↓ Skip to main content

Online Responsibility: Bad Samaritanism and the Influence of Internet Mediation

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, December 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Online Responsibility: Bad Samaritanism and the Influence of Internet Mediation
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, December 2010
DOI 10.1007/s11948-010-9253-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saskia E. Polder-Verkiel

Abstract

In 2008 a young man committed suicide while his webcam was running. 1,500 people apparently watched as the young man lay dying: when people finally made an effort to call the police, it was too late. This closely resembles the case of Kitty Genovese in 1964, where 39 neighbours supposedly watched an attacker assault and did not call until it was too late. This paper examines the role of internet mediation in cases where people may or may not have been good Samaritans and what their responsibilities were. The method is an intuitive one: intuitions on the various potentially morally relevant differences when it comes to responsibility between offline and online situations are examined. The number of onlookers, their physical nearness and their anonymity have no moral relevance when it comes to holding them responsible. Their perceived reality of the situation and ability to act do have an effect on whether we can hold people responsible, but this doesn't seem to be unique to internet mediation. However the way in which those factors are intrinsically connected to internet mediation does seem to have a diminishing effect on responsibility in online situations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Other 16 27%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 22%
Social Sciences 9 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Other 14 23%
Unknown 9 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2012.
All research outputs
#15,740,505
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#682
of 965 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,049
of 190,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 965 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 190,641 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.