Edit: "Uncritical Me-Tooism"

In response to the lively, honest discussion happening at Information Wants to Be Free about "groupthink" and me-tooism, I'm going to offer an amendment to my politeness post.  In my post, I wrote

There are a lot of people blogging about library issues, and I've tried to resist the pull of me-tooism.

Here's my amended statement: There are a lot of people blogging about library issues, and I've tried to resist the pull of uncritical me-tooism.

To me, critical doesn't have to mean just pointing out problems.  That's part of it.  But you can be critical by pointing out the strong points of an idea.  Why are you endorsing something?   Sharing that is just as important as why you have problems with an idea or project.  I think that uncritical me-tooism leads to groupthink.  That's what I object to.

Comments

[Terry Dawson]

The discussion happening at Information Wants to Be Free having grown lengthy and divergent, I'd rather comment here. I think you're right, and the WHY reasons for endorsing will vary for individuals. Sometimes, it has a different perspective on the issue. Sometimes, it's just to tell people at your library that this represents your position. Agreement and re-posting (aka "me-tooism") should be critical or have some useful relevance for the poster, even if not a shaking revelation for the entire biblioblogosphere.