It should be noted that @poledance really was originally named @rsinger. See
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I agree with Ed.
> Thanks to whoever removed the 'poledance' plugin (REALLY? that existed? if
> it makes you feel any better, I don't think anyone who hangs out in
> #code4lib even knew it existed, and it never got used).
> It's certainly possible that there are or will be other individual
> features that are, well, just plain rude and offensive, and should be
> But in general, I think it would be a HUGE mistake to think that all
> personality, frivolity, or 'subcultural' elements should be removed from
> all things #code4lib in the name of 'accessiblity'. Whatever it is about
> code4lib that has made it 'succesful' -- is in large part due to the fact
> that it IS a social community with cultural features. If you try to remove
> all those, you are removing what makes code4lib what it is, you are
> removing whatever you liked about it in the first place.
> If you want online or offline venues that are all-business-all-the-time
> with no social subcultural aspects, there are plenty of others already, you
> don't need to make code4lib into one. If you find those "plenty of others"
> not as useful or rewarding as code4lib -- well, I suggest the reason for
> that has a lot to do with the social community aspects of code4lib. YES,
> the social subcultural aspects WILL turn some people off, it's true, but by
> trying to remove them, you wind up with something that doesn't rub people
> the wrong way and doens't rub anyone the right way either.
> On 1/22/2013 1:25 PM, Edward M. Corrado wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]>
>>> In every "noisy" forum that I participate in (BTW, none of them are tech
>>> even work related), there are always people who dislike the noise. The
>>> concerns are analogous to the ones expressed here -- irritation factor,
>>> keeps people away, it's all about the "in" crowd, etc. Likewise, the
>>> proposed solutions are similar to ones that have been floated here like
>>> directing the noisemaking from the main group elsewhere or silencing it.
>>> For things to work, everyone needs a reason to be there. People with less
>>> experience need access to those who have been around the block. But a
>>> of repetitive shop talk isn't very interesting for people who have a
>>> handle on what they're doing. They need something else to keep them
>>> and in the final analysis, many come for entertainment -- this normally
>>> manifests itself in the form of high noise levels. But even if people
>>> the vast bulk of the time playing around, nuggets of wisdom are shared.
>>> if something's truly serious, it gets attention.
>>> It's far better to help people learn to tune out what they don't like,
>>> this is much easier to do in c4l than in communities where interaction is
>>> primarily physical. All communities have their own character and
>>> communication norms. It's important for people to be mindful of the
>>> environment they're helping create, but reducing communication to help
>>> avoid exposing people to annoyances screws things up.
>>> In all honesty, I think the silliness on the sidelines is far more
>>> important than the formal stuff. I know I learn a lot more while goofing
>>> off than in formal channels for pretty much everything I do.
>> I'm all for removing specific offended responses and commands as some
>> others have suggested, but I agree trying to remove some of the
>> lighter stuff will in the long term, be more likely to be detrimental
>> then a positive.