I suspect we need some free-ranging insight into what would otherwise
appear as a bunfight on bloggers, standards and aggresive posturing.
Any words of wisdom on a contentious web world wonderland would be
I'm sure the powers to be within EDNA havent knocked you off a simple
Moodle forum...rather invited you to speak critically about it
elsewhere. No one likes an agitator unless they have washing to throw
in as well.
As you often say, an open conversation allows others to objectively
co-administer or block trite as needed....maybe thats the fate of these
forums however I believe many are only entering the conversation so it
will be some time to come yet till we see them speaking out and about
in the blogsphere.
I value at least having the ability to network with those seeking ways
to building new and often controversial ways of engaging learners.
Co-incidently ..... I dont use the term 'bullshit' with anyone unless
I'm prepared to eat it.
as for the disabilities bloke, despite his complaints that everyone is
single minded and rehashing old ideas, he does begin to sound like a
broken record himself after a while. peace out man.
-- Sean FitzGerald Tel: +61 (0)2 9360 3291 Mob: +61 (0)404 130 342 Skype: seamusy Email: se...@tig.com.au Website: http://seanfitz.wikispaces.com/ Blog: http://elgg.net/seanfitz/weblog/ Podcast: http://castingthenetpodcast.blogspot.com/ A man is what he thinks about all day long. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Tel: +61 (0)2 9360 3291
Mob: +61 (0)404 130 342
Postmodernism is a change-or-be-changed world.
The word is out: Reinvent yourself for the 21st
century or die! Some would rather die than change.
-- Leonard Sweet, cultural historian
Leigh Blackall wrote:
> Don't worry about it Alex. That's just how forums like that go. Best
> thing to do is for everyone to go silent.
Actually I would say the opposite needs to happen - the whole community
needs to speak up.
What's happened to the missing posts?
by Sean FitzGerald - Tuesday, 27 June 2006, 07:04 AM
Unfortunately I've been too busy to contribute my thoughts to the drama that has been unfolding here over the last week or so, but I've kept one eye on what's been happening and I've been busting for the chance to have my say.
I've just spent several hours going through the posts in my inbox, putting drafting some of my thoughts about what's been happening including many issues I think this discussion has raised.
Imagine my surprise when I went to start posting responses to the forum only to find that many of the posts are missing.
I count 17 posts that are missing, including ones by Adam Maxwell, Leonard Low, Alex Hayes, Chris Harvey and James Neil.
Before I say anything else I'd like to know what's happened. Does anybody know?
Actually I would say the opposite needs to happen - the whole community
needs to speak up.
Then Michael Coghlan wrote:
Interesting thought Sean. The Adam guy seems to have already fled after the challenge from Alex so it may be too late. Maybe someone (?) could draft a response and we all sign it....I went back through the whole thread and couldn't see why he turned on Leonard and got all defensive. I already wrote to Leonard and told him so privately but maybe it should be public.....
This is how it's occured for me.
I logged into EDNA groups by way of the the web2.0 June discussion to
find a senior poster ( a seasoned and articulate AFLF contributor)
calling someone elses contributions b*^#@ and then to boot getting what
appeared in a textual / contextual string to be aggressive and less
I ( me) just didnt get it.......it didnt flow or make sense even if
Adam was upset at something other than the topic area .....it was just
uncalled for and innapropriate I thought.
Anyway what has followed has been what i would think to be the turning
point in where communities of online communication go, what I call,
rancid.......... when the workings of the moderator are not apparent
nor transparent. Nothing personal.......just thats how it's become.
Moderators are only ever effective if they can draw people into a
sensible frame of reference within the online community.....spammers
have no place however memebrs are underghoing their own education and
socialistaion process....however nasty they might seem everyone just
wants to be heard, seen and included in my opinion.
I first saw the best examples of this when Anne, Sean, Leigh, Peter
Holden, Mat, Alfie and others ducked and weaved what could have been a
very messy conversation over at http://moblog.co.uk/view.php?id=86922
Nothings been deleted.....look at how the student prospered to see
adults talking and conversing.
Sure the whole idea that the distributive, networked, open web forum
idea mangles some peoples perspectives on what constitutes fair play
and what breaches what protocol however I'm of the firm opinion that
this will be a seminal moment in the workings of conversations which
emanate from the EDNA chambers.....closed no more.
Perhaps all that AFLF funding has enabled enough 'architects' to take
the networks into its truest and most resonant state of being - a
multitude of connected learning spaces, a plethora of open voices, an
ever changing field of conversations which reference each other true in
their final form.
I have only challenged myself. I agree with Sean......the web2.0
conversation has entered a new level. We are about to watch more than
the world cup and we will be assured this will benefit our students as
we take responsibility for the positions we take with respect to our
own online conduct......floppy names and fuzzy freebies aside.
This way of being is here to stay.
..."If you're going to try and introduce all these fancy new book-learnt new theories to the yoof of today you really have to be prepared for them to shock and alarm you with how they use it.
