oz@yetti.UUCP (11/30/87)
What you are about to get in the next posting is a paper [draft] titled USENET: An Examination of the Social and Political Processes of a Cooperative Computer/Communications Network Under the Stress of Rapid Growth by: Jerome Durlak Rory O'Brien Ozan Yigit This paper was originally presented at the Montreal Conference of the Canadian Communications Association. To our knowledge, it is the first paper that takes a serious look at the USENET as a Computer-Mediated Communication Medium, and also the first paper being made available to the audience of the very network it is investigating, for their commentary, suggestions etc. Unlike D. Norman's famous UN*X paper, this posting is done by the authors, to generate as much discussion as possible about the paper, and to encourage a serious look at the "net". It is our hope that further research will be undertaken as a result of this posting. The Posting: We have decided to post only a single copy of our paper, formatted by using a set of "generic" typesetting commands. Two "sed" scripts are used to convert the "generic" format to either N/Troff(MS) or LaTeX: sed -f dorof.sed usenet.fmt >usenet.n sed -f dotex.sed usenet.fmt >usenet.tex If you do not have n/troff or LaTeX, than you should be able to tweak the sed scripts and the header files (header.tex | header.n) to generate a version typesettable under scribe, script, roff, proff or whatever. PLEASE NOTE: Both this introduction, and the USENET paper itself are Copyright 1987, Jerome Durlak, Rory O'Brien, Ozan Yigit Rights are hearby granted to print or typeset for personal or academic research purposes only. All other forms of publication, distribution through bulletin boards or distribution on any network other than USENET, CDNNET, NETNORTH, ARPA Internet or CSNET requires prior written permission of the authors. This means: typeset it, and distribute internally in your organization, distribute through the networks mentioned, but do NOT try to publish it in a journal, or post it to bix, compuserve or your favorite bulletin board without our permission. A special permission is hereby granted to ;login:, The USENIX Association Newsletter, to publish a condensed version of this paper, provided that the condensed version is made available to the authors for a review before publication. Bit of History: This paper initially got started about a year ago, as one of the authors felt that USENET was consuming too much of his time [read: news-craving] and it deserved some formal attention. He managed to convince two innocent souls to join him into looking into USENET a bit more seriously, and hence this paper. Since than, the authors have gone over literally hundreds of news articles dating back to 1985, and are currently engaged in several other papers related to USENET. What is and what is not: This paper is about USENET, but not about whether USENET is good or bad. In other words, no messages from the Surgeon General. From the very start, we have decided to treat USENET as something that requires attention, much like an organism, rather than something that needs to be shot-down or glorified. [There are plenty of individuals engaging in the former or the latter daily, so you are not missing much.] It is also our unanimous feeling that a Computer Mediated Communication System as large and influential as USENET requires careful study before it is exposed for its weaknesses or strengths. At least one individual who read an early version of this paper remarked that we did not want to "offend" anybody. This is not entirely true. It is just that this particular paper is free from any hard conclusions that may be offensive to some. We are just scratching the surface of USENET. This paper is also a DRAFT. The purpose of this posting is to get some initial reactions to the paper, and correct any misunderstand- ings on our part before the final version. This paper also does not claim to have the appropriate socio- political and mass-media related models or theories. We think we have found some, and no doubt some of the net readers will suggest others. One model that sticks in our mind can be described as ANARCHY. We think this one requires close attention. Net Issues: We have, over the period of a year, observed USENET, and came up with many issues, each of which may be a basis for a separate study. Just to mention a few: legal issues, politics (gate-keepers vs readers), information-overload, evolution of a netiquette, chaos-vs-moderated conversations, asynchronicity in communication, adequacy of user interfaces for filtering/massaging, REAL costs of the net [reader/organization], quality of information [fallacy of "Gospel according to USENET"], and so on. Undoubtedly, many of the net readers have noted other issues worth investigation. This is probably as good a time as any to think about them. Feedback: The purpose of this posting is to generate feedback, whether it be your thoughts about relevant issues [some of which mentioned above], your thoughts, suggestions, flames about our paper, or any other comments you care to make. In our view, if you have anything to say, PLEASE SAY IT, either via private mail, or via the net. If you choose to e-mail to us, and you do not wish us to refer to that particular piece of correspondence in our future papers, please indicate it as such. In short, we will be looking forward to your comments in any shape or form. We would especially like to hear from the female readers of the net, as their voices are rarely heard in the matters relating to USENET itself. If you choose to include parts of our paper for any posting to the net, we would appreciate it if you keep such inclusions to bare minimum. We expect our paper to be read by many, and hence, there is no need to keep reposting it in small parts. All e-mail correspondence may be sent to: uunet!mnetor! ---+ ihnp4!utzoo! ----+--> yetti!netters .....!utgpu! ----+ or netters@yuyetti.BITNET or mindscan@yulibra.BITNET All written (surface mail) correspondence may be mailed to: Dr. Jerome Durlak Mass Communications Programme York University 4700 Keele Street North York, Ontario, M3J 1P3 Canada Acknowledgments: Few people had a chance to read a version of this paper, and made some very helpful comments. We would especially like to thank John Quarterman, Dave Taylor, Lauren Weinstein and John Gilmore for their comments and suggestions. We will include a more complete acknowledgments section to the final version of this paper. -- You see things, and you say "WHY?" Usenet: [decvax|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz But I dream things that never were; ......!seismo!mnetor!yetti!oz and say "WHY NOT?" Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yulibra|yuyetti] [Back To Methuselah] Bernard Shaw Phonet: [416] 736-5257 x 3976
oz@yetti.UUCP (11/30/87)
#! /bin/sh
# This is a shell archive, meaning:
# 1. Remove everything above the #! /bin/sh line.
# 2. Save the resulting text in a file.
# 3. Execute the file with /bin/sh (not csh) to create the files:
# dorof.sed
# dotex.sed
# header.n
# header.tex
# usenet.fmt
# This archive created: Sun Nov 29 17:10:10 1987
export PATH; PATH=/bin:$PATH
echo shar: extracting "'dorof.sed'" '(441 characters)'
if test -f 'dorof.sed'
then
echo shar: will not over-write existing file "'dorof.sed'"
else
sed 's/^ X//' << \SHAR_EOF > 'dorof.sed'
X#
X# convert from generic format to nroff/troff (MS)
X# on-line commands:
X#
Xs/^%%/.\\"/
Xs/^\.SD/.so header.n/
Xs/^\.ED//
Xs/^\.SH 1 \(.*\)$/.NH 1\
X\1\
X.PP/
Xs/^\.SH 2 \(.*\)$/.NH 2\
X\1\
X.PP/
Xs/^\.SH 3 \(.*\)$/.NH 3\
X\1\
X.PP/
Xs/^\.QS/.QP/
Xs/^\.QE/.LP/
Xs/^\.PP//
Xs/^\.LS/.DS/
Xs/^\.LE/.DE/
Xs/^\.IS//
Xs/^\.IP /.IP \\(bu\
X/
Xs/^\.IE/.LP/
Xs/^\.PG/.bp/
X#
X# in-line commands:
X#
Xs/\\FS/\\**\
X.FS\
X/
Xs/\\FE/\
X.FE/
X#
X# misc
X#
Xs/\\&/\&/g
Xs/\\\$/$/g
Xs/\\%/%/g
SHAR_EOF
if test 441 -ne "`wc -c < 'dorof.sed'`"
then
echo shar: error transmitting "'dorof.sed'" '(should have been 441 characters)'
fi
fi # end of overwriting check
echo shar: extracting "'dotex.sed'" '(651 characters)'
if test -f 'dotex.sed'
then
echo shar: will not over-write existing file "'dotex.sed'"
else
sed 's/^ X//' << \SHAR_EOF > 'dotex.sed'
X#
X# convert from generic format to latex
X# on-line commands:
X#
Xs/^\.SD/\\input{header}/
Xs/^\.ED/\\end{document}/
Xs/^\.SH 1 \(.*\)$/\\section{\1}/
Xs/^\.SH 2 \(.*\)$/\\subsection{\1}/
Xs/^\.SH 3 \(.*\)$/\\subsubsection{\1}/
Xs/^\.PP.*$//
Xs/^\.LP/\
X\\noindent/
Xs/^\.LS/\\footnotesize\
X\\begin{verbatim}/
Xs/^\.LE/\\end{verbatim}\
X\\normalsize/
Xs/^\.QS/\\small\
X\\begin{quotation}/
Xs/^\.QE/\\end{quotation}\
X\\normalsize/
Xs/^\.TS/\\begin{tabular}/
Xs/^\.TE/\\end{tabular}/
Xs/^\.IS/\\begin{itemize}/
Xs/^\.IP/\\item/
Xs/^\.IE/\\end{itemize}/
Xs/^\.PG/\\newpage/
X#
X# in-line commands:
X#
Xs/\\FS/\\footnote{/
Xs/\\FE/}/
Xs/\\fI/{\\it /g
Xs/\\fB/{\\bf /g
Xs/\\fR/}/g
X
X
X
X
SHAR_EOF
if test 651 -ne "`wc -c < 'dotex.sed'`"
then
echo shar: error transmitting "'dotex.sed'" '(should have been 651 characters)'
fi
fi # end of overwriting check
echo shar: extracting "'header.n'" '(965 characters)'
if test -f 'header.n'
then
echo shar: will not over-write existing file "'header.n'"
else
sed 's/^ X//' << \SHAR_EOF > 'header.n'
X.nr PO 1.5i
X.nr LL 5.5i
X.nr LT 5.5i
X.nr PS 12
X.nr VS 14
X.RP
X.TL
XUSENET:
XAn Examination of the Social and Political Processes of a
XCooperative Computer/Communications Network Under the Stress of Rapid
XGrowth
X.AU
XJerome Durlak
XRory O'Brien
XOzan Yigit
X.AI
XYork University
X.AB no
X.FS
XUsenet DRAFT Copyright \(co 1987, Jerome Durlak, Rory O'Brien, Ozan Yigit
X.FE
XThe ease with which people can generate additions to the bulletin
Xboard and messages to others has [another] major drawback: electronic
Xjunk mail. Many of my colleagues and I have stopped reading the network
Xnews and bulletin boards because we cannot afford the time to do so
Xevery day.
