Introduction
Netiquette
Larry S cheuermann and
Gary Taylor
The authors
Larry Scheuermannis Professor of Quantitative Methods, in
the Business Systems, Analysis, and Technology Department,
University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana,
USA.
Gary Taylor is Southwest Region Contracts Representative
for Airborne Express Corporation, Plano, Texas, USA.
Abstract
Netiquette is derived by merging the words network and
etiquette. More specifically the term netiquette has been
described as the conventions of politeness recognized on
Usenet and in mailing lists. In the context of the new Internet
global culture, attempts are being made to identify common
standards of etiquette. Literally hundreds of specific neti-
quette suggestions are published. Identifies the following
most frequently cited specific suggestions for online users:
think first; write in upper and lower case; avoid abbrevia-
tions; be concise; avoid smileys; don’t flame; don’t take
offense easily; don’t evangelize; and know the audience.
Netiquette breaches do not always bring retribution. Most
breaches of politeness and courtesy may do no more than
reflect poorly on the individual user. One who knows the rules
of this new culture may well have an advantage over one
who does not.
Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy
Volume 7 · Number 4 · 1997 · pp. 269–273
© MCBUniversity Press · ISSN 1066-2243
269
“N etiquette” is derived by merging the words
“network” and “etiquette.” By its very construc-
tion, netiquette means net-etiquette or etiquette
of the N etwork. In general terms, this refers to
etiquette on computer networks. M ore specifi-
cally the term “netiquette” has been described
by N etcom Services as “T he conventions of
politeness recognized on U senet and in mailing
lists.”
T he technological advances which have
brought us the interconnected network of com-
puters called the Internet has also brought us a
cultural web which expands the globe. T his web
“transcends geographic boundaries and legal
jurisdictions. Something quite legal in one place
may not be elsewhere…”(M ultiN et, 1996).
And, one might add, something polite in one
place may be unacceptable in another.
In the context of the new Internet global
culture, attempts are being made to identify
common standards of etiquette. T he most
frequently cited netiquette suggestions are
identified in the following pages.
Netiquette rules
By definition etiquette and ethics are closely
related. Etiquette being defined as “convention-
al rules of personal behavior in polite society”;
and, ethics as “relating to morals, treating of
moral questions; morally correct; honorable.”
(Concise Oxford Dictionary). Kelly (1996) says
that a few authors of netiquette articles prefer to
use the word “nethics” for “monstrous breaches
of netiquette,” and reserve the word netiquette
for petty breaches. M ost, however, do not make
this distinction and use the term netiquette
when referring to both moral issues and stan-
dards of politeness.
General netiquette recommendations
Perhaps to identify the most important neti-
quette rules, two authors have used a ten com-
mandment format. T his highlights the most
significant rules in a humorous way. A distinc-
tive feature of the Internet is the lack of an
authority who is able to command, so a list of
“commandments” is sure to amuse a few on-
line users. Following are two sets of netiquette
 Netiquette
Larry Scheuermann and Gary Taylor
commandments. T he first has to do with mon-
ster breaches of netiquette and the second with
petty breaches. T his gives a reader a total of 20
commandments to follow. Even though the next
20 rules are by no means definitive, they offer a
very good beginning to anyone desiring to be
good and polite while interacting in the world of
cyberspace.
T he ten commandments of computer ethics
(Rinaldi, 1996a) are:
I. T hou shalt not use a computer to harm
other people.
II. T hou shalt not interfere with other peo-
ple’s computer work.
III. T hou shalt not snoop around in other
people’s files.
IV. T hou shalt not use a computer to steal.
V. T hou shalt not use a computer to bear
false witness.
VI. T hou shalt not use or copy software for
which you have not paid.
VII. T hou shalt not use other people’s comput-
er resources without authorization.
VIII. T hou shalt not appropriate other people’s
intellectual output.
IX. T hou shalt think about the social conse-
quences of the program you write.
X. T hou shalt use a computer in ways that
show consideration and respect.
T he ten commandments of etiquette (Brake-
man, 1995) are:
I. N ever forget that the person on the other
side is a human being.
II. Be brief.
III. Be proud of your messages.
IV. U se descriptive subject headings in your
messages.
