Comments on: We and me

By: walt crawford

walt crawford — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:11:08 +0000

There may not be serious disagreement here–and I should point out that, in this case, I’m viewing elitism as a negative, not a positive. (There’s a difference between being an elitist and being among the best in your field; it’s an attitudinal thing. If you think having a PhD or driving a Lotus or having an eight-digit net worth makes you more important than those who don’t have or do those things *as a person*–you’re an elitist. The Nobel winner I was privileged to take a Freshman lecture course from at Berkeley, decades ago, was not, as far as I could tell, an elitist: He knew what he’d accomplished but didn’t use it as a basis to regard other people as inferior *people.* He was also one hell of a lecturer, but that’s a different issue.)

By: eddie

eddie — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 04:18:42 +0000

“An elite doesn’t necessarily involve costs, it involves choices.”
Then I think we do agree, mostly. Cost may be only one of many gatekeepers. Others would be peer acceptance or even the lack of basic amenities.
Maybe I misunderstood your original comments about ff. The guy at the presentation was surely insensitive and I thought you were comparing that with ff’s openness (relative, as I earlier qualified: much of the planet don’t have internet). I don’t use the service myself. Are they claiming I don’t matter, as the presentation guy was? Rather I thought I could just sign up or out as I wanted, as you seem to be doing.
I agree we are in a priveleged position to have these choices to make, but would rather others had it too so I think ‘elite’ is a bit strong.
Also, see your sciBlings’ reaction to the elitism charge from the republicans.

By: walt crawford

walt crawford — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:21:21 +0000

Eddie: I guess I’d have to disagree.
An elite doesn’t necessarily involve costs; it involves choices. Saying “We use FriendFeed” (with the implied “all”) is, in essence, saying “People who count have already signed up for FriendFeed.”
Sure, if someone says “We drive Bentleys,” it’s blatant elitism (or the mission statement of a Bentley car club, which is OK by me). “We’re on 24/7″ may not be blatant, but it’s still elitism, separating the People Who Count from every body else.
I suppose “in crowd” is a reasonable alternative to “elite,” but to me it’s much the same thing–drawing a circle with some inside and others outside. And, in presentations, acting as though everybody’s inside that circle–or, rather, everybody who matters.

By: eddie

eddie — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 00:44:15 +0000

I see what you’re saying about the false universals; that we-isms create an in-group out group dynamic. I’d contend, however, that it’s not necessarily elitist: It depends on whether the in-group is exclusive or inclusive.
Take your examples of the iPhone and friend feed: One is inclusive in that, given you have web access, you simply choose to join in or not. The other requires you to jump through hoops to get in; you need to buy the hardware.
Incidentally, I’m thumbing this on a non-i phone. Does that make me more or less in, I wonder?

By: walt crawford

walt crawford — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:44:43 +0000

Oscar: It’s sort of a “social media aggregator,” which is almost as meaningless as it sounds. You start an account, then decide which of your other online accounts should feed into it–e.g., subject lines of blog posts, but also tweets, possibly Netflix selections, Facebook status updates, etc. Then you subscribe to others whose updates you find interesting, and vice-versa. “Hiding” lets you hide categories that don’t interest you (e.g., last.fm and Netflix selections); your circle broadens because you get stuff from people you’re *not* subscribed to when someone you *are* subscribed to “likes” or comments on the items. The comment streams are what make it work for me: They’re presented as threads and work very well. (Otherwise…well, go try it. Small potatoes compared to Twitter and Facebook, and that may be a good thing.)
Peter: Electricity and telephones are *nearly* universal, enough so that I wouldn’t argue within the US. (Landline telephones *used to be* nearly universal, but no more.) Television? I’d say most of those without TVs either don’t have residences (and there are a fair number of homeless) or have *decided* not to have TV.
all: Thanks for the feedback. The “we as elitist” thought really was a revelation, and in the case of one speaker, looking back through earlier notes, some things make a lot more sense.

By: Subject/Object

Subject/Object — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:06:58 +0000

False and true library universals

There is one thing I can say about Twitter: it hooks into everything. My new work flow is to publish everything small to Twitter–and from there to Facebook and FriendFeed and my blog sidebar–and long form writing to here. And pictures to…

By: Angel

Angel — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:54:41 +0000

The whole “we-ism” thing is one of the things I have found pretty disgusting about some segments of our profession: the false assumption that everyone will be connected 24/7 on an iPhone (because we all know that is the “cool” device “we” use), and therefore our libraries should be concentrating on “them” in terms of services, sometimes at the expense of more traditional services. Who the hell needs books? But let’s set up another chat reference service no one will use (this one actually comes straight from my own library. Now I have to pray the powers that be don’t read this lol). When you put it in the terms of “the people that matter” does make perfect sense. It is elitist, and I don’t think that has room in our profession. We have to serve everyone, not just “the ones that matter.”
P.S. Have not quite figured out what FF could do for me. We’ll see.
Best, and keep on blogging.

By: Peter Murray

Peter Murray — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:38:52 +0000

/me goes immediately to FriendFeed and breaths a sigh of relief to find that Walt is still subscribed to me. *whew*
I was thinking a bit about the universal truths as they relate to technology adoption. It helps to limit scope to the United States, which is a fair thing to do I think given the overwhelming predominance of that user base within the community that ALA members serve. So what are the universal technology adoption truths that we can hang our hat on. I agree that constant internet access, preference for digital over print, and use of iPhones are not universal. Can we safely say that electricity is a universal truth (in the United States)? Telephone? Television?
I like the distinction that you’ve made between false universalism and elitism. That is a useful frame of reference in as much as it is a check and balance against assumptions I might try to impose on the population I serve. Clearly deeper thought is needed here — thanks for bringing it up.

By: Oscar Zoalaster

Oscar Zoalaster — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:20:25 +0000

What the bleep is ‘friendfeed’?