rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) (03/10/89)
In article <7502@pyr.gatech.EDU>, gus@pyr.gatech.EDU (gus Baird) writes: > > Undergraduates should not be allowed to post articles. > > Georgia Tech will soon give UNIX accounts to all undergraduates. > We haven't yet got postnews onto their machine. > I say they should be allowed, even encouraged, to read news, but > they should not be given posting privileges. [ other words along the same vein deleted ] I think that the default situation for _all_ new users is to have only local posting privileges initially. If they know enough to ask for wider distributions then the sysadmin can decide on a case-by-case basis. The University of Virginia publishes the standard postings and articles on USENET in hardcopy form and tries to get their users to read the hardcopy before granting net-wide posting privileges. I believe that they have a reasonable policy on news. I think that blanket restrictions "no undergrads" or whatever are excessive and not very helpful. Most of the noise these days comes not from undergrad students but from porrly educated users on small sites or on public-access systems. rja@edison.CHO.GE.COM
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (03/10/89)
In article <262@v7fs1.UUCP>, Mike Van Pelt writes: > > How about this idea: For sites that wish to make this kind of > restriction An excellent approach -- those sites that wish to bar undergrads already can (net.rules-wise, and, I suspect, pretty much practical- wise); the others should not be forced/pressured to. So: how about on to other topics (such as why net.users should send me money every week to supplement my income)? Jeff Daiell -- "Why can't they be like *we* were -- perfect in every way? What's the matter with kids today?" From "Bye, Bye Birdie"
mcb@ncis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (03/11/89)
In article <7526@pyr.gatech.EDU> gus@pyr.gatech.EDU (gus Baird) writes: > Addressing some more points that have come up in responses... > > > Article 5376 of news.admin: > > From: trev@hubcap.UUCP (Trevor Zion Bauknight) > > Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC > > [... quotation from article ...] Mr. Baird should be made aware that it does absolutely no good to cite articles using their newsgroup/article-numbers, since those numbers are local to his own system and useless to others. The only proper citation is to a Message-ID, e.g., <7526@pyr.gatech.EDU>. Perhaps Mr. Baird should consult with his local site administrator to learn more about how the news reading software works before posting to wide-distribution newsgroups. (And especially before making blanket statements about the desireability of postings by undergraduates or others.) Michael C. Berch News/mail admin, TIS/NCIS Programs, LLNL mcb@ncis.llnl.gov / uunet!ncis.llnl.gov!mcb
waters@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jim Waters) (03/11/89)
In article <7526@pyr.gatech.EDU> gus@pyr.gatech.EDU (gus Baird) writes: > >Addressing some more points that have come up in responses... > >Ok, who decides who's an irresponsible user? Inspecting 40,000 undergrads >is not the kind of work a sysadmin can do. So you want to give every one >of them one free bite? One percent irresponsible new users means 400 >trash postings from one big school, if you catch and discipline after one >offense. And there will be another 12,000 next year. And the next... I suspect part of the reason that the flood you seem to be predicting hasn't arrived, although a fair number of major universities now give their undergraduates posting privileges, is simply that most random undergraduates don't go to the trouble to figure out netnews. If you are worried about the flood, simply don't advertise. If worst comes to worst, have any user who wants to post come to some office, give them a sheet of net rules, and have them sign some form before you allow them to post. That will discourage random postings on a whim, but still allow the undergraduates that really have something to say to do so. It will also insure they have at least SEEN some of the posting guidelines in advance. >Before you trip out on silliness like "patronizing", and so on, just >how can it be so wicked to suggest that a 13-year-old may not be mature? >Do you think we are *born* mature? I deal with more freshmen that most >Tech profs do, and I cannot afford, for *their* sakes, to assume they >are fully mature. If freshmen are treated like children, they will act like children. Then when they become sophomores, they will still act the same. If you continue to treat them like kids, they won't get any better, and they'll become immature juniors. Pretty soon, you're treating the seniors like kids, and they're playing along. Really, if you want people to be responsible, give them some responsibility. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Waters UUCP: decwrl!polya.stanford.edu!waters waters@polya.stanford.edu BITNET: waters%umunhum.stanford.edu@stanford -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Waters UUCP: decwrl!polya.stanford.edu!waters waters@polya.stanford.edu BITNET: waters%umunhum.stanford.edu@stanford
nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) (03/11/89)
In article <7526@pyr.gatech.EDU>, gus@pyr (gus Baird) writes: >Nobody knows better than I do, how much teachers learn from their students >and from working with their students. But in general the system breaks down >if the students do most of the talking. Incidentally, that just might be >what will happen if all colleges give free net access to all students. Hmmm. I find this rather confusing. Gus, how many universities do you think give "free net access" to all their students, as of Right Now? It might very well be more than you suspect. Besides, most sysadmins don't just throw a community of users into the middle of USENET and say, "Go at it!" They provide *education* to the community, first. Educating the undergrads? Concept! --woodstock -- "What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking and thinking...and suddenly you wake up." - Hobbes woodstock@hobbes.intel.com ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!nate
nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) (03/11/89)
In article <11231@s.ms.uky.edu>, david@ms (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) writes: >He's mostly right though. It may soon happen that undergraduates here >will have full access to Usenet. They have a bulletin board system on >the major undergrad machine, and I'd sure hate to see the stuff that >goes on there going outside the university. I'd hate to see the stuff that flows through almost *any* local bulletin board and/or news system go outside the local community. People have a tendancy to be more careful when they know their articles are going to a much wider audience. --woodstock -- "What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking and thinking...and suddenly you wake up." - Hobbes woodstock@hobbes.intel.com ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!nate
scott@capone.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) (03/11/89)
In article <744@crlabs.CRLABS.COM> cwiener@crlabs.CRLABS.COM (Chris Wiener) writes: >Very true. Maybe the administrator who posted the initial article was denied >access when he was an "immature undergrad". Just because someone doesn't have >a degree yet or because of their age, is no reason to blindly restrict their >access to a public forum designed to educate. This sort of smacks of the >recent flap over "The Satanic Verses". Khomeni (sp.?) has probably made a >decision without even reading the book. It seems that the GATECH admin hasn't >even given the undergrads a chance to prove their maturity (or lack of). > >I hope that other college administrators will be more reasonable that GATECH >seems to be. Lets get something straight...Gus is not an administrator, he has very little to do with the decision of how to allow access to USENET at this institute. Gus is a faculty member in the School of Information and Computer Science (ICS). Please don't confuse his opinions with those of the Computing Services organization which is responsible for making this decision. Now, some background. Starting this quarter, the Office of Computing Services (OCS) began issuing accounts on UNIX based systems to all students. Since these systems provide access to USENET news, we are faced with the problem of managing access to it. We have just started to formulate plans and policies for this, but from what I know of the matter, they won't be as drastic as what Gus proposes (this is, of course, my opinion). There will be restrictions, however. We will not just grant full and unrestrained access to the USENET. There are several reasons for this: 1) Over the past few years we have operated local news services on several of our systems (which all students have access to). Without exception, when student access has been granted to one of the groups within the systems, abuse and misuse has occurred. Thus, the student user community has already proven its potential for abuse and misuse. For example, several committees have recently been formed to study various aspects of a proposed academic reorganization. A group on one of our local systems was set up to promote discussions concerning this topic. Access was given to students because the faculty and administrators involved in the reorganization value their opinions. There have been a large number of appropriate and well written articles from students on this group, but about 1 in 10 is some bogus message...sometimes just random characters, sometimes obscene messages. 