V. T hink about your audience.
VI. Be careful with humor and sarcasm.
VII. Summarize what you are following up.
VIII. G ive back to the community.
IX. D o not repeat what has been said.
X. C ite appropriate references.
Specific netiquette suggestions
T he two lists of commandments above give
general recommendations for proper netiquette.
Literally hundreds of specific netiquette sugges-
tions are published in the articles cited in the
bibliography of this research. T he following are
270
Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy
Volume 7 · Number 4 · 1997 · 269–273
the most frequently cited specific suggestions
for online users:
• T hink first. M essages can be forwarded or
copied. N ever write while angry. It may even
be better to wait a day to think of the possible
outcomes before responding in haste.
• W rite in upper and lower case. U PPER C ASE
ON LY looks like SH OU T IN G and lower
case only is difficult to read.
• Avoid abbreviations. “pls fwd pod atn amy
asap” may make perfect sense to a seasoned
employee in a delivery company but would be
meaningless to anyone else. (Please forward
proof-of-delivery to the attention of Amy as
soon as possible) Even if the receiver knows
familiar abbreviations the complete words are
still easier to read.
• Be concise. Brief, well-written notes usually
have far more impact than those filled with
unneeded extra verbiage. Well placed line
spacing can also emphasize information and
make e-mail notes much easier to read.
• Avoid smileys (or emoticons as they are some-
times called. People don’t read with their
heads sideways to the monitor. And anyway,
they’re confusing. What does this mean? ~:-)-
C urly headed guy with a cigarette in his
mouth? I don’t know either. People either
love emoticons or hate them. M ost netiquette
articles actually promote their limited use to
help replace facial expressions and other
body language. A few emoticons are easy to
understand. M ost are not. Even those which
are clear – a smile :-) and a frown :-( need to
be viewed in context, as smiles and frowns
can be used for satire. C ontext and word
choice are much better ways to relay feeling.
• Don’t flame. T his is a good place for the
golden rule. Respond to others in e-mail
conversations the same as if the conversation
were face-to-face. Flames are insults or crude
remarks sent to other network users. Flames
take focus away from the substance of a
discussion.
• Don’t take offense easily. Some messages are
not sent to tease or deride. Just because
someone comments on how nice the weather
happens to be in his part of the world that day
he is not necessarily chiding the other parts of
the world for having less favorable weather.
• Don’t evangelize. It is much better to offer a
humble opinion and write with reason and
 Netiquette
Larry Scheuermann and Gary Taylor
diplomacy than to preach. As Reverend Bob
C rispen (1996) put it: “Everyone is tempted
from time to time to evangelize, to stride
boldly into the enemy’s camp and throw
down the gauntlet. We will never see the end
of people who pop up on comp.sys.intel
praising M acs and Amigas; who send mail to
the SKEPT IC list that flying saucers really,
truly do exist; who enlighten the Buddhist
groups that they’re all bound for hell, and on
and on.”
• K now the audience. M ost news groups have
their own expectations. Reading a news
group a while before posting to it is good
advice.
Netiquette rules for advertising
In the first days of the Internet advertising was
prohibited. T he Acceptable U se Policy of the
N ational Science Foundation excluded all
forms of advertising. T he more recent C om-
mercial Information Exchange in its Acceptable
U se Policy does not have this prohibition
(G unn, 1994). StarD ate Publishing (1996)
offers several suggested rules for the kind of
advertising which is generally not acceptable to
online services and users of the Internet. Two of
StarD ate’s “rules” are:
Rule # 1: N ever place blatant advertisements in
N ews groups unless that group is
specifically for advertising purposes.
G enerally, this means that ads can
only be placed in some sort of classi-
fied section.
Rule # 2: N ever e-mail information to people
who have not requested it. Sending
junk mail is the most cardinal of sins
on any network!
Both of these “rules” were challenged not long
ago by the law firm C anter & Siegel. C anter &
Siegel sent mass mailings over the Internet to
over 5,000 online discussion groups (Jecht,
1994). T he result was anger by many recipients.
Some, annoyed by C anter & Siegel’s breach of
netiquette norms, themselves breached neti-
quette rules in retaliation. Some sent “mail
bombs” (large files of useless data) to C anter &
Siegel. Others requested information hoping the
mailings would increase the law firm’s cost
(Kelly, 1996).
