The response to the occasional email from the list owner on Facebook above fascinates. There is hardly a message a day. I find the bot who owns the Facebook group responds fairly frequently, and sufficiently intelligently, that Turing would be impressed. Deleting messages that you don't want to read, about ten a day on lis-link, is done easily and collectively in digest mode, it isn't hard work. The messages on scholarship 2.0 are often telling me something I didn't know, and occasionally useful or I want to follow them. The same sort of thing happens on the KIDMM list. This is the first time I've seen a lis-link thread develop a discussion (these are called discussion lists for a reason) and I am stunned by parts of the community committed to freedom of expression and access to information (1948) responding in a manner of managerialism?
At some stage, I presume, in the best tradition of Niemoller, someone will start a thread about my occasional matters of politics, gardening, ISKO, PRADSA, concept theory, walking, public transport, and threads which someone doesn't see the connection with that particular flavour of lis-linking, such as linked data?
I do notice this list is about information science, rather than services, and to be a science means a particular matter for technical change.
Approaching an employer I find simply scandalous, and unethical.
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
|