Comments on: Making assumptions in the online medium and a mea culpa

By: Meredith

Meredith — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:49:08 +0000

Steve, I totally understand your feeling about what Stephen Abram wrote. My mea culpa was in response to a private e-mail sent to me by Stephen about what I’d written. At first I’d felt very badly about what I wrote, but then I started to think about how easy it was to misinterpret what he wrote and how the author also should have some responsibility in the matter if their post is intentionally vague. If you look at the post I wrote subsequent to the Mea Culpa post http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/index.php/2006/01/27/on-being-vague-in-the-online-medium-with-no-apology/, you’ll see that I put a large part of the blame for the whole “misunderstanding” squarely on his shoulders and railed against people who write negative things in a vague way and then hide behind “that’s not what I meant” when someone calls them on it. I do think it’s easy to misunderstand people’s intentions online, especially when we don’t really know the person, but I also think that bloggers should endeavor not to be vague and have only themselves to blame when someone misconstrues a vague post.

By: Steve Oberg (Family Man Librarian)

Steve Oberg (Family Man Librarian) — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:49:26 +0000

Meredith, I posted a comment to your original — as you described it, “snarky” — reaction to Stephen Abram’s post, without realizing that you had apologized and misunderstood his intentions in this post. I read this post today and thought it best to comment here in further response. I’m left wondering if there is a part of the “conversation” that I’ve missed and continue to miss. Anyway, I agree that it is easy to misinterpret what is written, perhaps hastily written, in a blog entry. Same goes for email. That calls for more careful attention to the tone and attitude of the words being used. I’m as guilty as the next person on this one. However, accepting that I, too, misinterpreted that post…why then is there no further response or clarification given to my comment? This is at least part of why I tended to think negatively about the whole thing.

By: walt

walt — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:56:19 +0000

Well, now, Meredith: If you put it that way, how can I disagree? I might refine that just a little–that is, if the area under discussion is informed by specialized education within the ML[I]S, then the degree holder speaks with slightly more authority–but in general you’re right.

But I’d have to say that, wouldn’t I? If you posit that ML[I]S-holders are vastly more qualified to speak on anything remotely related to librarianship, I’d have to stop writing.

By: Meredith

Meredith — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:14:32 +0000

Walt, I actually didn’t phrase that as I’d meant to (I was writing it quickly first thing in the morning, trying to get it done before a 9:00 meeting). What I meant to say is that I got the sense that you were bothered by the stance that the ideas of those who have MLS’ are somehow more valid than the ideas of those in the profession who don’t. That’s what I’d meant to say, but of course I wasn’t thinking as clearly as I’d have liked.

And yes, you did apologize back then and I hadn’t let it bother me since. I was just using it as an example of how much we can read into the things other people write, or, in that case, a simple mistaken omission.

By: Simon

Simon — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 05:36:48 +0000

I also reacted fairly negatively to Stephen’s post, mainly because I felt it was a blanket criticism that damned everyone who wasn’t a L2.0 cheerleader. I’d probably have reacted a lot less strongly if Stephen had linked to specific examples – I don’t think I’ve seen any posts where people were personally attacked, so it felt like he was generalising about everyone who had been sceptical of L 2.0.

For some reason it seems as though L 2.0 is an issue that produces strong emotional responses all round. As a result, it seems to me that many people on both sides are perceiving attacks where none were intended, becoming defensive and responding with attacks of their own. Many of us (definitely including me) need to remember the old “if you’re angry, wait half an hour before posting” rule.

By: walt

walt — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:34:12 +0000

“I’m going to take a leap here and say that, based on what he’s written in the past, the whole “people with an MLS are the only REAL librarians” is a sore subject with Walt.”

Oddly enough, that’s not true–and if my comments on the incident were bitter or irritable, I must have been having a really bad day. I apologize, if a few months too late. I typically say “I’m a library professional, but I’m not a professional librarian,” and as an ALA member I’m comfortable with having “librarian” preserved for those with ML[I]S degrees.

Now, as for Abram’s post…well, I guess I need to go see how the comments have grown. I sure read it as “Discussion is fine as long as it’s one-sided discussion,” but, of course, since he never mentioned me or C&I I couldn’t possibly imagine that it might be in any context intended as a blind criticism… (No, I still don’t use emoticons)

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:35:27 +0000

The written form is a fraught medium; written communication is so often simply meaning stripped of context. Blogs are even more problematic because they often involve a more conversational style, usually in an effort to encourage commenting and to improve readability. In being so they can easily be misinterpreted (or at least reinterpreted in an unexpected way).

As a commenter and erratic blogger I have yet to find a solution to this, though expressing oneself well to begin with undoubtedly helps. Emoticons can seem a little silly but at least they flag when humour is at play.

Tangognat’s comment regarding specificity is salient but I sometimes wonder if being too targeted in one’s points can come across as being slightly aggressive. It’s a fine line between being on-point and being interrogative, that’s for sure.

Or have I entirely misunderstood what your post was about?

By: Steve Lawson

Steve Lawson — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:12:51 +0000

Count me as another one who thinks that being specific helps in these matters; I guess we all at least admire the fact that Meredith went ahead and snarked Stephen Abram specifically rather than saying “a certain prominent Canadian, Mr. A____,” even if she regrets it now.

And as for this: “We all have built up pictures in our heads of the bloggers we’ve never met based their writings.” I think a real photo of Stephen Abram (by Michael “Libraryman” Porter) is worth a thousand words:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/libraryman/56495775/

By: Angel

Angel — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:47:14 +0000

I think a lot of this boils down to making sure one is clear. Given that a lot of blogger are aware of the medium’s limitations that you outline so well, they should know better. Maybe I am a bit more cynical, but I tend to find it “convenient” when someone shoots a few across the bow, gets busted for it, then goes back and simply says, “oh, I did not mean it that way.” Oh really? Now, I am sure a lot of people may in good faith post things that did not sound the way they intended it; however, I am also sure a good number shoot anyways then back down (if you can call it backing down) when caught. And no, I am not saying I am perfect, far from it. However, I do tend to maybe think a bit too much at times about posting something because I worry about how it may be taken. Civility does take some effort, something that unfortunately some people are not willing to do (not as bad in our neck of the blogosphere). Not so much that I give much about what others think, but more worried about those who right away jump to assumptions. Anyhow, as I said, I may be a bit more cynical than most. Best.

By: tangognat

tangognat — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:24:34 +0000

I also think that the only way to avoid misunderstandings is to be as specific as possible. Even though communication on the web often does a poor job of representing tone or emotion, it isn’t possible to read anyone’s mind and know what they meant to say or what they are leaving unsaid.