yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (02/15/90)
Here's a question for everyone proposing a new humanities hierarchy. If hum.* is created, does the entire rec.arts.* subhierarchy get shifted over into hum.arts.* or does it stay under rec.*? How about rec.music.*? Does this turn into hum.music.*? If rec.arts.books turns into hum.arts.books, should rec.arts.movies also be shifted? What about rec.arts.tv? rec.arts.sf-lovers? rec.arts.comics? If rec.music.classical transforms into hum.music.classical, what about rec.music.misc? rec.music.bluenote? rec.music.gaffa? rec.music.gdead? I think it should either be all or nothing, and it should be decided in advance of creating the humanities hierarchy. The last thing the net needs is the massively parallel flamewar that would be ignited by a selective shifting of the rec.arts.* and rec.music.* newsgroups. _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (02/15/90)
In article <1990Feb14.230808.4556@cs.rochester.edu>, yamauchi@cs (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >If hum.* is created, does the entire rec.arts.* subhierarchy get >shifted over into hum.arts.* or does it stay under rec.*? How about >rec.music.*? Does this turn into hum.music.*? My preference would be a domain that lined up more or less with the various departments at your generic university. Thus one might have hum.literature or hum.musicology if people felt these were needed. The idea would be that hum.musicology would not be the same group as rec.music.classical, and certainly not in any way shape or form like rec.music.misc. -- ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "You and I as individuals can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but only for a limited period of time. Why should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" -- Ronald Reagan
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/15/90)
In article <1990Feb14.230808.4556@cs.rochester.edu>, yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: > Here's a question for everyone proposing a new humanities hierarchy. > > If hum.* is created, does the entire rec.arts.* subhierarchy get > shifted over into hum.arts.* or does it stay under rec.*? [rest deleted] Good points, presented sans flamery. I think it might have to be decided on a basis of: is the topic being discussed *as* a form of recreation, or as an art? For instance: group devoted to movie reviews might be under rec, while a group about the art and science of cinema might be under hum. Let's explore this some more. Jeff -- "Come to me, bend to me, kiss me good day; Give me your lips and don't take them away." From Lerner's and Loewe's BRIGADOON and quite appropriate for February 14th!
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/15/90)
In article <1990Feb14.230808.4556@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: > If hum.* is created, does the entire rec.arts.* subhierarchy get > shifted over into hum.arts.* or does it stay under rec.*? How about > rec.music.*? Does this turn into hum.music.*? If the intent is to create a hierarcy that includes at least part of rec.arts.*, then I submit that the name "arts.*" is no less appropriate than "humanities.*", not to mention being shorter, and certainly better than such nauseating abbreviations as "hum.*". I think a "hum.*" hierarchy should not absorb anything from rec.arts.*, but an "arts.*" hierarchy should. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) (02/15/90)
In article <92S14F1xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > If the intent is to create a hierarcy that includes at least part of > rec.arts.*, then I submit that the name "arts.*" is no less appropriate > than "humanities.*", not to mention being shorter, and certainly better > than such nauseating abbreviations as "hum.*". > But humanities is more inclusive, and could reasonably contain arts and social sciences. I dinna think arts could reasonably contain social sciences. Jeff PS - As a feminist, I contend that creation of a hss hierarchy would have to be matched by creation of a hrr hierarchy. -- Thank you for not coercing.
mehl@cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl) (02/16/90)
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: >In article <92S14F1xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> If the intent is to create a hierarcy that includes at least part of >> rec.arts.*, then I submit that the name "arts.*" is no less appropriate >> than "humanities.*", not to mention being shorter, and certainly better >> than such nauseating abbreviations as "hum.*". >> >But humanities is more inclusive, and could reasonably contain >arts and social sciences. I dinna think arts could reasonably >contain social sciences. ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I think I just heard someone suggest moving the soc.* hierarchy into a hum.soc.* hierarchy. Is this the intended meaning? (Please note, I'm "not" saying this is a bad idea; I just want to get some clarification on what's being proposed when someone mentions hum.* as a new hierarchy.) As I see it, we are talking about creating a hum.soc.* and a hum.arts.* on Usenet. Is this correct? -- /\ Mark M Mehl, alias Superticker (Supertickler to some) <><> Internet: mehl@atanasoff.cs.IAstate.edu \/ UUCP: {{mailrus,umix}!sharkey,hplabs!hp-lsd,uunet}!atanasoff!mehl Disclaimer: You got to be kidding; who would want to claim anything I said?