2) Institutions such as ours have an obligation to assure that standards of good taste are followed in all the articles that get posted from this site. Some might even argue that this applies to articles we feed from other sites. Because we provide access to the services, we carry part of the legal liability for the actions of our users. If a user here were to post slanderous statements, we would be just as open to legal action as the poster. 3) I think just about everyone will agree that the signal to noise ratio on the net has increased over the last several years. We feel that all system administrators have an obligation to the rest of the USENET community to prevent this. 4) New users account for a large portion of the noise on the the USENET. Most of us accept this quite well and the new users learn the ropes pretty fast...what we are assuming though, is that the user community grows at a moderate pace. We accept the idiocy of some new users because at any one time, there are not so many of them that using the net becomes a pain...when you add 15000 potential users at one time, you can throw that acceptance out the door. When things like this get out of hand (and they have, portal is a good example), the people who take the heat are the sytem administrators. We are not in a position to deal with this so if we wish to provide USENET access to 15000 users at one time, we better have some idiot prevention measures in place. Please don't get me wrong, the large majority of our 15000 users are responsible people and will exercise care and courtesy when using USNET. But, if just .5% neglect to use such courtesy, we are in for a fire storm of flames. Right now the situation here is that students do not have posting privileges to non-local groups. Persons who have access are those on the support staff and a number of people who previously had access to an older system with USENET news (a system that wasn't accessible by all students). This situation is unacceptable to almost everyone here. It is not going to change until we develop some policies for dealing with the huge volume of potential users...blanket access is not going to work nor is blanket denial. I want USENET news to become an effective resource for faculty, staff and students. The volume of useful information is beyond the imagination of most of them...almost everyone stands to benefit from having access. I have seen too many cases where local groups are killed because inconsiderate or uninformed users overrun the group. I believe that is the fate of USENET if organizations providing access to large groups do not take measures to assure that their users are informed and aware of the proper use of this facility. These precautions must go beyond simply handing out copies of the Net Etiquette guide and slapping the wrist of occasional offenders. > >I'd like to hear what Spaf has to say about the policy at Purdue. So would I...Spaf was one of the driving forces behind getting USENET established on this campus. >-- >Christopher Wiener N2CR CR Labs, Cliffside Park, NJ >DOMAIN: cwiener@CRLABS.COM UCCP: ..!killer!crlabs!cwiener Disclaimer: I work for the Computing Services organization here...I do not formulate their policies or announce them to the public unless told to do so...I have not been told to do so, thus you may assume that the above remarks are my own opinion. Scott Holt, Systems Analyst Internet: scott@prism.gatech.edu Georgia Tech BITNET: CCUSESH@GITNVE2 Office of Computing Services Atlanta, Ga 30332-0275
gus@pyr.gatech.EDU (gus Baird) (03/11/89)
Sorry, gang, but as a teacher I just can't let this one go by.
One infuriated respondent to the "posting privileges" article asserts: *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* "What this country needs is a FAIR WAY TO DISCRIMINATE!!!!! Yes sir". *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
He clearly believes "fair discrimination" to be an oxymoron.
This is an exhibition of ignorance so gross as to border upon illiteracy.
Discrimination is our highest intellectual faculty. *That* is the
ability which we use to know good from evil, bad from worse, to
choose the optimal of several candidate courses of action.
And, in fact, a fair means of discriminating among USENET clients is
exactly what we need, if the sky is in fact about to fall.
* I've not attributed this execrable statement.
It can't be fair to call attention to someone who
may have let his fury temporarily overcome his reason.
Besides, he may not yet have attained majority - even
criminal offenses are often forgiven for minors.
(Though I often feel offenses against reason
and language to be worse).
--
gus Baird
School of ICS, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, 30332
...!{decvax,hplabs,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!gitpyr!gussimon@copper.columbia.edu (Thor Simon) (03/11/89)
Whoa guys! Let's think this one over! We may not agree with each other on this subject, but we *do* seem to be turning news.admin into one giant flame. None of us can force Gus at GATECH to give the undergrads access; He can't force us to deny ours, and he probably can't get our higher-ups to take it away (note that I group myself with "undergrads" by default - I'm not a "grad"). How 'bout we just cool it on this. I suggest a 1-month moratorium on the subject, and I'm voluntarily shutting up effective now. But before I go, one more thing: In 75626@pyr.gatech.EDU Gus Baird writes: >Does Simon think that children should be given free speech in the Senate? In town meetings? (Sorry if I mangled that line a little. That's the gist of it, right?) No. I don't. I wasn't elected to the Senate, I can't speak there. If I'm called to testify to the Senate, I will. As for town meetings, of course I understand that until I'm 18, my parents have a certain measure of control over me. If they'd let me go, and if the town rules allowed it, I do, in fact, believe I, or any other 13-year old should have the right to speak on matters concerning themselves. (Note that I live in New York and don't know too much about the structure of town meetings) In fact, in traditional Jewish society, one is considered a man at 13, with the according rights and privleges. If you treat someone as if they were immature, they will probably act that way. I submit that by cooping up your undergrads, you are breeding a new batch of net flames when you let them have access. (yes, I claim the Ultimate Mixed Metaphor prize on that one, guys) And actually, I submit something else: I may be 13, I may not have as much experience as you, and I may be wrong. I never said I was perfect. Now I'll shut up, everybody. I suggest you all sum up your opinions and do the same.
wisner@mailrus.cc.umich.edu (Bill Wisner) (03/11/89)
(gus Baird) >From Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary... > >patronize vt >1: to act as a patron of. You missed one. Also from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: patronize vt 2 : to adopt an air of condescension toward
bondc@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Clay M Bond) (03/11/89)
I would support Mr. Baird's postition that the purpose of
a College (or University) is twofold. I do wonder where
he has been, however, if he is indeed shocked by attitudes
that Universities exist for the students (read, undergraduates.)
