Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eliza Jane Darling on June 10, 2009 at 1:12am

Keith, I don't see how an Open Anthropology gets built through laying out the rules by which people don't belong, and then disingenuously open it up to "discussion."

How about, "Current Admin [insert link to that structure, given that you're so committed to transparency] have decided on this initial policy for the reasons briefly outlined above, but invite debate about this point." And then provide a period during which those who would like to debate can make their case in their current incarnation.

Permalink Reply by Francine Barone on June 10, 2009 at 1:38am

Eliza,

Transparent statement on current admin to follow very soon. It will be prominently located. There's some basic information on my profile if you're interested. The period for debate and discussion is now, so please proceed.

Forgive me, but I think your suggested statement reads an awful lot like Keith's own. I want the OAC to be open to anyone, but the sentiment above, which I agree with, is that if you've come here to hide away and not to communicate with others, then perhaps this is not where you want to be.

As I probably mentioned in the thread leading up to this one, I'm open to different opinions on the matter, but I appreciate the ability to address people by name (if nothing else, it's polite) and to know who I'm communicating with. I hope that our discussions here can lead to new relationships, professional and/or friendly, and collaboration both inside and outside of this platform. In that respect, knowing each others' names helps this feel more like a community than just another impersonal exchange.

That, and screen names are so 1998.

Fran



Eliza Jane Darling said:

Keith, I don't see how an Open Anthropology gets built through laying out the rules by which people don't belong, and then disingenuously open it up to "discussion."
How about, "Current Admin [insert link to that structure, given that you're so committed to transparency] have decided on this initial policy for the reasons briefly outlined above, but invite debate about this point." And then provide a period during which those who would like to debate can make their case in their current incarnation.

Permalink Reply by Eliza Jane Darling on June 10, 2009 at 2:28am

There are a couple of differences between Keith's statement and mine. In the first place, I suggest the royal "we" be explained and exposed. I'm glad to hear that's forthcoming, if it's all a bit New Labour (we'll fix it, guv, honest, see the latest white paper). In the second, there's nothing in my statement suggesting any iteration of the seemingly benign but frankly snotty suggestion that perhaps this isn't the place for you if you disagree with the grand edict I've just pronounced, which I've heard too often in this place in the last few days - thus far from Philip, Keith, and now you. I think it's important to support this contention by pointing out the sources because these vague comments about people being "nasty" (your term) and "captious" (Keith's term) - both from the intellectual property thread - have been offered in general but leveled at no one in particular, which I think leaves everyone who would engage in contentious debate wondering which one(s) of us are the nasty and captious contributors. Was it me? Max? Philip? We can all take it, I assure you.

If this place is really open, then it will consider the possibility that genuine contributors (as opposed to spammers) have reasons for "hiding" their alleged identities (the acknowledgment of the absurdity of the gender specification is already an indication of that), and invite frank and open comment, rather than talking out both sides of the administrative mouth by suggesting that people "don't belong" and subsequently inviting them to "defend" their voluntary membership. Anyone who invites people to an "open" forum without anticipating (inviting! relishing!) contention about what "open" means is shooting themselves in the foot. Geez, how does the slightest bit of dissent wind up being such a big deal?

Anyway I've had some wicked screen names, all of them related linguistically. Fun with language, and all. It's funny how you seem to be committed to individual choice (again from your comments on the intellectual property thread) but vastly suspicious of the choices people might make.

Francine Barone said:

Eliza,
Transparent statement on current admin to follow very soon. It will be prominently located. There's some basic information on my profile if you're interested. The period for debate and discussion is now, so please proceed.
Forgive me, but I think your suggested statement reads an awful lot like Keith's own. I want the OAC to be open to anyone, but the sentiment above, which I agree with, is that if you've come here to hide away and not to communicate with others, then perhaps this is not where you want to be.

As I probably mentioned in the thread leading up to this one, I'm open to different opinions on the matter, but I appreciate the ability to address people by name (if nothing else, it's polite) and to know who I'm communicating with. I hope that our discussions here can lead to new relationships, professional and/or friendly, and collaboration both inside and outside of this platform. In that respect, knowing each others' names helps this feel more like a community than just another impersonal exchange.

That, and screen names are so 1998.

Fran



Eliza Jane Darling said:

Keith, I don't see how an Open Anthropology gets built through laying out the rules by which people don't belong, and then disingenuously open it up to "discussion."
How about, "Current Admin [insert link to that structure, given that you're so committed to transparency] have decided on this initial policy for the reasons briefly outlined above, but invite debate about this point." And then provide a period during which those who would like to debate can make their case in their current incarnation.

Permalink Reply by Eliza Jane Darling on June 10, 2009 at 4:05am

Good points about the complexity of it, Stace. I don't actually know the particular reasons why some are reticent to offer their full identities, though I can make an educated guess, but there's at least one I can think of whose writing I've only recently found but really respect. I'd be sorry to see that person go, and happy to see them contribute more.

Why not find out why before suggesting they don't belong here?

Permalink Reply by Kathleen Lowrey on June 10, 2009 at 5:35am

Eliza -- I think we are finding out more; no one has shut this discussion down, after all. Stacie, I agree with you that some people might not want to use their names and one can easily imagine good reasons for this (perhaps they are an adjunct at a religious institution that would fire them for participating in a conversation about feminist anthropology).
However, I also have the impression that the OAC was established to be something other than a discussion forum, and people can start their own blogs, or participate in other blogs, under pseudonyms if they are after safe conversation (and I am not disdainful of that aim -- it's really important on feminist blogs for women to be able to talk about their experiences with sexual assault or abortion using pseudonyms, for example).
My sense, though, is that OAC is not that kind of project, but instead one intended to connect people in ways that allows them to find one another not just here but in the everyday world, too. There are risks to that, and asking people who sign up for OAC to use their real names is a way of making those risks clear. If you can't risk someone contacting you about, say, a political or even disciplinary initiative that is first proposed here -- and some people are in positions that they really can't risk this -- this might *not* be the right place for you. Not because you aren't welcome, but because no one here can protect you in the ways you might need protecting and it would be misleading to suggest otherwise.
Finally, I do think just for conversational purposes it will keep the tone gentler than it sometimes becomes in pseudonymous spaces (feminist blogs work very hard at this; the comments sections on many other blogs are mostly nasty free-fire zones). Especially with volunteer admins, asking them to do the work to patrol for trolls (and they will come, and there will be more of them if they can use pseudonyms, and they can make discussions hopeless) -- well, I myself haven't signed up to be a volunteer admin, I'm just grateful others are willing and able, and I don't want to advocate a policy that definitely will make that job much more difficult

Permalink Reply by Paul Wren on June 10, 2009 at 6:08am

Eliza,

You are right that members of this site should know who the mysterious admins are, and Keith has posted the names of all administrators here under the Admins thread of the OAC Policy Forum. Anyone who wishes to contact any of us for any reason should definitely feel free to do so.

All six of us are happy to contribute our extra time to keeping this site afloat. I am personally drafting some additional content which will provide more information about the current admins and the site in general (an "About" page), but I've been very busy with both work and family obligations, and it is not yet ready for prime time.

I want to make it clear that I agree with earlier sentiments from Keith that the admins of this site should do as little as possible. It should be as open as possible, and require little policing.

Should every considered policy be floated as a proposal, allowing for comment by the whole? That's certainly something we can discuss.

As administrators, we have two very different categories of duties:

1. Keeping the site working. This might mean providing assistance on the OAC Help forum, reformatting unwieldy forum threads, deploying better content and better-organized menus, etc.

2. Policing the site. This could be determining what content is or isn't appropriate, and removing the inappropriate content; identifying user who are abusing the system or other users, and taking disciplinary action (warnings, banishment??); creating and enforcing general rules for the site.

I think we can all agree that #1 is pretty uncontroversial, although members could complain if support is not timely enough (we are volunteers, after all).

It is the second item that is causing all the trouble, since the admins are trying to identify reasonable policies on the fly and then enforcing them. What are the alternatives? If the membership doesn't trust the admin team to act reasonably and fairly, it won't work well. If the entire membership must be involved in determining the site's policies, it might take a month to reach consensus.

I am eagerly awaiting any ideas from you and the other readers of this forum about how we should approach #2.


thx, Paul


Eliza Jane Darling said:

How about, "Current Admin [insert link to that structure, given that you're so committed to transparency] have decided on this initial policy for the reasons briefly outlined above, but invite debate about this point." And then provide a period during which those who would like to debate can make their case in their current incarnation.

Permalink Reply by Eliza Jane Darling on June 10, 2009 at 9:31am

You don't need to wait, I already gave my (relatively minor) suggestion: stop using weaselly language like "perhaps you don't belong here," at least if you're going to keep banging on about how "open" it all is. Language counts. Do I really need to explain that to anthropologists?

As to "Should every considered policy be floated as a proposal, allowing for comment by the whole," I thought that's what this group was for. Keith said on the "about" thread: "Let the people take over! To help out with that, we have a small team of administrators and an OAC Policy Forum where you can participate in shaping the Cooperative’s development." If you don't want stuff floated as a proposal, what's it doing here? It seems you don't even agree amongst yourselves, never mind getting "the entire membership" on board.

Anyway, that's as much time as I have for it. The problem isn't one issue like the language above, it's a slow but steady build-up of an extremely conservative, proprietary tone that belies grand statements like "The most important word in our title is the first. Open access, open membership, open to sharing new ideas, open to whatever the organization might do or become; open to everyone, as in ‘open source’." I think it's the most important word too, in the sense that it's not true. Best of luck "helping the people take over," but I'll bet you dollars to donuts that no old structures will be "palpably falling" around here, at least not faster than you can build them back up.

Thanks for the original invite though, and for hearing me out.

Permalink Reply by Paul Wren on June 12, 2009 at 7:20pm

Dylan,

I have no doubt that many of us are disappointed with various aspects of the OAC. When we approach something new, we usually create expectations that are ultimately not met. I'm disappointed that so few archaeologists are here. I'm disappointed that people have so drastically misread my actions and intentions while trying to get the infrastructure in place. I'm disappointed that so much energy is going into arguments about what this place is or is not, and so little into talking about the things that it was create for. I'm disappointed that the Ning platform is so limiting in many ways.

Still, what are we going to do with this place? I agree with your position that people should not feel inhibited or stifled by the overt or implied tone of others. How do we as admins stop that?

Even though I know the other admins only through e-mail and this site, I truly believe we are all sincere in our efforts to let the site becomes whatever it will become, not what WE want it to become. What can we do as admins to demonstrate that this is true? Speaking only for myself, I would gladly step down and let any of the critics take my spot-- I have no ownership here. I volunteered to do it because someone needs to. And while I'm still willing to do it, I'm asking all those who are dissatisfied to please provide some guidance regarding what you would like to see me do as an admin.

Thanks for sharing your views, and for sticking around.


Paul



Dylan Kerrigan said:

spot on Eliza, i think your observations are valid.

this open cooperative is becoming the play thing of a select view who comment often with a pseudo tone of authority which is unbecoming of what i personally was hoping for. From real-world conversations i have had about the project with colleagues many have joined yet are disinclined to post anything because they feel the language, tone and what they say must fit a certain style and ritualised form they were hoping to get away from. I know when i started a group the wording and tone i used was decidedly not how my field is currently expressed.

As shape, form and purpose of this cooperative is being established its falling back on old certainties brought by a select few. I for one dont agree with the 'about' statement and while you can say it was offered for consultation, you put it out there and asked for us to comment. Defining our roles as we interact. Your conception of open anthropology and also the use/possibilities of new technologies/connections isnt my conception either.

its all a little disappointing. I dont think its individuals deliberately trying to hijack anything just implicit viewpoints and positionally which hasnt been checked, unloaded or left at the door. 'we' are certainly not a 'we' in the sense the about statement implies - and i dont think its fair all members are being coopted by such phraseology either.

Im still sticking around and i appreciate your time and effort, nonetheless my personal opinion is some have perceived (or rather have not perceived) their roles and power in ways which will lead this cooperative in a direction that will ultimately fail what are no doubt noble sentiments.

Oh, furthermore making people have a 'personal name' is not something i agree with either

Permalink Reply by Jason Baird Jackson on June 12, 2009 at 9:25pm

I can imagine some motivations for people not using the same names under which they live and, importantly here, work, but I support a policy that strongly encourages people to use their actual names. This is a key aspect of scholarly communication and my main hope is that OAC can be a tool for extending and improving the genres, norms, effectiveness and collaborative-ness of scholarly communication. Author name is among the most central pieces of "metadata" that we have in this regard.

Permalink Reply by Eliza Jane Darling on June 12, 2009 at 10:15pm

Right, but "we" as scholars aren't really much of a "we," nor (I take it) is this place only meant for scholars. Kathleen and Stacie, for example, have both evoked instances in which pseudonyms are critical for the continuation of any sort of meaningful dialogue. I don't think it takes too much ethnographic imagination to figure out others.

It seems to me there are two issues at stake. One is that of spamming, of people who would tap any old website to push a commodity. Having never administered a site like this I can't speak with any expertise, so I'll leave that for the moment, as I think it's the least of your worries, though clearly a bothersome one.