X.sp
XThe positive side of these networks overcomes the negative.
XPeople can communicate their ideas to others across the country quickly
Xand effectively. In turn, the recipients can respond, criticizing, sharing,
Xand improving the product.
X.sp
XThe Trouble with Networks
X.br
XDonald A. Norman
X.br
XDatamation, Jan. 1982
X.AE
SHAR_EOF
if test 965 -ne "`wc -c < 'header.n'`"
then
echo shar: error transmitting "'header.n'" '(should have been 965 characters)'
fi
fi # end of overwriting check
echo shar: extracting "'header.tex'" '(1488 characters)'
if test -f 'header.tex'
then
echo shar: will not over-write existing file "'header.tex'"
else
sed 's/^ X//' << \SHAR_EOF > 'header.tex'
X\documentstyle[12pt]{article}
X\pagestyle{headings}
X
X\newcommand\bs{\char '134 } % A backslash character for \tt font
X\newcommand\lb{\char '173 } % A left brace character for \tt font
X\newcommand\rb{\char '175 } % A right brace character for \tt font
X
X\parskip 3pt plus 2pt minus 1pt % this looks better...
X\parindent=20pt
X
X\begin{document}
X\title{USENET \\
XAn Examination of the Social and Political Processes of a
XCooperative Computer/Communications Network Under the Stress of Rapid
XGrowth}
X\author{Jerome Durlak\\
XRory O'Brien\\
XOzan S. Yigit \\
X\\
XYork University}
X\date{November 1987}
X\maketitle
X\normalsize
X%%
X\vfill
X\small
X\begin{em}
X\begin{quotation}
X
XThe ease with which people can generate additions to the bulletin
Xboard and messages to others has [another] major drawback: electronic
Xjunk mail. Many of my colleagues and I have stopped reading the network
Xnews and bulletin boards because we cannot afford the time to do so
Xevery day.
X
XThe positive side of these networks overcomes the negative.
XPeople can communicate their ideas to others across the country quickly
Xand effectively. In turn, the recipients can respond, criticizing, sharing,
Xand improving the product.
X\begin{flushright}
XThe Trouble with Networks \\
XDonald A. Norman \\
XDatamation, Jan. 1982
X\end{flushright}
X\end{quotation}
X\end{em}
X\vfill
X\small
X\begin{center}
XUsenet DRAFT
XCopyright \copyright 1987, Jerome Durlak, Rory O'Brien, Ozan Yigit
X\end{center}
X\normalsize
X\newpage
X\tableofcontents
X\newpage
SHAR_EOF
if test 1488 -ne "`wc -c < 'header.tex'`"
then
echo shar: error transmitting "'header.tex'" '(should have been 1488 characters)'
fi
fi # end of overwriting check
echo shar: extracting "'usenet.fmt'" '(58051 characters)'
if test -f 'usenet.fmt'
then
echo shar: will not over-write existing file "'usenet.fmt'"
else
sed 's/^ X//' << \SHAR_EOF > 'usenet.fmt'
X.SD
X
X%%
X%% USENET:
X%% An Examination of the Social and Political Processes of a
X%% Cooperative Computer/Communications Network Under the Stress of Rapid
X%% Growth
X%%
X%% Jerome Durlak
X%% Rory O'Brien
X%% Ozan Yigit
X%%
X%% York University
X%%
X%% The ease with which people can generate additions to the bulletin
X%% board and messages to others has [another] major drawback: electronic
X%% junk mail. Many of my colleagues and I have stopped reading the network
X%% news and bulletin boards because we cannot afford the time to do so
X%% every day.
X%%
X%% The positive side of these networks overcomes the negative.
X%% People can communicate their ideas to others across the country quickly
X%% and effectively. In turn, the recipients can respond, criticizing, sharing,
X%% and improving the product.
X%%
X%% The Trouble with Networks
X%% Donald A. Norman
X%% Datamation, Jan. 1982
X%%
X%%
X%% Posted to usenet: Nov. 1987
X%%
X%% Copyright 1987, Jerome Durlak, Rory O'Brien, Ozan Yigit
X%%
X%% Rights are hearby granted to print or typeset for personal
X%% or academic research purposes only. All other forms of
X%% publication, distribution through bulletin boards or distribution
X%% on any network other than USENET, CDNNET, NETNORTH, ARPA Internet
X%% or CSNET requires prior written permission of the authors.
X%%
X%% Any non-electronic correspondence about this paper should be
X%% mailed to:
X%% Dr. Jerry Durlak
X%% Mass Communications Programme
X%% York University
X%% 4700 Keele Street, North York
X%% Ontario, Canada
X%% M3J 1P3
X%%
X%% e-mail correspondence: netters@yuyetti.BITNET
X%% [utzoo|mnetor]!yetti!netters
X%%
X
X.SH 1 The Situation
X.PP
XAs more people use computers as a communication medium, a network and
Xa utility, the design as well as the behavioral and social effects of
Xcomputer-mediated communications are becoming critical research
Xtopics. This is the first of a series of papers on USENET, a
Xcooperative computer/communication network/utility that has over
X236,000 readers at 8300 sites in North America alone (As of November
X5, 1987). The readers represent only 22\% of the 1,064,000 users with
Xaccounts on the UUCP (UNIX\FSUNIX is a registered trademark of AT\&T.\FE
Xto UNIX COPY) network (electronic mail).
XUSENET news is often carried on top of the same UUCP links that carry
XUUCP mail. In addition, there are other nodes that cover the United
XKingdom, parts of Europe (with the hub in Amsterdam), Australia, New
XZealand, Japan, Korea, and numerous other countries.
X.PP
XUntil recently USENET has been in a special class all by itself,
Xbecause of its unrestricted growth, its self-governing structure, and
Xits extraordinary collection of public discussion groups. Users have
Xbeen able to post articles to approximately 280 distributed
X\fIconferences\fR, collectively called \fBnetnews\fR, that are
Xused by thousands
Xof people every day. There are bulletin boards for every subject for
Xwhich there is sufficient interest, including political groups, social
Xgroups, groups for telling jokes and groups related to a wide variety
Xof research areas.
X.PP
XSince 1980 USENET has grown at an incredible rate in terms of news
Xvolume and variety, network span, type of user and type of hardware.
XThis means that the system has been constantly adapting to rapid
Xgrowth.
X.LP
XThis paper has two objectives:
X.IS
X.IP To briefly examine a number of important ideas that people have
Xdiscussed about information utilities and networks of the future.
X
X.IP To examine how USENET has adapted organizationally, structurally,
Xpolitically and socially to rapid growth and communication overload.
