[CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional communication

[Swierczek, Julie]

Hello all,

Following earlier discussions about the fear of looking stupid in public, I've 
decided my unofficial research project for the year is to look into ways that 
communication (especially on professional listservs) might provide grounds for 
that fear.  I think this might be something especially relevant in tech circles.

I would like to ask you if you have any examples of listserv communication 
where you felt that one person was trying to belittle another person, 
particularly about their knowledge of a given subject in their field.  Best of 
all would be if you could point me to the conversation in a public listserv 
archive so that I could read more of the thread.  However, I am also perfectly 
happy with you quoting the message or even just telling me about it.   I would 
also appreciate any explanation you could provide about why you see it as a 
case of someone belittling someone else.  (I ask that for two reasons: 1) it 
may not be obvious to me because I am not part of that group and I don't know 
how things normally work in it, such as ongoing flame wars, etc., and 2) I'd 
also be interested in gathering people's feedback and interpretations of the 
bad behavior they have seen.)

An example would be someone saying, "You should know x, y, and z" in response 
to someone who identifies as a newbie and has a very basic question.  The 
newbie is asking for help and someone else essentially calls them stupid for 
not knowing about the topic.

I promise to keep all posts confidential, as well as your communications to me 
about them.  (If I publicized any of that information, I would myself be 
publicly shaming people for being stupid, and that is the opposite of what I am 
trying to accomplish here.)  I intend to anonymize feedback, removing 
information about people, topics, the particular listserv, etc.

To avoid spamming the list with this project, please send your response to 
juliecswierc...@gmail.com.  Also, if you are 
interested in the project, please communicate with me through that email 
address, since I feel this is off-topic for the list.

Thanks very much.

Julie

--

Julie C. Swierczek
Digital Asset Manager and Archivist

Harvard Art Museums
32 Quincy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
www.harvardartmuseums.org

Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional communication

[Salazar, Christina]

Julie asked a specific question in regards to personal and anonymous opinions. 
She did not ask for a blanket statement about this list to go out TO the list. 
(This you can read within her message.)

This is one way to shut someone who happens to have a differing opinion down. 
("Gosh, everyone else thinks that things are peachy keen, I really MUST be 
stupid.")

Don't let's have a conversation that could easily turn into self-congratulation 
in this public space unless the congratulation is legitimately warranted.

I for one have drafted and then deleted several messages to this list out of a 
motivation to protect myself.

Christina Salazar
Systems Librarian
John Spoor Broome Library
California State University, Channel Islands
805/437-3198


-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of 
McCanna, Terran
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 9:31 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional 
communication

I don't see it on this forum, but I have certainly seen it on other 
professional forums. 


Terran McCanna 
PINES Program Manager 
Georgia Public Library Service 
1800 Century Place, Suite 150 
Atlanta, GA 30345 
404-235-7138 
tmcca...@georgialibraries.org 

- Original Message -
From: "Cary Gordon" 
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 12:22:12 PM
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional 
communication

I might have rose colored glasses, but I don’t see much of that in this forum. 
I can’t remember the last flame war. Most folks just answer the questions as 
best they can.

I think that you should present your sanitized results here. Perhaps we are 
missing something.

Cary

> On Mar 18, 2016, at 5:36 AM, Swierczek, Julie  
> wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Following earlier discussions about the fear of looking stupid in public, 
> I've decided my unofficial research project for the year is to look into ways 
> that communication (especially on professional listservs) might provide 
> grounds for that fear.  I think this might be something especially relevant 
> in tech circles.
> 
> I would like to ask you if you have any examples of listserv communication 
> where you felt that one person was trying to belittle another person, 
> particularly about their knowledge of a given subject in their field.  Best 
> of all would be if you could point me to the conversation in a public 
> listserv archive so that I could read more of the thread.  However, I am also 
> perfectly happy with you quoting the message or even just telling me about 
> it.   I would also appreciate any explanation you could provide about why you 
> see it as a case of someone belittling someone else.  (I ask that for two 
> reasons: 1) it may not be obvious to me because I am not part of that group 
> and I don't know how things normally work in it, such as ongoing flame wars, 
> etc., and 2) I'd also be interested in gathering people's feedback and 
> interpretations of the bad behavior they have seen.)
> 
> An example would be someone saying, "You should know x, y, and z" in response 
> to someone who identifies as a newbie and has a very basic question.  The 
> newbie is asking for help and someone else essentially calls them stupid for 
> not knowing about the topic.
> 
> I promise to keep all posts confidential, as well as your communications to 
> me about them.  (If I publicized any of that information, I would myself be 
> publicly shaming people for being stupid, and that is the opposite of what I 
> am trying to accomplish here.)  I intend to anonymize feedback, removing 
> information about people, topics, the particular listserv, etc.
> 
> To avoid spamming the list with this project, please send your response to 
> juliecswierc...@gmail.com<mailto:juliecswierc...@gmail.com>.  Also, if you 
> are interested in the project, please communicate with me through that email 
> address, since I feel this is off-topic for the list.
> 
> Thanks very much.
> 
> Julie
> 
> --
> 
> Julie C. Swierczek
> Digital Asset Manager and Archivist
> 
> Harvard Art Museums
> 32 Quincy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
> www.harvardartmuseums.org<http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/>

Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional communication

[McCanna, Terran]

I don't see it on this forum, but I have certainly seen it on other 
professional forums. 


