Another reason it’s been quiet around here is that comments haven’t been appearing.
This was my fault (though I am innocent of any ill intent), and I apologize with all my heart. What happened was this: I was getting quite a bit of the particularly obnoxious kind of spam that copies other comments to appear legitimate. I cranked up the behind-the-scenes spam filter, which cheerfully snaffled every single comment and then bitbucketed them after a few days.
I didn’t notice this (except to wonder why nobody was commenting! I figured it was me?) until one gentleman asked me in gmail today whether I’d seen a comment he’d left here. I hadn’t, so I investigated. I rescued the comments still in the queue and shut off the auto-delete, but I’m sure some comments have been lost?and again, I’m so very sorry.
I’m reading everything, comments and email. I may not manage to respond to it all; I’m finding it a little overwhelming. I am deeply grateful for the wisdom so freely offered. I am sometimes very stupid. I rely on people who aren’t.
I do have a proposition. One way to shake the sense I have of feeling alone and exposed here would be not to be alone. I’m therefore opening up the possibility of making Book of Trogool a group blog. If you think you might be interested in penning some words here (in several senses of the verb), comment here or drop me an email and let’s talk about it.
Librarians, researchers, IT folk, or others with a stake in the scholarly-communication or data-curation spaces would be welcome. I do ask that you have a basic knowledge of the problem-space (seekers are fine; clueless newbies are not, sorry) and generally like-minded. In particular, anti-open-access FUD is unwelcome in the extreme, though (as anyone who’s read my writing a while knows well) grounded criticism of the movement’s ideology and practices is fine. I also ask that you assent to BoT’s continuance under a CC-BY-US license.
You may remain pseudonymous onblog if you like, but I need to know who you are, and you’ll probably have to sign an agreement with ScienceBlogs. I will of course guard that information carefully; I’m a librarian, after all! We believe (I’m told) in freedom of information exchange. As for ScienceBlogs, they’ve successfully guarded the identities of other pseudonymous bloggers, such as the Reveres of the erstwhile Effect Measure blog; I believe (but of course cannot guarantee) they are trustworthy.
One last stricture: I can’t accept a co-blogger from MPOW, not even pseudonymously. This is because of my own weaknesses, not anything else. It’s too easy for me to imagine behind-the-scenes discussions with a close colleague tempting me to say things here that I really ought not.
I would hope that even if you’re as much an enfant terrible as I (and honestly, almost no one is that!), you’d try to blog here with integrity. Blog for good, not ill. Own your mistakes; I have. Own the harm you cause, should you cause harm, and try not to cause harm in the first place. You’ll make mistakes; I have, many of them. That’s okay. What I don’t need, though, is a soapbox zealot deaf to all argument but her own, or a namecaller, or a coward, or a bully.
Book of Trogool, like all ScienceBlogs, has a revenue-sharing agreement with the mothership. I don’t even understand the details, as I don’t want money from BoT and even if I did I’ve never been anywhere near the traffic it takes to be paid. If your involvement ends up wildly remunerative (or indeed remunerative at all), the proceeds are yours. Should you (or ScienceBlogs) insist on a split, my share will go to Creative Commons. I’ve never been in this game for money, and I don’t intend to start now.
So. How ’bout it?