X.IE
X
X.SH 1 Ideas and Issues
X.PP
XIn December 1969 the American Federation of Information Processing
XSocieties (AFIPS) and the Encyclopedia Britannica held a conference on
X\fIInformation Utilities and Social Choice\fR at the University of
XChicago, commemorating the 200th anniversary of the Britannica.
XIn a sense the Britannica was one of the first \fIinformation
Xutilities\fR. In the keynote address, J. C. R. Licklider defined the
Xchoices quite succinctly:
X.QS
XThe advent of information utilities is truly a crux for our
Xcivilization. The prospect is either down to a mindless complex of
Xelectronically stored and retrieved facts and data-based economic
Xexploitation or it's up toward a realization of the potentials of
Xhuman creativity and cooperation... It's a choice between data
Xand knowledge. It's either mere access to information or interaction
Xwith information. And for mankind it implies either an enmeshment in
Xthe silent gears of the great electronic machine or mastery of a
Xmarvelous new and truly plastic medium for formulating ideas and for
Xexploring, expressing, and communicating them. (Licklider, 1970, p.6).
X.QE
X.PP
XAt that same conference two other papers discussed the positive and
Xnegative potentials of an information utility. The first by Ed Parker
Xon \fIPlanning Information Utilities\fR predicted that the initial content
Xof computer utilities would be derived from materials previously
Xprepared for other mass media such as newspapers, magazines and TV
X(Parker, 1970). Only later would content specifically designed for
Xinformation utilities appear. However, in a more optimistic vein he
Xsuggested that computer utilities had key advantages that should
Xdeter us from following the \fIlaissez-faire\fR example of TV:
X.IS
X.IP More information
X.IP greater variety of information, ultimately individualized
X.IP greater selectivity of information by user
X.IP more powerful information processing capability
X.IP individualized user feedback to the system
X.IP Conversational permissiveness, encouraging exploration of information
X.IE
X.PP
XIn the second paper, \fIThe Public Data Bank,\fR Edgar S. Dunn (Dunn 1970)
Xsuggested that the organized activities of humankind fall into two
Xbroad categories. First, there is organization which is directed at
Xthe management of ongoing activities: those that assure the routine
Xmaintenance of the life of the individual, family or social
Xorganization. Second, there are activities that are developmental
Xin nature. This second class of activities is directed to solving
Xproblems, changing the behavior of individuals or organization and
Xleads to experimentation with changes in the nature of the goals and
Xcontrols that define human social behavior.
X.PP
XDunn states that these two classes of activity require two quite
Xdifferent types of information. Management activity requires more
Xrepetitive information, which is more commonly quantitative in nature
Xand needs little qualitative information related to values and goals.
XDevelopment activity, on the other hand, is less interested in
Xroutine and is more concerned with knowledge relationships and is
Xalso more apt to need information about goals and values. Dunn also
Xsuggested that the design of an information utility to serve the
Xroutine needs of management is a vastly simpler task than the design
Xof an information system to serve the creative needs of developmental
Xactivities. The fundamental question for our society is to what
Xextent do we wish to allocate resources to deliberately design mass
Xinformation utilities to enhance social creativity?
X.PP
XSince that conference many authors have written books and articles on
Xinformation utilities, computer conferencing, computer networks, and
Xmachine mediated human interaction. (See for example, Dordick,
XHiltz and Turoff, Hiltz, Johansen, Mosco, Rice, and Vallee). Some of
Xthese books are enthusiastic about the potentials for human
Xinteraction and development and others are critical.
X.PP
XIt is the Japanese, however, who have made the development of an
Xinformation environment an important and well thought out social
Xgoal. In their view it is crucial to increase their citizens'
Xcapacity and ability to make good use of information for planning
Xtheir society's future. In 1972 the Ministry of International Trade
Xand Industry (MITI) in cooperation with leading industries, published
Xthe Plan for an Information Society: A National Goal Toward the Year
X2000. The report emphasized quality of life over economic success
Xat any cost. New media which would be based on computer technology was
Xintegral to their vision and involved much more than the simple
Xenhancement of traditional media:
X.QS
XThe information society centering around computers is different from
Xthe society characterized by projected images that are passive,
Xsentimental and sensible such as mainly represented by TV. It is
Xnecessary to stress that the information society is an intellectually
Xcreative society and is subjective, theoretical and
Xobjective-pursuing.
X.QE
X.PP
XYoneji Masuda's book The Information Society (Masuda, 1980) is useful
Xin this context. To him a desirable and feasible information utility
Xwill represent the integration of (1) the information infrastructure,
X(2) joint production and shared utilization of information and
X(3) citizen participation. While development of the information
Xinfrastructure is straightforward, the two other points are not.
X.PP
XTo achieve joint production and shared utilization of information
XMasuda suggests that information utilities will go through four
Xstages of development to reach maturity:
X.IS
X.IP \fBPublic Service Stage:\fR This is the stage at which the
Xinformation utility provides information processing and services for
Xthe public.
X.IP \fBUser Production Stage:\fR The user of the information utility
Xproduces information. Masuda suggests that there will be four factors
Xthat will promote user production of information; the awareness of the
Xgeneral public that one's own information can be produced for
Xoneself, the development of powerful conversation software, the
Xdevelopment of various packaged program modules, and the preparation
Xof databases to suit many different fields.
X.IP \fBShared Utilization Stage:\fR Here the information utility
Xmakes possible the shared use of information produced by individual
Xusers. As the production of separate information by individuals
Xreaches a certain point, the data and programs become available to
Xthird parties, and the self-multiplication process and shared
Xutilization interact to produce a geometric effect.
X.IP \fBSynergistic Production and Shared Utilization Stage:\fR The
Xshared use of information created by individuals develops into
Xvoluntary synergistic production and shared utilization of
Xinformation by groups. When there is a need for complex programs
Xseveral people will work together in the development and utilization
Xof the product.
X.IE
XThis synergistic production and shared utilization of information
Xrepresents in Masuda's mind the most developed form of information
Xproduction.
X.PP
XThe third concept fundamental to a desirable information utility is
Xcitizen participation in, and management of, the information
Xutility. In a citizen managed utility, as envisioned by Masuda, the
Xcapital needed to operate the utility is raised by the citizens
Xthemselves and the operation of the utility is completely under the
Xautonomous management of the citizens, with the operation base
Xconsisting of funds raised by citizens, from usage fees, and
Xvoluntary contributions (including money, mental labor, and
Xprogramming). The processing and supplying of information is done
Xby the citizens themselves, with types of information related to
Xproblem solving, opportunity development for individuals, groups and
Xeven society as a whole.
X.PP
XThe merits of the system are the maximum of voluntary participation
Xof citizens, allowing the individual to obtain the information needed.
XIt becomes so much easier to arrive at solutions and the direction
Xfor joint action to solve common social problems. The weakness of
Xthe system is that it depends to a very great extent on the voluntary
Xcontributions of citizens, which are difficult to coordinate. This
Xmakes it inferior to government and business utilities in capital
Xformation, technology, and organization. Masuda states that
Xinformation utilities of the future will probably be some combination
Xof a government type, a business type and a citizen managed type.
XWhatever the combination, the most desirable form would be citizen
Xoriented because (1) only by citizen participation in the management
Xof information utilities will the self-multiplicative production
Xeffect of information be expanded, (2) autonomous group decision
Xmaking by ordinary citizens will be promoted, and (3) the dangerous
Xtendency toward a centralized administrative society will be
Xprevented.
X.PP
XUSENET does allow people to interact with a great variety of
Xinformation, permits feedback and allows a great deal of
Xconversational permissiveness. It also has many of the elements of a
Xcitizen managed utility/network that Masuda envisions, but Dunn's
Xquestion \fIto what extent do we wish to allocate resources to a utility
Xthat enhances social creativity?\fR is still the key question. USENET
Xwas originally designed as a task oriented network, but since 1983
X\fIsocial creativity\fR interests have expanded more rapidly than the task
Xoriented interests. Much of the current tension in the system
Xrevolves around the older task oriented users versus the new socially
Xoriented users who are generating volumes of social information.
X
X.SH 1 The Context
X.PP
XUSENET is one of the largest decentralized computer conferencing
Xnetworks in the world. Almost 200,000 people in North America have
Xaccess to it via their computer terminals and public telephone lines.
XIt is \fIpiggybacked\fR onto the UUCP electronic mail network, which has
Xalmost one million users on four continents. One can visualize USENET
Xas a sort of giant distributed electronic bulletin board system, where
Xusers can initiate or join on-going discussions on a large number of
Xtopics. Like on their cork board counterparts, articles concerning
Xthe topics are created, posted, and read asynchronously.
