-not-going-to-say-yeah-yeah-but-im-at-least-going-to-try-to-be-more-nice-about-it/
Tom, this is a very funny post because only today I was thinking that no society works without laws, rules and guidelines… nor having its enforcers either, and the twitterverse and all of social media will not, in the end, either.
There are those, no doubt, lovers of chaos who would say instead but ah… finally, the glory of a world of me, me, me – and they will cherish the anarchy and attempt to do whatever they dang well please with it…
oh and cry that out to be democracy but I would say instead that democracy and the democratization of information functions in this zone/sphere/verse because not only do we have voice that can be heard there but also because we can, when we are bothered, return to our own blogs and provide deeper insight into the issues (and therefore share with others so that they can express themselves too).
A while back I posted on a touchy subject (and that was not the first touchy subject I’d ranted on) and was told by a friend that it wasn’t any of my business… and more or less who did I think I was to talk about this so publicly… and well, immediately I thought of something I read once – I think it was the Wisdom of the Crowds – about how many people will stand by the curtains and watch a crime outside their windows being committed without calling the police… and I know deep down that I am a person who would not only call the police, I’d go down the stairs with my baseball bat.
Some of us are born to be the ethics counsel. 🙂
There are not many of us and not many who would do what you have done here so I suspect, Tom that you are one of them..! Bravo, on your post and Bravo on saying “hey – no – you do not change or reword my tweets and attach my name to them – I will expose, I will say to you and the world: NO”…
🙂 Good luck with the good fight!
Karenne
The “Achilles Heel” of Twitter is that there are lots of different groups on it all using it for different purposes each no doubt with its own set of norms. Just check out some of the trending topic hashtags to see what I mean. Lots of what goes on on Twitter is very mean spirited and controversial. Some of what I see on Twitter is quite offensive. Often it seems tweeters are merely trying to out do each other in vulgarity.
I think what happened to Tom was a clash of two Twitter cultures. It is a bit “Wild Wild West” on the internet…and yes, we as educators should take the lead in both making the rules and then teaching them to others.
What would you do if this had been done with a blog post of yours?
If you search for any “top” words you will see pranksters and marketers abusing hashtags. Have people tried to “crush the #edchat party” yet?
Can you make a screenshot of the RT tweet in question and your own, please, or at least copy and paste?
People can misquote in any medium. I mean, “Harry Potter” has about three different chapters completely devoted to interview misquoted in (magical) print media. Journalism, the second oldest profession, heh.
“crash” obviously
Did they know what they were doing and do it intentionally?
UGH!
I couldn’t agree more, Tom! Respect for others and their ideas should be an implied principle in life. Fortunately, I don’t think these situations are so frequent.
Regards,
Marisa (@Mtranslator)
Ok I dug up what was going on.
The original tweet:
We do not need students who recite content, we need students who create content #Edchat
The supposed RT version:
RT @ileducprof: RT @wwjdr: RT @caronervin @tomwhitby: We do not need students who recite content, we need students who memorize. #Edchat
That was strange, because it talks about something else entirely from the original. This would look like a mistake to me (someone accidentally using the RT tag when @ was appropriate) if not for the escalating conflict afterward.
And escalating conflicts is what I see as a huge big vulnerability (Achiless Heel) of all text-based environments…
I did not want to reveal the tweeter, so I deliberately did not include the tweet. I wish you would have kept your investigation to yourself. As long as you have gone that far however, please continue through the stream to get the complete picture. Please keep the information to yourself. I do not want this tweeter revealed to others. I am sure that the tweeter believed the action was acceptable. That is the point of the post.
Please remove this comment and this thread if you think it detracts from the discussion. I put it here because, without exact quotes, people can’t see what happened for themselves, they only see a story (a retell) by one of the sides in what became a conflict – which is problematic for some of the same reasons your post discusses. Though it’s not clear where to end the documentation – the two tweets that started it, what followed, other people’s comments?..
I have read the two streams as far back as your original tweet which I quoted. Did something happen earlier that would put it in a different context?
Having read more of the comments, I now interpret this event as “a theoretical disagreement, played out at the level of formatting and style etiquette.” There is apparently some history of disagreement between the two participants. The discussion of formatting etiquette is not a separate event; it is linked to the past disagreements.
I think it is especially important to be polite when any sort of strife is possible. Etiquette breaches from friends and supporters rarely cause huge distraction from the main topic of the conversation in quite the same way as etiquette breaches from opponents.
However, the very act of publicly pointing out someone’s etiquette problems (or grammar, or other technical and style problems) often marks the two participants as “hostile opponents” and results in meta-discussion flame wars. For that reason, large communities frequently institute sister “meta-discussion communities” for separating such conversations.
I agree with you completely. In my job before I became a teacher, I posted information on the internet regarding theology. A coworker took it upon himself to edit my posts and most of the time took liberty to change my conservative theology and make it more liberal. It is important to be able to trust those around you with your thoughts. I don’t hold to an intellectual copyright thought, but I do think that people should respect the writer and his thoughts. Good post, and thank you for writing it.