Terran McCanna 
PINES Program Manager 
Georgia Public Library Service 
1800 Century Place, Suite 150 
Atlanta, GA 30345 
404-235-7138 
tmcca...@georgialibraries.org 

- Original Message -
From: "Cary Gordon" 
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 12:22:12 PM
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional 
communication

I might have rose colored glasses, but I don’t see much of that in this forum. 
I can’t remember the last flame war. Most folks just answer the questions as 
best they can.

I think that you should present your sanitized results here. Perhaps we are 
missing something.

Cary

> On Mar 18, 2016, at 5:36 AM, Swierczek, Julie  
> wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Following earlier discussions about the fear of looking stupid in public, 
> I've decided my unofficial research project for the year is to look into ways 
> that communication (especially on professional listservs) might provide 
> grounds for that fear.  I think this might be something especially relevant 
> in tech circles.
> 
> I would like to ask you if you have any examples of listserv communication 
> where you felt that one person was trying to belittle another person, 
> particularly about their knowledge of a given subject in their field.  Best 
> of all would be if you could point me to the conversation in a public 
> listserv archive so that I could read more of the thread.  However, I am also 
> perfectly happy with you quoting the message or even just telling me about 
> it.   I would also appreciate any explanation you could provide about why you 
> see it as a case of someone belittling someone else.  (I ask that for two 
> reasons: 1) it may not be obvious to me because I am not part of that group 
> and I don't know how things normally work in it, such as ongoing flame wars, 
> etc., and 2) I'd also be interested in gathering people's feedback and 
> interpretations of the bad behavior they have seen.)
> 
> An example would be someone saying, "You should know x, y, and z" in response 
> to someone who identifies as a newbie and has a very basic question.  The 
> newbie is asking for help and someone else essentially calls them stupid for 
> not knowing about the topic.
> 
> I promise to keep all posts confidential, as well as your communications to 
> me about them.  (If I publicized any of that information, I would myself be 
> publicly shaming people for being stupid, and that is the opposite of what I 
> am trying to accomplish here.)  I intend to anonymize feedback, removing 
> information about people, topics, the particular listserv, etc.
> 
> To avoid spamming the list with this project, please send your response to 
> juliecswierc...@gmail.com<mailto:juliecswierc...@gmail.com>.  Also, if you 
> are interested in the project, please communicate with me through that email 
> address, since I feel this is off-topic for the list.
> 
> Thanks very much.
> 
> Julie
> 
> --
> 
> Julie C. Swierczek
> Digital Asset Manager and Archivist
> 
> Harvard Art Museums
> 32 Quincy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
> www.harvardartmuseums.org<http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/>

Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional communication

[Cary Gordon]

I might have rose colored glasses, but I don’t see much of that in this forum. 
I can’t remember the last flame war. Most folks just answer the questions as 
best they can.

I think that you should present your sanitized results here. Perhaps we are 
missing something.

Cary

> On Mar 18, 2016, at 5:36 AM, Swierczek, Julie  
> wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Following earlier discussions about the fear of looking stupid in public, 
> I've decided my unofficial research project for the year is to look into ways 
> that communication (especially on professional listservs) might provide 
> grounds for that fear.  I think this might be something especially relevant 
> in tech circles.
> 
> I would like to ask you if you have any examples of listserv communication 
> where you felt that one person was trying to belittle another person, 
> particularly about their knowledge of a given subject in their field.  Best 
> of all would be if you could point me to the conversation in a public 
> listserv archive so that I could read more of the thread.  However, I am also 
> perfectly happy with you quoting the message or even just telling me about 
> it.   I would also appreciate any explanation you could provide about why you 
> see it as a case of someone belittling someone else.  (I ask that for two 
> reasons: 1) it may not be obvious to me because I am not part of that group 
> and I don't know how things normally work in it, such as ongoing flame wars, 
> etc., and 2) I'd also be interested in gathering people's feedback and 
> interpretations of the bad behavior they have seen.)
> 
> An example would be someone saying, "You should know x, y, and z" in response 
> to someone who identifies as a newbie and has a very basic question.  The 
> newbie is asking for help and someone else essentially calls them stupid for 
> not knowing about the topic.
> 
> I promise to keep all posts confidential, as well as your communications to 
> me about them.  (If I publicized any of that information, I would myself be 
> publicly shaming people for being stupid, and that is the opposite of what I 
> am trying to accomplish here.)  I intend to anonymize feedback, removing 
> information about people, topics, the particular listserv, etc.
> 
> To avoid spamming the list with this project, please send your response to 
> juliecswierc...@gmail.com.  Also, if you 
> are interested in the project, please communicate with me through that email 
> address, since I feel this is off-topic for the list.
> 
> Thanks very much.
> 
> Julie
> 
> --
> 
> Julie C. Swierczek
> Digital Asset Manager and Archivist
> 
> Harvard Art Museums
> 32 Quincy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
> www.harvardartmuseums.org

Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional communication

[Heather Braum (NEKLS)]

I just want to say this here publicly :

I've lurked on this Listserv for a couple of years and haven't seen what
Julie's writing about here -- in fact I've been impressed at how helpful
people will be, but I have seen it happen on so many other listservs and
it's not helpful at all when it happens.