XParticipation is at the leisure of the users.
X.PP
XUSENET originated seven years ago as a medium of exchanging
Xtechnical information about computers. Today the users have a
Xmixture of academic, corporate, research, and commercial interests,
Xand are not so technically oriented. Postings to the over 280
X\fInewsgroups\fR (the discussion forums) show a great diversity. The
Xspace shuttle, soap operas, philosophy, celtic culture, and taxes are
Xbut a few of the many topics offered in addition to the core
Xnewsgroups on computers and software.
X.PP
XUSENET is a decentralized, distributed network. No one organization
Xhas control over its operation. New articles are automatically
Xpropagated throughout the system by daily \fIfeeds\fR among the larger
Xsites (\fIbackbone\fR nodes) who, in turn, pass it on to the local sites.
XThe articles are collected and stored in the computers of each
X\fIfull-feed\fR site for a limited period of time, after which they are
Xdeleted or perhaps archived. Information is passed from one site to
Xanother over public and private telecommunication lines, with the
Xsender paying the charges (which vary according to the volume sent).
XThe \fIbackbone\fR sites, due to their higher volume of transmissions,
Xend up paying the major portion of the costs of USENET's operation.
X.PP
XAnother important aspect of this network is its incredible rate of
Xgrowth. At the end of 1980, there were 50 sites, jumping to 500 in
X1983. By 1985 there were 2,500 and at the time of this writing the
Xnumber of sites has reached 6,500. The average traffic per day on
XUSENET is 910 messages, comprising 2 megabytes of information
X[news.groups 2/5/7 article, ``Readership Summary Report for April
X1987'']. In an average two-week period, traffic through \fBseismo\fR, the
Xlargest backbone node, was sizeable: 11,213 articles, totalling
X21.52 megabytes, were submitted from 1663 different USENET sites by
X4269 different users to 261 newsgroups. Sorting this by top-level
Xnews grouping, 28\% was about recreational topics, 25 \% was filtered by
Xa \fImoderator\fR beforehand, and 23\% were computer oriented [news.lists
X22/3/87 article - ``Total traffic through seismo for the last two
Xweeks''].
X
X.SH 1 Information Overload
X.PP
XAlong with this incredible growth has come information overload. The
Xsystem's hardware, software as well as the users are constantly being
Xpushed to the limit of their abilities in trying to cope with the
Xexponentially expanding volume of information.
X.PP
XFrom an individual's perspective one of the most fundamental impacts
Xof hooking into USENET is what Hiltz and Turoff (1985) call
Xsuperconnectivity. Individuals can potentially access over 280
Xconference groups. If they decide to move beyond the stage of just
Xreading messages from various groups, they can actively enter into the
Xongoing conversations. This can increase social connectivity of
Xusers tenfold (Hiltz and Turoff, 1985, p. 688). It is not hard to
Xbecome an information junkie and to crave your daily dose of
Xinformation. However, the volume and pace of information can
Xbecome overwhelming, especially since messages are not necessarily
Xsequential and multiple topic threads are common, resulting in
Xinformation overload. (Ibid., p. 680).
X.PP
XTo deal with communication overload people and organizations employ
Xcoping and/or defensive mechanisms. Coping mechanisms are adaptive.
XThey are concerned with solving the problem that the individual and
Xthe organization encounters. Defensive mechanisms, on the other hand,
Xprotect the individual or organization from breakdown but do not solve
Xthe problem.
X.PP
XThe USENET administrators have used a variety of filtering (the
Xselective receiving of information) and structuring (that is,
Xreoganizing the newsgroups) mechanisms to deal with overload. The
Xproblem is that while the system administrators believe that they have
Xdesigned useful coping mechanisms for handling overload, many users
Xview those same mechanisms as defensive and destructive.
X.PP
XAnother approach to problems of overload is to reverse the usual
Xstance of seeking new mechanisms for handling overload and to seek
Xinstead ways of reducing the inputs. Given that much of the overload
Xwithin USENET is created by the volume of socially oriented
Xcommunication, some users recommend reducing the amount of social
Xcommunication. However, many of the users who have joined in the last
Xcouple of years find the social communication aspects of the system
Xits most relevant. The conflict between these two points of view is
Xquite straightforward.
X.PP
XThe most popular newsgroups, i.e., those with the highest number of
Xreaders, were \fBnet.sources\fR and \fBmod.sources\fR (both forums for discussing
XUNIX-based computers and software), with 17\% and 15\% of netreaders
Xrespectively. The newsgroup with the highest number of postings per
Xmonth was soc.singles (for single people, their activities, etc.)
Xwith 1,167 articles posted. [news.groups 1/3/87 article - ``TOP 40
XNEWSGROUPS IN ORDER BY POPULARITY (FEB. 87)''] With these ideas in mind
Xlet us walk you through the growth of the system.
X
X.SH 1 Growth and Information Overload
X.PP
XIn the spring of 1980, computer programmers at Duke University using
XUNIX operating system software decided to establish a communication
Xconnection with their counterparts at the neighbouring University of
XNorth Carolina. They developed Version A of the USENET news software
Xto be used by members of Usenix (the UNIX users group). In the
Xfall of that year the University of California at Berkeley connected
Xup to USENET. This was soon followed by AT\&T's Bell Laboratories with
Xa mother node in Holmdel, New Jersey. By the end of the first year,
XUSENET had 50 member sites and the volume of communications had begun
Xto strain the original software, designed to handle only a few new
Xarticles per day.
X.PP
XIn early 1982, a team at Berkeley devised Version B of the software.
XBesides being able to technically process the increased amount of data
Xgenerated by the growing network, it offered some new capabilities to
Xhelp users deal with a greatly expanded number of articles to read.
XWhereas the old version listed all articles by time of reception,
XVersion B allowed messages to be sorted by topic. This cut down on
Xthe frustration of users having to scan all posted articles to get to
Xthe ones they were interested in. Members of the network could also
Xsuggest and discuss improvements via the newsgroup \fBnet.sources\fR.\FS
XEventually, however, complaints about ``garbage'' discussions eventually
Xlead to the elimination of \fBnet.sources\fR.\FE
X.PP
XBy mid-1983 USENET had over 500 sites with 5 to 10 new sites joining
Xevery month, and a readership numbering in the thousands. Most of
Xthe sites were still at universities and Bell Labs research
Xfacilities, though manufacturers of UNIX systems and providers of
XUNIX-related services were joining in increasing numbers. There was
Xevidence that the user population was shifting from an academic and
Xresearch community to one including many representatives from the
X\fIoutside\fR world. USENET users were polled to assess feelings about a
Xpotential surge in membership resulting from the spread of
Xaffordable desktop UNIX systems. Some members were concerned about
Xnetwork overload but most favoured continued open access.
X.PP
XAt that time there were about 100 newsgroups, some from users of
XARPANET (the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network-a research
Xnetwork that has had an important influence on the development of
Xnetworking technology), some regionally distributed, and the rest
Xexisting throughout the entire USENET. Users discussed UNIX itself,
Xits programs and applications, and computers in general but the
Xnon-technical topics were growing. One-third alone were devoted to
Xhobbies and recreation.
X.PP
XThough slight revisions of Version B software enabled USENET to grow
Xinto a major network with nodes and gateways to other networks in
Xevery continent except Africa and Antartica. By early 1986 it was
Xbecoming clear that something major would have to be done to deal with
Xthe overload of information. Contributions to the newsgroup
X\fBnews.groups\fR show a lively discussion on the matter. Some maintained
Xthe problem was the anarchic nature of the system and therefore some
Xsort of centralized control was needed. One user suggested that a
Xnon-profit organization be set up to administer USENET. A rebuttal
Xpointed out the potential danger of lawsuits since a corporation, even
Xa non-profit one, can be held liable for any of its communications.
XAnarchy means never having to say you're sorry, it seems.
X.PP
XOther suggestions centred around technical solutions. For example,
Xsuggestions included an upgrading of modems or a satellite connection,
Xas a way to cut the costs of increased volume of transmissions. Still
Xothers advocated a more rigorous procedure for creating new
Xnewsgroups - advancing from a mailing list to a moderated discussion
Xto free access for all - in order to \fIweed out\fR poorly supported
Xtopics.
