I agree entirely with Mr. Smith in his comments regarding the manner in
which this directory in being assembled.
 
However realistic, people do have an expectation of privacy which should
be respected. It is the violation of this respect which has raised the
ire of some, the irritation of others, and much shoulder-shrugging
amongst many.
 
The organizers of this directory are taking a situation in which the
response to their query wasn't sufficiently answered and are turning that
into an "semi-automatic" process. They are forcing people to react to ensure
their privacy. This not only questionable in terms of ethics, it is also
makes one wonder about the cognition and perceptions of those involved.
Would similar conduct be permisible in conducting a research survey of
museum visitors?
 
I, for one, believe that we should treat our fellow professionals with
the same respect and hospitality that we offer to the visitors whom we
serve.
 
Dave
 
=:|\Pinnacle Online                    - Open and dynamic Internet services:=
=:|o\.    |  |      |  ______                                              :=
=:|_/||\ ||\ |   |\.| __  |       Voice: 804/498.3889  email: [log in to unmask]:=
=:|  || \|| \| o | \| \_ .|        Data: 804/498.9762  login: guest or new :=
 
On Mon, 1 Aug 1994, Steven R. Smith wrote:
 
> Dear friends,
>
> I do not think the controversy over the directory has to do with paranoia on
> the part of those who objected to having their names included.  Nor do I think
> that those who objected are trying to stop the publication of the directory
> as a previous poster has suggested.  To me it seems a simple matter of cour-
> tesy.  When I first saw the notice regarding the directory I thought it was
> a good and timely idea and sent in my entry as requested.  When I saw the noti
ce
> explaining the use of the museum-l membership list, I did not pay much attenti
on
> since I had already sent in my entry.  However, when the first murmurings of
> protest began to surface, I did think those who objected had a point.  Why
> should the onus be on the subscriber to museum-l to "conceal" their name
> from someone compiling such a document?  I realize the membership of this
> listserv is readily available using the "review" command, but does that mean
> that there should be no self-imposed ethics regarding how such information is
> used?  I think those who are compiling the directory should have relied en-
> tirely on the request for submissions they sent out.  I appreciated their
> desire for comprehensiveness, but if the response was so poor, perhaps they
> should have rethought the project.
>
> Furthermore, as has already been mentioned, getting the list of members from
> the listserv would not even get them the information they desired, since it
> would not include areas of interest, telephone numbers, etc.  It would also
> include a lot of people who are not necessarily employed in museums or related
> cultural institutions, but just happen to have an active interest in the field
..
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> Steven
>
> (P.S. I STILL think the directory is a great idea -- please keep my entry!)
>
> **********************************************************************
> Steven R. Smith
> Art Collection                                      Tel: (617)495-3150
> Harvard Law School                                  FAX: (617)495-4449
> Cambridge, MA  02138                  E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> **********************************************************************
>