The more important issue is the political stance on open identity. I've heard the arguments, for example from Jason and Fran, and on the surface they would seem to make sense. "I don't need to hide my identity, I'm willing and able to be open, so why shouldn't others think the same?" But that logic appears normative and logical within a certain context - namely, one which weighs the "risk" of open identity according to the standards to which those who are already afforded transparency are accustomed - in which there would seem to be no particular reasons (other than nefarious ones) to hide one's identity. Think like an ethnographer. Some write in this world at their own risk, and though the medium may be relatively new, the principle isn't. Not everyone has the luxury of "scholarly communication," and it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to recognise this.

As for metadata - do you really need to reproduce the political calculus of the state? Why do you need "metadata?" If the motivations of those who can't or don't care to provide your metadata are significant enough for you to imagine, then what's your motivation for trying to collect it?

And certainly my hope for OAC isn't the same. Extending extant genres and norms? Why? That's not open anthropology, that's imperial anthropology.

Jason Baird Jackson said:

I can imagine some motivations for people not using the same names under which they live and, importantly here, work, but I support a policy that strongly encourages people to use their actual names. This is a key aspect of scholarly communication and my main hope is that OAC can be a tool for extending and improving the genres, norms, effectiveness and collaborative-ness of scholarly communication. Author name is among the most central pieces of "metadata" that we have in this regard.

Permalink Reply by Paul Wren on June 12, 2009 at 11:35pm

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Dylan.

I can't find a single thing you've said with which I disagree. As admins, we sort of came in after the fact-- Keith simply created the Ning network, and it quickly took on a life of its own. The structure we have at the moment is almost entirely defined/constrained by the features Ning provides and the way it provides them. For almost all intents and purposes, we are letting it run.

I certainly see that even the few rules we've put forth (using one's own name, avoiding personal attacks, no spamming, no pornography) may be off-putting to some, but I don't believe that for the most part they shape the nature of our discourse here.

Still, I want to acknowledge some valid points made by Eliza and others that there are some legitimate reasons to not use your real name. Perhaps, as is done in ethnographic work, people who need to keep their real identity from appearing could simply use a real-looking pseudonym. As an administrator, I would not know (we certainly don't attempt to validate anyone's identity), nor would I care.

As for personal attacks, hate speech, and flaming: I would say that offense is something taken, not given. Someone may be attempting to communicate legitimately in this easily-misunderstood medium of written text, and still have others believe they are way out of bounds. How do we deal with that? Or perhaps, should we deal with that? There are some websites/blogs that allow open, anonymous comments, and are constantly bombarded by hate speech and personal attacks. Do we want that? If not, what should we do about it?

Here's the bottom line for me: If it isn't working for some people, let's see if we can find a way to make constructuve changes. I'm not just open to that-- it is my goal.

Paul

Dylan Kerrigan said:

hi Paul, my apologies if it appears i am criticising anyone's sincerity. That was not my intention, and i realise everyone is making an effort from their own particular vista. And the problems of having these conversations in cyberspace with its drawbacks is a current obstacle.
The essence which most scares me about the project is illustrated in the comment left below my previous one - "my main hope is that OAC can be a tool for extending and improving the genres, norms, effectiveness and collaborative-ness of scholarly communication."
Scholarly communication is not what i think would make this endeavour open. it just establishes the discord some may feel about being herded in a certain direction. Norms, genres, effectiveness, collaborative-ness - who's Norms, genres, effectiveness and collaborative-ness? These are certainly not notions and styles to take for granted. And to reproduce the ones which are most accepted in the Academy is precisely why only some voices truly engage in the OAC space as it is presently constructed. Ultimately, you'll get some useful online networks - but nothing close to open anthropology as various people might define it.

From a personal point of view the conversations i would like to have would perhaps at a time be scholarly communication but i would hope that would be but a small type of the conversations possible. Reproducing the tone and feel of academia - and a Euro-American vista too with all its hegemonic concepts - is like asking many of us to run and hide.

We all jump through hoops everyday in our working lives why would i want to jump through those hoops again online?

I think perhaps the admin set up, the interests some people have, the differences we all contain and share need to be up for discussion. Form has been put to this enterprise, for me, way too early, and it shows. A more hands off approach. With less institutionalized reproduction - i guess many cant help it they just go into academia mode craving structure - and i think the noble values and sincerity of the project would be better achieved. However, things have moved so fast that has not been considered a valid way for the network to emerge. Instead through the architecture of NING itself and then the tendencies of our institutional training the cooperative is certainly not liberating. Its more neo-colonial.

None of these comments are directed at any individuals but rather at the way process develops and then becomes the norm. my suggestion is less structure more let it run.

