Friends, journalers, netizens: lend me your linkspam

[elf]

Note: My impartiality has been called into question, and a question of the comm title has been raised. I never claimed to be unbiased. However, I round up everything I can find on the topic, and while I try not to list signalboost posts, I don't intend to leave out anything substantial. (I'll include signalboosts if they've sparked interesting discussions.)

Advice on this would be welcome.
I do this for my own reasons; if what people want from linkspam falls outside of those, I won't be willing/able to participate here. I am willing to tell people how I do this (in insane detail), have other people help, or step down if that's wanted; I'm not willing to change my methods just because someone says "you're doing it wrong!" I might be willing to change them if people convince me I'm doing it wrong; that's not the same thing.

erastes I’ve just received this charming diatribe in my inbox (Comments turned off.)

logovol Mi fetiche no es credencial (Post in Spanish)

kynn cue the wtf chorus

keeva Does linkspam need a new tagline?
kynn Does linkspam need a new tagline? (Same post; different sites; different comments)

gwailowrite False Allies in Straight-fail

flourish Lambda Awards kerfuffle

spoggly re: Lambda Awards

angrylemur People are idiots, Tuesday edition

abigail_roux Oh, what a tangled web we writers weave sometimes.

sparkindarkness Lambda Bingo!

sunhawk note one on being a good ally

Comments

[From: logophilos]

"My impartiality has been called into question, and a question of the comm title has been raised. "

I'll be frank - your comments to me and what I've seen elsewhere have ticked me off incredibly. On a personal level, I don't agree with you over this Lambda issue.

But I don't think there has been any obvious bias observable in your link round up, though you're probably limited as anyone would be by where you get to see stuff.

I don't have a problem with your work here, or the retention of the comm title.

[From: elf]

Thank you.

I don't think I could do this if I had to ignore my own thoughts & reactions. I try to deal with them responsibly--don't post active flames on a post with two comments, which was obviously only expected to be read by a f'list of 50 but was too intriguing to leave out, don't leave out posts no matter how much I disagree with them nor how much I think that aspect's been covered elsewhere, don't put commentary on the linkspam lists other than warning for harsh language, especially if I'm not sure of my own bias.

I would like to believe we're on the same "side" here, on the macro scale--both trying to fight oppression and work for a better, more tolerant and understanding world. Obviously, we've got some serious disagreements about how to do that.

(Does it help if I say I agree with many of the points you made, and deeply respect you for saying them? It always feels weird to say, "oh, X, Y, Z, squee thank you, but A & B, hmm, not so sure." I generally pick one or the other of those for an individual post because anything else gets confusing.)

That which I most want to understand, I argue with. (There are perhaps better approaches to understanding. They're not my approaches; they don't work for me.) So, umm... I apologize for any unpleasantness I inflicted on you, and want you to know I'm paying attention and trying to understand why I disagree with so many sensible, intelligent people.

Doesn't mean I'll decide I'm wrong; I'm of a religion that many sensible, intelligent people think is evil. I can respect someone's character and wisdom without agreeing with their conclusions. (Likewise, I can agree with people's conclusions and still think they're assholes. Which is definitely the case in some of the posts I read.)

Eeep this got long. Erm, thanks for putting up with rambly comment?

[From: keeva]

Just for the record, no one has asked for elf to quit doing what she's chosen to do, although she has threatened to flounce (and delete her recent posts on this topic) because she was asked to change the tagline on the community.

[From: logophilos]

Actually your posts were provocative and clearly challenging her role in the community. You have a right to object to that, but I read the exchange and it's very obvious you want her to stop or go away. Don't be passive aggressive and pretend otherwise. If I had been elf in that position, I'd have reacted exactly the same to your comments/posts.

Even if you started the community, as you are not the owner *now* then you don't have the standing to demand changes in how it's run. That's what stepping away and handing it over *means*.

I know neither of you and call neither of you friends - or enemies. I'm just calling it how I see it.

[From: kathmandu]

I am impressed with Elf's hard work. The whole reason this comm was started was that the effort of searching and archiving was burning out individuals who tried it.

The roundup posts are mostly just links, with occasional clarifying notes; I don't see how there could be bias except in the selection of posts. And if other people see that relevant posts are being left out, they can contribute a roundup themselves.

[From: keeva]

...I don't see how there could be bias except in the selection of posts.