271
Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy
Volume 7 · Number 4 · 1997 · 269–273
Promotion of desirable netiquette
T he debate over C anter & Siegel’s unabashed
disregard for etiquette norms highlights a
debate which is as unsettled today as it was in
1994 when the infamous postings took place.
Who, if anyone, will control what is and is not
permitted on the Internet? A partial answer is
that no one can “control” the netiquette of
millions of users, but online service providers
and employers can “promote” desirable
netiquette.
Influence of online service providers
Service providers set their own rules about who
may or may not have accounts. Account privi-
leges may be revoked if behavior is in violation
of the service provider’s policy. T his is what
happened to the law firm, C anter & Siegel,
mentioned earlier. T hey lost their service
provider accounts. T his may be the only reason
C anter & Siegel stopped the ads. It was surely
not because they felt any personal grief at violat-
ing a netiquette rule. As quoted from an article
written by Paul J. Kelly (1996):
H ere’s what they wrote in their book, H ow to M ake
a Fortune on the Information S uperhighway: Along
your journey, someone may try to tell you that in
order to be a good N et “citizen” you must follow
the rules of the C yberspace community. D on’t
listen. T he only laws with which you should
concern yourself are those passed by the country,
state, and city in which you truly live. T he only
ethics you should adopt as you pursue wealth on
the I-way are those dictated by the religious faith
you have chosen to follow and your own good
conscience.
M ost Internet Service Providers have an
“Acceptable U se Policy” which defines what is
expected from the user in exchange for the
service provided. Violations of the acceptable
use policy may result in loss of service privileges.
M ultiN et (1996) has posted their Acceptable
U se Policy for access on the Internet. In addition
to dropping accounts, some providers set up
“cancelbots” which can delete posts which have
been sent to a large number of unrelated groups
(Kelly, 1996). Aside from the debate which
surrounds having someone other than the origi-
nator canceling posts, it is doubtful that cancel-
bots will stop all who are intent on breaching a
netiquette rule for their one personal gain.
 Netiquette
Larry Scheuermann and Gary Taylor
Influence of employers
Employers who offer their employees access to
noncompany networks generally also set stan-
dards for Internet use. Wagner (1996) says that
pornography and hate speech are usually pro-
hibited. Airborne Express (1996) allows Inter-
net access but reminds employees:
Access to networks that are world-wide in nature
expose Airborne to potential liability for every
inappropriate E-mail message sent. Employees
with access to this business tool must use it appro-
priately. Inappropriate use of E-mail can:
• harm Airborne’s public image, potentially
resulting in loss of business
• disclose confidential information
• defame customers, competitors, or employees
• violate customers’ or employees’ privacy and
other rights
• expose Airborne to allegations of improper
discrimination, business practices, or
employment practices
• disrupt computer systems through excessive
volumes, disclosure of information in E-mail
which aids hackers, and other factors.
T he E-mail system exists for the sole purpose of
facilitating the business of Airborne Express. All E-
mail messages are company property and Airborne
reserves the right to monitor E-mail messages.
Employers are one group which can effectively
set rules of conduct and see to it that the rules are
followed. As one K-M art employee found when
he linked his home page to his employer’s home
page. T his might not have been a problem,
reports Wagner (1996) if he had not also linked a
site which “spoofed the controversy over Internet
pornography” to his own home page. T he links
tied users of the K-M art home page to a site
which did not reflect K-M art’s standards. T he
result in this case was the employee was fired.
Florida Atlantic U niversity (1996) has been a
leader in defining acceptable and unacceptable
behavior for employees and students. T he FAU
“C ode of C omputing Practice” is offered as a
standard which is available from the Florida
Atlantic U niversity home page for free distribu-
tion to other employers and institutions.
Florida Atlantic U niversity encourages its
students to act in “an ethical, responsible, and
polite manner” when working with “computer-
mediated communications.” By being able to
threaten disciplinary action, expulsion, termina-
tion, or prosecution there is a good probability
its students and employees will behave while
working on university equipment.
272
Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy
Volume 7 · Number 4 · 1997 · 269–273
Influence of governments
F raud and the distribution of child pornogra-
phy are crimes regardless of the technology
used, and governments are becoming increas-
ingly involved in trying to curb the use of the
Internet by criminals (H olt, 1995). Even
though police debate methods and lawmakers
argue over jurisdictions, it is generally felt that,
even in cyberspace, governments will have
some influence over the most grievous neti-
quette violations.
