Policy query, and complaint
Moderators: vinteuil, Leonard Vertighel, Lyle Neff, Wiki Admins
-
pml
- Copyright Reviewer
- Posts: 1219
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:42 am
- notabot: 42
- notabot2: Human
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Policy query, and complaint
To what extent are the Miscellaneous comments on work pages (i.e. under the Misc. Comments heading) intended to be for helpful comments that clarify or explain difficulties with a certain work?
Re: Policy query, and complaint
Couldn't you simply send her a message pointing out the misconception?pml wrote:... a series of passive-aggressive notes in a clearly exasperated tone, directed at another commenter without any other attempt at engagement ...
-
Davydov
- Copyright Reviewer
- Posts: 817
- Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:31 am
- notabot: 42
- notabot2: Human
- Contact:
Re: Policy query, and complaint
Hello Philip. I'm no longer leading the tagging team (and had no involvement with editing the pages you mentioned), but there are a couple of things to consider here. Firstly, there are an awful lot of work pages where the uploaders of works, or subsequent editors, have not given the original instrumentation correctly (if they have provided it at all). Sometimes their assertions are wildly inaccurate, which is why the tagging team, quite sensibly, attempt to verify the details from usually reliable sources, such as Grove and RISM.
The second thing to consider is that they are normally completely unaware which contributor provided the instrumentation details. There is simply not enough time for the taggers to comb through the workpage history to make a judgement as to whether this might have been a knowledgeable and experienced contributor like yourself, or someone who only signed up the previous day.
For this reason I am absolutely certain that no slight was intended against you.
On finding a difference between the instrumentation stipulated in Grove, and that provided on the workpage, the person doing the tagging would be expected to justify their correction, and to briefly summarise their reasons. There is more space to do this in the miscellaneous comments section than in the edit summary, but in any case this will only be a brief sentence or two. As it happens I don't read those particular comments as passive aggressive, but rather as neutral statements of fact. Had I found myself in your position though, seeing many of my contributions reversed, I might have felt equally offended. (This has happened to me, many, many times!).
It isn't often the case that an IMSLP contributor is in a position to supplement or correct Grove and RISM, but with Victoria you are such an exception. I hope you will forgive our taggers for being unaware of this, as they were only performing their duties diligently. Would you agree that the best outcome from all this would be to have Victoria's works accurately tagged and categorized, so that Grove et al might learn a thing or two from IMSLP next time they update their worklists?
The second thing to consider is that they are normally completely unaware which contributor provided the instrumentation details. There is simply not enough time for the taggers to comb through the workpage history to make a judgement as to whether this might have been a knowledgeable and experienced contributor like yourself, or someone who only signed up the previous day.
For this reason I am absolutely certain that no slight was intended against you.
On finding a difference between the instrumentation stipulated in Grove, and that provided on the workpage, the person doing the tagging would be expected to justify their correction, and to briefly summarise their reasons. There is more space to do this in the miscellaneous comments section than in the edit summary, but in any case this will only be a brief sentence or two. As it happens I don't read those particular comments as passive aggressive, but rather as neutral statements of fact. Had I found myself in your position though, seeing many of my contributions reversed, I might have felt equally offended. (This has happened to me, many, many times!).
It isn't often the case that an IMSLP contributor is in a position to supplement or correct Grove and RISM, but with Victoria you are such an exception. I hope you will forgive our taggers for being unaware of this, as they were only performing their duties diligently. Would you agree that the best outcome from all this would be to have Victoria's works accurately tagged and categorized, so that Grove et al might learn a thing or two from IMSLP next time they update their worklists?
Re: Policy query, and complaint
PML as I said to you already, I am going to have to side with Kgill on this and I really think you should just send her an email explaining your concerns instead of making this a public issue. I can understand how you feel but the person who wrote those comments is the one you should be talking too in private, she is the one who wrote them. I have no opinion on the matter of those comments. Obviously maybe other sources out there (libraries, other websites, early music sites, etc.) should be looked into on Victoria (I really don't know much about this composer myself) to find the more specific tags and just stating in general, renaissance composers and music is hard to find information sometimes because of how little info there can be on these pieces to find, its a big mess the Renaissance Era is.
-
pml
- Copyright Reviewer
- Posts: 1219
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:42 am
- notabot: 42
- notabot2: Human
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Policy query, and complaint
On Davydov’s certainty that no slight was intended, I wish to withdraw my specific complaint. For the purposes of transparency, I will create a message which contains the text of my complaint if you wish to have that stored somewhere else on the forums as a matter of record, but out of sight. I am still very upset and shaken by the repetitious nature and dismissiveness of the comments.