It is not only the prevailing attitude amongst students,
but also amongst the non-University community (such as the
state legislature.)
Mr. Baird's assumption that *research* is some sort of
domain owned and operated by faculty, however, is ignorant.
What, Mr. Baird, do you think Ph.D. students are doing?
And any assumption that faculty research is somehow more
valid than student research (particularly since in so many
cases what passes for faculty research is student research,
though not cited as such) is a ridiculous statement which
may fool the undergraduage, but certainly no graduate student.
Please, Mr. Baird, I am not impressed at all that you are
faculty, nor that you have a Ph.D. Some of the most stupid
people I have ever met are tenured faculty at some University.
Has it been so long since you were in graduate school, or did
you not have the basic intelligence to see throught the initials
when you were there? Or are you just overly impressed with
yourself?
And please do not make pompous statements about language when
you so obviously do not know the difference between denotation
and connotation. Adictionary enntry has nothing to do with
language, and one with such sterling credentials as yours I
would expect to know that.
Though your initial posting did, admittedly, score some sympathetic
response from me, your pomposity overrode anything you might have
had to say. So you're faculty? Who cares? Piles and piles
of blatant stupidity, both on Usenet and in the form of research,
are belched forth every year by faculty. Being so doesn't get
you any automatic respect, nor does it get you an intelligence
bonus.
What it does do is make your pomposity all that more intolerable.
--
<< **********************DO***WHAT***THOU***WILT********************** >>
<< Clay Bond Indiana University Department of Leather, uh, Linguistics >>
<< bondc@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu AKA: Le Nouveau Marquis de Sade >>
<< {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ames}!iuvax!bondc ************************* >>wisner@mailrus.cc.umich.edu (Bill Wisner) (03/11/89)
gus Baird: >I'm disappointed that even a 13-year-old cannot distinguish between >these cases. Does Simon expect children to be allowed full free speech >in town meetings? In the senate? I can't speak for Simon but personally, I *do* expect children to be allowed full free speech if those children have useful, intelligent things to say. I could name a few 13-year-olds who could perform better in the Senate than my state's Senators. A tangential point: right here on USENET, I met one of the brightest 13-year-olds I have ever known. Her articles were more literate and reasoned than many that are posted by "professionals". >Before you trip out on silliness like "patronizing", and so on, just >how can it be so wicked to suggest that a 13-year-old may not be mature? This is nonsense. Of course there are some 13-year-olds who are not mature. There are *many* 13-year-olds who are not mature. But there are also 31-year-olds who are not mature. Arbitrarily associating maturity with age is purest stupidity.
tytso@athena.mit.edu (Theodore Y. Tso) (03/11/89)
In article <331@hydra.gatech.EDU> scott@capone.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes: > 2) Institutions such as ours have an obligation to assure that > standards of good taste are followed in all the articles > that get posted from this site. Gee, this sounds familar..... when our organization, the Student Information Processing Board, (yes, it's composed of mostly volunteer undergraduates) received permission to provide netnews service to all MIT undergraduates, one of the stipulations was that if as a result of providing this service MIT's name were to be besmirched, netnews would be summarily yanked. One of the ways which we sent up to avoid this was to set up an entry in our sys file so that all articles posted at our site would be received by a local "monitor", who could read articles, and, in extreme cases, send cancel messages out after articles which were clearly inappropriate. Dubious articles would result in a letter sent to the poster explaining how they had violated Netiquette and asking not to do it again. Postings from root or daemon are summarily canceled. The system has worked fairly well, for the most part. - Ted =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Theodore Ts'o bloom-beacon!mit-athena!tytso 3 Ames St., Cambridge, MA 02139 tytso@athena.mit.edu Everybody's playing the game, but nobody's rules are the same!
wilson@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Tom Wilson) (03/11/89)
do allow undergraduate posting? I've noted Stanford, MIT, rutgers, penn state, and others. If there isn't such a count, send me the name of your school and whether undergrads can post or not, and I'll add 'em up and post. Maybe add a count of the approximate undergrad population allowed to post, too? And being relatively new to the net, has this particular discussion occurred in the past? Seems like most other debates have multiple occurrences. In article <7524@pyr.gatech.EDU> (gus baird) writes >Breaking my rule about replying to stuffed-shirts or personal attacks... >But hell, it's *my* rule, what's life for if you don't have any fun... I hope this falls into the personal attack category; I seldom have the pleasure of being lumped into the stuffed-shirt category. Usually I'm just placed in the 'looks like he slept in his shirt' crowd ... In my reply to your original posting, I wrote >>I find myself outraged six ways from Sunday from the previous paragraph, >>moreso as I re-read it. From this, we may conclude (1) by analogy, undergrads >>are not adults (2) undergrads have nothing to contribute, (3) you seem to >>class "your" undergraduates in the same category as "your" daughters--some >>kind of ownership (4) The paragraph is even a slander on your daughters of >>whatever age--children often can have as much or more insight as "adults". His replies were >1) My point is that enough of them do not act like adults for all of them >to be afforded unrestricted access to the net. >2) The contributions they can make are likely to be drowned out, along with >everyone elses, by the noise of the immature. See response below. >3) How much circumlocution am I supposed to use to express the relationship? >"My club" does not imply ownership. "My friend" is not a person I own. > ** Sheesh! ** Maybe it is just your figure of speech. However, in the context I read more into it. But I'll concede this point. >4) Just how much effective communication would *you* do if you loftily >refused to discipline your children, if you inflicted them uncontrolled >on adults trying to talk? And how much would your friends appreciate it? >Kids often do have insights, but that's not the way to bet. In an adult >forum their contributions need to be filtered. USENET is similar. >I don't say the same, *similar*. Similar protocols may have a similar >beneficial effect. This is still an argument by inappropriate analogy. I think the reasoning here is 1. It is undesirable for children to interrupt adult forums (the point made in the preceding paragraph) 2. Usenet is intended to be an adult forum. (no argument here) 3. (implied third assumption) 4. Therefore, undergraduates should not be allowed to post to the net. I think that the implied third assumption is 3. Undergraduates are children. Granting points 1 and 2, I think a more appropriate chain is 3. Some people act like children on Usenet. (independent of age) 4. Such people should modify their behavior, or be removed from posting. Usenet is *not* similar to inflicting