mitchell@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Mitchell Marks) (02/20/90)
>>>>> In article <637@dino.cs.iastate.edu>, mehl@cs.iastate.edu (Mark >>>>> M Mehl) writes: mehl> Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I think I just heard someone mehl> suggest moving the soc.* hierarchy into a hum.soc.* hierarchy. Is mehl> this the intended meaning? (Please note, I'm "not" saying this is a mehl> bad idea; I just want to get some clarification on what's being mehl> proposed when someone mentions hum.* as a new hierarchy.) mehl> As I see it, we are talking about creating a hum.soc.* and a mehl> hum.arts.* on Usenet. Is this correct? I hope not. There actually seem to be several different proposals, none of them spelled out in exquisite detail yet (nor should they be, yet). I'll try to clarify here what I take to be involved in one line of these proposals. The starting point (the "whereas" clause) is the observation, or claim, that "sci" seems to be functioning as the one top-level node where people expect to find newsgroups whose contents will in significant part be serious, professional or semi-professional, maybe quasi-academic discussions and presentations in fairly well-defined disciplines that in many cases correspond to academic subjects. [Of course "comp" has its own special status.] Some sort of cognitive tension arises when the subject fits that description but is not that clearly scientific -- while remaining clearly not recreational, computational, socializing, concerned with the operation of the news network, or miscellaneous. So where does such a group go? [The issue comes up in particular when representatives of one school of thought are asking for a newsgroup which under this description might go under "sci", and opponents say "Your approach is not scientific". Of course I'm talking about the sci.philosophy.objectivism flap.] The proposals (in one line of though) suggest that these quasi-academic groups should fit into the hierarchy in roughly the way academic subjects are divided into "divisions" or "faculties" in a (generic) university. Thus: -- Scientific subjects, both biological and physical, remain where they are. [Variant proposals would create "bio" or even separate "bio" and "med" top-level nodes.] -- Subjects traditionally in the humanities would go under a newly-created "hum" top-level category. This might well include all *.philosophy.* groups, even those dealing largely in technical matters such as mathematical logic. It would also include SOME but not all of the current rec.arts.* groups; these would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. It would NOT include the traditional "social sciences", such as economics, psychology, anthropology, sociology. History is a toss-up. -- Subjects traditionally thought of as falling in the social sciences would go into the "soc" hierarchy. Thus, for example, sci.econ becomes soc.econ. These groups are then sharing "soc" with existing groups, which show a variety of concerns, purposes, and degrees of formality. In part this means peaceful coexistence, and in part a re-conceptualization of some groups (soc.women/men, soc.culture.*) as having been all-along-after-all forums for interdisciplinary social science, somewhere in the psychology/sociology/anthropology orbit. I emphasize that this is just one way of characterizing the proposal. There are a lot of disagreements with specifics of this, and it's hard to say which are variants within the same general scheme and which are entirely rival proposals. But, at a guess, the following seems to be the main point of one major alternative: [ALTERNATIVE] Do not attempt to distinguish humanities and social sciences. Think of them as "the human sciences", and give them just one top-level node. This might be called "hum" as in the main proposal above, or "huma", or "hss" [for "humanities and social sciences"]. I won't here get into arguments between the two main proposals. Do participants in the discussion think this was a reasonably fair summary of what's being proposed? [Apart from my device of calling one "the main proposal" and the other "an alternative proposal".] -- Mitch Marks mitchell@cs.UChicago.EDU My uncle is sick, but the road is green.
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (02/23/90)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >If the intent is to create a hierarcy that includes at least part of >rec.arts.*, then I submit that the name "arts.*" is no less appropriate >than "humanities.*", not to mention being shorter, and certainly better >than such nauseating abbreviations as "hum.*". The problem with "arts" is that most people (including myself) will relate "arts" to The Arts, such as painting and sculpture and music, et al. Maybe it would be a good idea to decide exactly what we want a new hierarchy (or, hierarchies) to encompass. That might help us to categorize and come up with a name. I agree with the posters who have suggested that any hierarchical divisions go along the lines of the departments at universities; most of us can relate to that kind of classification. I think that whatever we decide on, some people will think that the classifications or divisions are too broad, and others will complain that they're too narrow, and still others will say the divisions group newsgroups together in ridiculous ways. My original complaint, which sort of got the idea for a humanities hierarchy going, was that it seemed to me that some of the sciences that are not natural sciences, not being welcome (or some say appropriate) in sci, got dumped into other inappropriate hierarchies, such as talk. The sciences that I had in mind were those such as philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. Other people may have other ideas about what kinds of things belong in what hierarchies; this is what I had in mind. Just a nice little place for the more "subjective" sciences. I've been so busy that I haven't had time to get a college catalog and see how things are laid out; when I went to graduate school, it was a professional school that offered a few different degrees, and it's been so long since I've been an undergraduate that I don't remember how things are arranged in a liberal arts setting. Maybe someone could enlighten us, or I may yet get around to it myself. >I think a "hum.*" hierarchy should not absorb anything from rec.arts.*, >but an "arts.*" hierarchy should. I agree with this last statement. A hum hierarchy should not absorb anything from rec. Recreation is about fun, enjoyment, hobbies. The new hierarchy (as I envision it) is going to be about study, science, conceptualization. Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA karen@everexn.uu.net ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen "Clearly, the idea of human beings as units remains at war with the notion of the interdependence of all things." -- Salvador Minuchin