Today’s post comes from Kerri Young of Historypin, app developer on the US National Archives’ recently completed Remembering WWI tablet app. You can learn more about the app’s initial launch on the blog of the American Association of State and Local History.
The National Archives has collaborated with the Library of Congress, Smithsonian Museum of American History, and the National WWI Museum and Memorial to build the collection of primary source content available in the Remembering WWI app. Now, we also invite your local institution to contribute.
Remembering WWI is a national collaborative effort, aimed at helping teachers and local institutions easily explore a rich collection of WWI film and photo primary sources from the US National Archives (NARA) and aforementioned national partners. Collection-creation is at the heart of the app experience, where in addition to exploring teachers and institutions can reuse this content to create their own WWI narratives. By contributing your own content, you can help contextualize the experience of WWI at the local level and grow this national collection of WWI primary sources. Institutions who contribute their own materials will also be able to reuse NARA and other institutional content to enhance the narratives within their own in-app collections, for use locally in their own centenary programming or museum tours for example.
What kinds of materials can I contribute?
We currently have WWI-related photographs, films, and objects (photos of uniforms, equipment, etc) in the app. Other scanned materials, such as letters and other documents in your collection, are also welcome.
Where do I upload?
If you are interested in adding content to the app, you will need to upload through Historypin. You cannot upload through the app itself. Any material appearing in the Historypin Remembering WWI collection will appear in the app.
What are the steps?
1. Are you uploading large amounts of content? If yes, you’ll want to use Historypin’s bulk uploader where you can easily gather your photo or film data on a CSV. Contact Kerri at firstname.lastname@example.org for more information. If no, start at Step 2.
2. Create a free Historypin account. Go to Historypin.org to sign up and create a profile on behalf of your institution.
3. All content must go into a themed collection. We’re surfacing all featured content in the app as curated collections to make content easily discoverable. Before doing any uploading, first create a collection by going to the Historypin Remembering WWI collection and clicking “Add a Collection.” Once you’ve added details, click “Add a pin” from within the collection to start uploading. Note that those who choose the bulk uploader will go through a different process.
4. View your content in the app or on Historypin. As you add pins to your collection, they will automatically appear in the app. To view your collection in the app, download it here. Alternatively, your collection on Historypin is there for sharing as well!
- If you would like help walking through this process, feel free to email Historypin Engagement Manager Kerri Young at email@example.com.
- For a great example of a local WWI collection on Historypin, check out Connecticut Remembers WWI, created by the Connecticut State Library as part statewide WWI centenary efforts.
- For more information on individual app features, check out NARA’s History Hub page for Remembering WWI.
- Promotional Poster
- Promotional Brochures
The program for the inaugural W3C Publishing Summit (taking place November 9-10, 2017 in the San Francisco Bay Area) has just been announced. The program will feature keynotes from Internet pioneer and futurist Tim O’Reilly and Adobe CTO Abhay Parasnis. along with dozens of other speakers and panelists who will showcase and discuss how web technologies are shaping publishing today, tomorrow, and beyond.
Publishing and the web interact in innumerable ways. From schools to libraries, from design to production to archiving, from metadata to analytics, from New York to Paris to Buenos Aires to Tokyo, the Summit will show how web technologies are making publishing more accessible, more global, and more efficient and effective. Mozilla user experience lead and author Jen Simmons will showcase the ongoing revolution in CSS. Design experts Laura Brady, Iris Febre and Nellie McKesson will cover putting the reader first when producing ebooks and automating publishing workflows. We’ll also hear from reading system creator Micah Bowers (Bluefire) and EPUB pioneers George Kerscher (DAISY) and Garth Conboy (Google).
The newly-unveiled program will also showcase insights from senior leaders from across the spectrum of publishing and digital content stakeholders including Jeff Jaffe (CEO, W3C), Yasushi Fujita (CEO, Media DO), Rick Johnson (SVP Product and Strategy, Ingram/VitalSource), Ken Brooks (COO, Macmillan Learning), Liisa McCloy-Kelley (VP, Penguin Random House), and representatives from Rakuten Kobo, NYPL, University of Michigan Library/Publishing, Wiley, Hachette Book Group, Editis, EDRLab, and more.
I’m very excited about this new event which represents an important next milestone in the expanded Publishing@W3C initiative and I hope you will join us. Register now. For more information on the event, see the W3C Publishing Summit 2017 homepage and Media Advisory.
Sponsors of the W3C Publishing Summit include Ingram/VitalSource, SPi Global, and Apex. Additional sponsorship opportunities are available, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org for more information. The Publishing Summit is one of several co-located events taking place during W3C’s major annual gathering, TPAC, for which registration is open for W3C members.