Additionally, as someone who works with lots of small and rural public
librarians, I can attest that this happens. A lot.

I have to go out of my way to remind people to ask questions on listservs
and/or emails when they don't know something and I always hear back, but "I
don't want to feel stupid."

This is research work exploring. Julie, I'll be in touch!
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:25 PM Salazar, Christina <
christina.sala...@csuci.edu> wrote:

> Julie asked a specific question in regards to personal and anonymous
> opinions. She did not ask for a blanket statement about this list to go out
> TO the list. (This you can read within her message.)
>
> This is one way to shut someone who happens to have a differing opinion
> down. ("Gosh, everyone else thinks that things are peachy keen, I really
> MUST be stupid.")
>
> Don't let's have a conversation that could easily turn into
> self-congratulation in this public space unless the congratulation is
> legitimately warranted.
>
> I for one have drafted and then deleted several messages to this list out
> of a motivation to protect myself.
>
> Christina Salazar
> Systems Librarian
> John Spoor Broome Library
> California State University, Channel Islands
> 805/437-3198
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
> McCanna, Terran
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 9:31 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in
> professional communication
>
> I don't see it on this forum, but I have certainly seen it on other
> professional forums.
>
>
> Terran McCanna
> PINES Program Manager
> Georgia Public Library Service
> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150
> Atlanta, GA 30345
> 404-235-7138
> tmcca...@georgialibraries.org
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Cary Gordon" 
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 12:22:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in
> professional communication
>
> I might have rose colored glasses, but I don’t see much of that in this
> forum. I can’t remember the last flame war. Most folks just answer the
> questions as best they can.
>
> I think that you should present your sanitized results here. Perhaps we
> are missing something.
>
> Cary
>
> > On Mar 18, 2016, at 5:36 AM, Swierczek, Julie <
> julie_swierc...@harvard.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Following earlier discussions about the fear of looking stupid in
> public, I've decided my unofficial research project for the year is to look
> into ways that communication (especially on professional listservs) might
> provide grounds for that fear.  I think this might be something especially
> relevant in tech circles.
> >
> > I would like to ask you if you have any examples of listserv
> communication where you felt that one person was trying to belittle another
> person, particularly about their knowledge of a given subject in their
> field.  Best of all would be if you could point me to the conversation in a
> public listserv archive so that I could read more of the thread.  However,
> I am also perfectly happy with you quoting the message or even just telling
> me about it.   I would also appreciate any explanation you could provide
> about why you see it as a case of someone belittling someone else.  (I ask
> that for two reasons: 1) it may not be obvious to me because I am not part
> of that group and I don't know how things normally work in it, such as
> ongoing flame wars, etc., and 2) I'd also be interested in gathering
> people's feedback and interpretations of the bad behavior they have seen.)
> >
> > An example would be someone saying, "You should know x, y, and z" in
> response to someone who identifies as a newbie and has a very basic
> question.  The newbie is asking for help and someone else essentially calls
> them stupid for not knowing about the topic.
> >
> > I promise to keep all posts confidential, as well as your communications
> to me about them.  (If I publicized any of that information, I would myself
> be publicly shaming people for being stupid, and that is the opposite of
> what I am trying to accomplish here.)  I intend to anonymize feedback,
> removing info

Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional communication

[Julie Swierczek]

Just to clarify: I wasn't talking about this list only.  I am particularly 
interested in lists related to libraries/archives/museums and technology, but I 
am also interested in hearing other examples, and about how we have interpreted 
those examples.  (Tell me a story about it!)  I think that one of the things 
I'll present or write about are cases where it is not necessarily obvious that 
a person is belittled by a response.   That is, in reply to a question, a 
responder says one thing, but what the original questioner heard was "you are 
too stupid to play with us". 

Some obvious flame wars involve accusations of stupidity, but I am especially 
interested in the much more subtle cases where readers might feel stupid even 
if that is not the author's intent.

One example that comes to mind is when a group announces that they are 
releasing a new open source project for institutions of "all sizes" to make it 
easier for libraries to do this fabulous thing.  So Person X, who is not 
completely inept with computers, goes to the project site and the instructions 
are something like this:

1. We are not going to tell you which server architecture this works on because 
you clearly should be smart enough to figure that out.
2. Download this package.
3. Compile the package.  
4. Obviously there are 300 dependencies, but we are not going to tell you what 
they are. Any decent institution would have them installed already.
5. Change system configurations to serve local needs.  We're not going to tell 
you what that means or how to do it.
6. Use the API from your ILS to feed in this data. If your current API doesn't 
work, please write one according to the specs on some other project you've 
never heard of.  Note that the documentation of that other project hasn't been 
updated in eleven years, but you'll figure it out. What? Your library catalog 
doesn't have an API?!?!?!  You must be joking.  *Everyone* has an API. 
7. Earn a PhD in computer science.
8. Change your entire server environment including reinstalling your ILS on 
some other platform, breaking everything and requiring tens of thousands of 
dollars in development work to put all the pieces back together again.
9. Type the following commands in the command line.  Note that they look like a 
SHA-256 hash, but they are actually really simple commands that everyone should 
know.
10. Voila!  it works.
addendum: We did not include any help instructions. You can just read the code 
if you need to figure something out.