children on one's friends. Usenet is not a room at a meeting where children can run around making noise disrupting conversation. The only way of affecting the newgroups at all is by taking part in the same activity as the 'adults': posting. I think some self-selection that occurs here: the *stereotypical* beer-drinking football jock will gravitate toward some other activity than passively sitting in front of a terminal. As I recall going to my parents' friends' houses as a child, I had no interest in sitting and listening to their conversation. If undergraduates are really as immature as you argue, then they will soon be bored with all this yammer. Then all we are left with are the ones who are really interested. And at that point we all gain: more self-selected adults. >>[my posting referred to his attitude as 'patronizing'] >From Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary... >patron n >1 a: a person chosen, named, or honored as a special guardian, protector, >or supportor. To me, your proposal doesn't exactly seem very supportive or protective of undergraduates. >patronize vt >1: to act as a patron of. >Thank you. That's exactly what I am, and exactly what I try to do as >well as I can, with respect to *my* undergraduates. No, try the second usage (same source): 2: to adopt an air of condescension toward If this is what you considered to be a personal attack, so be it. Seems to me that you are dismissing an entire group based on assumptions of their behavior (or the behavior of some of them). Maybe it's not condescending. If your proposal had been made based on sex or race, it would be called sexist or racist. I thought we were supposed to be beyond treating people as groups instead of individuals. Prior to 20th century western culture, 18 year olds (or younger) were generally considered adults. (We even have this strange custom of letting them vote in elections.) Perhaps the prolonged childhood imposed by our culture leads to a child-like response by those so constrained? >>Second, I believe that there are already many sites where >>undergraduates are allowed to post; it hasn't destroyed the net so far. >But it's hurting us. It may get a lot worse. I guess I just don't see where its hurting. Can you name specific newsgroups? I am a regular reader of news.groups, comp.lang.c, comp.dcom.modems, sci.math, sci.math-stat, sci.dynamic-sys (sp?), comp.unix.xenix (intermittently), comp.graphics (intermittently), talk.bizarre (religiously), and alt.activism. [That's scary - how do I get any work done?] I don't see a 'problem' with undergrads in any of these. There is an occasional homework question from an undergrad in sci.math; the general reaction is (1) giving an answer to the question, or pointing out where to get help, and (2) pointing out that asking for help in their own neighborhood might be a better use of net resources. But it's generally a fairly gentle rebuttal. In fact, there have even been some interesting threads arise from one person making a correction or improvement in someone else's answer [I found the recent discussion of the exact meaning of O(f(n)) vs o(f(n)) intriguing and a little enlighten- ing.] Comp.lang.c is similar, although the RTFMs are more frequent (no matter what the age of the poster). As many others have pointed out in this thread, an awful lot of the regular valuable contributors to the net are undergrads. (Or younger. Note the very coherent response in this thread from the 13-year-old; sorry, I didn't note your name). And when someone does get out of line, they get flamed to the ground. I would guess that a lot of other new readers (undergrad or not) see this happen and realize that net.etiquette is not merely a suggestion, but weakly enforced by peer pressure. In conclusion: I just don't get it. The problem seems minor to me; yes, there are some costs, but there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Anarchy can seem really unmanageable, but this is not chaos. There is a recognizable net culture, and one of the (biggest?) taboos of that culture is to make continuous, repeated stupid postings. And because this culture is not geographically based, ostracism and ultimate exile really do work; a site admin can exile someone from the net. Yes, maturity is desirable. But age and maturity are not good correlates. There's a lot of brainpower out there that can make a valid contribution, and the "immature" will probably just leave in boredom. -- Tom Wilson Internet: wilson@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu wilson@uhccux.UUCP wilson@uhccux.UUCP || wilson@uhccux (Bitnet) Give us your tired, your poor huddled undergraduates yearning to post freely
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (03/11/89)
In article <7526@pyr.gatech.EDU> gus@pyr.gatech.EDU (gus Baird) writes:
: > Article 5382 of news.admin:
: >From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells)
: > Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale
: >
: > (For the inevitable question: yes, "racism". Check your dictionary.
: > There is no better word that I know of. "Discrimination" does not
: > cut it because there is nothing intrinsicly wrong with
: > discrimination. Rather "racism" could be defined as "discrimination
: > of people using irrelevant characteristics" but discrimination itself
: > is essential to life. And yes, "contemn", too.)
:
: No more wicked, again, than the general custom of recognizing maturity
: as a prerequisite to certain privileges, necessitated by practical
: considerations and generally regretted.
No, Mr. Racist, you are equivocating. If your criterion were
maturity, you'd have a point. If you could show some relationship
between maturity and being an undergrad, you might have a case. But
your criterion is only being an undergrad. And that is an irrelevant
characteristic. For example, your racism would exclude *me* from
posting. After all, I don't even have a high school diploma! (But
I'm 32, and much better educated than the average poster, so don't
try on me the patronizing remarks that you used when replying to that
13 year old.)
Your protestation of practicality is so much hot air.
Have you, perhaps, forgotten the voting age? It is 18. What age do
most undergraduates start at? Right. In other words, you are implying
that the rest of the country is dead wrong when it grants to the
typical undergrad the right to vote.
And don't bring up the drinking age: you can't equivalence a deadly
weapon like a car to an inappropriate posting or even to the imminent
death of Usenet.
You have a choice: either recognize that undergraduates are human
beings, possessed of rights like all others, presumed to be innocent
until proven guilty, as the rest of the country does, or accept your
title of "Racist".
---
Bill
{ uunet | novavax } !twwells!bill
(BTW, I'm going to be looking for a new job sometime in the next
few months. If you know of a good one, do send me e-mail.)richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (03/11/89)
In article <744@crlabs.CRLABS.COM> cwiener@crlabs.CRLABS.COM (Chris Wiener) writes: > >I'd like to hear what Spaf has to say about the policy at Purdue. He's probably much too busy throwing people off the net to comment on this right now. -- Get that duck out of my face richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (03/12/89)
In article <13159@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
: >I'd like to hear what Spaf has to say about the policy at Purdue.
:
: He's probably much too busy throwing people off the net to comment
: on this right now.
Don't you know when to quit? Libel, no less! Or was there a :-)
missing?