Then we walked on to Cloud City and cut the line to buy moderately expensive ice-cream to eat in front of the TV, which we will do Real Soon Now.
Sometime during all this we also encountered a very nice old dog who wanted to play, and that was delightful, even though the dog's human eventually put a kibosh on the random-cheerful-greeting-of-strangers-
Back in '93, we picked mid-August for our ceremony because 1) we couldn't afford any place that charged money, and 2) mid-August is during our nearly-contractual Six Weeks It Doesn't Rain in Portland, so it ought to have been safe to hold the affair in a public park. Unfortunately for our most excellent planning, 1993 was The Year that Summer Never Came: it rained on us that day, as it had rained nearly every day that summer.
This morning we woke up to rain, too.
After coffee, we walked over to give the chickens some fresh strawberry tops, but the chickens were still shut up safe from the terrible, awful drizzle and thus were forced to watch yearningly while we dumped our strawberry tops through the fence for them to have later. (Such sad chickens!) We thought it'd be nice to go for a walk in Kenilworth Park at some point today (Kenilworth was where we had our reception), but between one kind of shilly-shallying and another, we never quite got around to it.
Which is fine. It was a lovely languid day with my Sweetie, and that's just about as perfect as a day can be.
As I mentioned initially, Lundy Bancroft lists a number of tactics abusive men use in conversations. In Why Does He Do That?, he notes that when one of the abusers he works with attempts to use one of these tactics on him or another group participant, and Bancroft calmly names which tactic it is instead of reacting, the abuser usually gets even angrier. So in that spirit, I thought I would compile a list of responses to my article and classify them according to the abuse tactics they use.
Here is a subset of Bancroft's list of conversational abuse tactics in p. 145-146 (n.b. all page-number references are to Why Does He Do That?)
- Distorting what you say (this was one of the most common responses I saw, in which the interlocutor would make up a caricature of what I wrote and then attack that, instead of engaging with the actual ideas).
- Accusing you of doing what he does, or thinking the way he thinks (AKA projection, as discussed on p. 142)
- Using a tone of absolute certainty and final authority -- "defining reality":
When Mr. Right decides to take control of a conversation, he switches into his Voice of Truth, giving the definitive pronouncement on what is the correct answer or the proper outlook. Abuse counselors call this tactic defining reality. Over time, his tone of authority can cause his partner to doubt her own judgment and come to see herself as not very bright. (p. 82)
- Not listening, refusing to respond -- I've rephrased this as "dismissal", since the original list was concerned with in-person conversations where one person can literally ignore the other. Online, the equivalent of this is not ignoring, but replying in a way that doesn't at all engage with the content, rather labeling it in ways that create negative sentiment without actually trying to refute ideas. Dismissal is not ignoring (it's great when people ignore things they don't like or don't care about!) -- the effort that the abuser puts in to communicate "I didn't read this, I didn't think it was worth reading, but I'm still going to attack it" shows that it is important to them that the person being abused not be heard. (Compare Kathy Sierra's "Trouble at the Kool-Aid Point" and my own previous discussion of false dismissal.)
- Changing the subject to his grievances
- Provoking guilt
- Playing the victim
- Name-calling, insults, put-downs. I'm calling out "insulting intelligence" as its own subcategory:
The abuser tends to see his partner as less intelligent, less competent, less logical, and even less sensitive than he is.... He often has difficulty conceiving of her as a human being. (p. 63)One of the primary rhetorical weapons used against underrepresented people in tech is that we're not intelligent, and indeed, that was a large part of what made the original manifesto abusive.
- Threatening to harm you
- Demanding explanation, where the interlocutor asks for more justification either in ways that make it clear they didn't read the entire piece, or didn't read it carefully, or don't actually want to debate and are just asking in order to steal attention. Sort of like a human denial-of-service attack. The person demanding explanation is like the type of abuser Bancroft describes as "Mr. Right":
"Mr. Right tries to sanitize his bullying by telling me, 'I have strong opinions' or 'I like debating ideas.' This is like a bank robber saying, 'I'm interested in financial issues.' Mr. Right isn't interested in debating ideas; he wants to impose his own." (p. 83)
"It is frustrating, and ultimately pointless, to argue with someone who is certain beyond the shadow of a doubt that his perspective is accurate and complete and that yours is wrong and stupid. Where can the conversation possibly go?" (p. 144)Demanding explanation is abusive because it's deceptive: the abuser who demands an explanation holds out the promise that he is reasonable, he can be persuaded, and the conversation can go somewhere positive if you just explain more. In reality, he is not open to being changed by what he hears, and is just trying to waste your time and/or entrap you for more abuse. Demanding a 1-on-1 conversation also reflects entitlement to the time and attention of the writer, who has already provided plenty of explanation. It is pretty obvious to me when someone is asking questions out of genuine openness to change, and when they're doing it in a rude and entitled way.