Note the exchange here, in which I am critical of the bias displayed in selectively quoting (and bolding) only the part of the rules which -- out of context -- make LLF look dreadful, and elf's tacit admission (by updating the post with more context, such as LLF's purpose) that her own bias had influenced how she had reported the incident.

Such selective quoting of only "one side's" arguments really does lead casual readers to be more willing to believe absolute untruths such as "they changed the rules after the submission date" or "who determines who is LGBT enough?" (both of which elf readily ate up and believed and propagated) -- when a simple quote of those portions of the entry rules would have done a lot of benefit to informed discourse.

[From: elf]

The bits of commentary could definitely be biased, and have been in the past. (Certainly, I made no claims of impartiality during surveyfail.)

I worry about it a bit--but not too much, because, ahm, this is what I have time & energy to do; second- and third-guessing my own motives in the few sentences of commentary would just wind up with either no commentary (which I considered: here's a link to the Lambda rules, with no mention of what this is about, and here's 50 related blog posts), or with me "waiting" until I figure out the "right" commentary.

Waiting is bad. No commentary might not be bad; I'm considering it. In the meantime, I try to keep the commentary limited, and let the links speak for themselves.

[From: hl]

As I offered in the other post, if there's a real fear of bias in the link round up, and (I add now) offensive posts marking, I volunteer to help with either or both.

I haven't perceived bias in the link round up myself, but I'm only following the discussion through here, so I wouldn't know (perhaps it would help to know that I reached the diametrically opposite position to elf's reading the posts linked in this comm).

[From: elf]

I'd be glad to have help. It gets... not exactly exhausting, but definitely time-consuming. (Is this where I mention that at work, I don't have access to the journalsphere, and at home, I have dialup internet?)

It's less fun/intriguing and more sorting work than you might think.

If you send me email (elfwreck at gmail dot com) I'd be happy to share my secrets send you a copy of the document I use for roundups and too much info about manipulating search engines to get them to cough up the right links.

Note to lurkers: this is an open offer. Helpers to gather links would be wonderful. Helpers to format posts, even more wonderful, but that's not a simple task to share.

(As far as I know, there's been no accusation that I'm missing links, just that I shouldn't call the community "anti-oppression" if some people think I'm on the side of the oppressors.) (I am no doubt missing some links, but it's not because I've deliberately skipped any.)

[From: naraht]

Just want to say, thanks for volunteering! It sounds like elf has got your training in hand but if you have any questions or need help, let me know.

[From: maevele]

I do feel as though I have seen a good number of posts, just on my flist, defending LLF's side that have not actually made it into the linkspams, that I saw. Which makes me consider the possibility that the side criticisizing the LLF is being over represented in the linkspam roundups, perhaps subconsciously because of your bias towards that side. or just that my Flist is dramatically on the LLF's side. either way, I could send you the links from the side I am seeing more f.

[From: elf]

Send me links yes please! I want Linkspam to cover the *whole* dialogue, and let other people sort out which parts were "the good parts" later.

Most of my links, I get from Icerocket's blog search. Journals that are set to un-spiderable, don't get caught in that web.

I check on the journals and sometimes the f'lists of very popular posts, because I sometimes find links there. But mostly, I'm stuck with a couple of search engines, and links I'm handed. Part of the reason for posting "you've been linkspammed!" on posts is to let other readers see it, and consider throwing links in this direction.

Yes please--gimme links! I've got some limited criteria for posting them (I try not to link to "signalboost" posts that just say "[topic], ugh, here's a link to what someone else said, wow." (But even those, I link to if they've got an active & interesting discussion in the comments.)

Watch out for f'locked posts; it's easy to not notice how much of your own f'list is locked. (If I try to click on something and it won't open for me, I don't include it and I don't mention it. So don't fret if you accidentally include f'locked posts; I'm not keeping track of inaccessible posts.)

[From: stoneself]

yeah because an anti-oppression comm needs more support for privilege.

[From: nicki]

Personally I think you are doing a fabulous job. And, from my observation, links left in the comments get included on the link-post. One person cannot find every post on a particular controversy (especially if their part of the blogosphere leans in one direction on a particular issue), so IMO, people who are worried about the links being onesided should post links in the comments as well.

Also, I have only been following this through the linkspam and only those not on LJ, because I can't access LJ at work, and even with that very limited selection I still came across the information on what the submission date was.

[From: naraht]

My feelings on the matter...

