apg-L ArchivesArchiver > apg > 2009-08 > 1249773081
From: Michael John Neill <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Tweeting the lecture
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 18:11:21 -0500
While the copyright issue here is an important one, I am going to take
this from a different perspective. One of my lectures was tweeted
during the recent BYU conference.
While it didn't happen in this case, a concern I have is tweets
stating something the speaker did not say or making a conclusion the
speaker did not make. Where is the line between what the speaker said
and what the tweeter inferred? Is the tweeter copying verbatim or is
he paraphrasing what the speaker said, perhaps implying something the
speaker did not imply? And are there points being taken out of
context? This didn't happen in my case, but it easily could.
I blogged about being twittered and immediately I was asked to post my
handout on my website for those who could not attend the conference. I
declined. While I realize there are people who cannot attend a
conference, I do not choose to do this. Given my work schedule, I have
difficulty attending many of the national conferences myself. I do not
ask speakers to send me their handouts just because I was unable to
attend. Actually most of the lecture points come from articles I have
written which are posted online in various places anyway.
I realize this position of not spreading handouts around the planet is
not viewed favorably in some circles. Last time I checked, we were
free to make such decisions ourselves. An architect is within his
rights not to freely share his designs with the world. Most of is
would not walk up to one and say, "I loved that house you designed,
could you post the blueprints and all the other specs on the internet
for me?" Genealogists are no different.
That said, I think being twittered offers opportunities for the
speaker. They can briefly clarify on their own blog points a tweeter
made in a tweet. Use the misconcepthions a twitterer had as fodder for
articles, new lectures, etc. It may be frustrating when someone does
not understand, but use it as potential personal and professional
development when you can.
Also while a tweet make some of your points as a lecturer, they cannot
convey the entire lecture, your sense of humor (or lack thereof), your
ability to engage an audience, your ability to project your
enthusiasm, etc. Anyone who thinks lecturing is simply about making a
few points with powerpoint slides is mistaken. Your points are
important, but there is much more to bring a successful lecturer or
workshop presenter. I would have much more concern over someone with a
videocamera recording the entire lecture for potential broadcast at
meeting or other gathering.
Once you put your material out there, it is difficult to maintain
complete control of it. This is true whether it is oral, written, or
My appreciation to those who have read this far. Please forgive my
typos. This is being written on a blackberry pearl in the
rabbit/chicken barn at the Knox County Fair. Between the heat, the
chickens, and the keyboard, I'm doing good to get out complete
Michael John Neill.
On 8/8/09, <> wrote:
> AFAIK = as far as I know; sorry to commit jargon.
>> When the compiled tweets of the blogger were posted, this made the lecture
>> points very coherent to me. What is AFAIK?
>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 4:09 PM, <> wrote:
>> Rondina --
>> I would think that liveblogging would also be an issue, and also
>> difficult to regulate on site. It might have the potential to be more
>> of an
>> infringement, in that it might come closer to reflecting the lecture's
>> coherence than would a series of 140-character bursts.
>> AFAIK lecturing is a net loss for all those who engage in it. Can
>> there be ways
>> to bring twiter, liveblogging, video, and other forms of remote
>> audience access
>> "inside the tent" so as to enhance the revenue stream from lecturing?
>> Harold Henderson
>> Research and Writing from Northwest Indiana
>> home office 219/324-2620
> Harold Henderson
> Research and Writing from Northwest Indiana
> home office 219/324-2620
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
> the subject and the body of the message
Michael John Neill
Weekly "Casefile Clues" Column