I think we will be needed exterminators for all those Twitter Critters.
Leland
From: The listserv where the buildings do the talking
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David West
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 6:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BP] Web 2.0 and conservation
My business partner recently attended the Museums and the Web
<http://www.archimuse.com/mw2009/> conference in Indianapolis.
During the keynote lecture, there were 2 screens - one for the keynote
speaker's presentation, and the other running a continuous Twitter update
from conference attendees.
I understand that during the one hour keynote presentation, there were
either 45 or 72 (can't remember which number he mentioned) Tweets. The
keynote speaker evidently said part way through his presentation something
along the lines of "It is very disconcerting speaking here today, and seeing
your eyes all swivel left every minute or so".
My partner also said that most of the Tweets were quite irrelevant (and
inane), including things like "I've left my glasses in my room" and "I'm
glad to be at MW2009".
A resounding demonstration of what not to do at a conference, from the sound
of it.
On a different note, this is the conference which had time allocated for
"unconference
<http://conference.archimuse.com/forum/mw2009_unconference_sessions>
sessions".
Cheers
David West
Executive Director
internationalconservationservices
T: +61 (2) 9417 3311
M: +61 (411) 692 696
_____
From: The listserv where the buildings do the talking
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gabriel
Orgrease
Sent: Monday, 4 May 2009 11:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BP] Web 2.0 and conservation
The topic here at Dan Cul's weblog is use of Twitter (limit 140 characters
per message) as an online media for substantive discussion re: conservation,
not necessarily histo presto, but relevant:
http://dancull.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/the-great-conservation-twittercon/
Opens with a nice Dilbert cartoon.
"One major problem with the discussion that wasn't really raised, or at
least not widely discussed, is that we were only 26 individuals we don't
represent even a very small percentage of the profession. Without a much
larger discussion it's hard to ascertain whether we are just the first to be
discussing this way, or what the wider the consensus actually is. In fact it
could be, for whatever reason, that the wider field think that conservation
should have no involvement in Web 2.0 at all. We need to work out a way to
feed these discussions to the wider audience and gather feed back on the
wider perceptions and opinions. In order to do this I believe we need to
tackle the first issue. that of access."
I would suggest that they also avoid talking about the conservation of
semi-heritage outhouses.
This Twitter exploration reminds me very much of the reluctance of folks on
Preservation-L to have ANY conversation whatsoever.
The discussion was initiated as a focused reading of Collaborating in the
Public's Domain by Richard McCoy: http://ceroart.revues.org/index1159.html
][<en
-- To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html -- To terminate
puerile preservation prattling among pals and the uncoffee-ed, or to change
your settings, go to:
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html
--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
|