X.PP
XOne proposal that was eventually acted upon was for a broader
Xrestructuring of newsgroups from two top-level groups (\fBnet.\fR, to
Xwhich anyone could contribute, and \fBmod.\fR, which were moderated and by
Xinvitation only) into seven based on general topic. Over 200 old
Xnewsgroups were now to be listed under seven top level groups:
X\fBcomp.\fR (Computers), \fBsci.\fR (Science, Research and Technology),
X\fBrec.\fR (Recreation), \fBnews.\fR (USENET Itself), \fBsoc.\fR
X(Society and Social Topics), \fBtalk.\fR (High Volume Discussions) and
X\fBmisc.\fR (Miscellaneous).
X.PP
XThis \fIre-naming scheme\fR was the result of two months' work, including
Xseven revisions and comments volunteered from approximately forty
Xpeople. It was intended to facilitate the distribution of newsgroups
Xand not to categorize specific groups by quality. The restructuring
Xwould make \fBsys\fR or transmission parameter files shorter and therefore
Xeasier to maintain and send by the local news administrators.
X.PP
XThe creation of the new scheme was implemented in two phases, the
Xfirst in mid-September of 1986 for the unmoderated groups (roughly
Xhalf of the newsgroups), and the moderated groups following after the
Xcompletion of phase two in April 1987.
X.PP
XEven with the benefits of the renaming, there was the widely-held
Xopinion by system administrators that volume of net traffic should be
Xreduced. They suggested that ``chatter'' should be kept to a minimum.
XAs one wrote,
X.LS
XThe talk. groups can be considered to be in a sort of limbo. They
X(and a few of the soc. groups [singles and women at least]) are
Xessentially on probation. As some of the "backbone" sites have said
Xthey would not carry talk after the changeover period is complete,
Xsome groups may be considered "killed" if they don't clean up their
Xact. [net.news.group 11/8/86 article - "Newsgroup renaming scheme
X(1 of 2)"].
X.LE
X
X.SH 1 The Moderation Process
X.PP
XModerated groups usually have one or more individuals acting as
Xeditors and/or moderators or gatekeepers. Their role is \fIto approve
Xarticles before they are published to the net\fR. In general, these
Xgroups fall into one of five categories:
X.IS
X.IP Groups with postings of an informative nature not suited to
Xdiscussion and always originating from a small group of posters.
X.IP Groups that have such a high volume that the average reader has a
Xhard time keeping up. The moderated version attempt to provide lower
Xvolume and a higher overall quality version.
X.IP Groups derived from regular groups that had a variety of netiquette
Xproblems.
X.IP Groups designed to serve as direct feedback to an off-the-net
Xgroup.
X.IP Groups which are gatewayed into Usenet from an Arpa Internet
Xmailing list.
X.IE
X.PP
XA user writes an article and mails it to the posted \fIsubmission\fR address
Xwhich goes directly to the moderator. If the moderator finds the
Xarticle appropriate it is posted. If the moderator feels that the
Xarticle is inappropriate it is returned to the user with a suggestion
Xof why it is not appropriate or a suggestion of other newsgroups that
Xmight post the article. If the user has a complaint or a question he
Xor she may contact the moderator by mail, or alternatively the user
Xcan send mail to a specific mailing list and it is broadcast to all of
Xthe current newsgroup moderators.
X
X.SH 1 UULINK Software
X.PP
XRecently, some USENET participants have expressed a fear that a new
Xsoftware product on the market called UULINK will mean a deluge of new
Xusers. UULINK is designed to allow micro-computers with the MS-DOS
Xoperating system to connect up to UNIX-based computers, something
Xnot previously possible. This means that all IBM and IBM-compatible
Xpersonal computers will now be able to link up to USENET. Should this
Xfear be realized, the system could be in danger of overloading to the
Xpoint of collapse.
X.PP
XAt present, steps are being taken to enable the net to cope with
Xoverload, steps which create a great deal of internal conflict among
Xthose who are concerned about the character of the net as well as its
Xsurvival. The issues are not just technical ones, but also centre
Xon politics and power in the USENET community.
X.PP
XHowever, before beginning to discuss the issues, it is important to
Xremember that many of the users of USENET are computing professionals
Xwho implicitly reject organizational conventionality. As Sara Kiesler
Xet al. point out:
X.QS
XPeople using electronic mail overstep conventional time boundaries
Xdividing office and home; they mix work and personal communications;
Xthey use language appropriate for boardrooms and ball field
Xinterchangeably; and they disregard normal convention of privacy
X(for instance, by posting personal messages to general bulletin
Xboards). This behavior is not counteracted by established conventions
Xor etiquette for computer communication. There are few shared
Xstandards for salutations, for structuring formal versus informal
Xmessage, or for adapting content to achieve both impact and
Xpoliteness.. From a social psychological perspective, this
Xsuggests that computer-mediated communication has at least two
Xinteresting characteristics (a) a paucity of social context
Xinformation and (b) few widely shared norms governing its use
X(Kiesler, Siegel, and McGuire, 1984, p. 1126).
X.QE
X.PP
XThe authors then also suggest that in technical problem solving,
Xmembers of computer-mediated groups might be \fIdisorganized,
Xdemocratically unrestrained, and perhaps more creative than groups who
Xcommunicate more traditionally\fR, but they might have trouble reaching
Xconsensus if there is no clear correct answer and they may not act as
Xcool and fast decision makers. There appears to be quite a bit of
Xtruth in that statement in the case of USENET.
X
X.SH 1 Politics and Power in the USENET Community
X.PP
XThere is a continuing discussion about politics and power among those
Xwho are particularly interested in the evolution of the organization
Xof USENET. Some people on the net believe it should be anarchic,
Xothers would like it to be a democracy, and a few pragmatists feel
Xthat control should go to those who pay the bills or understand the
Xtechnology. Judging from the amount of ``flaming'' (net jargon for
X\fIcriticizing in a non-constructive, derogatory manner\fR) against
Xthose who are creating changes in the network operation, the debate is
Xheated. Unfortunately, like many discussions of politics, more heat
Xthan light is generated.
X.PP
XConflict and confusion have arisen over the lack of any mutually
X(democratically?) agreed upon procedures for determining policies.
XWho defines the problems? Who postulates the solutions? Who
Ximplements them? Who evaluates the results? These are classic
Xquestions that have occupied social philosophers for thousands of
Xyears. It is therefore not surprising that they are now posed within
XUSENET, a community struggling to cope with the pressures of rapid
Xgrowth.
X.PP
XThe following is not meant to be an in-depth political analysis of the
Xsituation but rather an overview of the more salient issues and how
Xthey are evolving. While these issues are pertinent to all 180,000
Xusers of the net, there are only a few hundred at most who are active
Xparticipants in the continuing dialogue on the politics of USENET.
XThese few post their opinions to six newsgroups contained in the
Xtop-level group called \fBnews\fR, which is about the network itself.
XAccording to the February 1987 readership statistics, the most popular
Xof these newsgroups (\fBnews.misc\fR) is read by 7.7\% of the membership,
Xabout 12,000 people. Thus, at this point anyway, it is impossible to
Xtell just how indicative are the sentiments of the expressive few to
Xthe silent majority who follow the issues.
X
X.SH 1 The Backbone ``Cabal''
X.SH 2 Reorganization
X.PP
XMuch of the dissatisfaction which arose out of the 1986
Xreorganization of the newsgroups into seven top-level categories was
Xdirected at the system administrators of the \fIbackbone\fR nodes. It was
Xalleged that:
X.LS
XThe backbone `cabal' is behind all this and are making decisions
Xwithout knowing all the facts. We can't have our opinions heard!
X[net.news.group 18/9/86 article -"Comments on Reorganization"].
X.LE
X.PP
XThis ``flame'' was partially correct insofar as the plan to rename the
Xnewsgroups was conceived and carried out by a small, select group
Xincluding backbone site administrators, newsgroup moderators, and a
Xfew users with expertise on the net. Those who conducted the renaming
Xreplied:
X.LS
XNo one can know all the `facts' about USENET! It has gotten too
Xbig and too much volume for anyone (or group) to be expert at
Xsuch things. That is one of the problems. The best we can do
Xis combine the experience of the people who produce and
Xmaintain the majority of the software and who maintain some of
Xthe biggest and/or most strategic sites on the net... We are
Xworking as a group to try to steer things in a direction where
Xgrowth can continue and the net can survive, but not in such a
Xtotally unconstrained and expensive manner... We had to present
Xit all as a fait accompli because otherwise the debate would go
Xon forever and nothing would be decided. We also didn't want to
Xopen it up to debate by the netters who view their own words on
Xthe printed screen as the ultimate truth and artform -- you
Xknow the type: endless chatter and no substance. (ibid.)