---
Bill
{ uunet | novavax } !twwells!bill
(BTW, I'm going to be looking for a new job sometime in the next
few months. If you know of a good one, do send me e-mail.)scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) (03/12/89)
In article <331@hydra.gatech.EDU> scott@capone.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes: >[lots of good reasonable things about why gatech wants to control postings] Gatech's problem, admirably described by Scott, is they have been burned by abuse on local (Georgia Tech) BBS use and they don't wish to export that abuse to the rest of the net. This attitude is commendable, and one that a lot of other sites could learn from. I think Scott is misunderstanding why folks are so offended. The article that kicked it off *began* with a blanket condemnation of the maturity of undergrads. It went on with further detail and postings that were insulting, arrogant, and a lot of other things that didn't reflect well on either the poster or Georgia Tech. We all salute the idea of Gatech wanting to be a good neighbor. But blanket insult and specious reasoning has been meet with the response it deserves. Steve Simmons scs@vax3.iti.org ..!sharkey!itivax!scs
dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US (David H. Brierley) (03/13/89)
Let me add my two cents worth to this. I administer a moderately sized
collection of UNIX machines, maybe 15 machines with a total user base of
about 2,000. Anybody on any of those machines is allowed to post news
articles at any time but I have taken certain steps that allow me to
sleep easy at night. First, the default distribution of news articles
is "local" and second, every news article that is posted on any of those
machines is mailed to me. The first time I see a news article from a
particular user I read it carefully to make sure they are not making
themselves, or the company, look like a bonehead. When I see a stupid
article I call the person up and have a chat with him (or her). After I
have seen enough articles by a particular user to know that they know
what they are doing I tell my mail filter to stop forwarding the news
postings from that user.
This may sound like a monumental task for someplace as large as a big
university but I think you will find that the vast majority of the users
will never post a news article and the ones that do post generally only
have to be spoken to once. If you should find a user that requires
repeated talkings to then maybe you should consider cutting off their
usenet access until they clean up their act. As long as you apply the
same policy to all users then nobody can claim that you were picking on
them.
Make sure your manager supports you if you want to be able to deny
access to anybody. Without that support all they have to do is complain
to your manager but with support you can do anything that is within
reason.
--
David H. Brierley
Home: dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US {rayssd,xanth,lazlo,jclyde}!galaxia!dave
Work: dhb@rayssd.ray.com {sun,decuac,gatech,necntc,ukma}!rayssd!dhbdave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US (David H. Brierley) (03/13/89)
In article <6205@columbia.edu> simon@copper.UUCP (Thor Simon) writes: > > As a 13-year old I, by the estimation of the original article, must >necessecarily (sp?) be *worse* than all of these "Evilllll" undergrads. I ... >One last thing: >Your attack on another poster's misplacement of a comma most certainly >did *not* show proper net etiquitte. As I recall, the document I read >on the subject stated that such "grammar flames" were among strictly >no-nos. If you're so concerned about proper behavior, show some yourself. I had already contributed to this discussion once and I had no intentions of contributing again but I felt this article deserved some attention. Assuming that this article is sincere, it should put a lot of you to shame. The article was well written, grammatically correct, and only contained two spelling errors (at least, only two that I noticed). The first spelling error, "necessarily", is a hard word to spell (I usually have to look it up) and the second word, "etiquette", is not a word I would expect most 13 year olds to know. I have seen numerous postings by so-called "professionals" who are 10 to 20 years older than this person and some of them are so bad that I had to read them two or three times to figure out what the poster was trying to say. I think that this particular person really personifies the stand that I, and several others, have taken saying that posting privileges cannot be assigned or denied using broad categorical labels such as "undergrad". These issues must be decided on an individual basis. -- David H. Brierley Home: dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US {rayssd,xanth,lazlo,jclyde}!galaxia!dave Work: dhb@rayssd.ray.com {sun,decuac,gatech,necntc,ukma}!rayssd!dhb
fg038@unocss.UUCP (Sharon O'Neil) (03/13/89)
In article <7502@pyr.gatech.EDU>, gus@pyr.gatech.EDU (gus Baird) writes: > > Undergraduates should not be allowed to post articles. > > They are not yet able to *contribute* to the discussion, but they > may learn from it. > > We need this net as a forum for adult, often professional, discussion. I agree that the net should be "a forum for adult, often professional, discussion." I, however, disagree that undergraduates are unable to contribute intelligently to discussions. I am an undergraduate student, myself, of course, but I think that I, and others, are just as capable of making a worthwhile contribution to the net. For one thing, we are the next generation of professionals. We should be allowed to interact with those already involved in "the real world" and in "academia" because this can only broaden our scope. I don't think that this would be possible if we were to sit, silently, watching those who "have already paid their dues." The ability to post, the ability to carry on dialogues with the highly educated individuals on the net helps the bright undergrad see new perspectives and polish his or her own arguments. I do believe that the net is a place where ideas can be exchanged and people can carry on debates and dialogues and give their insights. For the graduate, it is valuable to discuss things with others in his field. For the undergraduate, it is valuable to learn what others are doing in the fields he or she is interested in, and being able to make a contribution. The undergraduate contribution might not be as "sophisticated," but it might very well be a worthy contribution. > Were you like me, when you first got on the net? > I must have read news for six months before I posted anything. Working > stiffs tend to be similarly considerate (or timid!) here and in > conversation. They'll usually listen quietly for a while to get the > drift of the dialog and to find what points have already been made, > before putting in their own oars. That's an attribute of an adult. I, too, read news for months before I actually got up the nerve to post. I didn't want to post anything stupid. I wanted to make a worthwhile contribution. I read and got a feel for what was going on. But I don't criticize those who just jump in and get their feet wet right away. They might very well have just as much to say as anyone else. Just because they are impulsive does not mean that their ideas are any less valuable. > Undergraduates tend not to act that way. Part of the mission of colleges > is to get them matured to the point where they will. Meanwhiles, they > shouldn't be encouraged to trash the conversation. The mission of college is to help foster the formulation of ideas. It is to teach students to think critically. One has to think critically on the net and make an intelligent contribution or he or she will be flamed unmercilessly. The mission of college is the transmission of thought from master to protege. This does not mean that the student sit idly back and have education DONE to them. Education requires interaction between post graduate, graduate, and undergraduate. Undergraduates must be encouraged to formulate ideas, think critically, and express themselves. One major criticism that many of my professors have expressed time and time again is that they are not there to spoon feed students. The student has to go out there and grab education. The student must think for himself. Astoundingly enough, undergraduates are quite capable of carrying on intelligent and worthy discussion here on the net. I do not use the net to "do my homework for me." I am a humanities major. I can't very well try to get my answers from other people on the net. I have to come up with my own. A masters degree or a doctorate does not give one a monopoly on the truth. Truth might very well not be contained within the individual's thesis. I have met undergrads who are more capable than some professors. Of course, it is true that a lot of undergraduates could care less. But for those that do care, the net is an exceptionally excellent way of discussing things with people that they could not possibly interact with because of distance, both geographically and educationally. -- ---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Sharon O'Neil | Internet: oneil%zeus@fergvax.unl.edu Who reads these, anyway? | Bitnet: oneil@unoma1.bitnet Univ. of Nebraska - Lincoln | "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