KGill, by the time I’d read essentially the same comment for about the fifth or sixth time, I wasn’t prepared to regard the point as being a mere misconception, and the phrasing of them did not reassure me that there was any point in addressing the matter in the way you suggest. But thank you for the suggestion.
Sallen112, comments on the website are public. The comments that upset me are still on those pages. In general, if comments remain on public view they need to be answered or dealt with publicly. My view is that it doesn’t tend to do organisations any good to suggest public disagreements should be bumped out of sight to e-mail. Ideally issues should be discussed without bringing irritations and grievances with other people into it (look how I have failed on that score). I do think the tenor of comments on works pages needs to be as close to neutrally objective as can be achieved — I am aware the nature of comments tends toward subjectivity. I think the particular comments I complained about fail on that point.
In response to Davydov’s other points, I’d certainly agree that there are problems with some repertoire areas — I realise I sound like a broken record at the best of times on some topics. The point of concern for me, having been away for some time is this: the conversations that high-level IMSLP contributors at large need to have to improve the quality of what you’re doing — often aren’t happening. Lack of quality assurance is a problem if you’re too focussed on the daily grind of doing the job to actually examine the quality of what has been done. It’s notable that two administrators told me over the last month when I pointed out the illogic of one or other decisions, “I don’t get involved in that”. Not that this is a dereliction of duty on their part; but it is a cultural problem when not only administrators acknowledge problems, but also their… unwillingness? inability? to do anything about it.
I very much realise I too fall into the “I don’t want to get involved in this, so I will just ignore anything related to X” camp as well. I largely tried to avoid any discussion over whether the corrections being made to the tags were beneficial or not — while in the midst of creating 65 or so new works pages and populating them with a couple of hundred scores. Sometimes your buttons get pressed whether you like it or not, and the additional inappropriate commenting did it for me.
KGill, by the time I’d read essentially the same comment for about the fifth or sixth time, I wasn’t prepared to regard the point as being a mere misconception, and the phrasing of them did not reassure me that there was any point in addressing the matter in the way you suggest. But thank you for the suggestion.
Sallen112, comments on the website are public. The comments that upset me are still on those pages. In general, if comments remain on public view they need to be answered or dealt with publicly. My view is that it doesn’t tend to do organisations any good to suggest public disagreements should be bumped out of sight to e-mail. Ideally issues should be discussed without bringing irritations and grievances with other people into it (look how I have failed on that score). I do think the tenor of comments on works pages needs to be as close to neutrally objective as can be achieved — I am aware the nature of comments tends toward subjectivity. I think the particular comments I complained about fail on that point.
In response to Davydov’s other points, I’d certainly agree that there are problems with some repertoire areas — I realise I sound like a broken record at the best of times on some topics. The point of concern for me, having been away for some time is this: the conversations that high-level IMSLP contributors at large need to have to improve the quality of what you’re doing — often aren’t happening. Lack of quality assurance is a problem if you’re too focussed on the daily grind of doing the job to actually examine the quality of what has been done. It’s notable that two administrators told me over the last month when I pointed out the illogic of one or other decisions, “I don’t get involved in that”. Not that this is a dereliction of duty on their part; but it is a cultural problem when not only administrators acknowledge problems, but also their… unwillingness? inability? to do anything about it.
I very much realise I too fall into the “I don’t want to get involved in this, so I will just ignore anything related to X” camp as well. I largely tried to avoid any discussion over whether the corrections being made to the tags were beneficial or not — while in the midst of creating 65 or so new works pages and populating them with a couple of hundred scores. Sometimes your buttons get pressed whether you like it or not, and the additional inappropriate commenting did it for me.
Re: Policy query, and complaint
PML I think your not aware of the fact that one person wrote those comments and that any concerns you may have about those comments should be dealt privately, not publically. This type of behavior could make you be the bad person on here and we like to treat everyone on a neutral basis, no matter how you may feel about people comments if they are right or wrong. Singling out one person (who if fact is a important person on this site) publicly is never a good idea and can make you be also the bad person in singling out other people's comments, not just about your disagreements.
Now if those comments were written by many other people, that topic would be more inclined to be brought up publicly then because the issue affect people who write comments in general across the site and could be a problem. In this case, this is a private matter because of one person who wrote those comments.
Now if those comments were written by many other people, that topic would be more inclined to be brought up publicly then because the issue affect people who write comments in general across the site and could be a problem. In this case, this is a private matter because of one person who wrote those comments.