X.LE
X.PP
XThere was a lively set of postings between those who sought to keep
Xthe ``noise'' of complaints about the process of re-organization to a
Xminimum and those who stated that such silencing was ``like Hitler and
Xfreedom''. Those who wanted to get on with the job seemed to have
Xlittle patience for those who ``flamed'' without offering concrete
Xalternatives. In the words of one system administrator, \fIBitching
Xis easy, constructive criticism isn't.\fR
X.PP
XRecently, the turmoil has died down. The net has survived and the
Xre-naming has been pronounced a success by \fIthe backbone\fR.
X
X.SH 2 UUCP Mapping Project
X.PP
XThere were other projects initiated and carried
Xout by the backbone administrators (or \fIvertebrae\fR according to one)
Xwhich elicited flames. One was the UUCP Mapping Project. It was
Xdeveloped to give UUCP sites new absolute names and addresses
Xfollowing the conventional domain naming syntax used by ARPA
XInternet and other large computer networks. UUCP has been using
X\fBpathalias\fR software which provides source routing rather than
Xconventional system routing, i.e., the user, not the network software,
Xdetermines the route. The new syntax is designed to reduce the large
Xamount of disk space (2 megabytes) needed for \fBpathalias\fR. The
Xproject entails updating each site's software to the new syntax. One
Xflame declared:
X.LS
XIt's a sure bet that if we get mail from some self-appointed net
Xadministration group saying `update or die, scum!' then we'll more
Xlikely than not just flip our middle finger in the air and watch
Xwhat happens. [news.admin 25/3/87 article - "Worms in the Wood-work:
Xthe perversion of USENET"].
X.LE
X.PP
XTo those netters who railed against the undemocratic nature of some of
Xthe changes instituted in USENET, one system administrator replied,
X.LS
XUSENET never was and never will be a democracy. It is an anarchy.
XA democracy implies that there is a binding responsibility to work
Xwith the majority belief. USENET has no binding authority. People do
Xwhat they want to do, and we end up with a result that is the
Xagglomeration of individual choices. Some individual choices are
Xmore powerful than others. The backbone, since they take a large
Xfinancial hit to support the net, has a lot of say... Others...
Xcarry power because when they talk, people listen. They've shown
Xthat their opinions carry the weight of experience and
Xreasonableness. [news.groups 25/3/87 article - "Re: Worms in the
XWoodwork: the perversion of USENET"].
X.LE
X.PP
XIt seems that those who have the initiative and the expertise to
Xcreate netwide changes have the de facto power to do so. However, the
Xinfluence of public opinion (i.e. the written comments of users) and
Xthe costs in terms of time, energy and resources of taking personal
Xinitiative, slow down those who would like to exert power. In
Xaddition, the backbone ``cabal'' is not a monolithic group and there are
Xcertainly antagonisms among different factions.
X
X.SH 1 Stargate
X.PP
XStargate is an important issue because the experiment raises issues of
Xmoderation of newsgroups, costs of participation, copyright
Xrestrictions on redistribution of material, and centralized control.
XIn 1984, Usenix (the UNIX users group) began funding a technical
Xexperiment to broadcast USENET information via satellite to reduce the
Xhigh costs of ground-based telecommunications.\FSUsenix funding for the
Xexperiment ended the last day of february, 1987. Usenix does not have
Xany current relation with the Stargate experiment.\FE
XStargate information Systems (SIS), was formed to manage the undertaking
Xseparate from USENET and Usenix. Though originally designed as a
Xnon-profit consortium, the five member \fBStargate\fR team (all
Xvolunteers), later decided to consider making it a for-profit venture.
X.PP
XThe idea was to make use of part of the WBTS (television) vertical
Xblanking interval to transmit USENET newsgroups simultaneously
Xthroughout North America.\FSBoth Wbts and Startgate buy satellite
Xtime from Southern Satellite Services of Douglasville, Georgia.\FE
XBy using the WTBS vertical blanking
Xinterval, data becomes available in the vast majority of locations
Xwhere WTBS can be received, without any special actions or special
Xheadend equipment normally being required of the local cable
Xcompanies. Since the data is in the vertical interval it was normally
Xexpected to pass through most cable companies' systems directly to
XUSENET subscribers. People who are not able to get the data from WBTS
Xon cable could buy relative inexpensive home dish satellite equipment.
X.PP
XSince the costs of the data broadcast operations are fixed the goal is
Xto be able to lower the per-subscriber rates as the number of
Xsubscribers grows. Most other technologies require the addition of
Xsubstantially more and more equipment (modems, ports, CPU cycles,
Xetc.) as the number of subscribers rise. Stargate does not face this
Xkind of scenario.
X.PP
XThe experiment was declared a technical success in January 1987 by the
XUsenix Board of Directors and an experiment subscription phase lasting
Xsix months began on June 1, 1987.
X
X.SH 2 Moderation of Newsgroups
X.LS
XStargate intends to carry only moderated newsgroups. This is to
Xassure that the most abrasive and obvious of the USENET abuses (both
Xpurposeful and accidental) do not occur... In a large and growing
Xnetwork, even if only 1% of the postings are `inappropriate'
X(misplaced, duplicated content, harassment articles, etc.) it can
Xstill add up to a tremendous amount of material. [net.news.stargate
X8/9/85 article - "Stargate"].
X.LE
X.PP
XModeration is seen by some (especially those who pay the phone bills)
Xas a way to get \fImore bang for the buck\fR, to get higher quality
Xinformation, particularly technical, without having to wade through
Xa lot of ``noise and chatter''. There is also the advantage of \fItimely\fR
Xdiscussion without the delays associated with relayed deliveries in a
Xdistributed system. Others, however, feel differently about the
Xmatter. To one,
X.LS
XUSENET is like a technical conference. If all that was going on were
Xtechnical sessions, there would be no point to going (you would just
Xstay home and read the proceedings). However, people go to socialize
Xwith colleagues and exchange gossip - companies even pay people to
Xdo this. A network of only moderated groups would be akin to a trade
Xshow in Albania. [news.stargate 2/5/87 article - "USENET is a paid
Xin full Conference"].
X.LE
X.PP
XAn interesting idea was raised as a way of reducing information
Xoverload without resorting to moderation. It was to set a monthly
Xlimit to the number of postings allowed each user. These posting
X\fIcredits\fR would be transferable. The controversy elicited by this
Xidea centered around the perceived differences in quality between
Xposters. Equal limits to everyone would be unjust to the
X``high-quality'' posters, while setting unequal limits would be ``fascist
Xcensorship''. Since this idea is clearly problematic, it is not likely
Xto be implemented in the near future. The judgement of the moderator
Xis presently the only means of screening out postings of poor quality.
X.PP
XAnother user criticized Stargate as the 15\% solution, since only about
X15\% of the total volume of news on USENET is moderated. There is a
Xgeneral feeling that moderated USENET material alone will not be
Xenough to recover costs and that want ads, part numbers, stock market
Xquotations or some other commercial service must be carried as well.
XWhile it depends on the types of services and how they are
Ximplemented, it is quite possible that these services could be of an
Xentirely different character from that of USENET.
X
X.SH 2 High Participation Costs
X.PP
XSince many sites currently access USENET with
Xa local telephone call for free, they may not wish to pay the monthly
Xaccess fees charged by Stargate. One USENET participant has
Xestimated that less than 50\% would be willing to afford the initial
Xcosts which he estimates at \$2,400/year. [net.news.stargate 10/7/86
Xarticle - ``Again ... what is it going to COST?????'']. He also
Xsuggests the moderators would want to be paid if others are making a
Xprofit from their labour, thus increasing participation costs. He
Xdoesn't see Stargate as being viable, especially since they will be
Xcompeting against the ``old'' ground-based USENET, as well as large
Xcentralized bulletin board systems such as Compuserve and The Source.
X.PP
XThe Stargate Team has not yet come up with a working budget for
Xoperations, perhaps preferring to wait until the experimental
Xsubscription gives them a better idea of what the costs will be.
XDuring the six-month subscription phase the costs would include
Xbetween \$500 and \$1000 for a subscription fee as well as \$800 for a
Xdemodulator and data decoder. A ``buffer box'' to offload most data
Xcollection functions from host CPUs may be available at a later date
Xfor \$400.
X.PP
XAnother potential problem is defining what constitutes a ``site'' for
Xthe purposes of billing.