Conclusion
While online service providers, employers, and
governments each encourage good N et behav-
ior by punishing major netiquette breaches, it is
the individual users who play the biggest role in
encouraging netiquette standards of politeness
and courtesy. A user who does not write con-
cisely will have fewer readers than one who
does. A “flame-thrower” may get a kick out of
tossing out a personal insult only to find that his
subsequent messages are deleted before they
are read. An advertiser may receive scores of
requests for additional literature and find out
later that most requests were from uninterested
online users who were upset about receiving
unsolicited ads in their electronic mail boxes.
N etiquette breaches do not always bring retri-
bution. M ost breaches of politeness and cour-
tesy may do no more than reflect poorly on the
individual user. One who knows the rules of
this new culture may well have an advantage
over one who does not.
References and further reading
Airborne Freight Corporation (1996), from an internal
Airborne memo on electronic mail usage policy,
5 August.
Brakeman, L. (1995), “ E-mail Lists are the Ultimate Electronic
Penpals,” Managed Healthcare, Vol. 5, July, p. 50.
Crispen, Rev. B. (1996), Crispen’s ROADMAP: Netiquette.
Quoted by his son Patrick Crispen in an article also
titled Netiquette. available: http://www.duke.edu/
~alok/English/map.htm.
Ellsworth, J.H. and Ellsworth, M.V. (1996), “Acceptable and
unacceptable uses of the Internet,” The Internet
Business Book, available: http://www.oak-ridge.com/
ibbch4pl.html.
 Netiquette
Larry Scheuermann and Gary Taylor
Ethics and the Internet. RFC1087 (1989), Internet Activities
Board, available: http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/htbin/
rfc/rfc1087.html.
Florida Atlantic University Code of Computing Practice,
(1996), Computing Ethics, available: http://www.fau.
edu:80/irm/aiss/gtit/c_ethics.htm.
GCICUsnet Help: Netiquette (1996), Netiquette or How to
Avoid Being Flamed, available: http://ecco.bsee.
swin….usenet/netiquette.html.
Gunn, A. (1994), “ The importance of Netiquette,” Byte,
March, p. 32.
Holt, M. (1995), “ For adults only,” New Scientist, July,
pp. 25-7.
Jecht, J. (1994), “ Lawyers’ ad challenges rules of
‘Netiquette“ ’, New Scientist, July, p. 19.
Kelly, P. J. (1996), “ Netiquette and Nethics” from Back to
Netropolitan Life, Mind your Manners, available:
http://www-home.calumet.yorku.ca/pkelly/www/
nquette.htm.
MultiNet: Acceptable Use Policy (1996), Available http://
www.multinet.net/policy.html.
Net Etiquette (1996), Available: gopher://trout.nosc.
mil:70/00/.computer-info/E-mail/netiquette.
273
Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy
Volume 7 · Number 4 · 1997 · 269–273
Netcom On-Line Communication Services (1996), Netiquette,
available: http://wfn-shop.prince. ..cript?query=
netiquette.
Netiquette (1996), available: http://www.engin.umich…
usenet/Netiquette.html.
Netiquette Guidelines (1996), RFC1855, Internet Activities
Board, available: http://arganet.tenagra.com/ Tena-
gra/rfc1855.html.
Rinaldi, A. (1996a), The Ten Commandments for Computer
Ethics from the Computer Ethics Institute. The Net:
User Guidelines and Netiquette, available: http://www.
fau.edu/rinaldi/net/ten.html.
Rinaldi, A. (1996b), World Wide Web. The Net: User Guide-
lines and Netiquette, available: http://www.fau.edu/
rinaldi/net/web.html.
Shea, V. (1996), Netiquette, Albion Books, San Francisco, CA,
Internet Samples, available: http://bookfair.com/Ser-
vices/Albion/bookNetiquette/0963702513p83.html. &
http://bookfair.com/Services/albion/samNetiquette/096
3702513sam1.html.
StarDate (1996), Netiquette – Advertising, available:
http://www.en.utexas.e…erce/stardate.html#Net.
Wagner, M. (1996), “ Firms spell out appropriate use of Internet
for employees,” Computerworld, February, pp. 58-9.