All The Young Dudes

DeafRead, Deaf Village, Aggregators, Part V: Flogging A Deaf Horse

I just love flogging deaf horses, don’t you Mike? What about you, dog food?

Mike, Hypocrisy? Double Standards? You be the judge. Update #1[A Response], what I was trying to say in DeafRead, Deaf Village, Aggregators, Part III: Argggggghhhhhccess, is that if deaf village is an aggregator, whose aim is to aggregate “content”, targeted at a specific audience, then deaf village ceases to be an aggregator, and instead functions as a publishing house. Much the same, as DeafRead.

Both deaf village and DeafRead impose editorial and publishing guidelines, which means they cease to be aggregators and, take on different obligations to that of the personal blogger. As illustrated by DeafRead, who operate with sponsorship from Sprint, and Cochlear Implant Online, which operates a store. Which renders their responsibilities to their readership quite differently to those of individual blogs, whose interest is the personal.

And continuing to  flog a dead horse, deaf horse ? [sorry there is no external reference to flogging a deaf horse], Mike, there is a big difference between personal sites and, commercial and professional sites. Personal sites don’t have the same obligations regarding access provisions, because of their, well, personal nature, and limited audience, whereas commercial and professional sites, such as A G Bell, that are designed to appeal to a broader audience than personal blogs, do have that obligation. And so it is with deaf village and DeafRead.

Remember, a personal blogger functions with an editorial guidelines applicable to their own blog, and themselves, which leaves it up to the reader/ visitor to accept or reject. This is quite a salient point, that both DeafRead and deaf village undermine with their guidelines. They are not merely aggregating content, as they are deciding [or moderating] what we see, read and hear. Which skews the perception of what is actually happening in Deaf and deaf cyberspace.

I will give you an analogy, a rather apt one. As a professional, working in a professional capacity, let’s say, running a leadership training program for Deaf and deaf people, I would have an obligation, as a professional, to ensure a number of things, in order that the programme is successful, are met. One would be, making sure that the participant’s access needs are met. However, in my personal life, I am under no such obligation, even if I am mincing..sorry, mixing, with Deaf and deaf people, because one would rightly assume, the responsibility for access would be shared. And so it is with blogging.

There is professional blogging and there is personal blogging. Each operates with a different modus operandi.

My criticism of deaf village is not of its aim to provide access. That is indeed a laudable aim. My criticism is of its imposition of an editorial and publishing guideline, that does nothing whatsoever to encourage blogging and creativity. I have been following deaf village since its inception, and as managed by the current team, who have so far have demonstrated no objective ability towards encouraging free speech and creativity in the blogging sphere, because the guidelines are paternalistic.

And really Mike, “Taylor going the purity route” is no different to Rachel going the purity route [imagine her sullying her videos with sign language. Heaven forbid!]. But it doesn’t suit your modus operandi to admit otherwise does it?

As for the question of time, money and resources, then it’s no point absolving deaf village, DeafRead or any other aggregator of this requirement, while at the same time expecting the individual blogger to pick up the slack. After all, I don’t have the resources to create the videos I want, let alone caption them. I continue to write, knowing full well, that it will still be inaccessible to people whose literacy is not the same as mine. Should my blog then not be included in deaf village [it isn't by the way. I have written to Rachel, requesting inclusion, but no............. I HAVE BEEN CENSORED! BARRED! EXCLUDED! Boo! Hiss!]

By all means encourage access, but use  conciliatory language, not demanding and paternalistic. By all means encourage bloggers and webmasters to make their content accessible, but don’t claim to be an aggregator if you are going to moderate [mould] what is seen, read or heard. That in itself, will deny people the right to choose what they read, see and hear. Pertinently, render inaccessible, content that would not otherwise be seen, read or heard, because the aggregators editorial guidelines stipulate one rule or another.

Having said that, the DeafRead team has demonstrated far more laisse fare in their moderating of the content that appears on their “aggregator”, than deaf village has.

