Posted By Mark Preston
Hmmm, quite a lot of food for thought...

I think you're playing devil's advocate here. The question's simply "Should we moderate the quality of advice provided by people who post to this forum?"

Firstly, that's a little difficult to answer if we don't know the degree to which such moderation already takes place - but I suspect, and the opening wording of the moderators' guidelines tend to bear this out, there's not too much going on at the moment.

Next we might look at how others approach this (to consider whether or not such moderation is necessary):

The question as to whether or not a body providing a forum is liable for the advice given by contributors to the forum must have exercised many other professional bodies who have set up (hundreds of) similar lists and forums. I thought I'd have a look at the view taken on the RiskMail (risk management) list - in my experience risk management is among the more risk averse professions (after, say, insurance underwriters and local authority lawyers). They advertise their list as "no holds barred" and seem happy to protect themselves with a caution in the first FAQ and a whopping great disclaimer in Bold allcaps at the bottom of the list FAQs. This is all they deem necessary in the most litigious nation in the world. However, sfaik this list isn't moderated.

http://www.riskmail.org/faq.html

The SAFETY list maintained by Ralph Stuart at UVM IS moderated - but with an extremely light hand - a few of the posts that get through are frankly bizarre and others directly contradictory. Again, this list is run and moderated in the USA - where freedom of speech under the 1st amendment has been effectively balanced with freedom to sue the speaker's butt off. (I wonder if that will make it through the filters?)

http://list.uvm.edu/archives/safety.html

Then we might ask "How far is such moderation desirable?"

Enforcing the acceptable use guidelines (which, BTW, I'd suggest might be a little more obviously signposted on the discussion forum page) - should be reasonably straightforward - the guidance is brief and clear. However, checking for accuracy across the range of subjects covered by the posts would be a) daunting, and b) time consuming. It also carries with it the potential for controversy which regular forum visitors will recall so enlivened debate around the time IOSH moved from the creaky old forum to the shiny new one (pauses to engage anti-flame filter).

If IOSH goes down this road, I think you're right about the danger of posts assuming the veneer of accuracy implied in the moderators' guidelines (at least for those of us who have read them), and this does no service to the forum's users.

More significantly for me, since many lists appear to manage perfectly well without this level of policing, and since, IMHO, there's not too much of a problem with inaccurate advice on the list at present, why introduce a level of policing that's probably not required? If it ain't broke...

I can understand and sympathise with IOSH's wish to "outsource" to take some of the burden off Angela Wheatcroft - looking after the forum must be quite time consuming. It will better achieve its end, however, if it drops the policing element of this job - I'm sure I'm not alone in being put off the moderator's role by this requirement above any other.

If, as the numbers of users of the discussion forum grows, inaccurate information becomes more of an issue, I'm sure we'll all want to revisit this. But for now let's enjoy the forum for what it is - a valuable source of help and civilised discussion, with contributors who are sufficiently responsible to clearly differentiate fact from opinion. If IOSH needs help in maintaining this quality it would be better to avoid the fact checking route and let the forum look after this aspect itself.

Posted By Ken Urquhart
An interesting debate.

I certainly feel that there has to be moderation of some kind of the site.
(Standards, behaviour, language, responibleness of information etc.,)

I also believe that there has to be a general measure of the nature and factualness of the information flow.

However, and I am no expert in these matters I do not see such a strict liability on the moderation as some of you do.

Firstly as I think both Mark and Ian eluded to, the site regulated as it is, perhaps not many users bother with the small print, they just get on and use it:

If you over regulate, will it not destroy the very essence of the site, the free and spontaneous sharing and exchange of information and knowledge?

The forum is effectively open to anyone, in theory if you take the concept of the world wide web lieraly, every single person on the Planet!

The majority of users to my understanding however access the site,
A.) Because they are looking for something specific and believe that the site might be of help to them.
B.) As I regularly do, view the site to see what the current information flow is, "The Crack" if you like, and where I see an issue or topic that I believe I have some relevent knowledge or experience of, I offer comment or contribution.
C.) The chance visitor/or link site directed who may or may not post something whether or not they have any specific interest in the broadest field of Occupational Health, Safety, Environment or related issues.

Bear in mind that visiting "contributors" have to register and give e-mail address contacts.

Generally the vagrant surfer does not bother with postings or submissions where there are formalities to go through, unless they are particularly intent on malicious behaviour towards the particular site, (I may however be proved wrong on this belief in time).

In regards to the quality and authoritivness of information on the Forum.

Do most users consider that the information that they post either as questioner or respondent means that they are "Expert".

Do people who respond and pass on information really believe that the recipient will take that information as absolute.
Are you the respondent really saying follow my opinion or advice and regard no other? I think not, (or am I being naive?)

I suggest that enquirers are using the forum as one of several and varied sources of checking something out,as I do.
In essence using it as a means of gathering information which the recipient will consider with other sourced information in making a decision or developing a strategy on a particular issue.
(A bit like Risk Assessment and the preparation of Method statements etc arising out of the information accumulated out of the Risk Assessment).