From experience I know that linkspamming is a difficult job. One of the things that makes it especially difficult is the feeling that you have to be "on" all the time as the public face of the community, and the knowledge that the community itself may be judged by your own personal views. I think it's a good thing, as far as practicable, to try to make a distinction between the roles. It would be impossible to ask linkspammers never to express their personal views on the questions at issue.

When it comes to the question under discussion here, I disagree with elf. I suspect many if not most of the people reading these posts feel similarly. I don't, however, expect her to be always on the "right" side of any given issue. I don't expect myself to always be right. Or even to be able to identify which side of a debate is the more deserving.

What I do think is that elf has been doing a sterling job collecting and posting links. Whatever you think of what she's doing on her own time, I think and hope that the community itself is forwarding anti-oppression work by functioning as a clearing-house for discussion.

It should go without saying that we always welcome new linkspammers. It would be better for the burden to rest on more shoulders and that way it would be less easy to confuse personal views with the stance of the community. I'm willing to put a bit of time into training people, so anyone can comment or PM me if interested.

[From: supermouse]

I've tried collecting links on a subject, just for a single post here and there. It's really hard work. I really value linkspam for saving me an awful lot of searching and trying to remember which links I've visited already.

red herring alert

[From: stoneself]

hey. the problem here isn't about bias. total red herring.

repeat not about bias.

the problem is that elf is supporting straight privilege. which is totally counter to the point of this community in the first place.

re: red herring alert

[From: hl]

OK, totally fell for that red herring.

How do you propose the community is fixed? (I'm not saying it just to say it; I'm about to get involved in collecting the links, so...)

Re: red herring alert

[From: rootedinsong]

Strongly seconded.

Re: red herring alert

[From: elf]

If my actions are counter to the point of the comm, then I should stop linkspamming.

(Not a threat. A tautology. I don't believe I'm supporting straight privilege.)

Suggestions for fixing this are welcome. Suggestions for elf fixing herself, should that be necessary, should be taken up in a different venue, and the methods you're using aren't likely to work.

[From: logophilos]

Sparkindarkness has put together a bingo card for LamdaFail
http://sparkindarkness.livejournal.com/253282.html

Something for other straight cis people to consider

[From: sqbr]

As a straight cis person who strongly disagrees with elf's opinion on the awards but has appreciated the linkspam and thinks she's, afaict, been doing a pretty good job(*)...I'm uncomfortable with, and want to highlight, the fact that, based on the small sample of this post, the only people who disagree with elf on the awards(**) but think the linkspams she's been doing are still an unambiguously good thing seem to be straight and cis (I think? I do not mean to mischaracterise anyone here, and apologies if I am) while all the LGBT people who disagree with her opinion on the awards do have a problem with the way she's running the linkspam (either on principle or in the specifics)

So..yeah. There's been some very good posts in this roundup about the way straight people think we know what's best for LGBT folk and rate our own convenience and experience above theirs, and that this is a bad thing.

Anyway, something I do feel comfortable weighing in on: perhaps a general call for volunteers? Maybe changing the setup to make it easier for people to share the load? I don't know if these are helpful suggestions. I must admit I'm not going to be able to help out in any case, but I really appreciate this comm (and the work elf and everyone else have done for it) and hope it can continue without making anyone feel like it's adding to their oppression (becuase that does seem pretty contrary to it's purpose).

(*)EDIT: I don't mean to imply that I disagree with the complaints keeva etc are making. But I can't quite get my head around them completely yet.
(**)People who agree being much less likely to have a problem with her doing the linkspam

[From: angelikitten]

Weirdly enough, I was thinking that it was mainly LGBT people disagreeing, but didn't feel comfortable saying what that implies because I'm not straight - I'm used to people dismissing what I have to say on these things.

[From: keeva]

Oh, HI, it's YOU again.

Attacking from anonymity with personal insults instead of addressing the points being raised, AGAIN, are you?

[From: dont_think_twice]

I haven't taken the time to read through all the comments yet, but I'd say that having more volunteers would probably be a good thing as people may know of posts that aren't showing up in searches (I can't volunteer myself though, since I'm trying to cut back on my internet time for various reasons)

[From: amadi]

I'm dreadfully curious who froze comments on this post, and why. If direct personal attacks by anonymous passersby are acceptable, why would any contentious thread need to be frozen?

[From: keeva]

Kind of curious too. I think that freezing comments now -- with the most current post also without comments -- is probably a bad idea from an administrative standpoint.