Further Reading:

DeafRead, Deaf Village, Aggregators, Part III: Argggggghhhhhccess
DeafRead, Deaf Village, Aggregators, Part II: Access
“Deaf Village Reminds Me Much Of…..”
Deaf Village - A True Village? Nay!
DeafRead, Deaf Village, and Aggregators
Let’s support closed captions!
Wait! Blogs Aren’t Fully Accessible, Either!
My Reason to find this Deaf Village’s Silly Policy…..
Wait! Blogs Aren’t Fully Accessible, Either!
“On the Fence”
Closed Captioning your Videos
DeafRead, Community, Censorship and Freedom Of Expression P3: New Aggregator
DeafRead, Community, Censorship and Freedom Of Expression P2
DeafRead, Community, Censorship and Freedom Of Expression
MEDIA WATCH: Deaf Read [Myths? What Myths?]
Problems with DeafRead
An example of how deafread doesn’t cater for an international audience
The fur’s a-flyin’!

Sphere: Related Content

DeafRead, Deaf Village, Aggregators, Part IV: Communication Is Two Way Street

That vexed question about access continues to vex its adherents.

Dyniece does a very good job of explaining what an aggregator is and their function in her post Of feed aggregators, hypocrisy, and choices. She is calm, she is logical, and she makes sense. And yes, by making your content accessible, you reach a much wider audience.

However, there is a flaw in the argument. Not so much in the rationale of why deaf village insists on captioned/ subtitled or transcripts to accompany a video, which I can accept on the basis that it’s their personal aggregator, and they are setting the terms for inclusion.  Or in the rationale of making your cotnent accessible to a bigger audience.

The flaw is in their rationale for creating a community based on their idea of inclusiveness as presumed by the title of their aggregator “deaf village”, by demanding that everybody subscribes to the use of English as a common denominator for access.

Even though they are not rejecting signed videos, the defendants for criteria 5, of the deaf village guidelines, they have not demonstrated any willingness to embrace [as in desire to learn] Sign Language, in a spirit of true community building [which is a two way street, to state the obvious].

It’s all very well to talk about diversity and inclusion, and that everybody has the right to their chosen [preferred communication methods and group belonging]. But that very rationale itself becomes an obstacle when it is used to insist on a specific means of addressing access, as deaf village has done. I get the distinct impression that Rachel will be damned if she is going to learn ASL. Yet she is in a prime position to actually promote a truer sense of inclusion and engagement. To do actually do, more good than demonstrate that deafies can walk and talk. But that would detract from her imporant work of managing the better hearing and better speaking celebrations.

I know what the reality is for Deaf and deaf people, and I do understand [and appreciate] the choices they make, and want to make, in order to have fulfilled and meaningful their lives. And I do understand the right and the desire to make ones own choices. But I don’t accept the bullshit espoused by the diversity argument, as it has long become a means of avoiding any true engagement between Deaf and deaf people.

And before you drag out the cliché of Deaf people being content in their ghetto and their ASL, take a good, long, hard look in the mirror. The mantra of the deaf village is “As long as I get my access in English, that’s all that is necessary”, is a one way street.

Once again, stating the obvious, communication, and community building, is a two way street. It is a fundamental of effective community building. A willingness by deafies to engage with Deafies using sign language, demonstrates a committment to community building. Not merely insisting on access using English as the common denominator. So once again, deaf village is in a position to create a truly Deaf and deaf presence, but what look at do they do?

DeafRead for all its faults, is doing a better job. Deaf Pulse is too basic. deaf village is not engaged in community building [not in its current incantation], as much as it is engaged in replicating itself in the image of its creator/s.

Further Reading:

Why I Blog….. Why Deafies Should Blog….
DeafRead, Deaf Village, Aggregators, Part III: Argggggghhhhhccess
DeafRead, Deaf Village, Aggregators, Part II: Access
DeafRead, Deaf Village, and Aggregators
DeafRead, Community, Censorship and Freedom Of Expression P3: New Aggregator
DeafRead, Community, Censorship and Freedom Of Expression P2
DeafRead, Community, Censorship and Freedom Of Expression
MEDIA WATCH: Deaf Read [Myths? What Myths?]
Problems with DeafRead
An example of how deafread doesn’t cater for an international audience

Sphere: Related Content

DeafRead, Deaf Village, Aggregators, Part III: Argggggghhhhhccess

To answer Mike’s question in Hypocrisy? Double Standards? You be the judge, those of us who are arguing against point 5 in the deaf village guidelines, are not the ones going around creating aggregators, then imposing a set of rules that determine what blogs, posts, et al will appear, and other assorted criteria in a what I [and others obviously see] as a thinly disguised attempt to create an aggregator that conforms to a narrow and personal definition of diversity and inclusion, using guidelines that crimps and skews the representation of the Deaf and deaf voice.