Tom, though I appreciate your position on someone taking what you said out of context, I think there is one important point that is being misinterpreted. The title of your post implies that the tool, Twitter is to blame for what occurred between you and the other person. This is the very thing that drives me nuts when negative things happen online; people immediately blame the technology for causing the disruption.
It’s not the technology that is the problem. The problem is with one person who, in your opinion, misinterpreted your post. Was it wrong of them? Perhaps. But we need to stop thinking that somehow the technology caused the issue.
Facebook does not make our students dumb any more than TV did in the previous generation. It’s not about the tools. It’s about how we use them. As educators we have a responsibility to teach our students how to present themselves online and off. Ultimately it’s about the people. The technologies are merely the portals through which we present ourselves to other humans.
Conflicts and differences of opinion will happen online and off. You can stand up for yourself. And if that doesnt work, just say your piece, then hit the “block” button.
Susan
I am sorry if you thought I was attributing this to the technology. I was not. Social Media is a technology that requires personal interaction. It is that personal interaction that is the Achilles Heel. We need to be thoughtful, respectful, reflective and honest if we are to reap the benefits of this technology. There are no rules so we need to hold ourselves accountable. That is in no way the fault of the technology.
Totally unacceptable! I agree that it is not a “Twitter problem”. Other people’s ideas must be respected and cited accordingly. If necessary, because of the space limitation, post the link to the original location. We must not allow these tools to be used in such a manner. If not, we may just decide not to use them at all and lose a valuable means for interaction and learning.
Could not agree with you more, I strive to stress this every day with my students – the idea of academic honesty and personal integrity – when restating someone’s idea or thought. I have had this experience a couple of times, so much like yourself, I use them as examples of what not to do.
Good post. There are no rules, and I’ve even been bullied by other educators for posts. The only way around is to model the behaviour we want from the students we teach, and when adults (other teachers) fail to live up to those expectations, we call them out casually in a blog post and generate discussion around it.
I agree that it is annoying but hey, maybe bigger things in life to worry about? If it was my tweet I WOULD be annoyed…I know that, sorry for you Tom! Have a great Sunday though 🙂
Thanks Neil. Sunday looks better than Saturday.
Unfortunately for everyone this not only happens on Twitter and social media but everywhere. I truly feel there is a lack of respect today and whether the opinion is yours or not it should remain untouched.
People are people and we all have our own private logic… having said that, my wish would have been that if in fact the exchange that occurred was an indicator of a philosophical disagreement, whether about social media or pedagogy, that the debate would have continued.
I am fascinated much more by divergent ideas with potential to converge than convergent ideas with potential to create group-think (and I am not suggesting that is what happened- I wouldn’t know… only that I believe the more interesting debate would have continued to concentrate the chasm between ideas seeking the paradoxical parts of the issue you may have agreed on- or at least agreed to disagree)
Much respect.
Namaste.
Quite simply, we hope and expect peole to behave in a civil and honest manner whether it be face to face or via Social media. Being misrepresented is hurtful as well as unfair and wrong.
Unfortunately, I guess in the Cyberworld we are going to have as many people as in our ‘real’ worlds who do not follow basic etiquette.
There seems to be a bit of disconnect when it comes to retweeting and outright taking credit for others thoughts, ideas, and feelings. I think that there could be nothing more disheartening than seeing what you thought were your words coming out of other people’s tweets.
It is a very slippery slope when it comes to retweeting and “tweaking” what someone else has to say. I think it starts as a lack of 140 character space but ends with hurt feelings, anger , and desire to rectify the situation.
Than being said…is their a solution?
Thanks Tom, for bringing this to the fore front…It becomes a reflection about practices, and more importantly values and beliefs.
I followed this conversation on Twitter as I follow both you and the other party involved. I have come to respect both of your opinions greatly, though they differ immensely. You both live in “different worlds” as they say. I just wanted to point out this about the tweet that started the disagreement:
“RT @caronervin @tomwhitby: We do not need…”
When I read this, I read it as the party RTing a message that @caronervin had sent TO you, not a tweet that came FROM you.
Just my two cents.
But, I agree… I think that when RTing a message, the integrity of the message should be maintained. The additional comment should not be confused with the original tweet. I usually add my comment before the RT or at the end after adding a –> to show a break.
Jamie, that was exactly what I was going to say.
I wouldn’t have attributed those exact words to you, Tom, based on the syntax of the tweet. It seems that @caronervin was doing the old “fixed it for you” forums trick: reposting someone else’s words with a slight change that makes a big difference in meaning.
When I retweet with an original comment, I always do it in this form: my comment + RT + original tweeter + original comment. Sometimes, of course, the original comment may need to be excerpted a bit to fit, so use ellipsis where I omit words whenever possible. But my intention is always to retain the meaning and tone of the original, if not the wording.