The group offering the program probably does not intend for their directions to 
come across this way, but that is what sometimes happens, and Person X now 
feels like an idiot and doesn't want to participate anymore.   

So, I am looking for something more subtle here than the obvious mudslinging 
you can find in most tech forums.  As to the question of whether that happens 
here or not, I would generally say no, except that I - and most likely all 
readers here - have not read every single message of the list archives, word 
for word, so something could have passed our notice.  There have most likely 
been multiple instances where someone asked a question in a way that would 
indicate that the person is new at this, and the answer was much more 
technically sophisticated than the level of the question. I am sure examples 
abound.

I don't want to take up more space on the list talking about this, so please 
feel free to contact me off-list at juliecswierc...@gmail.com.  Thank you. 

Julie

Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional communication

[Cary Gordon]

I apologize for not taking this off list quite yet.

The last post had me both laughing and crying, and I believe that you are quite 
accurate in your characterization of many open-source projects.

It reminded me of my freshman “honors” calculus class, which was taught by by a 
full professor with the social skills of an anteater. The book was a grad-level 
calculus review translated word-by-word from French with not even the slightest 
acknowledgement of the concept of grammar in either language. One day, my 
friend went to see the prof to ask for an explanation of one of his 
incomprehensible lectures. He replied by stating that “If you can’t understand 
it, I can’t see how I can help you!” Not unsurprisingly, everyone who had taken 
calc in high school got a B in the class, and everyone else from this group who 
had probably carried close to 4.0 averages in high school got a D.

In that case, I believe the prof was simply trying to get the message to his 
bosses that he hated teaching. I don’t think that the issues with some 
open-source projects are far off of this.

While there are certainly folks in the “If you can’t understand it, I can’t see 
how I can help you!”/“Cary, you ignorant fool" class, my experience is that 
there are many folks in the open-source community — even ones who work on 
projects with less-than-helpful documentation — who will go to great lengths to 
help folks get on track. I know that I have been the recipient of such help on 
many occasions, and that my asking for help has occasionally led to 
improvements in their misleading or incomplete documentation.


> On Mar 21, 2016, at 12:33 PM, Julie Swierczek  
> wrote:
> 
> Just to clarify: I wasn't talking about this list only.  I am particularly 
> interested in lists related to libraries/archives/museums and technology, but 
> I am also interested in hearing other examples, and about how we have 
> interpreted those examples.  (Tell me a story about it!)  I think that one of 
> the things I'll present or write about are cases where it is not necessarily 
> obvious that a person is belittled by a response.   That is, in reply to a 
> question, a responder says one thing, but what the original questioner heard 
> was "you are too stupid to play with us". 
> 
> Some obvious flame wars involve accusations of stupidity, but I am especially 
> interested in the much more subtle cases where readers might feel stupid even 
> if that is not the author's intent.
> 
> One example that comes to mind is when a group announces that they are 
> releasing a new open source project for institutions of "all sizes" to make 
> it easier for libraries to do this fabulous thing.  So Person X, who is not 
> completely inept with computers, goes to the project site and the 
> instructions are something like this:
> 
> 1. We are not going to tell you which server architecture this works on 
> because you clearly should be smart enough to figure that out.
> 2. Download this package.
> 3. Compile the package.  
> 4. Obviously there are 300 dependencies, but we are not going to tell you 
> what they are. Any decent institution would have them installed already.
> 5. Change system configurations to serve local needs.  We're not going to 
> tell you what that means or how to do it.
> 6. Use the API from your ILS to feed in this data. If your current API 
> doesn't work, please write one according to the specs on some other project 
> you've never heard of.  Note that the documentation of that other project 
> hasn't been updated in eleven years, but you'll figure it out. What? Your 
> library catalog doesn't have an API?!?!?!  You must be joking.  *Everyone* 
> has an API. 
> 7. Earn a PhD in computer science.
> 8. Change your entire server environment including reinstalling your ILS on 
> some other platform, breaking everything and requiring tens of thousands of 
> dollars in development work to put all the pieces back together again.
> 9. Type the following commands in the command line.  Note that they look like 
> a SHA-256 hash, but they are actually really simple commands that everyone 
> should know.
> 10. Voila!  it works.
> addendum: We did not include any help instructions. You can just read the 
> code if you need to figure something out.
> 
> The group offering the program probably does not intend for their directions 
> to come across this way, but that is what sometimes happens, and Person X now 
> feels like an idiot and doesn't want to participate anymore.   
> 
> So, I am looking for something more subtle here than the obvious mudslinging 
> you can find in most tech forums.  As to the question of whether that happens 
> here or not, I would generally say no, except that I - and most likely all 
> readers here - have not read every single message of the list archives, word 
> for word, so something could have passed our notice.  There have most likely 
> been multiple instances where someone asked a question in a way that would 
> indicat

Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional communication

[Lolis, John]

Ditto regarding an apology, but I can't help but think of the line, "I'd
explain it to you, but your head would explode."

​peace, y'all.