Secondly, Ridor’s blog is a personal site, which is different to deaf village which is an “aggregator”. Once again, the terms for access are different. However, his charge against Gallaudet University is fairer, for the simple fact that Gallaudet University is in the business of providing an education and making money, that it does have a responsibility towards ensuring access. Cochlear Implant Online works to provide information and raise awareness about the cochlear implant, so a case can be made for making the site be accessible.

To be perfectly frank, I am still scratching my head as to why these big Deaf and deaf organisations and institutions, are still not harnessing the full power of cyberspace and the internet for communications: too often, if they are not hampered by money, then the websites are just lame. But that’s an issue for another blog post.

To be fair, it’s quite a common occurrence, where editorial and publishing guidelines are used to dictate the terms of self-expression, in order to impose a particular view, [or to cater to some notion of quality control, as with DeafRead]. This is common across the media, and it’s effects can be felt in the way they dealt with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, for instance.

deaf village is fighting a rearguard action, because the team that make up the editorial board has no credibility with some individuals and groups. That is the crux of the problem, more than the issue of the guidelines. I’m not going to delve into the hows, whys, wherefores, et al, they would do no one any favours, and only serve to further flame the arguments.

This is not to say the guidelines imposed by DeafRead are any better. They could loosen some of that control for starters, free up the flow of information, let a bit of chaos rule [only weeding out the spam blogs and other rubbish] and work towards more representation of bloggers and vidbloggers from other countries. But within the parameters they are set, they do a decent job, and I do like the fact that we are classed as people who blog et al, and not communication methods [choices] that blog!

It’s admirable what deaf village is trying to do, regarding the access issue [and I do want more access] but……………. I don’t trust the deaf village team [in fact, I don't trust most aggregators that are not open anyway] to play fair. As I said, in my last post, deaf village guidelines rule no 6. shreds their credibility completely:

All guidelines are subject to the interpretation and discretion of the Deaf Village moderating team. By submitting your feed to Deaf Village, you are agreeing to the guidelines above.

I already adapt my writing style - how I write and what I write about - in order to pass DeafRead’s guidelines. The deaf village guidelines fill me with no confidence, as they reinforce this preoccupation with enforcing vague standards. I simply have no faith or trust in the deaf village editorial team. I just don’t want to keep modifying my writing style and crimp my voice, to suit other people’s agendas.

I’ve had this experience with Tactile Mind magazine [now defunct], that had no editorial policy, no publishing guidelines, and no identifiable editorial team, other than, its modus operandi to nurture Deaf and deaf writer’s and encourage them to express themselves free of restraint. Be true to thy own voice [self], so to speak. I was asked to submit a piece of writing for, as one of the editors who approached me, had read my writings to the email group, Deaf UK.

Sure, I submitted an early incantation of my Deaf boy wants to become a rock star story. It was rejected. The editorial team didn’t understand the piece of writing [or summat]. So, after a few email exchanges, I was able to re-submit the story. It was rejected for the second time. Again, for what I consider spurious reasons. The sexuality of the protagonist, and the mention of the Devil and his interaction with the story’s protagonist. It was explained to me, that the magazine [and hence any writing] will be promoted amongst Deaf schools in the US, that any themes not considered suitable, won’t be published.

Suffice to say, I lost respect for the magazine and the editorial team. This was a situation where they should have circulated an editorial policy and clear publishing guidelines, with an identifiable editorial team. It was a faux situation where writers were encouraged to express themselves, then were subjected to some unspoken and unknown guidelines, and faceless editorial team.