emv@a.cc.umich.edu (Ed Vielmetti) (03/13/89)
In article <7530@pyr.gatech.EDU> gus@pyr.gatech.EDU (gus Baird) writes: >Sorry, gang, but as a teacher I just can't let this one go by. uh huh. >gus Baird >School of ICS, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, 30332 >...!{decvax,hplabs,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!gitpyr!gus Sorry, gus, your .signature is out of date. (seismo's not a backbone site anymore). Besides, any self-respecting .signature has a domain name these days. Undergraduates usually get this wrong, but everyone else has learned. People shouldn't be allowed to create .signature files that have inaccurate information. So the question is, how to best discriminate among possible usenet clients to make sure that we get the best .signature files? hm. I know, don't let undergraduates post. --Ed
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (03/13/89)
In article <7530@pyr.gatech.EDU> gus@pyr.gatech.EDU (gus Baird) writes: >Sorry, gang, but as a teacher I just can't let this one go by. > >One infuriated respondent to the "posting privileges" article asserts: * > >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >* "What this country needs is a FAIR WAY TO DISCRIMINATE!!!!! Yes sir". * >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > >He clearly believes "fair discrimination" to be an oxymoron. > >This is an exhibition of ignorance so gross as to border upon illiteracy. > >Discrimination is our highest intellectual faculty. *That* is the >ability which we use to know good from evil, bad from worse, to >choose the optimal of several candidate courses of action. > >And, in fact, a fair means of discriminating among USENET clients is >exactly what we need, if the sky is in fact about to fall. > > * I've not attributed this execrable statement. > It can't be fair to call attention to someone who > may have let his fury temporarily overcome his reason. > Besides, he may not yet have attained majority - even > criminal offenses are often forgiven for minors. > (Though I often feel offenses against reason > and language to be worse). >-- >gus Baird >School of ICS, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, 30332 >...!{decvax,hplabs,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!gitpyr!gus My, my. How irate you are. No sense of humor at all. But you've got me all wrong. I am hardly an "infuriated respondent." I don't really care what you do at Georgia Tech and it's been years since I was an undergraduate. Furthermore I didn't miss the point that IN YOUR OPINION the form of discrimination you propose to practice is completely logical, fair, and just. Pardon me if I disagree. I think you owe me a public apology.
wisner@shadooby.cc.umich.edu (Bill Wisner) (03/13/89)
rja@edison.GE.COM: > Most of the noise these days comes >not from undergrad students but from porrly educated users on small >sites or on public-access systems. Amend that: Most of the noise these days comes not from undergrad students in particular but from poorly educated users in general.
dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) (03/13/89)
In article <1989Mar9.160858.28018@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <7502@pyr.gatech.EDU> gus@pyr.gatech.EDU (gus Baird) writes: >>Undergraduates should not be allowed to post articles. > >Speaking as a former undergrad :-), this is silly. > >It is better, although harder, to deal with people as individuals than >to try to lump them into groups by superficial characteristics. Well put, Henry!, says he stroking his grey beard. I am sometimes rather bothered by the attitude of some faculty members toward students in general. At some point we need to start treating students as adults. We don't do it in secondary schools and now there are many, including many students, who don't want to start in college. One of my goals when I was teaching was to get the students to take responsibility for their own learning. Taking responsibility is part of being an adult. I try to operate on the assumption that people are responsible adults until they prove to me that they aren't. I think that is what Henry means by saying that we should deal with people as individuals. -- Dan Schlitt Manager, Science Division Computer Facility dan@ccnysci City College of New York dan@ccnysci.bitnet New York, NY 10031 (212)690-6868
nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) (03/14/89)
In article <7530@pyr.gatech.EDU>, gus@pyr (gus Baird) writes: >* "What this country needs is a FAIR WAY TO DISCRIMINATE!!!!! Yes sir". * >He clearly believes "fair discrimination" to be an oxymoron. >This is an exhibition of ignorance so gross as to border upon illiteracy. Hardly. It's a simple matter of the both of you confusing the denotation of a word with its connotation. --woodstock -- "What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking and thinking...and suddenly you wake up." - Hobbes woodstock@hobbes.intel.com ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!nate
jmdoyle@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jennifer Mary Doyle) (03/14/89)
The fact that this discussion was going on was brought up in soc.college. I subscribed to news.admin, and read every article that had been posted on this subject. I will attempt to respond without repeating points already made and conceded. I apologize for the length of the article. (all excerpts are from the article mentioned below) From: gus@pyr.gatech.EDU (gus Baird) Message-ID: <7502@pyr.gatech.EDU> >But when I take the girls to a meeting where adult discussions >are conducted, they're expected to keep quiet. That's reasonable. >They are not yet able to *contribute* to the discussion, but they >may learn from it. How do they learn from a discussion if they are not allowed to ask questions and to state their opinions? Their question could probably be answered by someone in the discussion, and if not, it will give the person something to think about and learn from. If the opinion of your daughter is based on misinformation, that, too could be corrected. If it is a valid opinion, it can be learned from. Children do not usually sit in on adult discussions unless they are interested. If they are, their contributions will probably be relevant. >We need this net as a forum for adult, often professional, discussion. I concede that the comp.groups are a professional forum, as are the sci and bio groups. Groups in the rec, talk, and soc hierarchies, however, are not. They exist to allow discussion on topics that exist, for the most part, outside the workplace. Anyone with a good contribution to make is welcomed in such places. Knowledgeable points of view on a topic can come from any source, old or young, undergrad, grad, or professional. I believe this also applies to the comp groups. The word you use that bothers me is `adult'. You seem to be implying that if you are not an adult, what you have to say is not important, regardless of whether or not it is correct or relevant. >I must have read news for six months before I posted anything. Working >stiffs tend to be similarly considerate (or timid!) here and in >conversation. They'll usually listen quietly for a while to get the >drift of the dialog and to find what points have already been made, >before putting in their own oars. That's an attribute of an adult. >Undergraduates tend not to act that way. I cannot