John Lolis
Coordinator of Computer Systems
White Plains Public Library
100 Martine Avenue
White Plains, NY  10601

tel: 1.914.422.1497
fax: 1.914.422.1452

http://whiteplainslibrary.org/


On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Cary Gordon  wrote:

> I apologize for not taking this off list quite yet.
>
> The last post had me both laughing and crying, and I believe that you are
> quite accurate in your characterization of many open-source projects.
>
> It reminded me of my freshman “honors” calculus class, which was taught by
> by a full professor with the social skills of an anteater. The book was a
> grad-level calculus review translated word-by-word from French with not
> even the slightest acknowledgement of the concept of grammar in either
> language. One day, my friend went to see the prof to ask for an explanation
> of one of his incomprehensible lectures. He replied by stating that “If you
> can’t understand it, I can’t see how I can help you!” Not unsurprisingly,
> everyone who had taken calc in high school got a B in the class, and
> everyone else from this group who had probably carried close to 4.0
> averages in high school got a D.
>
> In that case, I believe the prof was simply trying to get the message to
> his bosses that he hated teaching. I don’t think that the issues with some
> open-source projects are far off of this.
>
> While there are certainly folks in the “If you can’t understand it, I
> can’t see how I can help you!”/“Cary, you ignorant fool" class, my
> experience is that there are many folks in the open-source community — even
> ones who work on projects with less-than-helpful documentation — who will
> go to great lengths to help folks get on track. I know that I have been the
> recipient of such help on many occasions, and that my asking for help has
> occasionally led to improvements in their misleading or incomplete
> documentation.
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 2016, at 12:33 PM, Julie Swierczek <
> julie_swierc...@harvard.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Just to clarify: I wasn't talking about this list only.  I am
> particularly interested in lists related to libraries/archives/museums and
> technology, but I am also interested in hearing other examples, and about
> how we have interpreted those examples.  (Tell me a story about it!)  I
> think that one of the things I'll present or write about are cases where it
> is not necessarily obvious that a person is belittled by a response.   That
> is, in reply to a question, a responder says one thing, but what the
> original questioner heard was "you are too stupid to play with us".
> >
> > Some obvious flame wars involve accusations of stupidity, but I am
> especially interested in the much more subtle cases where readers might
> feel stupid even if that is not the author's intent.
> >
> > One example that comes to mind is when a group announces that they are
> releasing a new open source project for institutions of "all sizes" to make
> it easier for libraries to do this fabulous thing.  So Person X, who is not
> completely inept with computers, goes to the project site and the
> instructions are something like this:
> >
> > 1. We are not going to tell you which server architecture this works on
> because you clearly should be smart enough to figure that out.
> > 2. Download this package.
> > 3. Compile the package.
> > 4. Obviously there are 300 dependencies, but we are not going to tell
> you what they are. Any decent institution would have them installed already.
> > 5. Change system configurations to serve local needs.  We're not going
> to tell you what that means or how to do it.
> > 6. Use the API from your ILS to feed in this data. If your current API
> doesn't work, please write one according to the specs on some other project
> you've never heard of.  Note that the documentation of that other project
> hasn't been updated in eleven years, but you'll figure it out. What? Your
> library catalog doesn't have an API?!?!?!  You must be joking.  *Everyone*
> has an API.
> > 7. Earn a PhD in computer science.
> > 8. Change your entire server environment including reinstalling your ILS
> on some other platform, breaking everything and requiring tens of thousands
> of dollars in development work to put all the pieces back together again.
> > 9. Type the following commands in the command line.  Note that they look
> like a SHA-256 hash, but they are actually really simple commands that
> everyone should know.
> > 10. Voila!  it works.
> > addendum: We did not include any help instructions. You can just read
> the code if you need to figure something out.
> >
> > The group offering the program probably does not intend for their
> directions to come across this way, but that is what sometimes happens, and
> Person X now feels like an idiot and doesn't want to participate anymore.
> >
> > So, I am looking for something 

Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional communication

[Patricia Farnan]

*raises hand* my library doesn’t have an API *wah* ;)

Until recently-ish (last year or so), I didn't even know what an API was, 
despite having been subscribed to this group (and mostly in lurker mode) for 
quite some time now. Thankfully I did a short course through Library Juice 
Academy that explained it to me (it was a 'hallelujah!' moment). Doesn't mean 
I've been able to make any use of the APIs available to me through our various 
vendors, so far. And I sure as heck won't be building my own APIs anytime soon.

I did librarian studies, not IT studies - but I know a lot of IT people in 
libraries have basically taught themselves all that they know, without any 
formal training. I'm sure I could do that too, as I have taught myself other 
IT-ish skills in the past, e.g. html, some php, etc. But sometimes it is 
difficult to even know where to start, when you don't understand what you need 
to know.

As a mostly lurker type on this list, I can say that I don't understand a lot 
of what is discussed - but over time I make occasional connections and pick 
things up that I find interesting. So it's worth being on the list for me, even 
if I can't do much with what I'm reading about most of the time.

Patricia Farnan  | Application Administrator, Discovery Services
University Library  | St Teresa’s Library

Telephone: +61 8 9433 0707 | Email: patricia.far...@nd.edu.au


-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Julie 
Swierczek
Sent: Tuesday, 22 March 2016 3:33 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional 
communication

Just to clarify: I wasn't talking about this list only.  I am particularly 
interested in lists related to libraries/archives/museums and technology, but I 
am also interested in hearing other examples, and about how we have interpreted 
those examples.  (Tell me a story about it!)  I think that one of the things 
I'll present or write about are cases where it is not necessarily obvious that 
a person is belittled by a response.   That is, in reply to a question, a 
responder says one thing, but what the original questioner heard was "you are 
too stupid to play with us".