To summarise then, phwoar."
Hard things are put in our way, not to stop us, but to call out our courage and strength. -- Anonymous
Firstly, I'd agree with Stephen that "it's kind of sad that they can't
get through a discussion of Web and e-learning 2.0 without
auto-subscribing people and without deleting half the posts."
Moderation is a tricky thing and it always appears to me that the way
we approach it is as a process that is all or nothing, no grey areas
about it! We can only improve our moderation skills and understanding
by facing these issues, instead of sweeping them under the carpet
(effectively deleting them). As for ignoring this type of flaming
discussion, isn't that ignoring them too (again, there are various
levels to 'ignoring' something too). I also acknowledge that the EdNA
moderators have moderated for a while and have much experience in doing
Sean responded to Alex in part:
"You are right about the advantage of open conversations on the open
web. I suspect many statements made by some people on the forum would
have been ripped to shreds by the blogosphere if they weren't hiding
behind the walled garden."
As well as being open, conversations (of ANY kind!) are REAL. Like
others, I use weblogs and Flickr, etc and I've blocked people, deleted
some comments or not let certain comments through. This is MY choice as
a user and it's also been a learning process for me too. I have
developed a better understanding of what I consider to be acceptable
that relates to my values relevant to certain settings. So, I'm not
gonna have a guy view my pics and comment on them if I see there are no
'real connections' between us as people (or there's that uncomfortable
feeling that he's not interested beyond leering at my photos!). The
moblog that Alex points us to is a pertinent illustration of how a
process of consideration, reflection and discussion can help us further
understand the nuances of human communication in particular settings,
especially online - thanks Alex. Otherwise, how would we teach our
students to learn and operate in a range of settings?
So, with the EdNA forums are they 'keeping it real'? I'd question that
- if there is simply a tendency to delete posts that someone deems
offensive (in terms of their Code of Conduct) then I'm not sure I'd
consider that 'dealing with it' in a way that develops the
professionality of the community itself (BTW - those of you who had
posts deleted, were you forewarned?). How do we define 'conduct' and
Perhaps we could hear from the EdNA moderators/admin people directly:
Who devised the EdNA Groups Code of Conduct? Is it a document in need
of revising? Should documents of this nature be presented as 'living
documents'? The nature, service and technical aspects of 'online-ness'
develops and evolves at such a rate that perhaps we find hard to keep
up with in terms of our social-administrative systems (look at
copyright, IP, provacy and other legal issues as a prime example). Who
determines the levels of safety, the type of content, the conduct of
the community, if not the community members themselves?
And, as Sean said, "By deleting them we can't even debate their merit.
However I do have copies of all the deleted posts - I received them as
emails, although I notice in their Code of Conduct I that can't re-post
them without the written permission of the author." ....Re-post I say!!
It is all too easy to flick the switch.
I'll finish my rant with <a
quote from Simon Fenton-Jones</a> on EdNA who says: "The lesson [of
exploring obstacles to social networking] is; Learning requires one to
travel (between domains)."
PS. In developing my post here, I've noticed a new florish of posts on
the EdNA forum, I particularly adhere to <a
Coghlan's idea of moderating</a> such conversations too - great to see
cross-posting and hope this will 'travel' further afield!
I've posted to EdNA the suggestion that the code of conduct is put into wiki
format. I think that's where the rubber hits the road - a government-run
forum cannot go that far into web2.0.
Victory is sweetest when you've known defeat. -- Malcolm Forbes (American Publisher)
Perhaps if the naughty posts aren't reinstated on EdNA then they can be fwded on through TALO so that they do exist in public space.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! -- Anonymous
have a great day
I haven’t been buying myself as much time as I’d like of late to keep up with this sort of stuff but this has pressed my buttons…
As a reluctantly casual observer of these conversations I figure I can offer a completely dispassionate view.
I’ve just read the entire edna thread, this TALO thread and Stephen’s commentary.
What I’m left with is- I’ve missed something! The incident was something to learn from, for good or ill. I can’t determine. I can’t form an independent opinion on the rights and wrongs of what has been deleted. However I have formed an opinion on the process of moderation which in itself is formed purely on the absence of the offending posts.
If what occurred was said in a classroom, we can’t erase the memory of what or how it was said from everyone in earshot. We have to manage the fallout. With the exception of managing defamation/slander etc* …Why should on-line be any different.
*Given the EdNa stuff could also go out via email, the genie is already out of the bottle as far as defamation etc goes anyway. Which provides an interesting topical parallel with the current Crikey/ Llewellan/ Rowe affidavit fiasco currently playing out in the courts- which potentially has all sorts of implications for on-line communication
I figure dealing with trolls is an unavoidable part of on-line communication. As a community of professionals and peers I can’t help but feel an opportunity has been missed.
Hang on Rose - I think you have
the wrong end of the stick here. No one said anything about the shaming the
This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
privileged information or confidential information or both. If you
are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender.