karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (10/19/89)
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: : In other words, who the [****] cares? All this fuss about whether a group : goes in a hierarchy that might give it 5% more distribution? I get a different impression than Brad does about why people are so vociferous in their lobbying for one naming arrangement over another. I think that the real issue in .namings is not distribution; it's cachet. If I'm going to go to the time and trouble to try to get a newsgroup off of the ground, that means that the subject is near and dear to me. Naturally I'm going to hold my subject in high esteem. I'm going to want quality discussions and quality contributions. I might even be surprised when I find out that others aren't as impressed by my pet subject as I am! dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes: : If domain : names are based only on the quality of discussion, the "self-fulfilling : prophecy" law rears it's head. Everybody will then of course want their : group in this domain -- because everybody believes, or at least hopes, that : their group will be high-quality.... [and later:] : What I suggest instead is that quality of discussion should *never* be an : explicit factor in the naming of new groups. If it is, then on comes the : self-fulfilling prophecy.... : : To get away from this eternal problem, the name of a new group should be : based *solely* on the nature of the proposed group, and not at all on : the predicted quality. While I agree with David in principle on this point, looking at the situation pragmatically, I don't see that naming a new group based only upon what type of group it is is going to take care of the implicit value-judging that is going on here. The implicit hierarchy that currently exists is interesting, and it shouldn't surprise anyone. Hasn't our culture always valued logic over emotion, and the objective over the subjective? The "top level" groups are for the most part technical in nature. The "bottom" level groups tend more toward subjective impression and emotion. Isn't this an example of our cultural history at work? I say, you can call the groups whatever you want; but you can't erase a long history of elevating the scientific method over subjective impression and emotion by shuffling some groups around and giving them new names! I really like the idea of an anarchistic information/idea-sharing exchange. I really do. It's possible that getting rid of the classifications might make a difference. But I have a hard time believing it. I guess I'm getting older and less idealistic. I'm not a cynic yet, but I find that in this instance, I'm a skeptic. You can't have a class system and anarchy, too. Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA ..pacbell!mslbrb!everexn!karen "Buy land. They've stopped making it." -- Mark Twain (thanks to jeffd for the loan of this quote)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/21/89)
>: In other words, who the [****] cares? All this fuss about whether a group >: goes in a hierarchy that might give it 5% more distribution? We care. If we didn't care, we wouldn'y be arguing. Brad obviously cares, or he wouldn't be sticking his nose into it, either -- he'd be unsubscribed to the groups or not reading the messages. >I think that the real issue in .namings is not distribution; it's cachet. Actually, it's both of these and more rolled up into one big issue. Some folks think sci.aquaria would actually have a higher quality of material than rec.aquaria. That's a laughable argument, actually -- just look at the existing groups in both domains and tell me that being in sci makes a group inherently better. It doesn't. Some folks think that sci.aquaria would make their group somehow more official, serious or more satisfying -- and, perhaps, make them feel more important for being a part. Frankly, a name doesn't mean any of those things -- a good group attracts good people, whether it be sci.math or rec.arts.comics. The name doesn't mean squat about how good or important it is. On top of this, there is a group of people manipulating the first two groups for the hidden agenda of added distribution. They don't care *why* it's named sci.aquaria -- they want it in sci so it gets a wider distribution. Many of the reasons for this (europe, for instance) turned out to be non-issues when push came to shove, but that's actually beside the point. These folks were manipulating the net for reasons they weren't divulging. In some cases, they were people who were manipulating people who were manipulating the net and not saying *anything* in public at all, which is even nastier. (And they know who they are. And they now know I know. Hi, guy!) Finally, and probably most importantly, there is the issue of control of USENET. The control of the namespace effectively gives control of USENET nad what administration and/or power there is in something as effectively anarchic as we are. That's the *main* reason why namespace arguments tend to be as intense as they are [I will say this for the sci.aquaria discussions: intense they were, but they almost never shifted over to abusive or flaming. Which is a credit to everyone involved for moderating themselves and sticking to issues...]. Whoever controls the namespace calls the shots. This puts the Old Guard -- the folks like myself and Greg who were involved in making USENET what it is today -- against the newer people, who have different, sometimes conflicting ideas. None of this is necessarily bad -- out of conflict comes compromise and new ideas. The conflict between old and new is actually good -- my main purpose around here is really to try to keep things on a straight and narrow. I have a philosophy of what USENET is, and while *nobody* can claim to control USENET, I try to nudge it here and there. I'm sure Greg would say the same thing. With time comes experience and knowledge of what works and doesn't, and I try to use those to help USENET avoid making (or re-making) stupid mistakes. On the other hand, with time and experience also comes conservatism, sometimes an ossification of the brain. New blood comes in -- sometimes it tries to remake old mistakes, but sometimes it gets a new slant on things or recognizes a fundamental change in the network we old net.fogies have been ignoring. Being ossified, we net.fogies don't always agree right away, but if an idea is valid, we can usually be swayed to accept it. The whole sci.aquaria business, then, has not only been an argument about where to put a group (in reality, it doesn't really *matter* where, except philosophically -- the volume is a drop in the bucket. But philosophical principles *are* important -- or they aren't, at which point you throw them away or fall behind with them. It's a process for showing up weaknesses in how we do things, how we think about the network and where we're going with it. It's brought up any number of points that need to be thought about for me, including making me re-examine quite a few of my ossified (and not necessarily true any more) truisms about USENET. It's part of the process of growth and evolution on the net. Even if nothing concrete comes of it *now*, it's gotten a lot of people invovled and thinking about issues, and that'll bubble up again at some later time. That's good for the net -- it's how the net has always operated and how it operates best. >The implicit hierarchy that currently exists is interesting, and it shouldn't >surprise anyone. Hasn't our culture always valued logic over emotion, and >the objective over the subjective? The "top level" groups are for the most >part technical in nature. The "bottom" level groups tend more toward >subjective impression and emotion. Isn't this an example of our cultural >history at work? Interesting. Historically, the name space has had a *single* purpose -- to help a person find the group they're looking for. It had (with the exception of talk.all) *no* subjective ranking of the worthiness of the group. Traditionally, no examination of the worthiness of the group was made in determining the name, because all groups are equal. Obviously, at least parts of the net have added this new meaning to the domains -- certain domains are now considered 'better' than others. The question is, then, is this a true view or a false one? Are some domains *really* better than others? Or is this perception false? My contention, based on reading sci.all and rec.all, is that it's a false perception. You are as likely to get a high-content low-noise, insteresting group in rec as you are in sci. On the other hand, you're as likely to get the idiots in a flamefest in sci as in rec.all. Functionally, on a purely objective basis, the domains are equal. The unanswered questions, then, are: (1) do we find some way to do away with this false perception? Or do we accept it and try to bring it to fruition, since it seems the net *wants* it to be true; (2) Do we integrate it in some way into the naming decisions and attempt to steer 'worthy' groups to 'better' domains, or do we stick to an objective naming system? (3) How? >I really like the idea of an anarchistic information/idea-sharing exchange. >I really do. It's possible that getting rid of the classifications might >make a difference. That's what USENET always is. Don't equate 'lcak of control' (i.e. anarchy) with 'lack of structure' (i.e. chaos). An anarchy like USENET has to have some structure to survive -- but it's a structure worked out by consensus and compromise rather than by planning, organiation and control. Even in an anarchy, there are people that the masses look up to fro advice. The difference in a social situation like this is that the advisors advice on the whim of the people -- piss them off and they stop listening to you. It's an effective moderating force on the advisors, actually -- and the ones who try to push ideas that the public don't want are the ones that sit on the side, whining and wondering why nobody's listening to them. The reason why people like Greg and I are still around acting like net.fogies is not because our ideas are better -- it is, I think, because we understand the need for consensus, compromise and timing -- how to merge our vision of USENET with the interests of the net and when to drop it and not push the issue. I've retired at least three times over the last <mumble> years, always for the same reason -- I lost the ability to listen to what the net wanted, and became ineffective. A good net.fogie gives the net two things: what it wants and what it's willing to accept. If that matches what you think the net needs, great. But it's easier to stop a stampede of elephants with a tweezer than it is to take USENET in a direction it doesn't want to go, and the trampled bodies of dozens of folks exist in the histories to prove that fact (including mine a couple of times. Because I know how to do things doesn't mean I always listen to myself...). -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Trust Mama Nature to remind us just how important things like sci.aquaria's name really is in the scheme of things.
