"Real People"
Jul. 8th, 2012 01:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandrootThe narrative of "real people" keeps coming back around in OTW-related discussions, along with its close cousins like "appreciation", and there are a few things that particularly strike me about this.
A) This is a blatant red herring, when it shows up in discussions of effectiveness. Of course the organization is composed of real people. I did not actually assume it was made up of an infinite number of monkeys, despite occasional code artifacts that suggest otherwise, nor of sockpuppets, despite occasional communication modes that suggest otherwise. But being a "real person" is not some kind of magical ward against criticism, especially if one is not managing to do the job one took on effectively. The organization's products and organs are not being criticized because detractors are somehow convinced they're speaking about a bunch of improbably advanced AIs. They are being criticized for presenting those products as adequate and operational when they are not (a recent, but alas far from isolated, example).
B) If one wishes to be treated like a real person, it helps to look like one. Let us take the news blogs, for example. On the OTW site, the author of each OTW news post appears. When mirrored to LJ or DW or Tumblr, however, the author's name is stripped and the post appears under a corporate and faceless identity like "otw_staff". Because that worked so well for LJ. The AO3 news blog does not show authors to begin with, even on the AO3 site. Within the body of those posts, the current chair-holders, leaders, or team members are almost never called by name, only by title, and nearly every self-reference is plural. AD&T is working closely with Systems. Strategic Planning welcomes feedback. We are making emergency updates.
When confronted with a nameless, faceless, corporate entity, especially one who often \o/ while Rome burns, people tend to treat it like a nameless, faceless, corporate entity rather than a person. Cause. Effect. Furthermore, if such facelessness and title-naming is still considered desirable in order to distance user/member wrath, it might be time to think about exactly what's causing so much angry response. Hint: it's not because they don't think there are real people who are working hard in there.
C) If one wishes to be treated like a real person, it helps to treat others like real people. Consider that Strategic Planning has felt it desirable to pay for a second, separate survey account with which to survey tag wranglers about their work, so that they could guarantee absolute confidentiality. That's a pretty stern measure to take, for a basic workplace or workflow survey, but it surely does seem that a number of wranglers don't feel free to speak in their own names. In fact, it looks a lot like the real-person feelings and needs of the wranglers in question are being ignored and mis-represented more by cheerleaders than by detractors of the organization. ETA:erinptah notes that one of these comments is hers and she is anonymous only to follow the rules of the comm; this may be true of others as well.
Consider further that the guiding principle of the organization seems to be some bizarre form of Need To Know operational security. Users of the archive must not be shown the actual navigation system. Volunteers must not be able to know the plans in progress that will affect their areas and members must not be able to view the wiki where volunteer activities are documented or even have limited parts of it shown them. There are names for attempts to "protect" people from information, and some more for concealing a group's activities from its own members. None of them are nice, and none of the actions they describe indicate any particular respect for the people in question.
TL;DR: The "real-ness" of people working within or supporting the organization seems only rarely to be a genuine concern of those using the phrase or its synonyms, and even more rarely a pertinent one.
PS, Circle-only comments, see above re the relative respect granted by organization cheerleaders.
PPS, Bonus snark, from the recent anon thread, because it's both alarmingly cogent and kind of a thing of beauty.
A) This is a blatant red herring, when it shows up in discussions of effectiveness. Of course the organization is composed of real people. I did not actually assume it was made up of an infinite number of monkeys, despite occasional code artifacts that suggest otherwise, nor of sockpuppets, despite occasional communication modes that suggest otherwise. But being a "real person" is not some kind of magical ward against criticism, especially if one is not managing to do the job one took on effectively. The organization's products and organs are not being criticized because detractors are somehow convinced they're speaking about a bunch of improbably advanced AIs. They are being criticized for presenting those products as adequate and operational when they are not (a recent, but alas far from isolated, example).
B) If one wishes to be treated like a real person, it helps to look like one. Let us take the news blogs, for example. On the OTW site, the author of each OTW news post appears. When mirrored to LJ or DW or Tumblr, however, the author's name is stripped and the post appears under a corporate and faceless identity like "otw_staff". Because that worked so well for LJ. The AO3 news blog does not show authors to begin with, even on the AO3 site. Within the body of those posts, the current chair-holders, leaders, or team members are almost never called by name, only by title, and nearly every self-reference is plural. AD&T is working closely with Systems. Strategic Planning welcomes feedback. We are making emergency updates.
When confronted with a nameless, faceless, corporate entity, especially one who often \o/ while Rome burns, people tend to treat it like a nameless, faceless, corporate entity rather than a person. Cause. Effect. Furthermore, if such facelessness and title-naming is still considered desirable in order to distance user/member wrath, it might be time to think about exactly what's causing so much angry response. Hint: it's not because they don't think there are real people who are working hard in there.
C) If one wishes to be treated like a real person, it helps to treat others like real people. Consider that Strategic Planning has felt it desirable to pay for a second, separate survey account with which to survey tag wranglers about their work, so that they could guarantee absolute confidentiality. That's a pretty stern measure to take, for a basic workplace or workflow survey, but it surely does seem that a number of wranglers don't feel free to speak in their own names. In fact, it looks a lot like the real-person feelings and needs of the wranglers in question are being ignored and mis-represented more by cheerleaders than by detractors of the organization. ETA:
erinptah notes that one of these comments is hers and she is anonymous only to follow the rules of the comm; this may be true of others as well.Consider further that the guiding principle of the organization seems to be some bizarre form of Need To Know operational security. Users of the archive must not be shown the actual navigation system. Volunteers must not be able to know the plans in progress that will affect their areas and members must not be able to view the wiki where volunteer activities are documented or even have limited parts of it shown them. There are names for attempts to "protect" people from information, and some more for concealing a group's activities from its own members. None of them are nice, and none of the actions they describe indicate any particular respect for the people in question.
TL;DR: The "real-ness" of people working within or supporting the organization seems only rarely to be a genuine concern of those using the phrase or its synonyms, and even more rarely a pertinent one.
PS, Circle-only comments, see above re the relative respect granted by organization cheerleaders.
PPS, Bonus snark, from the recent anon thread, because it's both alarmingly cogent and kind of a thing of beauty.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-08 10:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2012-07-10 10:52 am (UTC)As far as this post goes (which I definitely agree with, especially on the corporate facelessness), I can't believe that
(no subject)
From: