[Sigia-l] community

[CD Evans]

Community is what I truncated this thread to, not really because I 
thought it should be a voting community, but because communities need 
to rely on each other.

In essence, I agree with Brett that the narrowness of the taxonomic 
discussions have influenced my opinion of the usefulness of this list. 
I could say and, in a much less polite way, have said, the same thing 
about ROI. These are topics we do need in our skill set, and so I don't 
want to vote them out (apology). But it would be better, I feel, if we 
had a more well rounded list as opposed to being entrenched in the 
specifics. Especially as it cuts off the rest of the architectural 
elements!

We're not a bunch of idiots. We'd just like to make better systems. We 
all have our own specialization, but as we have found they can 
sometimes be at odds with each other. That doesn't mean we have to take 
sides though. We can act like adults and, perhaps, keep topics to 
'plain-english'?

I vote for plain english. Just as boxes and arrows started out with. We 
should keep our values of keeping information usable. If the taxonomic 
elements are sometimes unusable, they might need a card sort 
themselves. Same goes for business needs.

Let's not separate the community with what Brett Lider at the summit 
referred to some people having 'too much attitude'. And good on him 
too. Let's try to build a community here that respects specialization, 
but as a part of a much larger thing called InfoArch. Or whatever.

And no, I don't think taxonomy is the centre of any structure. Sorry. 
It may be the strongest element we have, but I could build something 
out of icons if need be.

My vote is for plain english and for acceptance of what everyone has to 
give.

Kindly
CD Evans


On 19 Mar 2004, at 17:01, sigia-l-request at asis.org wrote:

> From: "Jan C. Wright" <jancw at wrightinformation.com>
> Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] community
>
> On the other end of the continuum from Brett, I like the discussions 
> of the
> non-indexing and taxonomy, because that's where I'm the weakest and I 
> need
> to understand where what I do fits in. Don't think I would agree with 
> it
> being just a skillset, but of course I am BOUND to say that, since I'm 
> a
> taxonomist.
>
> The edges and the core of the field are all important at various 
> times, to
> various people... That sounds Lincoln-esque or Twain-esque, sorry.
>
> At 11:39 AM 3/18/2004 -0500, Brett Ingram wrote:
>
>> I have found increasingly over the last couple of years that the most
>> useful discussions that have (rarely) occured on the list focus on the
>> library science view of IA. Which is useful for me because that is
>> where I am weakest. However, discussions of indexing, taxonomy,
>> controlled vocabularies, thesauri, etc, make me feel more and more
>> disconnected from the idea of IA being a profession. For me, it is a
>> skillset. A subset of what I need to do to design and build great
>> sites. This could be a reflection of my bias (I have a degree in
>> capital "A" architecture). Building architects have to understand a
>> whole host of things to be able to effectively design buildings
>> (physics, structural engineering, HVAC systems, lighting design,
>> business, history, art, culture, the American's with Disabilities
>> Act....)
>>
>>