I think there is some confusion between kindness, duty, and earnestly contending for the faith going on here surrounding the whole Wilson discussion/debacle. If this cited article is REALLY given heed, exchanges like this will happen:

"Um, Mr. Hinn, sir, uh, I really think you are leading people straight to Hell, and I was thinking, um, if you don't mind, I would make a mention of it on my little web site. Is that O.K. with you?"

Funny. People like Mr. Hinn don't seem to consult with normal, everyday people when they decide to give heed to and PROMOTE seducing spirits, or any of their views. Stating an unpopular opinion does not necessarily mean a lack of courtesy. Not that I'm equating Wilson with Benny Hinn, but you get my point...

We're not all pundits. We're just people, and, in internet-land it's easy and affordable to make a web site that looks reputable and believeable. Throw some clever graphic design and code in there and it's like, "Hey! Check this guy out..."

The ethics of blogging are limited to the sensibilities of each individual reader. It's one technology that TRULY allows free speech.
And that's refreshing. If you don't like it, click...

I wonder if Doug Wilson reads all this stuff. I wonder if his hat size has changed at all.

I agree that the truly free speech afforded by blogging technology is refreshing. I'm not trying to absolutize a requirement to consult with anyone you publicly disagree with; rather, I am asking if it would be profitable to do so. Do you think it would in any case?

Another example that came to mind after I made this post was a recent discussion about PCA pastor Tim Keller's vision statement on Nowheresville. Would it have been profitable for The Dane (author of Nowheresville) to seek out Tim Keller to clarify his statements or discuss them more in depth? Possibly. There's even a minute chance that one or the other of them might have come away convinced they were wrong, and the truth would have won out. Unlikely? Of course. Impossible? No. And that's a pragmatic argument. It might be a good thing to do even if no obvious good came of it.

This has really gotten me thinking about the way I write. I don't consider myself a pundit, and I know that I don't have a vast audience hanging on my every word. But like you said, it's relatively easy to make a sharp looking web site that lends credibility to whatever an author has to say. Who knows what credence some unknown reader might give to my opinions, or yours. Given that, is there a responsibility inherent in publishing a blog?

Good topic. It's much easier to write first and regret (or not) later. It's probably wise when communicating in any form to get into some good ethical habits. I had some personaly friends (a whole family) from whom I never once heard a critical statement about other people. These were folks I spent a good but of time with too, so there were plenty of opportunities. They impacted me very powerfully on this matter just by acting out their convictions on this, though they were never at all preachy about it.

One of the consequences of their behavior was that it was very easy to trust them, since you knew that they would never take something you said or did and use it to tear you down.

I've got lots of thoughts on this, but I won't take up your space with them. I'll just say charity needs to be rule number one, but we also need to think good and hard about what that really means.

I don't see that we as Christins are under any obligation to consult someone first when discussing smething they've said or published unless what they're propogating is in some way sin/ful for which we need to call them to task. Discussion of ideas is discussion of ideas. We are obligated by the scriptures (Matthew something:or other?) to go to a brother/sister when they're sinning and point it out to them singly and all else failing with others as help; not discuss/gossip.

While I don't think we are obligated to consult someone, it certainly couldn't hurt anything if one was inclined to do so.
As for the "discussion of ideas is the discussion of ideas" comment: that's all well and good in theory, but as we saw last week, discussion of ideas can quickly become an attack on character. It could just as easily turn into gossip or slander.
I guess being on our guard against that is the best answer.

In the past I've typically considered these questions more from a writer's or journalist's perspective, rather than from the (somewhat) more narrow setting of discourse between members of a faith community.

As others here have pointed out, it's a win-win to discuss public writing in private, where it addresses the actions or principles of individuals. The exchange may lose some of its spontaneity because of the time spent waiting for that discussion to take place, but the potential for misunderstandings (and the embarrassments that inevitably follow from them) is vastly reduced.

If in any event those misunderstandings are still published, the author is in my opinion bound to take responsibility for them - "Yes, I wrote that, here are the reasons why, though now that I know more of the story my attitudes have changed in such-and-such ways, or not." Yet because of the electronic nature of Weblogs it's tempting for an author to play hob with what they write, so as to deflect criticism as reaction to a post develops (Dave Winer, a markup/tech guru, is regularly accused of doing this)... and by my way of thinking it's foolish to do that. There's a lot more insight to be shared if the author can demonstrate the evolution of their own opinion or argument.

Where I see the focus of this discussion, however, is on the ideas ColeSlaw (who was likely referencing Matthew 18:15, but would probably find Luke 17:1-4 more appropriate to the spirit of what he's pointing to... and BTW the Bible Gateway rawks, understand) spelt out in his comment.

Part and parcel of this is a matter of medium. To anyone skilled at operating in the realm of community politics (like a successful pastor) Weblogs have the potential to become a nightmare. The hue and cry against missteps can be made far more clearly and distinctly, and the issue developed in the public eye much more completely, than in print or In Real Life... and the definition of charisma takes a 90 degree turn online. (Not all pastors or other community leaders are as articulate in writing as they are in person.) More to the point, if one participant in a discussion is carrying forth in print while others are doing it online, there is a potentially damaging discontinuity there as well.

At the bottom line, though, remains this: if discourse started in private, it should remain there unless all of those concerned agree that it should be carried into public. And once it's been carried into public by consent, it should remain there as much as possible.

Also, the verses from Matthew that follow the one cited above provide some insight on how the Weblogging medium can be especially useful in the context of discourse... if ethics are being followed, there is little dispute as to what people wrote.

Lastly a digression: the public nature of his Theses leads me to wonder if perhaps Martin Luther shouldn't be given the (honorary) title of World's First Weblogger.