The trouble with this statement is, that it wasn't really the TEI who created or even "ran" the feed, it was just a tag that people used. The TEIMM website proposed a tag, and people followed it, but it would probably have happened without the suggestion (possible various tags would have been suggested, and all but one would have died out within the first day or so). Anyone who reads the feed and thinks that it's anything but a collection of what *anyone* in the world chooses to say and self-identify with the #tei_09 tag is misunderstanding not only Twitter but the way Web 2.0 works. Not only can we not control this, but nor should we be able to and nor should we want to.
(This same method was used at DH09, and at several other conferences I've attended and/or run, and has been a very useful way to collect reviews and discussions afterwards. If there was trolling or tweckling at tei_09 [I haven't seen it, and I suspect we shouldn't dredge it up here if there was], there certainly wasn't at any of the other hashtags I've followed.)
I'm all for experiment and careful thought, but let's not (a) panic, nor (b) think that this is in our hands. Abuse on the TEI-L or DM-L can (and should) be handled by the listowners, but Twitter is bigger than us. We just need to make clear that what happens under "our" hashtag is not actually our responsibility. In any way.
In any case, as James points out, the DM account announced here is not a hashtag. As far as I can see, no one has tweeted anything under #digitalmedieval yet. (#digitalhumanities gets occasional hits, but I haven't seen any abuse there yet ;-) )
Dan O'Donnell a écrit :
I think myself that it is an area that the dust has yet to settle on: in a sense like the academic listserv 20 years ago. We now generally know how to deal with the perils of lists (trolls, flames, etc.) and it all seems quite usual. But I remember back in the late 1980s and early 1990s that things were very different and listservs seemed quite difficult to manage.
At the TEI, we just ran an experimental tweet feed (or rather, one was proposed and we encouraged people to use it). It got really good reviews from many participants, but there were also a couple of complaints and I worry about how the whole idea of a public metaconversation might affect those who worry, for example, about contributing to mailing lists and the like. I can see how somebody might find the idea of presenting a conference paper very intimidating while subject to instant public comment and criticism.
Obviously an area that still requires experiment and careful thought.
-dan
Lou wrote:
There seems to be quite a backlash on this topic, stateside.
See e.g. http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Tweckling-Twitterfolk-/8895/
James Cummings wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:41, O'Donnell, Dan daniel.odonnell@uleth.ca wrote:
If I might add one comment born of unfortunately hard experience at the TEI: please remember that postings to a dm twitter feed are public and reflect on us as a community. It is easy to end up criticising people more harshly than you realise!
Hello Dan,
Have no fear. Currently the 'DigitalMedieval' twitter feed is set up only to forward DM's news feed (and twitterfeed.com seems to be being highly selective in forgetting to forward some things in any case!) so anything posted has to undergo the same moderation as posting news items (approval by a number of volunteers on the board). As the person who set up the account I can, if necessary, post something manually. In my announcement of it when I suggested that we might add something extra to it during conferences, I was only thinking we might update it with reminders of important digital/medieval sessions or something like that. I don't think anyone would suggest using any of the official DM channels for criticising anyone, at any point!
But otherwise I'd say that what people post on their very own non-official twitter feeds, facebook statuses, blogs, webpages, or bulletin boards is a matter for their own consciences. (It is perhaps interesting to note the different modes of writing people use in such things, compared to email and traditional publication, but that is, of course, a different conversation.)
-James
Digital Medievalist -- http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/ Journal: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/ Journal Editors: editors _AT_ digitalmedievalist.org News: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/news/ Wiki: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/wiki/ Discussion list: dm-l@uleth.ca Change list options: http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l
Digital Medievalist -- http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/ Journal: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/ Journal Editors: editors _AT_ digitalmedievalist.org News: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/news/ Wiki: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/wiki/ Discussion list: dm-l@uleth.ca Change list options: http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l