Even with the advent of blogging and self publishing, controlling behaviours still exist. It’s just that without aggregators, bloggers have to work harder to promote their sites. Still, you can’t have a village with dissent. You can’t have a village without a few blue words. You can’t have a village without unruly behaviour. You can’t have a village full of nannies and children.

Further Reading:

DeafRead, Deaf Village, Aggregators, Part II: Access
“Deaf Village Reminds Me Much Of…..”
Deaf Village - A True Village? Nay!
DeafRead, Deaf Village, and Aggregators
Let’s support closed captions!
Wait! Blogs Aren’t Fully Accessible, Either!
My Reason to find this Deaf Village’s Silly Policy…..
Wait! Blogs Aren’t Fully Accessible, Either!
“On the Fence”
Closed Captioning your Videos
DeafRead, Community, Censorship and Freedom Of Expression P3: New Aggregator
DeafRead, Community, Censorship and Freedom Of Expression P2
DeafRead, Community, Censorship and Freedom Of Expression
MEDIA WATCH: Deaf Read [Myths? What Myths?]
Problems with DeafRead
An example of how deafread doesn’t cater for an international audience
The fur’s a-flyin’!

Sphere: Related Content

DeafRead, Deaf Village, Aggregators, Part II: Access

Continuing on from my previous post, DeafRead, Deaf Village, and Aggregators, I would like to emphasise that DeafRead and deaf village are not blog aggregators. They use the aggregator platform as a publishing medium, or information control medium. This is evidenced by their editorial and publishing guidelines.

Now I support access, let me be clear about that. However, the latest furore is over the deaf village guideline point 5:

We require all vloggers to include captions, subtitles, or transcripts to their vlogs as not everyone understands cued, signed, or spoken languages. Overstream is a free and easy way to add subtitles, and can handle video inputs from YouTube, GoogleVideo, and other popular media sources

The responses by some of the residents of the village, continue to miss the point about the blogging and the aggregator platforms. If the intent of an aggregator is to…..

gather [aggregates] syndicated web content such as news headlines, blogs, podcasts, and vlogs provides a consolidated view of the content in a single browser display or desktop application, from a list of feeds that the reader chooses.[DeafRead, Deaf Village, and Aggregators]

….then deaf village [AND DeafRead] have defeated this purpose, because of their editorial and publishing guidelines. However, within their chosen parameters, which one doesn’t have to agree with, they are entitled to lay the ground rules. Sure, but this brings us to another, however.

Most blogs are PERSONAL entities as opposed to COMMERCIAL or PUBLIC INFORMATION clearing houses. As such, the requirements for access are quite different. Ideally, one would like all information to be accessible, but it just is not possible. Especially in the sphere of the personal.

I blog because I have something to say, share and express. The blogging platform allows me to do it in any number of ways: text, audio, video, visual, or any combination of media. By publishing my blog, I hope to attract readers, viewers and correspondence. Of course, it is my responsibility how I do this, not just because it’s my blog, but because I want to attract readers, viewers and correspondence.

Commercial or Public entities: broadcasters, publishers, distributors, educators, service providers, et al, operate on the same principle, except there is a money involved. Either profit or taxpayer funds. When money is involved, the rules change. Access should then be mandatory. But once again, it is an ideal, but one that we are working towards [even if we are dragging the profit barons dragging and kicking towards this laudable aim].

By all means encourage bloggers and vidbloggers to make their content as accessible as they possibly can, but being personal blogs, they are under no obligation to provide this same access, as the obligation that befalls on commercial or public entities. For reasons stated above. But I will point out an ironical situation involving Cochlear Implant Online. It is a personal blog. Yes! The blogger [bloggers] are entitled to create and publish the content as they see fit. Yes! But because the bloggers modus operandi is to promote the cochlear implant and various other audio-aural communications, AND is an information blog, they should be leading by example, by not assuming that everybody who reads the site has the same level of literacy, and that ASL should access should be provided for those.

So already, the rationale of Rachel [who actually makes a few good points, but that's all] in Let’s support closed captions!, Mike in, Equal Access – When a Village Agrees, and MM, Access at last by an ASL blogger, have already come undone. In the context of how deaf village was created, and the subsequent editorial/ publishing guidelines which aren’t that much different in intent and purpose to those of DeafRead, it’s hard to see it as anything but one sided and partisan. Seriously, the villagers sense of entitlement far exceeds their skewed perspectives on [and contribution towards] diversity and inclusion [in cyberspace].

Furthermore, the less said about comment number 8 in  Let’s support closed captions!……

Reading is a visual skill. Even with the stereotypical 4th grade reading level, deaf people should be able to read blog posts unless they have visual issues.

…the better.

The Archilles Heel in the deaf village ethos, is point 6 of the guidelines:

All guidelines are subject to the interpretation and discretion of the Deaf Village moderating team. By submitting your feed to Deaf Village, you are agreeing to the guidelines above.

This raises the serious issue of trust, let alone bias, intent, meaning, and interpretation. Who is the most trust worthy member of the team? Rachel Chaikof? Aaron Rose?  or the moderators, Elizabeth Boschini, Mike McConnell, and Val Blakely?

I am far from convinced that the team will do a credible job. I don’t know about Aaron, Elizabeth or Val, but objectivity is not Rachel’s strongest point [as evidenced by her blog, and deaf village]. Nor is it Mike’s or MM’s [especially MM in At The Rim, who has a bit of a reputation amongst his UK forebears].

This is not to say that they won’t improve, develop or extend deaf village, but as it stands, they have already undermined the aggregator platform by instituting editorial and publication guidelines, and a category style that undermines any notion of Deaf and deaf people’s humanity.

The again, after reading Simply Saunière post, Deaf Village - A True Village? Nay!, I I should give up hope now! I too submitted my blogs All The Young Dudes and The Devils Playground for inclusion in deaf village. I didn’t even get a reply!

Last but not least, in attempting to control the flow of information, according to predetermined criteria,  like Deaf Read, they have skewed the representation of the Deaf and deaf voice placed restrictions on the ability of Deaf and deaf people to choose, for themselves, what is newsworthy and of interest without being nannied by PG-13 tests and other criteria.

The only criteria should be, is the blogger/ vidblogger Deaf or deaf! But deaf village, in particular has become an extension of the personal blog. A personal aggregator!

I do think, that deaf village [AND Deafread] is more about the webmaster and the editorial team, rather than being a true aggregator.

Further Reading:

Deaf Village - A True Village? Nay!
DeafRead, Deaf Village, and Aggregators
DeafRead, Community, Censorship and Freedom Of Expression P3: New Aggregator
DeafRead, Community, Censorship and Freedom Of Expression P2
DeafRead, Community, Censorship and Freedom Of Expression
MEDIA WATCH: Deaf Read [Myths? What Myths?]
Problems with DeafRead
An example of how deafread doesn’t cater for an international audience
The fur’s a-flyin’!

Sphere: Related Content

DeafRead, Deaf Village, and Aggregators

In his post, Comparing DeafRead and Deaf Village’s Guidelines, Banjo compared the editorial and publishing guidelines of deaf village and DeafRead. He raises many pertinent points, which seems to have by passed the deaf village collective, who in their rush to embrace diversity and freedom of expression, have installed an editorial guideline that threatens to undermine their much vaunted position.

An aggregator, also known as a feed reader, news reader or simply as an aggregator, which gathers [aggregates] syndicated web content such as news headlines, blogs, podcasts, and vlogs provides a consolidated view of the content in a single browser display or desktop application, from a list of feeds that the reader chooses.

The point of an aggregator, either desktop or web based, is that it allows a person to subscribe to a feed, check for new content at user-determined intervals and retrieve the updates. This reduces the time and effort needed to regularly check the individual websites for updates.

In effect, this allows a person to create a unique information space or “personal newspaper.” As a natural progression, they have evolved to gather specific content: Gay and Lesbian, Disability, Technology, Arts, Political, Gaming, and so on.