laura@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Laura Kirk) (10/22/89)
In article <35808@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Some folks think sci.aquaria would actually have a higher quality of >material than rec.aquaria. That's a laughable argument, actually -- just >look at the existing groups in both domains and tell me that being in sci >makes a group inherently better. It doesn't. Going along with this: We keep hearing how high quality alt.aquaria is. We keep hearing how putting it in rec would mean lower quality postings than if it was in sci. My question: if being in alt didn't hurt it, why would rec? Surely alt.* has a much larger reputation for garbage than rec, and if it came out of alt with such high caliber postings, it should be able to stay in rec with equally high caliber postings. laura -- laura kirk %___________________________________% uunet!jarthur!laura % Reality is a optical illusion % laura@jarthur.claremont.edu % that happens all of the time % laura@ymir.bitnet %___________________________________%
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (10/23/89)
In article <35808@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >These folks were manipulating the net for reasons they weren't divulging. In >some cases, they were people who were manipulating people who were >manipulating the net and not saying *anything* in public at all, which is >even nastier. (And they know who they are. And they now know I know. Hi, guy!) Ah, let's get this straight so I know what I'm doing. I assume that since I have been posting, that I can't be one of the 'people who were manipulating people who were manipulating the net and not saying *anything* in public at all'. So, am I supposed to be one of the people being '[manipulated into] manipulating the net', or one of the people 'manipulating the net for reasons they weren't divulging'? I really would like to know. PS: If I'm being manipulated, would you please let me know by who? I am someone who was in favor of putting .aquaria into rec. until I was talked out of it (not manipulated) by the sci. crowd. Your conspiracy theories look like paranoid delusions from here. And I find your comments about the 'lack of flaming' to be rather telling. I've found there to be vastly more flaming (especially in the anti-sci. camp (which I contrast with the rec. camp - which I used to be part of and which I have much more respect for)) than I would have liked to have seen. I would have unsubscribed long ago (because of the flaming) if I didn't feel I HAVE to stay here until the voting is concluded. -- --------| You've got the political savvy Alien | of a hangnail. --------| - John Meneghini decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
cmf@obie.cis.pitt.edu (Carl M. Fongheiser) (10/24/89)
In article <2563@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> laura@jarthur.claremont.edu (Laura Kirk) writes: >My question: if being in alt didn't hurt it, why would rec? Surely alt.* >has a much larger reputation for garbage than rec, and if it came out of >alt with such high caliber postings, it should be able to stay in rec >with equally high caliber postings. No, "alt" is a number of things. You have your "junk" caliber newsgroups, like alt.weemba.sheep, and then you have the high quality newsgroups, like alt.gourmand and alt.aquaria. Alt.gourmand's quality (although it doesn't really exist anymore) came from moderation; alt.aquaria comes from a certain level of respect and discipline on the part of the posters. "Rec" on the other hand, almost by design seems to encourage high-volume repetitive discussions, with occasional outbursts of flamage that are difficult to suppress. Who could say what the fate of a "rec.aquaria" would be? My crystal ball blew a fuse :-) Carl Fongheiser cmf@unix.cis.pitt.edu > > laura > >-- >laura kirk %___________________________________% >uunet!jarthur!laura % Reality is a optical illusion % >laura@jarthur.claremont.edu % that happens all of the time % >laura@ymir.bitnet %___________________________________%
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (10/24/89)
In article <20172@unix.cis.pitt.edu> cmf@obie.cis.pitt.edu (Carl M. Fongheiser) writes: >Who could say what the fate of a "rec.aquaria" would be? My crystal ball >blew a fuse :-) > Carl Fongheiser > cmf@unix.cis.pitt.edu Since Carl is using a CRYSTAL BALL these days: Follow ups to SCI.SKEPTIC, Please! -- (UUCP) {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore, cadre}!pitt!cisunx!cisvms!tjw (BITNET) TJW@PITTVMS (or) TJW@PITTUNIX (Internet) tjw%vms.cis.pitt.edu@unix.cis.pitt.edu (CC-Net) CISVMS::TJW (or) 33801::TJW (or) CISUNX::tjw (or) 33802::tjw
geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (10/24/89)
In article <20172@unix.cis.pitt.edu> cmf@obie.cis.pitt.edu (Carl M. Fongheiser) writes: >"Rec" on the other hand, almost by design seems to encourage high-volume >repetitive discussions, with occasional outbursts of flamage that are >difficult to suppress. I beg to differ. Rec.photo is as high quality a newsgroup as I read. Rec.backcountry does seem to repeat discussions at regular intervals, but `occaisonal outbursts of flamage' are virtually nonexistent. Rec.skiing is low volume and I've seen no flames (It's mostly, "Where's the best place to stay in Aspen|Jackson|Sun Valley|Whistler" type stuff). I don't know what rec.* groups Carl was thinking of when he wrote the above, but I don't think his opinion is representative of all of rec.*. -- Geoff Allen ...{uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff ...ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff