.
In a public session the British Museum unrepentantly called Heritage Action and myself "trolls" recently and I for one found their attitude deeply disturbing - they are getting millions of quid to do public outreach on behalf of archaeology. To my mind that should include, not exclude, getting involved in the heritage debate and discussion of UK policies.
There is an interesting article by Tim Dunlop ('How the word 'troll' has been redefined by the powerful', The Guardian, Friday 16 August 2013) that seems particularly relevant here to this discussion.
In a public session the British Museum unrepentantly called Heritage Action and myself "trolls" recently and I for one found their attitude deeply disturbing - they are getting millions of quid to do public outreach on behalf of archaeology. To my mind that should include, not exclude, getting involved in the heritage debate and discussion of UK policies.
There is an interesting article by Tim Dunlop ('How the word 'troll' has been redefined by the powerful', The Guardian, Friday 16 August 2013) that seems particularly relevant here to this discussion.
What particularly disturbs me is the way in which sections of the mainstream media and others in positions of power use the worst of what happens online to condemn all that happens online. One manifestation of this is the way in which the word “troll” has been appropriated by sections of the mainstream and redefined. The word once had quite a specialised meaning limited to a particular sort of disruptive behaviour, but it has now become a catch-all term to describe any behaviour that some journalists and editors deem inappropriate. Their responses to what they call “trolling” often seem less about combating abuse than reasserting their role as gatekeeper, to restore to themselves the right to decide who gets to speak in public and who doesn’t. [...] campaigns against trolling, or bans on anonymity, are less to do with concerns about civility than they are about exercising control over public debate. There are plenty people in positions of power and authority who simply don’t want ordinary people to have a voice in the public sphere and we shouldn’t let them set the rules of engagement.I'll ask them again. What ARE "aggressively archaeological postings" on the public forum of an archaeological outreach scheme? Eh? Can Roger Bland explain that in words of three syllables or less so we lesser mortals have a chance of understanding where he and the organizations he heads stands on this issue? Or does he consider that neither we not anyone else are owed such an explanation from the Ivory Tower of Bloomsbury?
Hat tip to Henry Rothwell
2 comments:
How many way do people need to tell you to FUCK OFF!
Ah, now Steve Taylor, that's an example of a real troll.
THESE are the people the Portable Antiquity Scheme wants more and more public money to attempt to make their "partners". These are the people the PAS prefers to huddle up with and talk to instead of openly debating the issues with fellow archaeologists.
As we see, both the Portable Antiquities Scheme and their partners, artefact hunters like Mr Taylor would like people who question current policies on artefact hunting and its effects on the archaeological record to "eff-off". Why do they not just step up to the plate and debate the issues?
[Mr Taylor insists on using an assumed identity for his abusive trolling and harassment which I have many times respectfully requested him not to use]
Post a Comment