It’s a given that an aggregator cannot be all things to all people, and that people will adapt the platform to meet specific objectives. There is a difference between aggregators that gather news and information feeds according to specified topics, e.g., Deaf, deaf, Gay, Lesbian, Jewish, Arab, etc., and guidelines that outline how and on what terms Deaf, deaf, Gay, Lesbian, Jewish, Arab, etc., bloggers will be included.

This is a salient point that is missed by both DeafRead and deaf village. Which, Banjo in his comparison doesn’t mention.

In creating and posting an editorial and publishing guidelines, both DeafRead and deaf village, defeat the purpose and spirit of the aggregator by attempting to control what is included and what is not included, as opposed to simply gathering the news, and allowing their readers to decide what is of interest. More than this, they attempt to control what bloggers and vloggers write, and most pertinently how they write. In effect, imposing their own views on what constitutes appropriate blogging subjects and writing styles.

There is a need for a Deaf specific aggregator. Equally, there is a need for a deaf specific aggregator. Not discounting the need for a Deaf and deaf aggregator, which is filled in part by Deaf Pulse. Of course, Deaf Pulse stands out because it is a no frills aggregator that brings you news from selected sources. It has no editorial policy or publishing guidelines, and it doesn’t offer much in the way of features, e.g. sorting, tags, categories, et al.

The other point missed by Banjo, and DeafRead, AND deaf village, is the attempt to define what Deaf and deaf blogger shall write about, results in a distortion of what Deaf and deaf people are thinking and writing about.

So what if bloggers, vloggers and commentators swear, employ sarcasm, use heated language, come across aggreesively, write about adult themes, niche ideas, et al. Isn’t that the readers perogative to weed out the very things that they find objectionable or of no interest?

Both DeafRead and deaf village are attempting to exert some form of control, over the laissez fair nature of the internet, and indeed, Deaf and deaf people [humanity]. Channeling it a narrowed stream of discussion. This is where deaf village, in particular, have lost the plot in what they perceive to be setting up room in cyberspace that embraces diversity and inclusiveness, yet has guideliens that shackle that very diversity and inclusiveness.

After all, if a village in the real world, is made up of all sorts of people, who are supposed to get along, etc., then shouldn’t deaf village, the aggregator, by its very own missin statement, reflect this reality. The fact is, we are not all going to get along. A few textual retorts [and tart exchanges] is not going to break or make the Deaf and deaf communities.

Furthermore, it distorts the picture of what Deaf and deaf people are interested in and what engages their interest. If twenty bloggers write about a particular event, and only one or two will be published according to DeafRead guidelines, how does it not defeat the purpose of an aggregator. In this situation, the aggregator has morphed into a publisher.

There is also the presumption that we are only ever interested in all things Deaf and deaf. Which further crimps the scope and content of Deaf and deaf blogs. To quote deaf village:

Blog entries from ACCEPTED contributors that do not relate to hearing loss are subject to moderation discretion, which can and may result in an article not being published on Deaf Village.

Which I find to be rather ironical, because we are forever being criticised for having minds stuck in a ghetto mentality, and yet when we want to write about, or engage in, things that are not Deaf or deaf, we are subject to a severe crimping in what we can write about. Which brings me to another function of Deaf and deaf aggregators, that the webmasters have overlooked.

A Deaf and deaf specific aggregator allows your blog to be exposed to other Deaf and deaf readers, bloggers and vloggers. Raisning yet another salient point. Perhaps, we Deaf and deaf bloggers, vloggers and readers wish to have a conversation with each other, and to see what other Deaf and deaf are thinking, without actually resorting to talking about Deaf or deaf all the time! Furthermore, in the spirit of aggregators, it provides a  consolidated view of Deaf and deaf thinking: local, state, country, and international!

Further Reading:

DeafRead, Community, Censorship and Freedom Of Expression P3: New Aggregator
DeafRead, Community, Censorship and Freedom Of Expression P2
DeafRead, Community, Censorship and Freedom Of Expression
MEDIA WATCH: Deaf Read [Myths? What Myths?]
Problems with DeafRead
An example of how deafread doesn’t cater for an international audience
List Of Feed Aggregators
Aggregators
News On Feeds

Sphere: Related Content