 |
 |
Another option would be a 'code4lib Q&A' site. Becky Yoose set up one for Coding/Cataloguing and so can comment on how much effort its been. In terms of asking/answering questions the use is clearly low but I think the content that is there is (generally) good quality and useful. I guess the hard part of any project like this is going to be building the community around it. The first things that occur to me is how you encourage people to ask the question on this new site, rather than via existing methods and how do you build enough community activity around housekeeping such as noting duplicate questions and merging/closing. The latter might be a nice problem to have, but the former is where both the Library / LIS SE and the Digital Preservation SE fell down, and libcatcode suffers the same problem - just not enough activity to be a go-to destination. I'm supportive of the idea, but I'd hate to see this go through the pain of the SE process only to fail for the same reasons as previous efforts in this area. I think we need to think about this underlying problem - but I'm not sure what the solution is/solutions are. Owen Owen Stephens Owen Stephens Consulting Web: http://www.ostephens.com Email: [log in to unmask] Telephone: 0121 288 6936 > On 4 Nov 2014, at 15:34, Schulkins, Joe <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > To be honest I absolutely hate the whole reputation and badge system for exactly the reasons you outline, but I can't deny that I do find the family of Stack Exchange sites extremely useful and by comparison Listservs just seem very archaic to me as it's all too easy for a question (and/or its answer) to drop through the cracks of a popular discussion. Are Listservs really the best way to deal with help? I would even prefer a Drupal site... > > > Joseph Schulkins| Systems Librarian| University of Liverpool Library| PO Box 123 | Liverpool L69 3DA | [log in to unmask] T 0151 794 3844 > > Follow us: @LivUniLibrary Like us: LivUniLibrary Visit us: http://www.liv.ac.uk/library > Special Collections & Archives blog: http://manuscriptsandmore.liv.ac.uk > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joshua Welker > Sent: 04 November 2014 14:43 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Stack Overflow > > The concept of a library technology Stack Exchange site as a google-able repository of information sounds great. However, I do have quite a few reservations. > > 1. Stack Exchange sites seem to naturally lead to gatekeeping, snobbishness, and other troll behaviors. The reputation system built into those sites really go to a lot of folks' heads. High-ranking users seem to take pleasure in shutting down questions as off-topic, redundant, etc. > Argument and one-upmanship are actively promoted--"The previous answer sucks. Here's my better answer! " This tends to attract certain (often > male) personalities and to repel certain (often female) personalities. > This seems very contrary to the direction the Code4Lib community has tried to move in the last few years of being more inclusive and inviting to women instead of just promoting the stereotypical "IT guy" qualities that dominate most IT-related discussions on the Internet. More here: > > http://www.banane.com/2012/06/20/there-are-no-women-on-stackoverflow-or-ar > e-there/ > http://michael.richter.name/blogs/why-i-no-longer-contribute-to-stackoverf > low > > 2. Having a Stack Exchange site might fragment the already quite small and nascent library technology community. This might be an unfounded worry, but it's worth consideration. A lot of Q&A takes place on this listserv, and it would be awkward to try to have all this information in both places. That said, searching StackExchange is much easier than searching a listserv. > > 3. I echo your concerns about vendors. Libraries have a culture of protecting vendors from criticism. Sure, we do lots of criticism behind closed doors, but nowhere that leaves an online footprint. Often, our contracts include a clause that we have to keep certain kinds of information private. I don't think this is a very positive aspect of librarian culture, but it is there. > > I think a year or two ago that there was a pretty long discussion on this listserv about creating a Stack Exchange site. > > Josh Welker > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Schulkins, Joe > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 8:12 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: [CODE4LIB] Stack Overflow > > Presumably I'm not alone in this, but I find Stack Overflow a valuable resource for various bits of web development and I was wondering whether anyone has given any thought about proposing a Library Technology site to Stack Exchange's Area 51 (http://area51.stackexchange.com/)? Doing a search of the proposals shows there was one for 'Libraries and Information Science' but this closed 2 years ago as it didn't reach the required levels during the beta phase. > > The reason I think this might be useful is that instead of individual places to go for help or raise questions (i.e. various mailing lists) there could be a 'one-stop' shop approach from which we could get help with LMSs, discovery layers, repository software etc. I appreciate though that certain vendors aren't particularly open (yes, Innovative I'm looking at you here) and might not like these things being discussed on an open forum. > > Does anybody else think this might be useful? Would such a forum be shot down by all the vendors legalese wrapped up in their Terms and Conditions? > Or are you happy with the way you go about getting help? > > Joe > > Joseph Schulkins| Systems Librarian| University of Liverpool Library| PO Box 123 | Liverpool L69 3DA | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask] >> T 0151 794 3844 > > Follow us: @LivUniLibrary<https://twitter.com/LivUniLibrary> Like us: > LivUniLibrary<https://www.facebook.com/livunilibrary> Visit us: > http://www.liv.ac.uk/library Special Collections & Archives blog: > http://manuscriptsandmore.liv.ac.uk<http://manuscriptsandmore.liv.ac.uk/> > > [image001]