Some obvious flame wars involve accusations of stupidity, but I am especially 
interested in the much more subtle cases where readers might feel stupid even 
if that is not the author's intent.

One example that comes to mind is when a group announces that they are 
releasing a new open source project for institutions of "all sizes" to make it 
easier for libraries to do this fabulous thing.  So Person X, who is not 
completely inept with computers, goes to the project site and the instructions 
are something like this:

1. We are not going to tell you which server architecture this works on because 
you clearly should be smart enough to figure that out.
2. Download this package.
3. Compile the package.
4. Obviously there are 300 dependencies, but we are not going to tell you what 
they are. Any decent institution would have them installed already.
5. Change system configurations to serve local needs.  We're not going to tell 
you what that means or how to do it.
6. Use the API from your ILS to feed in this data. If your current API doesn't 
work, please write one according to the specs on some other project you've 
never heard of.  Note that the documentation of that other project hasn't been 
updated in eleven years, but you'll figure it out. What? Your library catalog 
doesn't have an API?!?!?!  You must be joking.  *Everyone* has an API.
7. Earn a PhD in computer science.
8. Change your entire server environment including reinstalling your ILS on 
some other platform, breaking everything and requiring tens of thousands of 
dollars in development work to put all the pieces back together again.
9. Type the following commands in the command line.  Note that they look like a 
SHA-256 hash, but they are actually really simple commands that everyone should 
know.
10. Voila!  it works.
addendum: We did not include any help instructions. You can just read the code 
if you need to figure something out.

The group offering the program probably does not intend for their directions to 
come across this way, but that is what sometimes happens, and Person X now 
feels like an idiot and doesn't want to participate anymore.

So, I am looking for something more subtle here than the obvious mudslinging 
you can find in most tech forums.  As to the question of whether that happens 
here or not, I would generally say no, except that I - and most likely all 
readers here - have not read every single message of the list archives, word 
for word, so something could have passed our notice.  There have most likely 
been multiple instances where someone asked a question in a way that would 

Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional communication

[Eric Lease Morgan]

In my humble opinion, what we have here is a failure to communicate. [1]

Libraries, especially larger libraries, are increasingly made up of many 
different departments, including but not limited to departments such as: 
cataloging, public services, collections, preservation, archives, and 
now-a-days departments of computer staff. From my point of view, these various 
departments fail to see the similarities between themselves, and instead focus 
on their differences. This focus on the differences is amplified by the use of 
dissimilar vocabularies and subdiscipline-specific jargon. This use of 
dissimilar vocabularies causes a communications gap and left unresolved 
ultimately creates animosity between groups. I believe this is especially true 
between the more traditional library departments and the computer staff. This 
communications gap is an impediment to when it comes to achieving the goals of 
librarianship, and any library — whether it be big or small — needs to address 
these issues lest it wastes both its time and money.

For example, the definitions of things like MARC, databases & indexes, 
collections, and services are not shared across (especially larger) library 
departments.

What is the solution to these problems? In my opinion, there are many 
possibilities, but the solution ultimately rests with individuals willing to 
take the time to learn from their co-workers. It rests in the ability to 
respect — not merely tolerate — another point of view. It requires time, 
listening, discussion, reflection, and repetition. It requires getting to know 
other people on a personal level. It requires learning what others like and 
dislike. It requires comparing & contrasting points of view. It demands 
“walking a mile in the other person’s shoes”, and can be accomplished by things 
such as the physical intermingling of departments, cross-training, and simply 
by going to coffee on a regular basis.

Again, all of us working in libraries have more similarities than differences. 
Learn to appreciate the similarities, and the differences will become 
insignificant. The consequence will be a more holistic set of library 
collections and services.

[1] I have elaborated on these ideas in a blog posting - http://bit.ly/1LDpXkc

—
Eric Lease Morgan

Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional communication

[BWS Johnson]

Salvete!

*lights match, positions gin based cocktail, and preps for incoming hate mail*



 With all due respect Mr. Morgan, I wholeheartedly disagree.

 Most Public Libraries are Rural Public Libraries. [IMLS 2013] Most 
Academics are also small by FTE enrolment [ies of NCES 2012] So "we are the 
little folk we". We might not actually have different fancy pants departments. 
I will cede the gentleman his perception amongst those Academic Ivory Behemoths 
that possess battleship turning or are eligible for ASERL membership.

 I would also further venture that anecdotally, folks in settings similar 
to the ones I've chosen are less likely to have a Master's degree period, much 
less a Master's degree from a prestigious Institution. (Please, not in the 
face! I hate the paper standard, but it is there.) This lack of paper could 
well lead to someone being made to feel inferior. How many times have we heard 
in passing that so and so is not a "real" Librarian since they do not possess 
their $50k+ piece of paper?