Thanks for this post, Tom. I consider myself quite a newbie when it comes to Twitter. I lurked for about a year thinking that I really had nothing to contribute to the conversations taking place through this social media. I began participating more visibly this summer over the break. I appreciate your comments here because it helps me understand RT norms in Twitter. I agree with what you said and I believe that we need to be respectful and live by the saying, “If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say it”. This doesn’t mean that we can’t disagree but that we are diplomatic and thoughtful sharing ideas without having to be ‘right’.
I, too, would be annoyed with someone changing my words because followers would question my credibility. I am sorry this has happened but your post has taken an unfortunate situation and helped us learn from it.
There are no rules on Twitter as much as there are no rules in social encounters. That is to say, although we are not regulated, we must face the consequences of our actions.
Interaction through technology is really not all that different from interaction without technology: only the medium differs. When we are misquoted by someone in “real life”, certain consequences follow, whether it is an apology, a debate or a fist fight. A relationship may be strengthened – or ended. On Twitter, this could mean becoming an ardent follower – or unfollowing, perhaps blockign and even reporting another user.
It is taking time, but increasingly web users (including tweeters) are realising that our virtual lives have one thing in common with our real ones: cause and effect.
That
Tom,
I understand and feel your frustration. Sometimes, I spend some minutes working on a retweet, usually trying to find a way to re-phrase or abbreviate it so as to keep it within length. Occasionally I also add comments.
I like your statement “We have to assume that Twitter participants are people of integrity who do not distort the truth”, but I feel that this is aspirational rather than factual. There are many kinds of people out there, and in a way that is good too. I sometimes make a point of diving into conversations about e.g. climate change denial, or right-wing politics, just to see what the so-and-so’s are saying.
You probably won’t change these people, but you can decide with whom you associate, and that has to be enough.
We currently lack a mature protocol for behaving on Twitter. Those of us who use it honestly and earnestly need to think about this. There are enough characters on the keyboard to develop a brief and systematic code for agreement/disagreement/comment, etc. I suspect that this will happen sooner or later.
I enjoy your tweets. Don’t lose heart.
Best regards
Paul
No, there are no rules to Twitter, or to film, or to “documentary” (see “Waiting for Superman”), or for print (“A Million Little Pieces”), but none of that means we are not responsible for our actions.
Part of this is – to me – signing our own name – as you and I do. Part of this, as Paul (above) suggests, is taking care in authorship – which, as academics, or just responsible communicators, includes quotation (look back at the conversation if you must).
Part of this is technological – use TwitLonger if need be – understand the “RT” “code” which means credit the originator, rather than the most recent, if you need to save space.
I’m not a huge fan of rules – I despise citation systems and formatting rules – but I am a big fan of honest, and careful conversation. And it is easy to lose that in Twitter at times, just as it is easy to lose in any debate or conversation.
But we keep trying.
I thought it was clearly humor. It is not obvious to me that discourse in edchat should be humorless.
This is trivial compared to having to deal with Glen Beck fans.
Thank you for raising this important discussion Tom. All users of social networks, even those with honest intentions can make mistakes or errors in judgment. Your experience serves as a realistic reminder that we must all be cognizant of how we use and share material created by others in every forum we use.
I’m curious. Even though there are no “rules” for Twitter, there are expected and accepted customs. We retweet because we see value. This emerging (?) medium does what we want it to do. If there IS an Achilles heel, it might be the lack of use.
What SHOULD we do?
I think how it works is that we gauge people’s opinions on more than one post to get an picture of a users personality, passion and position. Knowing your position, I would recognize this as a mistake. Even without that, I would hope that no one tweet could define someone without verification.
Professor,
From my understanding of your blog, the RT option is the same as parenthetical citations in a paper and that obviously for this person, it was more of an opportunity to paraphrase a culmination of yours and his/her opinion.
I think the “problem” with technology is that oftentimes, it’s difficult to discern the intent and tone of the sender and therefore the recipient is often left with the wrong interpretation. Our Achilles Heal is actually our egos; writing is an intimate, deeply personal outlet. No author truly wants their opinions and ideas to be tarnished by negative critique. Which is why technology is an open arena for debate and discussion; for better or worse. You are at the mercy of the world’s interpretation of you and your values/opinions/thoughts/ideas/etc….
In any case, I think you were a victim of the modern day game of “telephone.” Funny how the outcome still applies; the input and output are never the same.
As many others have commented that given that there are no rules mistakes do happen. Given that fact I do think the we as educators do at times have to set an example for those either following us on Twitter or for our students of what kind of behaviors and actions we do expect.
Perhaps in this case it was a honest mistake, nevertheless we still need to set the bar high and at least know where the bar is set even if sometimes we may fall short.
[…] increase with your further direct engagements. Another Post I did on the dark side of Re-Tweets is Twitter’s Achilles Heel. This can be a confusing topic to explain which is why there is such a need. Please feel free to […]