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.
> (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
> >>> doesn't that mean that Zoia is a bit of a problem all of the time? Is
> >>> 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
> >> 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