Your most humble and obedient servant,
Brooke



- Original Message -
> From: Eric Lease Morgan 
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 6:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional 
> communication
> 
> In my humble opinion, what we have here is a failure to communicate. [1]
> 
> Libraries, especially larger libraries, are increasingly made up of many 
> different departments, including but not limited to departments such as: 
> cataloging, public services, collections, preservation, archives, and 
> now-a-days 
> departments of computer staff. From my point of view, these various 
> departments 
> fail to see the similarities between themselves, and instead focus on their 
> differences. This focus on the differences is amplified by the use of 
> dissimilar 
> vocabularies and subdiscipline-specific jargon. This use of dissimilar 
> vocabularies causes a communications gap and left unresolved ultimately 
> creates 
> animosity between groups. I believe this is especially true between the more 
> traditional library departments and the computer staff. This communications 
> gap 
> is an impediment to when it comes to achieving the goals of librarianship, 
> and 
> any library — whether it be big or small — needs to address these issues lest 
> it 
> wastes both its time and money.
> 
> For example, the definitions of things like MARC, databases & indexes, 
> collections, and services are not shared across (especially larger) library 
> departments.
> 
> What is the solution to these problems? In my opinion, there are many 
> possibilities, but the solution ultimately rests with individuals willing to 
> take the time to learn from their co-workers. It rests in the ability to 
> respect 
> — not merely tolerate — another point of view. It requires time, listening, 
> discussion, reflection, and repetition. It requires getting to know other 
> people 
> on a personal level. It requires learning what others like and dislike. It 
> requires comparing & contrasting points of view. It demands “walking a mile 
> in the other person’s shoes”, and can be accomplished by things such as the 
> physical intermingling of departments, cross-training, and simply by going to 
> coffee on a regular basis.
> 
> Again, all of us working in libraries have more similarities than 
> differences. 
> Learn to appreciate the similarities, and the differences will become 
> insignificant. The consequence will be a more holistic set of library 
> collections and services.
> 
> [1] I have elaborated on these ideas in a blog posting - http://bit.ly/1LDpXkc
> 
> —
> Eric Lease Morgan
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional communication

[Harper, Cynthia]

+1!

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Eric 
Lease Morgan
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 6:55 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional 
communication

In my humble opinion, what we have here is a failure to communicate. [1]

Libraries, especially larger libraries, are increasingly made up of many 
different departments, including but not limited to departments such as: 
cataloging, public services, collections, preservation, archives, and 
now-a-days departments of computer staff. From my point of view, these various 
departments fail to see the similarities between themselves, and instead focus 
on their differences. This focus on the differences is amplified by the use of 
dissimilar vocabularies and subdiscipline-specific jargon. This use of 
dissimilar vocabularies causes a communications gap and left unresolved 
ultimately creates animosity between groups. I believe this is especially true 
between the more traditional library departments and the computer staff. This 
communications gap is an impediment to when it comes to achieving the goals of 
librarianship, and any library — whether it be big or small — needs to address 
these issues lest it wastes both its time and money.

For example, the definitions of things like MARC, databases & indexes, 
collections, and services are not shared across (especially larger) library 
departments.

What is the solution to these problems? In my opinion, there are many 
possibilities, but the solution ultimately rests with individuals willing to 
take the time to learn from their co-workers. It rests in the ability to 
respect — not merely tolerate — another point of view. It requires time, 
listening, discussion, reflection, and repetition. It requires getting to know 
other people on a personal level. It requires learning what others like and 
dislike. It requires comparing & contrasting points of view. It demands 
“walking a mile in the other person’s shoes”, and can be accomplished by things 
such as the physical intermingling of departments, cross-training, and simply 
by going to coffee on a regular basis.

Again, all of us working in libraries have more similarities than differences. 
Learn to appreciate the similarities, and the differences will become 
insignificant. The consequence will be a more holistic set of library 
collections and services.

[1] I have elaborated on these ideas in a blog posting - http://bit.ly/1LDpXkc

—
Eric Lease Morgan

Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional communication

[Carol Bean]

Um, yeah.  I gotta side with Brooke's point here about our tendency to
forget about the smaller, especially rural, libraries. And I would extend
it to include special libraries, which are usually also smaller with less
resources.

Carol

Carol Bean
beanwo...@gmail.com

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 6:22 AM, BWS Johnson 
wrote:

