wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (10/10/89)
In article <4639@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >In article <20686@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>Personal correspondence woth Greg Woods indicates that we both >>believe that something is needed to bridge the gap between >>rec and sci - perhaps ``tech'' > > Actually that isn't QUITE what I said. What I said was that during the >Great Renaming, "sci" was created to hold all groups dealing with technical >subjects other than computers, and that maybe it should have been called >"tech" in the first place. I did NOT say that I wanted to form a new >hierarchy. Sorry for the confusion on that point, Richard. Hmmm. Then I submit that the definition of the "sci" heirarchy given in the List of Active Newsgroups is most blatantly incorrect. It clearly refers to "established sciences", not to "technical subjects rather than computers." To the net's credit, the definition has been largely ignored, anyway. Let's take a step back and consider who uses the net, and why. Most of y'all are computer professionals; not surprisingly, the entire comp heirarchy is filled with detailed newsgroups which, by and large, are technical and *professional*, written for and read by computer professionals. On the other hand, the talk and rec heirarchies are, for this computer majority, purely for entertainment. The news heirarchy is administrative, but being computer-related, remains semi-professional, while misc is indeed miscellaneous. Alt is the network's rebel yell. What of sci ? Clearly, there are many readers on the net whose professions are other than computers, myself included. Many of these are located in universities or research facilities, and are, in fact, scientists or other "science professionals." For them, the sci groups are a potential tool for highly technical communication. But for that computer majority, the sci groups are *recreational*, by definition. Only a very few people on Usenet can really claim to be professinal physicists, astronomers, or military contractors. For the rest of us, sci.physics, sci.astro, and sci.military are hobbies. They may be seriously-taken hobbies, highly technical, and we may put tremendous effort into them, but they remain recreation rather than profession. I, therefore, discount the various arguments to date which are based on the professional status of aquarium keepers as a requisite for sci.aquaria. So what does it take to make a sci group ? According to the List posted by Spaf, it's something pertaining to an "established science." But I submit that one can *always* argue that the group exists mostly for recreational, hobby interest, and thus belongs more properly in the rec or talk heirarchies. Sure, you may have minored in physics, but since you make your paycheck writing OS code, physics is a hobby; take it to rec. I maintain that such argument can be successfully presented for *every* group in the sci heirarchy; meaning that the heirarchy, as defined, is meaningless. We need a new definition. According to Greg Woods, a sci group is something "dealing with technical subjects other than computers". That's a good definition, I think; it's certainly the basis of my decision to propose sci.military as sci, rather than talk. Consider the options: talk.military sounds like a discussion of strategy, pension, and recounting old war stories. soc.military would cover life as a soldier, women in combat, military career potential, etc. rec.military, it could be claimed, is the proper place for what is now sci.military; a group filled mostly with hobbyists interested in military technology; to me, though, it would more properly be for discussion of wargames, militaria collection, and historical re-enactments. I wanted a group for technical discussions, and in the absence of a tech heirarchy, sci.military made the most sense. And I believe that sci.military, by any other name, would not smell so sweet. Not insignificant in that claim is the fact that, as rec.military, the group would not be carried internationally. Important contributions are made by readers in Europe, Israel, and South America. One poster has mentioned that the Europeans take their aquaria pretty darned seriously; I should think, then, that those wanting a mainstream (ahem) aquarium group would especially love to see it in the sci heirarchy; and it will be a *better* group for being so named. This is the crux of the matter: there is a pecking order of heirarchies; some are seen as higher-quality than others, some are considered more useful. When a site decides to trim its disk space, the first thing to go are the talk groups, followed by rec and soc. Comp and sci get almost universal distribution, it seems, and thus, will attract a better audience. So long as those trimming their feeds do so based on heirarchy, rather than the merits of each individual group, this problem will persist. I like Greg Woods's definition for sci groups, and I must say (completely opposite of my initial reaction, BTW) that sci.aquaria fits that definition. And I don't think adding sci.aquaria "downgrades" the image of the sci heirarchy one bit. Other hobbies ? Sure, I think there are lots of rec groups that fit this definition for sci. Candidates would include rec.autos.tech, rec.audio, rec.video, and probably some of the ham radio groups, for starters. If it looks like a technical subject *and acts* like a technical subject, it ought to be a sci group, IMHO. - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker wbt@cbnews.att.com I have short-term memory loss, though I like to think of it as Presidential eligibility. - Paula Poundstone, NNTN