nothing happened for a long while. So I turned the feed back on. "
(http://tidewatermusings.peterstinson.com/, February 5, 2008) Umm,
why didn't you open the discussion on ISED-L about the issue if the
admins didn't? We are a loosely knit community, but we ARE a
community. Joining the community entails certain responsibilities.
No, you don't HAVE to follow them or even recognize them, but not to
do so brands you as a revolutionary. Being a revolutionary isn't
necessarily bad--the U.S. was founded by a bunch of people who didn't
like the rules, and Martin Luther was instrumental in the reformation
through his 95 Theses nailed to the Wittenberg door--but you want to
be sure that you have CHOSEN to be such.
The "information wants to be free!" school of thought is old-hat and,
just as current IP approaches inadequately considers the public good,
the "everything is public" approach fails to consider the private
good. Your approach and writings suggest that the private good just
didn't matter, particularly when you write "Unsportsmanlike? No.
Presumptuous? Oh, perhaps. " (ibid).
"Even if it is painful, because in the end, it is the right thing to
do for our people, our mission, and our nation. I'd suggest the same
applies to this listserv." Whether it is right or not is open to
debate; we could start with your assertion about "increas[ing] the
pool of knowledge." The concept that knowledge is a "pool" fails to
differentiate knowledge from information and ignores the social
contextual nature of knowledge. That is, I don't know anything
privately; any knowledge I have is public although not necessarily
explicit. Knowledge has a context--it shows in our interactions. If
it doesn't show in my interactions, it's not public, and hence not
knowledge. Publishing a transcript of a conversation or a list is not
knowledge; it's just information. It only becomes knowledge if it
influences interactions apparent to others. Our knowledge on this
list is built through participation in our conversations. Just
putting the information "out there" demeans the conversation and the
necessity of participating as a member of the community. What about
lurkers, you ask? Lurkers often participate at some point; in the
meantime they have chosen to join the community and to observe the
conversation; they are much more invested in the community than the
hit-and-run Google voyeurs.
We are building knowledge here; to believe it is merely "awesome
information" misses the point.
This kerfuffle could all have been avoided by you starting the
conversation if the admins didn't; that is what being the member of
the community is about. And, yes, I vote for pulling the plug to a
public "blog" and RSS feed that puts all of our efforts out of
context. While other technologies may be better than a list server,
just automatically porting to them without also porting the benefits
that a list server brings is not a gain.
Derrel
At 04:54 PM 2/6/2008 -0500, Peter Stinson wrote:
>[snip]
>The good news, at least as I see it, is that the ISED-L community is
>not alone in their apparent pain with the New Media. I work as an
>organizational performance consultant for a federal agency, and we are
>struggling with this very issue. One of my roles is to help change
>our culture so that transparency and information sharing becomes
>commonplace rather than the exception. We have found that we must
>work to "increase the pool of knowledge" and using New Media is one
>way to do that. Even if it is painful, because in the end, it is the
>right thing to do for our people, our mission, and our nation. I'd
>suggest the same applies to this listserv.
[snip]
[ For info on ISED-L see http://www.gds.org/ISED-L ]
Submissions to ISED-L are released under a creative commons, attribution, non-commercial, share-alike license.