I personally can't see that a Court, and is that not who/where any ultimate adjudication about monitoring and accuracy would be made, would find much favour with a submission/defence argument that the individual or organisation went along or did not go along a partiucular path in regard to an aspect of its business performence based solely on information taken from a Web site discussion forum, regardles of whether or not it is the Forum of a Professional Body/Organisation.

I think that IOSH and the monitors acting in aqssociation with it are demonstrating if you like, :"Best practice, responsible and professional bhaviour" etc by the fact that, having a discussion forum on it's Web site, it monitors it for standards and tries to ensure accuracy within the bounds of the medium.
IOSH will I am sure as the Forum is an Electronic Data system have records of messages and responses posted together with record files of intervetons.
These I suggest would in any legal argument provide/demonstrate correct behaviour within that which prevails at the current time and is seen generally as acceptable to society.

Also note that within the moderation guidance it requires the appointees to liaise with each other and the IOSH Communications Working Party, who are appointed by and are answerable to Council.
I do not see Moderators acting in isolation.
Thus I submit the Moderator is not acting alone and is not exposing themselves to absolute liability. (IOSH in having a structure of review, contol and moderation all the way back to its body of management, Council).
Whether or not all these "control measures" create absolute Liability on IOSH or simply demonstrate as I said earlier, responsible practice I am still not sure.

Like Mark however, I note on quickly reviewing other professional and governmental web sites with and without discussion forums that they all print or refer to policies/pocedures about information/comment displayed, products or resources refered to and links to other web sites and or related organiations to which their site may might refer you, all carry disclaimers of some sort or another.
As to their legality that would probably have to be tested.

Consider the Safety & Health Practitioner, is IOSH liable for every word published in this magazine?

The Journal, as the learned document you might think would carry a more strict liability for IOSH. There is a disclaimer in the foreward index page. Does this require testing in aw, are IOSH responsible?

Perhaps each time the message Forum page is pulled up by a viewer/contributor a bold disclaimer or referral notice should appear on the page warning that the information, comment is that of the individual, is not necessarily the view of IOSH and may or may not have been screened for responibilness of
language, behaviour, and in so far as possible accuracy,(Back to the original issue). Respondents are reminded that they may have personal liabillity for statemnts made, advice given, or actions taken.

Like Mark and Ian, my fear is if we went down this line we would I believe, destroy the spontaneity and purpose of a discussion Forum.
To get people to openly, freely and enthusiastically - Air, Care and Share in their area of need or expertise.

I will watch this space.

Regards.

Ken Urquhart.

Posted By Website Co-ordinator
To Philip and all with an interest in this topic,

I can assure you and all the contributors to this discussion that the Institution has been considering these issues very carefully and is taking legal advice in respect of its existing and any future disclaimers and guidelines.

Thank you for your concern,
Regards,

Liz Spencer
Head of Public Relations Department

Posted By Brian Dawson
Phillip, I think you are right both with regard to liability of IOSH, if moderators are expected to correct inaccuracy, and role of the moderators. Several contributors do provide incorrect information from time to time but they are usually corrected by another contributor. And thats how it should be. There is no need for moderators to have a role in this and I agree they could make IOSH liable.

Posted By Website Co-ordinator
Dear All involved in this discussion topic,

Further to my posting of 19 February, I confirm that the on-going guidance from our lawyers will continue to be reflected in the copyright notices, disclaimers etc. and how they are displayed on the website.

Regards,

Liz Spencer, Head of Public Relations

Posted By David J Bristow
Is IOSH – Liable?

Perhaps only the courts may make that decision on liability!

IOSH could or maybe reduced their liability by insisting that a team of legal experts vets all responses to “Posts” and the reply is then activated 24 hours later! and not immediately. – takes the fun out of it!

As the responses to articles and queries are enthusiastic, and are from respondents who are trying to help their fellow colleagues all in good faith, I think that all information should be taken as advice only and the recipient should and have a responsibility to check those facts offered and not IOSH.

We as professional Health and safety personnel should not hide behind the fact, ----- well it was in the IOSH forum it must be right. – NO DEFENSE.

We must check our information and check the details are correct. The forum is there to give individuals interpretation and indications of where they may look for the correct answer. Let us not forget various people subscribe to the forum from all walks of life with differing backgrounds and differing levels of competency in Health and Safety! All want to help!

As an example I answered a post on LD50, not my chosen subject I must agree, but I responded with what I thought was the correct definition to the question.

I was grateful to Adrian (spelt correctly) Watson, a toxicologist of this parish who quite rightly put not only me in the right frame, but others who had responded to The Post.

We cannot blame others for what we get wrong – we need to double check at all times the facts that we have and make the right decisions from those facts, and not from answers from THE FORUM!

In my view the forum is there to stimulate discussion and debate and not as a means of requesting the correct answer to a query at the touch of a few computer quays (spell checker gone down).

Solicitors/lawyers in the main earn more money per minute that most of us do in an hour, so lets keep them out of the debate and make it simple – you participate on/with and by the forum. It is your responsibility is to check the information gathered is correct/right/puka – seems fair!

I am staying up late tonight so your replies are eagerly awaited.

Regards David B
Ps any vacancies for a moderator! (only joking)!

The three most important factors when selling a house is – position, position, position!

As health and safety persons it must be check, check, check – your facts!