- Gaslighting; Bancroft discusses discrediting extensively (p. 125, p. 146) but doesn't call it out in the above list. "You're too sensitive", "You're overreacting", and -- when not justified, other than by the purported oversensitivity of the writer -- "You can't make that comparison, it's ridiculous" are all forms of gaslighting. They attempt to make the listener doubt their own perceptions and judgment. I included gaslighting comments under "ridicule", but it's worth pointing out that this is a common and insidious form of ridicule, since it seems superficially reasonable (of course we all think that nobody should be too sensitive, or react too much, though the boundary for how sensitive it's acceptable to be is rarely discussed).
The analysisI read:
- All of my mentions that were replies to tweets (from me or other people) linking to "Refusing to Empathize with Elliot Rodger, or that linked to the essay without replying to me.
- Two comments on my Dreamwidth post that were screened and that I deleted.
The following table lists all but one of the responses, along with the abusive tactics each one employs.
There was one response that didn't use any of the abusive tactics above. It was illogical (blaming Marc Lépine's actions on Islam because Lépine's father was Algerian), but may have been written in good faith, even if it was ignorant.
So in short:
- 27 critical/negative replies
- 26 out of 27 use at least one abuse tactic identified by Bancroft; most several
- The remaining one is illogical / primarily based on religious stereotyping.
- No substantive criticisms. At all.
ConclusionThe dominance of abuse in the negative responses to my piece doesn't prove I'm right, of course. It doesn't prove there's no good argument against my core theses, and it doesn't prove I didn't make any mistakes. But given that a lot of people were so eager to debunk my article, if there was a good argument, don't you think one of them might have found one?
I think giving names to abusive conversational patterns is extremely powerful and I think it's important to distinguish between criticism and abuse, and notice when the only thing people can seem to muster up in response to anti-abuse discourse is more abuse.
But that's not what I wanted to post about.
femslashex nominations close today, and they already have many lovely Holmesian options in the tagset: in addition to Sherlock and Elementary, there are Adventures of Shirley Holmes, My Dearly Beloved Detective, eight ACD ships, and crossovers in various directions between MBDB, ACD, and Bert Coules' Further Adventures. phoenixfalls and I nominated a handful of those, but there is at least one more MoreHolmes nominator in the exchange and we don't know who it is. (Hi, hello, do I know you, can we be friends?)
Also, acdholmesfest sign-ups close real soon now. Truth be told, I still find that exchange a little intimidating (ACD fandom is just so good at what they do), but nowadays I'm a lot more confident of my ability to write ACD. I know quite a few of the participants now, too, at least enough to say hello to. And it would be a nice way to celebrate having read all of the canon.
But the problem here is that I'm already committed to Remix, holmestice happens hard on the heels of both exchanges, and festivids overlaps holmestice. Altogether, that is a lot, even for my manic "I don't exist unless I'm making something" self. And last fall/winter around about Februrary, I was ready to gnaw my arm off I was so exhausted.
(Although in hindsight, the election probably contributed to my overwhelming fatigue. And we're not due for another of those for another few years.)
Leonard heard about it on Twitter and suggested we try it. I thought it was going to be sort of a longform SNL skit. And then I thought it was going to be kind of a nostalgic buddy cop show with a few jokey swipes at Cold War anti-American propaganda. And now we've watched all but the last episode and I think the show is doing, or trying to do, something much more interesting, and is using and critiquing the copshow form better than Life on Mars did.
It's useful to me to think of Comrade Detective as having four audiences (1 & 2 being Watsonian and 3 & 4 being Doylist):
1. the in-universe Romanian political censors
2. the in-universe Romanian citizenry (purportedly the main audience for the show)
3. the actual main audience, mostly middle-class US residents
4. Amazon corporate & media critics
Audiences 2 & 3, plus some of 1, are reasons that people do or say things in Comrade Detective (e.g., claiming that the Romanian healthcare system is the best in the world, or arguing that health care is more of a fundamental human right than freedom of religion); audiences 1 & 4 are reasons people don't.
But I want to watch the final episode before I make strong claims. Anyone else here watching?