recall how long I read news before I posted my first article, but I remember that I did not immediately begin to post. Once I felt I knew enough to make a relevant contribution, I posted an article. The more I feel I know about a topic, the more likely I am to post. The longer I read netnews, the more articles I will post. In other words, I read, learn about netiquette and the technical aspects of posting, and gain experience, which is (hopefully) reflected in my articles. I do this because I am mature, not because I am an adult. Maturity can be found in 13 year olds, immaturity can be found in 31 year olds. Age is usually, *but not always*, a measure of maturity. On the net, where you do not see who you are writing to/about, maturity is usually measured by the content of your articles, not your age or academic status. >I suggest that the "powers that be" of the net administration community >should discourage colleges from giving posting privileges to undergraduates, >*as undergraduates*. Wouldn't it be better to give students their "trial period" on the net as undergrads, rather than as grads or professionals? If you make them wait out those 4 years, the drivel they would have posted as a first year student gets posted later, when they are representing a department or a company. Is there anyone who believes an undergrad's views reflect those of a university? This does *not* imply that undergrads should be allowed to post drivel, just that if they do, it will only refelct badly on them. >It's appropriate for a student who is also holding >down a job to post from his "professional" account, but he shouldn't be >let to use his "student" one. What if you have a student who is getting good grades, is involved in campus groups, and is an officer in one of them? They are not holding a job, but they are obviously responsible. Is it fair to say to them "Yes, you appear to be responsible, but we can't give you an account because you have no job?" Many responsible students have not got the time to hold a job, but are just as responsible as those who do. As an aside, in a later article you stated that when you referred to holding down a job, you meant *any* job, not a computer related job. How many non-computer related jobs with computer accounts do undergrads hold? For the majority, there is no such thing as a "professional" account. If you wish them to only use a "professional" account because their job proves them responsible, and they must answer to their boss if they post drivel, you are still not giving a reason why non-job holding undergrads can't post. Offenders must answer for themselves. If they continually post drivel, letters to the postmaster should remove the offender from the net. >More and more sites will be making UNIX and this net available to their >youngsters. The immature portion of tens of thousands of them may soon >be posting articles, drowning out the conversation we expect to carry on. >It would be wise to take steps now to prevent degradation of this forum. In this case, you are using the wrong statistics to make your point. Granted, there are many large universities with tens of thousands of students who have or will have net access. This does not mean they will all immediately open student accounts and overwhelm the net with their drivel. [Disclaimer: All of the following numbers are chosen by me, though I think I percentages about right. In fact, I think I have estimated high in most cases.] Out of 5,000 students, those in departments where a computer account is needed, and perhaps a few hundred others will have accounts. Assume the number is 2000. Of those, maybe 10 percent will read netnews. Possibly 1 percent will post regularly. Assume 10 percent of them post drivel regularly. That number comes out to be *2* students out of 5,000. 2 letters to the postmaster should take care of them. Think about the people you know in your life who you would not want to post. How many of them are likely to have computer accounts, let alone know how to read and post news? If you have gotten this far, thank you for reading this long post. I have said basically all I set out to say, and I have attempted to be clear and non-inflammatory. Respond via email, and I will attempt to answer any disagreements people may have with me with tact and reason. Jennifer Doyle jmdoyle@phoenix.Princeton.EDU P.S. I am 20 years old, and an undergraduate at Princeton University. -- It's nice to know that when the whole world seems crazy, /\ /\ you have friends who make it seem sane in comparison. ||_____|| Jen Princeton `92 jmdoyle@phoenix.princeton.EDU | _ | Disclaimer: I am a student, I represent the future. |__( )__|
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (03/15/89)
In article <7502@pyr.gatech.EDU> gus@pyr.gatech.EDU (gus Baird) writes:
)Undergraduates should not be allowed to post articles.
)Hey, folks, I love my undergraduates. I love my daughters, too.
)But when I take the girls to a meeting where adult discussions
)are conducted, they're expected to keep quiet. That's reasonable.
)They are not yet able to *contribute* to the discussion, but they
)may learn from it.
So certain is he.
)We need this net as a forum for adult, often professional, discussion.
)If undergraduates with minimal professional and social skills are given
)free rein, then the signal/noise ratio will decrease to the point where
)the net will become useless for what I consider its main purpose.
)Remember that as bad money drives out good, inane convervation drives
)out the exchange of ideas.
Oh dear, the immenent death of the net yet again.
)Were you like me, when you first got on the net?
)I must have read news for six months before I posted anything. Working
)stiffs tend to be similarly considerate (or timid!) here and in
)conversation. They'll usually listen quietly for a while to get the
)drift of the dialog and to find what points have already been made,
)before putting in their own oars. That's an attribute of an adult.
I guess I'm a faster learner, it only took me 3. I suspect that
there are those who can do it in far less.
)Undergraduates tend not to act that way. Part of the mission of colleges
)is to get them matured to the point where they will. Meanwhiles, they
)shouldn't be encouraged to trash the conversation.
And giving them posting privledges *encourages* them to do so?
I don't think so.
)I suggest that the "powers that be" of the net administration community
)should discourage colleges from giving posting privileges to undergraduates,
)*as undergraduates*. It's appropriate for a student who is also holding
)down a job to post from his "professional" account, but he shouldn't be
)let to use his "student" one.
)More and more sites will be making UNIX and this net available to their
)youngsters. The immature portion of tens of thousands of them may soon
)be posting articles, drowning out the conversation we expect to carry on.
)It would be wise to take steps now to prevent degradation of this forum.
)gus Baird
Gus, how long *have* you been on USENET? Do you have any idea how
much various undergrads have contributed to the net? Like Irwin Tillman,
who wrote VM netnews while an undergrad at Princeton? Like David Herron,
who built ukma into a (once-upon-a-time) backbone site, while an undergrad?
Like probably dozens if not hundreds of others I don't know personally?
Need I also point out that in general the most abusive posters are
the professionals you think are better than students?
The last time I looked the percentage of news readers that post
was *far* less than ten percent. Given the literally thousands of undergrads
that already have access to the net, and the lack of disruption caused
by them as a group, I'd say your fears are groundless. And, worse than
groundless, harmful.
I think that the ability to participate in the dialog that occurs
on the net could be an important part of the education that you recognize
universities are to impart to students. I vigorously oppose *any* system
that wants to use USENET postings without letting people participate, be
it gatech or Compuserve. And that is just what you are proposing, using
the net without contributingback into it. And to my mind the most important
thing that any site can contribute is the minds of the people who read there.
And, hopefully, post from there.
--
Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure.
SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet
Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu
Love is wanting to keep more than one person happy.bga@raspail.cdcnet.cdc.com (Bruce Albrecht) (03/15/89)
In article <7502@pyr.gatech.EDU>, gus@pyr.gatech.EDU (gus Baird) writes: > Undergraduates should not be allowed to post articles... > > Look back over old articles since significant numbers of undergraduate > students started posting. Sometimes it seems that the very first thing > every one of them does is post all the fourth-grade jokes he can remember, > not realizing that they were all posted just the week before. Oh, dear, rec.humor has a low S/N ratio. > Then he discovers that the language and system newsgroups are just the > place to get help with his homework, or to avoid having to buy manuals. I don't read comp.lang.c, but most of the other comp.lang groups have pretty low volume, and I haven't noticed the problems you describe. I think this is true of most of the comp.* groups. > > We need this net as a forum for adult, often professional, discussion. > If undergraduates with minimal professional and social skills are given > free rein, then the signal/noise ratio will decrease to the point where > the net will become useless for what I consider its main purpose. > Remember that as bad money drives out good, inane convervation drives > out the exchange of ideas. There are a number of moderated newsgroups, mainly to alleviate this problem. If there is a lot of S/N ratio problems, more moderated groups will pop up where people dedicated to a topic are willing to take the time to keep the group at the desired S/N ratio. I don't have the time or inclination to read a lot of newsgroups, but I'm not convinced that the comp.* ones that I currently read are being adversely affected by undergrads posting to them. Sure, there are a bunch of rec.* and alt.* groups that have a garbage posting problem, but not all of them are caused by undergrads (immature people, yes, but many are not clearly affiliated as undergrads of any universities). I'd also like to see Gus Baird post his follow-ups as follow-ups, and not as new postings, if he's going to complain about other people not following netiquette.
bryden@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Christpher F. Bryden) (03/15/89)
>From article <7502@pyr.gatech.EDU>, by gus@pyr.gatech.EDU (gus Baird): > Undergraduates should not be allowed to post articles. Humm... I think that he is just having trouble keeping up with the postings. Doing away with the "undergraduates" would certainly reduce the volume of postings anyway. :-> Chris
193ellis@bunzel.qal.berkeley.edu (Michael K Ellis) (03/16/89)
In article <3095@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> bryden@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Christpher F. Bryden) writes: >>From article <7502@pyr.gatech.EDU>, by gus@pyr.gatech.EDU (gus Baird): >> Undergraduates should not be allowed to post articles. > >Humm... > >I think that he is just having trouble keeping up with the postings. >Doing away with the "undergraduates" would certainly reduce the volume >of postings anyway. :-> > >Chris Ah, ahem, 'scuse me. "undergraduate" is a state of whether or not you've gotten a degree from (Insert diploma mill here) U. It bears no resemblance to whether or not you're qualified to post on the net. Don't believe me? Half of my classes have "undergraduates" who are over the age of 40. While I don't know if they post or not, they do have wisdom which would be of distinct benefit to the net, as in real life experience. Along the same lines, immaturity is not necessarily a function of age. I know more than one "graduate" who doesn't qualify as human, much less as able to post to the net with some semblance of rationallity. Diplomas mean you did the course work. Nobody said you learned anything. Michael K. Ellis 193ellis@snowy.qal.berkeley "Ph.D" > "Piled higher and deeper" "Is everybody happy?" Machiavelli (pseudo quote. I found a better one but nobody I know speaks Totoro."
cks@ziebmef.uucp (Chris Siebenmann) (03/19/89)
In article <3762@geaclib.UUCP> rae@geac.uucp (Reid Ellis) writes: | If this ultimate censorship bothers people [as it does me] perhaps | a more moderate form of censorship might fit the bill -- namely | scanning all outgoing news. But then you have to consider the | effort involved. The effort involved hinges on a very interesting question: what percentage of newsreaders posts articles (or "what's the articles to newsreaders ratio")? Judging from local experience, I suspect that under a twentieth of newsreaders ever post articles, and probably way less than that. Does anyone have some real numbers, though (perhaps Brian Reid -- unfortunately, we don't have the latest arbitron stats on hand)? -- "Though you may disappear, you're not forgotten here And I will say to you, I will do what I can do" Chris Siebenmann uunet!{utgpu!moore,attcan!telly}!ziebmef!cks cks@ziebmef.UUCP or .....!utgpu!{,ontmoh!,ncrcan!brambo!}cks
nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Liber) (03/21/89)
In article <1612@raspail.cdcnet.cdc.com> bga@raspail.cdcnet.cdc.com (Bruce Albrecht) writes: >In article <7502@pyr.gatech.EDU>, gus@pyr.gatech.EDU (gus Baird) writes: >> Then he discovers that the language and system newsgroups are just the >> place to get help with his homework, or to avoid having to buy manuals. >I don't read comp.lang.c, but most of the other comp.lang groups have pretty >low volume, and I haven't noticed the problems you describe. I think this >is true of most of the comp.* groups. A couple of additional points: I've seen many good *questions* (as well as answers) coming from undergrads on comp.lang.c. The kind of questions you think you can answer off the top of your head, until you actually sit down and type it up. They make us "professionals" (whatever that means; I really don't know) think, which is much more than this current subject thread is doing! I have an undergrad friend at Purdue (Hi Mitch :-)) who cannot post because undergrads aren't allowed to, and I'm sorry to say that the net is LOSING a lot of insight and good information because of it. He is an extremely knowledgable person, and would be a very valuable technical resource to the net. Look at the 'drivel' in here lately, it seems to be stemming from gus. gus, why don't you look at your postings and tell us how they differ from the postings you are trying to keep off the net. From where I sit, you have generated a lot of traffic which most of us consider noise. -- _ __ NEVIN ":-)" LIBER nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (312) 979-4751 IH 4F-410 ' ) ) "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, / / _ , __o ____ briefed, debriefed or numbered! My life is my own!" / (_</_\/ <__/ / <_ As far as I know, these are NOT the opinions of AT&T.
bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (03/28/89)
Everyone associated with our department has access to the department's UNIX workstation facilities. This includes faculty, graduate students, undergrads (above the 100 level, where they use Macintoshes that don't yet do news and mail), and facilities and office staff. Everyone who has an account on the department's UNIX facilities has the ability to use the facilities however they like, and has for as long as we've been on the network. Undergraduate students joined the ranks when we got enough facilities to support them, about 1.5 years ago. "However they like" would include mail, news, FTP, telnet, finger - the whole gamut of internetwork user services - but would not include using state resources for commercial purposes or personal financial gain. Facilities available to users of different groups (grad, undergrad, etc.) differ only in disk storage quotas. Georgia Tech is, of course, obligated to employ whatever measures they find necessary to the operation of their site. So are we. We do not feel that general restrictions of posting privileges are necessary here, but rather prefer to deal with problems on a case-by-case basis as they arise. They don't arise much. We start with the basic assumption that individuals here are reasonable adults, and only treat them otherwise when they demonstrate otherwise. We provide users with access to information regarding policies and procedures and expected standards of behavior, and they are held individually responsible for upholding those standards. Of course, I can describe the feelings only of the systems staff of this department. Policies of other organizations on campus may differ. (BTW, the only local user against whom we were ever even tempted to invoke the FASCIST option was a faculty member. We didn't.)