X.LS
XMany companies/universities have one main news machine that fetches
Xthe news on behalf of the whole organization, minimizing the cost...
XCan different campuses of the same company/university redistribute
XStargate materials over their tie-lines? How about different
Xdivisions of the same campus? How about different machines? How
Xabout clusters of workstations and their server?... Where do you
Xdraw the line? There had better be one! If you make it very
Xrestrictive, Stargate will be out of the question for organizations
Xwith many machines; if you make it very permissive, sales will be
Xlimited... [news.stargate 20/3/87 article "Stargate, local feeds,
Xand nntp"].
X.LE
X.PP
XThese considerations show that the economic issues are at least as
Xcomplex as the technical. The control over the development process
Xmay go to the creators of a product, but the ultimate power to
Xmaintain the existence of the product is in the hands of the
Xconsumers who pay for it.
X.PP
X.SH 2 Copyright Restrictions on Redistribution
X.PP
XIf Stargate is to be a
Xviable commercial enterprise, it must have a large subscriber base.
XThis means many more sites than just the backbone nodes. The problem,
Xthough, is that if the backbone nodes continue to freely provide their
Xlocal feeds with the information received, the fees they would be
Xwilling to pay Stargate would not be sufficient to maintain the
Xsatellite service. This means that the information passing through
XStargate has to be proprietary, i.e., copyrighted. Copyrights
Ximpose legal restrictions on redistribution of the material without
Xthe consent of the owner, in this case Stargate Information Systems.
X.PP
XThe threat of Stargate imposing such restrictions on material taken
Xfrom ``public-domain'' USENET, has incensed many USENET participants.
XSeveral of them now mark their postings with copyright notices
Xprohibiting any restrictions on redistribution.
X.LP
XFor example:
X.LS
XCopyright 1987 Zhahai Stewart; this article may not be included in
Xany compilation or formulation which restricts further distribution;
Xotherwise it may be freely distributed and quoted. [news.stargate
X17/3/87 article - "Re: Restrictions on Stargate"].
X
XCopyright 1987 Kent Paul Dolan. All Rights Reserved. Incorporation
Xof this material in a collective retransmission constitutes permission
Xfrom the intermediary to all recipients to freely retransmit the
Xentire collection. Use on any other basis is prohibited by the
Xauthor. [news.stargate 28/3/87 article - "Re: A modest proposal"].
X
X(C) Copyr 1987 John Gilmore; you can redistribute only if your
Xrecipients can. [news.stargate 21/3/87 article - "Stargate bullshit].
X.LE
XStargate does not intend to copyright anything that is in the public
Xdomain since this is illegal, it seems. What they will probably do is
Xwrite into the contract they make with their recipients an agreement
Xnot to exercise their right to redistribute any information they get
Xvia Stargate. Whether the above examples of copyrights will deter
Xthis has not yet been tested in court.
X.PP
XStargate will, however, be able to copyright any information it
Xspecifically creates or \fIderives\fR from the public domain. This
X\fIderivation\fR may take the form of an edited compilation or digest of
XUSENET newsgroups. How much change is necessary to assume ownership
Xis legally moot. One concerned netter wrote:
X.LS
XI personally do not want to have the content and expression which I
Xhave created and freely given `usurped' by the mere duplication of
Xmy title (on someone else's title) at the front of a `digest'. You
Xmight or might not succeed in legally defending such a ploy, but it
Xis morally reprehensible... If you are going to try to `steal' my
Xefforts by imposing commercial restrictions, then my check will be
Xin the mail to the first group willing to take you to court.
X[news.stargate 18/3/87 article - "Re: Restrictions on Stargate"].
X.LE
X.PP
XA related issue is the confusion over whether Stargate will be a
Xbroadcaster or a common carrier. This is a legally ``grey'' area
Xwhich has yet to be clarified by governmental decree. Since common
Xcarriers must not tamper with the material transmitted, many
XUSENETters are advocating that Stargate declare itself a common
Xcarrier and carry all net traffic. The feeling, though, is that
XStargate must assume, if it is to avoid expensive lawsuits, that it is
Xa broadcaster and is therefore responsible for the contents of its
Xtransmissions. Unmoderated newsgroups with their penchant for
Xobscenities and semi-libelous flames, would be too risky for
Xinclusion in this service. Copyrights would also be enforceable in
Xthis case.
X
X.SH 2 Central Control
X.PP
XThe main difference, perhaps, between USENET and
XStargate is that the former is decentralized while the latter is not.
XThis has great implications for many ``grass-roots'' members of USENET
Xwho may not be able to afford membership in the Stargate ``club''. There
Xis a spectre of elitism inherent in the siphoning off of many of the
Xvalued, technical, moderated newsgroups from the freely accessible
XUSENET to a forum that is controlled by a small number of people who
Xare making a profit from their power to restrict redistribution.
X.LS
XTo today's `The Stargate Project', users are both a source of free
Xinformation as well as a seller's market. We all happily create
Xinformation, send it to them, they sell it to their subscribers (us)
Xand coerce us into not passing it on for free like we've been doing
Xfor years. This is all great except they are charging us both ways -
Xfor phone calls to the stargate hub to post things, and for
Xreceiving the info coming back down. And they sit in the middle and
Xcontrol it. [news.stargate 21/3/87 article - "Stargate bullshit"].
X.LE
XFor many of the people on the system the exchange of ideas, programs,
Xetc. was and still is \fIshareware\fR. To them information on the system
Xis perceived as a resource and they are incensed that some people
Xwould change the resource into a commodity.
X
X.SH 2 Summary of Stargate
X.PP
XStargate will not mean the end of USENET. As long
Xas there are sites willing to pay for ground-based transmission,
XUSENET will survive. It will not escape unchanged, however.
XUndoubtedly, many of the moderated newsgroups that remain will be
Xlacking the intellectual expertise of those who choose, for reasons
Xmonetary or otherwise, to participate in Stargate-moderated forums.
X.PP
XTechnology and economics are the two key factors in the development
Xof a computer network. If the product in demand can be delivered more
Xcheaply due to an advance in the technology, the new technology will
Xsupercede the old. This was the original aim of Stargate and, for
Xmany who are tired of the volume of poor quality postings on USENET,
Xit will be a blessing.
X
X.SH 1 Local ``Dictators''
X.PP
XThe power of the system administrators, especially those of the
Xbackbone sites, is absolute. They are able to impose their will over
Xthe users of the sites they serve simply because they are the ones
Xpaying the telephone bills for the transmission of information. If
Xthey decide to cut costs by eliminating newsgroups, they can do so.
X
X.SH 2 Net.rec.drugs
X.PP
XIn June 1986 a user attempted to create a newsgroup
Xcalled \fBnet.rec.drugs\fR. This was not a network ``High Times'' but a
Xserious discussion about the social effects of recreational drugs.
XMany sites, including backbone sites, refused to carry it. They were
Xperhaps fearful that it would invite trafficking and other
Xillegalities. The response was to flame against this censorship and
Xto create an alternative backbone for the controversial groups that
Xthe whole USENET wouldn't carry. This sub-network was termed the
X\fIFunny Bone\fR. [news.groups 3/4/87 article - ``Ineffectiveness of
Xcensorship on an anarchic net'']. It died a quiet death during the
XRe-organization, but was revived and is carried under \fBalt.\fR now.
XOnly a relatively few sites get it because it is carried on a choice
Xbasis. It shows that truly determined users can sometimes succeed in
Xovercoming local control.
X
X.SH 2 Newsgroup Cuts In Toronto
X.PP
XWhen the administrator of a backbone node
Xdecides that the node can no longer carry certain newsgroups, mainly
Xbecause of costs or information overload, two things usually happen.
XFirst, there are a number of flames about censorship. However, it is
Xhard to argue that ceasing to pay money to support a service donated
Xto other people who do not contribute to its major cost is censorship.
XSecond, if other nodes want to continue to receive the newsgroups that
Xhave been dropped they scramble and find an alternate way. In
XOctober 1985 the system administrator at \fButzoo\fR (the backbone node
Xfeeding most of Eastern Canada at the time), posted:
X.LS
XEffective one week from today...utzoo will cease to accept or
Xforward... net./philosophy, politics, religion, bizarre, flame... The
Xreason for all this is simple: our phone bills are reaching the
Xdanger point. That list of newsgroups, with their subgroups,
Xconstitutes 25% of recent traffic... Our expenditures on the
Xnetwork are justified in terms of the technical information flow.
XNone of the above groups can be defended in this way.
