 |
 |
+1 On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Misty De Meo < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 13-01-18 10:26 AM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > >Actually, I find the "playing" with Zoia itself offensive. As per my > >response to my own message. > > > >It objectifies women. Treats them as play-things. Makes me very > >uncomfortable. If we want to have an information bot, perhaps like the > >one used by W3C which takes minutes for meetings (Zakim, I believe it > >is), that seems reasonable. But to have a "play-thing" that is gendered > >is a really, really bad idea. > > I think you're reading too much into the zoia's (implicitly) gendered > name. zoia's precursor, panizzi, was implicitly male but functioned in the > same way zoia does. > > > >In fact, to have a "play-thing" of any > >kind on the channel might not be a good idea. I know that some folks > >find it fun, but it is akin to the locker-room shenanigans (at least as > >I experience it), and it's a HUGE in-joke that makes it obvious to > >anyone new that they aren't "in". > > I would strongly disagree with this point. As a code4lib newbie a year > ago, I found that zoia was a kind of participatory in-joke that made it > *easier* for me to acclimatize to the culture of the room. I became > comfortable more quickly thanks to zoia. > > And, as I've mentioned on IRC, I see zoia as being a manifestation of the > code4lib spirit itself - a collaboratively-maintained collection of > plugins by members of the community. Could the more offensive elements of > zoia be reined in? Certainly. But I would find it very unfortunate to > remove zoia altogether. > > > Misty > > (As aLways, opinions are mine, not my employers', &c.) > > > >On 1/18/13 8:20 AM, Jon Gorman wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> > >>> ... and BTW, if people see Zoia as a bit of a problem during the > >>>conference, > >>> doesn't that mean that Zoia is a bit of a problem all of the time? Is > >>>there > >>> a reason to be polite and inclusive during the conference but not > >>>every day? > >> There's actually two different but closely related issues: > >> > >> 1) Plugins that generate a lot of information/responses which have > >> been a problem as they can interrupt flow of questions/discussions > >> during the conference. @blockparty lists what songs people are playing > >> that have registered their irc nick & scrobble. It produces a lot of > >> lines and a couple of calls can cause people's screens to > >> "scroll-off". Not a problem with the normal traffic in the room, but > >> when going from maybe 20/30 active participants to hundreds it can be > >> an issue. > >> > >> There's probably some others like @google or @naf with a long response > >> that could be disabled as well. @naf is a nice one for demonstrating > >> zoia, but @marc is pretty compact and also wonderfully library-centric > >> ;). > >> > >> 2) Plugins that are crude/offensive like @mf and the urban dictionary > >>one. > >> > >> I think the thread kicked off with the first one, but I think it > >> rapidly brought in the issue of the latter. I'm in agreement that the > >> latter category probably should be just removed. The first category > >> probably would be useful to disable during the conference but to have. > >> > >> Jon Gorman > > > >-- > >Karen Coyle > >[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net > >ph: 1-510-540-7596 > >m: 1-510-435-8234 > >skype: kcoylenet >