> Salvete!
>
> *lights match, positions gin based cocktail, and preps for incoming hate
> mail*
>
>
>
>  With all due respect Mr. Morgan, I wholeheartedly disagree.
>
>  Most Public Libraries are Rural Public Libraries. [IMLS 2013] Most
> Academics are also small by FTE enrolment [ies of NCES 2012] So "we are the
> little folk we". We might not actually have different fancy pants
> departments. I will cede the gentleman his perception amongst those
> Academic Ivory Behemoths that possess battleship turning or are eligible
> for ASERL membership.
>
>  I would also further venture that anecdotally, folks in settings
> similar to the ones I've chosen are less likely to have a Master's degree
> period, much less a Master's degree from a prestigious Institution.
> (Please, not in the face! I hate the paper standard, but it is there.) This
> lack of paper could well lead to someone being made to feel inferior. How
> many times have we heard in passing that so and so is not a "real"
> Librarian since they do not possess their $50k+ piece of paper?
>
> Your most humble and obedient servant,
> Brooke
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: Eric Lease Morgan 
> > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 6:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in
> professional communication
> >
> > In my humble opinion, what we have here is a failure to communicate. [1]
> >
> > Libraries, especially larger libraries, are increasingly made up of many
> > different departments, including but not limited to departments such as:
> > cataloging, public services, collections, preservation, archives, and
> now-a-days
> > departments of computer staff. From my point of view, these various
> departments
> > fail to see the similarities between themselves, and instead focus on
> their
> > differences. This focus on the differences is amplified by the use of
> dissimilar
> > vocabularies and subdiscipline-specific jargon. This use of dissimilar
> > vocabularies causes a communications gap and left unresolved ultimately
> creates
> > animosity between groups. I believe this is especially true between the
> more
> > traditional library departments and the computer staff. This
> communications gap
> > is an impediment to when it comes to achieving the goals of
> librarianship, and
> > any library — whether it be big or small — needs to address these issues
> lest it
> > wastes both its time and money.
> >
> > For example, the definitions of things like MARC, databases & indexes,
> > collections, and services are not shared across (especially larger)
> library
> > departments.
> >
> > What is the solution to these problems? In my opinion, there are many
> > possibilities, but the solution ultimately rests with individuals
> willing to
> > take the time to learn from their co-workers. It rests in the ability to
> respect
> > — not merely tolerate — another point of view. It requires time,
> listening,
> > discussion, reflection, and repetition. It requires getting to know
> other people
> > on a personal level. It requires learning what others like and dislike.
> It
> > requires comparing & contrasting points of view. It demands “walking a
> mile
> > in the other person’s shoes”, and can be accomplished by things such as
> the
> > physical intermingling of departments, cross-training, and simply by
> going to
> > coffee on a regular basis.
> >
> > Again, all of us working in libraries have more similarities than
> differences.
> > Learn to appreciate the similarities, and the differences will become
> > insignificant. The consequence will be a more holistic set of library
> > collections and services.
> >
> > [1] I have elaborated on these ideas in a blog posting -
> http://bit.ly/1LDpXkc
> >
> > —
> > Eric Lease Morgan
> >
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional communication

[Sam Kome]

+1 Brooke
  
We're a medium-sized library for a consortium of private colleges. No Library 
IT group, instead a technology working group with reps from each department. 
Organizational structure is somewhat matrixed.  We encourage & facilitate 
skillshares, professional development, etc.  We have started an annual workflow 
 analysis meeting that includes *everyone*.  It's fun to find optimizations 
between departments.

We work closely with the campus' (7) IT departments and central IT.  That's all 
a lot of work and communication is sometimes challenging, but necessary for 
smooth-ish operations.
Cheers,

Sam 

From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Carol Bean 
[beanwo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 3:14 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in professional 
communication

Um, yeah.  I gotta side with Brooke's point here about our tendency to
forget about the smaller, especially rural, libraries. And I would extend
it to include special libraries, which are usually also smaller with less
resources.

Carol

Carol Bean
beanwo...@gmail.com

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 6:22 AM, BWS Johnson 
wrote:

> Salvete!
>
> *lights match, positions gin based cocktail, and preps for incoming hate
> mail*
>
>
>
>  With all due respect Mr. Morgan, I wholeheartedly disagree.
>
>  Most Public Libraries are Rural Public Libraries. [IMLS 2013] Most
> Academics are also small by FTE enrolment [ies of NCES 2012] So "we are the
> little folk we". We might not actually have different fancy pants
> departments. I will cede the gentleman his perception amongst those
> Academic Ivory Behemoths that possess battleship turning or are eligible
> for ASERL membership.
>
>  I would also further venture that anecdotally, folks in settings
> similar to the ones I've chosen are less likely to have a Master's degree
> period, much less a Master's degree from a prestigious Institution.
> (Please, not in the face! I hate the paper standard, but it is there.) This
> lack of paper could well lead to someone being made to feel inferior. How
> many times have we heard in passing that so and so is not a "real"
> Librarian since they do not possess their $50k+ piece of paper?
>
> Your most humble and obedient servant,
> Brooke
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: Eric Lease Morgan 
> > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 6:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] reearch project about feeling stupid in
> professional communication
> >
> > In my humble opinion, what we have here is a failure to communicate. [1]
> >
> > Libraries, especially larger libraries, are increasingly made up of many
> > different departments, including but not limited to departments such as:
> > cataloging, public services, collections, preservation, archives, and
> now-a-days
> > departments of computer staff. From my point of view, these various
> departments
> > fail to see the similarities between themselves, and instead focus on
> their
> > differences. This focus on the differences is amplified by the use of
> dissimilar
> > vocabularies and subdiscipline-specific jargon. This use of dissimilar
> > vocabularies causes a communications gap and left unresolved ultimately
> creates
> > animosity between groups. I believe this is especially true between the
> more
> > traditional library departments and the computer staff. This
> communications gap
> > is an impediment to when it comes to achieving the goals of
> librarianship, and
> > any library — whether it be big or small — needs to address these issues
> lest it
> > wastes both its time and money.
> >
> > For example, the definitions of things like MARC, databases & indexes,
> > collections, and services are not shared across (especially larger)
> library
> > departments.
> >
> > What is the solution to these problems? In my opinion, there are many
> > possibilities, but the solution ultimately rests with individuals
> willing to
> > take the time to learn from their co-workers. It rests in the ability to
> respect
> > — not merely tolerate — another point of view. It requires time,
> listening,
> > discussion, reflection, and repetition. It requires getting to know
> other people
> > on a personal level. It requires learning what others like and dislike.
> It
> > requires comparing & contrasting points of view. It demands “walking a
> mile
> > in the other person’s shoes”, and can be accomplished by things such as
> the
> > physica