Permalink Reply by Francine Barone on June 13, 2009 at 12:00pm

Eliza,

I commented above and on another thread that my personal preference would be to have a name from members to go along with their text. I emphasize yet again that it's a personal preference. I just noticed early on that one thing which made conversation on the OAC unique for me, and different from my other web-based encounters, was that people openly shared their names and photos, inspired by a growing community sentiment. Not only that, but I encountered people whose work I had admired from afar, names and faces I recognized, and was able to put together things/places/people I had read about or discovered in my journeys through the blogosphere. It was more than a little refreshing to have formal barriers effaced.

I've moderated a few sites and fora on a variety of topics. Some were easier to regulate than others; some responded to a hands-on approach, some to a more laissez-faire attitude. Most were from a time when screennames and handles made up of numbers and symbols proliferated. The anonymity was supposed to be liberating, but it risked becoming disorienting and fragmenting. Rather than simply removing the fear of being tracked down by undesirable observers, it also removed the feeling of any responsibility whatsoever for one's actions or statements vis a vis other members. Again, this is from my own subjective experience. (We all have some to share at the going rate of .02 per unit.)

As for the recognition that not all members wish to have their identities revealed, I have often mentioned both on this site and in external communication regarding the OAC, that what we say here is public and indexed by Google. I, personally, am hyper-aware of this reality. I also engage in a great deal of web-based research where I encourage collaboration by research participants. I invest a lot of time explaining the possible risks inherent in revealing one's identity on the Internet. It's something I take seriously. The ethical issues are as complicated as in any other field of anthropology.

I would therefore respectfully disagree when you attribute to me the comment, "I don't need to hide my identity, I'm willing and able to be open, so why shouldn't others think the same?" That's misleading. I never said that. I entirely understand why someone would not want to reveal their own name on a universally visible website, because, actually, I am often one of those people. I, too, have reasons to want to cover/control/moderate my identity on the web. However, by joining this site, I committed myself to a level of openness. I wouldn't feel right about using a pseudonym here and even less so having been given the opportunity to act as admin for a while. How could I expect people to trust in my commitment to this site if I hadn't even revealed my identity to them? Perhaps that is why I also hope that - having relinquished my own usual inhibitions - those without a reason not to would at least consider doing the same.

To clarify, I am okay with relative anonymity in usernames, but I am not necessarily okay with "hiding". Here's my own mental distinction that you may find numerous faults with at your leisure: Using semi-anonymity as cover or protection for an existing identity in order to enable one to speak and communicate freely and to engage with the community here without fear or concern is a fair argument. On the other hand, hiding so that you needn't be held responsible for your actions, to commit to what you're saying, or, in other words, masking your persona in order to 'take' from a community without 'giving' in equal measure, I find that unethical in this type of forum: one based on sharing and collaborating. If a visitor to this site has no desire to share, they are free to read the publicly visible content without even registering.

I'd like to note once again that it is a very small minority of people who have chosen to withhold their real names, so this is mostly a non-problem. As Paul mentions above, just a name is sufficient for me. I'm not going to check up on it. I'd just prefer to leave out numbers, symbols and AIM-style nicknames. Since the preference for full names seems to be okay with 99% of members, setting the precedent that member names be actual names and not something cutesy or cryptic presents a more straightforward admin response when a member named KittyLover, jdkw28483 or HotStuff99 joins. Or are monikers like that okay?

On another subject, when I first wrote about the OAC in its early days (before Ning), I expressed my desire for it to attract non-academics and even non-anthropologists as well as members of the discipline. However, I think we should recognize, before eschewing any connection to academia and scholarship on this site, that anthropology is a field which one is most likely exposed to through higher education or specialist literature. It is not a common household word. The original members of this site were academics, who invited their friends and colleagues who happened to be - surprise - academic anthropologists. If we want to expand our member pool to include non-anthropologists and non-academics, we can do so. This will naturally diversify the kind of content found here and I look forward to that. In the meantime, I don't see why we should cringe when the world 'scholar' is mentioned.

For my last repetitive statement of the day, it seems that every time there is an open discussion regarding the OAC, the "opinions" of those who happen to be admins is highlighted as the position to be fought against. We are then accused of taking too much control. In my own mind, probably as a result of my experience with moderating other sites, I see admins as members with extra duties, not members with extra rights. In that way, we are responsible to other members. When I put an idea forward to be discussed, I'm not asking for approval. I really do want to hear other opinions.

Thanks.

Fran

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page