X[net.news.config 11/10/85 article- "Impending newsgroup cuts"].
X.LE
X.PP
XOne system adminstrator suggests that that this is a perfect example
Xof how anarchy should work: \fIpersonal initiative and emphasis on
Xpersonal responsibility\fR. When the inevitable flames appeared he
Xreplied, \fIhe who pays the piper calls the tune\fR. The cuts were made.
XMany system administrators have done the same thing in other regions.
XIn this situation as in many others, however, members of local nodes
Xgot together and figured out a way to continue carrying the
Xinformation.
X
X.SH 1 Conclusion
X.PP
XUSENET is a world wide, cooperative computer communications network
Xdistinguished by both its rapid rate of growth and its lack of
Xcentralized control. This paper has attempted to descibe this network
Xand point out some of the major issues including its attempts to deal
Xwith information overload.
X.PP
XWhile previous literature on the topic of computer networks has not
Xdirectly addressed the political ramification of information overload,
Xour research on USENET has shown that control on an anarchic network
Xgoes to those with the technical expertise to maintain and upgrade the
Xsystem and those with the money to pay for the transmission of
Xinformation. Such control is not absolute, however. Censorship on
Xthe net can be overcome, given the will, and threats of lawsuits by
Xonly a few discontented people can deter the most promising technical
Xinnovations.
X.PP
XAll the indicators in North America and across the world (especially
Xin France) make it clear that USENET will be under considerable
Xpressure to continue its rapid rate of growth not only in the number
Xof users and nodes but also in terms of the volume and variety of
Xinformation. It does allow people to interact with a great variety of
Xinformation, permits feedback and in most situations allows a great
Xdeal of conversational permissiveness.
X.PP
XIt is a hybrid network that has many of the elements of a citizen
Xmanaged utility/network that Masuda envisions, but it is also having
Xadolescent growth pains responding to an external environment that no
Xone foresaw. Some might say there is a generation gap. That is,
XUSENET was originally designed as a task oriented network, but since
X1983 the expanding number of users have perceived the social
Xcreativity interests to be as useful, if not more useful, than the
Xoriginal tasks. So the ``founding fathers'' who are footing the bill
Xand and spending a great deal of volunteer time keeping the system up
Xand running are saying, \fIwe must not forget what the system was
Xoriginally designed to accomplish\fR. The ``teen age children'', on the
Xother hand, are spending a great deal of time tying up the ``telephone''
Xand speaking about things which are important to them.
X.PP
XThe really interesting part is that both groups are technically
Xliterate and imaginative and both groups are beginning to tinker with
Xthe plumbing of the system/network as well as its architecture. The
Xreal question, then, revolves around Dunn's ideas as to how many
Xresources should be allocated to corporate functions and how many to
Xsocial development functions.
X
X.SH 1 Future Research Directions
X.PP
XA network such as USENET is a wholly new type of \fIcommunity\fR, one with
Xa potential to become uniquely \fIcitizen-oriented\fR. As such it can
Xprovide a fertile ground for much further research into the nature of
Xhuman socio-political communication.
X
X.SH 2 Stargate, UULINK and UUNET
X.PP
XThe researchers are continuing to monitor
Xthe interaction among Stargate, the UULINK software and UUNET, an
Xalternate transmission system. As of May 1, 1987, the Usenix
XAssociation was proud to announce the startup of UUNET, a non-profit,
Xcommon-carrier, communications service designed to provide access to
XUSENET news, UUCP mail, ARPAnet mail, and various source archives at
Xlow-cost by obtaining volume discounts from Tymnet. [news.admin
X11/4/87 article - ``UUNET Communications Service Available'']. All of
Xthese technologies will continue to bring about important changes in
Xthe overall system.
X
X.SH 2 Backbone Administrators
X.PP
XCurrently the researchers are designing an
Xon-line questionnaire directed at the backbone site administrators to
Xgain insights into the problems and rewards of being a backbone site.
XWe are also trying to communicate with other nodes in the system to
Xfind out if and how they are able to keep the newsflow going when
Xbackbone sites decide to cut off certain newsgroups.
X
X.SH 2 Forming New Newsgroups
X.PP
XAnother area of active concern is the
Xdevelopment of new newsgroups. How much difficulty is there is
Xgetting a newsgroup off the ground? What is the average lifespan of a
Xnewsgroup? Why do certain newsgroups have difficulty getting the
Xproper approvals? What happens when apparently popular newsgroups
Xcannot get approval? In this vein we are also pursuing several
Xprojects directed at extending user communities by connecting existing
Xand as yet unconstructed networks into metanetworks.
X
X.SH 2 Netiquette
X.PP
XHow does netiquette change over time? That is, how do
Xpeople attempt to \fIpersonalize\fR the medium by simulating visual and
Xverbal cues on the net, using different presentation and writing
Xstyles, and individualizing their signatures?
X.PP
XThere are several other areas that we are currently gathering
Xinformation on, but it is too early too tell where these trails will
Xlead us. One of our current problems is trying to find appropriate
Xtheoretical models that would aid us in understanding the politics of
Xthe net. If anyone has a good idea we will be sure to listen.
X
X.PG
X.SH 1 Bibliography
X.LP
XDordick, Herbert S., Helen Bradley and Burt Nanus, \fIThe Emerging
XNetwork Marketplace\fR, Ablex, 1981.
X.LP
XDunn, Edgar S., \fIThe Information Utility and the Idea of the Public
XData Bank\fR, in The Information Utility and Social Choice, AFIPS Press,
X1970, pp. 103-122..
X.LP
XEmerson, Sandra L., \fIUSENET:A Bulletin Board for UNIX Users\fR, Byte,
XOctober 1983, Vol. 8, No. 10, p. 219.
X.LP
XHiltz, Roxanne Starr Roxanne and Murray Turoff, \fIThe Network Nation\fR,
XAddison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1978.
X.LP
XHiltz, Rxanne Starr, \fIOnline Communities: A Case Study of the Office of
Xthe Future\fR, Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey, 1984.
X.LP
XHiltz, Starr Roxanne and Murray Turoff \fIStructuring Computer-Mediated
XCommunication Systems to Avoid Information Overload\fR, in
XCommunications of the ACM, July 1985;Vol. 28, No. 7, pp. 680-689.
X.LP
XJohansen, Robert, \fITeleconferencing and Beyond\fR, McGraw Hill, 1984.
X.LP
XKatz, Daniel and Robert Kahn, \fIThe Social Psychology of Organizations\fR,
X2nd ed., Wiley, 1978.
X.LP
XKiesler, Sara, Jane Seigel and Timothy W. McGuire, \fISocial
XPsychological Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication\fR, in American
XPsychologist, October 1984, Vol. 39, No. 10, pp. 1123-1134.
X.LP
XLicklider, J. C. R., \fISocial Prospects of Information Utilities\fR, in
XThe Information Utility and Social Choice, AFIPS Press, 1970, pp.
X3-24.
X.LP
XMasuda, Yoneji, \fIThe Information Society\fR, Institute for the Information
XSociety, Tokyo, Japan, 1980.
X.LP
XMosco, Vincent, Pushbutton Fantasies, Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey, 1984.
X.LP
XParker, Edwin, \fIInformation Utilities and Mass Communication\fR, in The
XInformation Utility and Social Choice, AFIPS Press, 1970, pp. 51-72.
X.LP
XQuarterman, John S. and Josiah C. Hoskins, \fINotable
XComputer Networks\fR, in Communications of the ACM, October 1986, Vol.
X29, No. 10, pp. 932-971.
X.LP
XRice, Ronald, \fIThe New Media\fR, Sage, Beverley Hills, 1984,
X.LP
XTaylor,Dave, \fIPersonalizing the Impersonal\fR, ;login:,
XNovember/December 1986, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 5-12.
X.LP
XVallee, Jacques, \fIThe Network Revolution\fR, And/Or Press, Berkeley
XCalifornia, 1982
X.ED
SHAR_EOF
if test 58051 -ne "`wc -c < 'usenet.fmt'`"
then
echo shar: error transmitting "'usenet.fmt'" '(should have been 58051 characters)'
fi
fi # end of overwriting check
# End of shell archive
exit 0
--
You see things, and you say "WHY?" Usenet: [decvax|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz
But I dream things that never were; ......!seismo!mnetor!yetti!oz
and say "WHY NOT?" Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yulibra|yuyetti]
[Back To Methuselah] Bernard Shaw Phonet: [416] 736-5257 x 3976