bandy@lll-crg.UUCP (Andrew Scott Beals) (08/26/85)
Hello All,
I'd like to take this opportunity to request the creation (actually to
start discussion on whether or not it should be created) of
net.culture.uk. I've noticed that there are many people on the net that
are of English, Irish, Welsh etc ancestry and heritage and I think we
should have our own place on the network to talk about how being of
English <Insert Appropriate UK Ethnic Group> ancestry changes the
experience of being an American (or an Australian for example). And
also, we have people in the UK itself that can tell us how their
experiences differ from ours...
--
andy beals, bandy@lll-crg.arpa, {seismo,sun,gymble,mordor,dual}!lll-crg!bandyrick@uwmacc.UUCP (great scottish git) (08/26/85)
In article <819@lll-crg.UUCP> bandy@lll-crg.UUCP (Andrew Scott Beals) writes: >I'd like to ... start discussion on whether or not it should be created) of >net.culture.uk. I'd just as soon not...net.nlang.celts covers what there is (not much except Irish Catholic/Irish Protestant flames.) >also, we have people in the UK itself that can tell us how their >experiences differ from ours... Oh. Now I understand. "Die, you Sassenach pig" -- "A Scotsman on the make is a terrible thing to behold" -- George MacDonald Fraser Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (08/27/85)
I would support the creation of this group. Why doesn't somebody
take votes for/against?
Also, Europe apparently gets the net.nlang.* groups. If this
group went over the Atlantic, we'd get input from there as well.
Re: validity of vote takers. Perhaps the person taking votes ought
to be required to post all votes to this newsgroup before the
creation is allowed? That way, should some votes be missed, they
could then notify somebody. If there is a pattern of missing votes,
then the questions on the justification for the group would arise.
--
James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa
"If she doesn't scream, the wedding can take place!" Doctor
"Don't I have a say in the matter?" female companion
"Be quiet" Doctor
Which companion, what story?itkin@luke.UUCP (Steven List) (08/30/85)
In article <819@lll-crg.UUCP> bandy@lll-crg.UUCP (Andrew Scott Beals) writes: >I'd like to take this opportunity to request the creation (actually to >start discussion on whether or not it should be created) of >net.culture.uk. NO NO NO. Read the recent comments by Gene Spafford. Follow the discussions about net.culture.jewish: 1) No one has discussed or voted on or created "net.culture"! 2) This kind of subject is endless - every nationality, religion, regional interest, club, race, and color will want (and deserve) a subgroup. There is not enough interest amongst the tens (hundreds) of thousands of us on the net to warrant these little groups. Start a mailing list. At worst, start a moderated group, be the moderator, and then see how you (and the constituency) feel about it. Please don't clutter the net with another limited interest group. -- *** * Steven List @ Benetics Corporation, Mt. View, CA * Just part of the stock at "Uncle Bene's Farm" * {cdp,greipa,idi,oliveb,sun,tolerant}!bene!luke!itkin ***
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (09/03/85)
> There is not enough interest amongst the tens (hundreds) of thousands > of us on the net to warrant these little groups. ... Please don't > clutter the net with another limited interest group. ---------- In what sense do these limited interest groups "clutter the net"? Does your SA require that every user read every group? Are you incapable of resisting the urge to know everything that is going on in every group? It really doesn't bother me that there are dozens of groups I never look at and it wouldn't bother me if some of them are used exclusively by two people whose offices are down the hall from each other but like to do their shouting in public. I can see great virtue in having a place like net.news.group that can host discussions of ideas for new groups so that we don't create new groups for topics that would fit into existing groups and so that we don't get five different amiga groups, all with slightly different names. But the idea that there should be someone who has to "approve" creation of a new group, or that there should be some "official" number of votes required strikes me as both ludicrous and sad. The net IS an anarchy. I think some kind of voluntary apporach to information structuring is going to have to come along, but I don't think that group-creation control is the problem. I think the long term answer is going to be moderation of groups: there may be several groups in one topic, each with a different editor. The editor is a role with a long and distinguished history and I think it will eventually be the model for the net: there will be widely read groups with editors people trust to do the winnowing for them and there will be hordes of groups with very tightly defined topics or very narrow ciculation. But that's not going to happen for a while. In the meantime, I don't see what difference it makes if somebody creates groups without getting "permission;" if nobody else reads or posts to them they won't cost us anything for transmission or storage and if people DO read and post to them, then they were warranted to begin with. -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
kay@warwick.UUCP (Kay Dekker) (09/07/85)
In article <1424@uwmacc.UUCP> rick@uwmacc.UUCP (Rick Keir) writes: >In article <819@lll-crg.UUCP> bandy@lll-crg.UUCP (Andrew Scott Beals) writes: >>I'd like to ... start discussion on whether or not it should be created) of >>net.culture.uk. >I'd just as soon not...net.nlang.celts covers what there is (not much >except Irish Catholic/Irish Protestant flames.) Fascinating... Europe (which includes the UK) doesn't *get* net.nlang.celts - I think this might tend to make the discussion a little one-sided, no? Kay. -- "A boy does not put his hand into his pocket until every other means of gaining his end has failed." _Tommy_, by J. M. Barrie. ... mcvax!ukc!warwick!flame!kay
mojo@kepler.UUCP (Morris Jones) (09/09/85)
I believe I agree with Scott Preece in the matter of newsgroup creation.
We have cool heads discussing newsgroups in net.news.groups, which should
prevent multiple creations of slightly different group names. Why not
give reasonable group suggestions a try?
Perhaps trial and error *is* the best way to deal with new newsgroups.
We've learned about the method with net.bizarre (I agree that it may be
degenerating into noise, but I've enjoyed it more than net.jokes).
Until a newsgroup has had a chance to exist and prove itself, no one can
do anything but speculate about its usefulness.
Lauren suggests that using the net to help special interest groups is
contrary to the interests of the net. What about all the existing groups
that aid special (commercial) interests? Take net.micro.amiga, net.micro.pc,
net.micro.apple, and net.micro.att for starters.
I admit to being a newcomer to the net. If this has been tried before
and the result was chaotic, I apologize for bringing it up again.
P.S., net.misc.coke is about ready to die.
--
Mojo
... Morris Jones, MicroPro Product Development
{dual,ptsfa,hplabs}!well!micropro!kepler!mojolauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (09/09/85)
I didn't say that "special interest groups" are contrary to the best interests of the net. Please don't misquote me. Remember that this argument started when someone suggested, in essence, that Usenet was an ideal free conduit for peace activists to discuss and plan their activities. There was an implicit suggestion that such persons be given access to the net, and that other groups be given similar access. The attitude expressed sort of sounded like Usenet was some big "free communications" network that anyone and everyone could (and should) just dial up and use to send whatever messages they like "for free." That's what I was primarily objecting to in the original message. On the general topic of newsgroup creation, it is important to realize (and we've been over this ground before) that new newsgroups tend to create new traffic. And for every new newsgroup, we get more, "gee, if Joe can create THAT group for THAT topic, why can't *I* create THIS group for THIS topic?" Even when sending those materials to thousands of computers doesn't make sense, we still end up with people attempting to use the network as if it was really all free. It's not! And once a group is created, there's always some set of people that will get upset when you try to delete it later. In many cases, people try recreate the groups and we get the create/remove wars we've seen in the past. This sort of anarchy is just beginning. One of the real problems is that simply blasting a message out to the whole network is a lot easier from the individual's standpoint than setting up and running a mailing list. It also allows the individual to avoid the responsibilites of setting up direct links with their correspondents, or for getting permission from intermediate hops before sending out materials. You just blast it off and it goes EVERYWHERE and you don't have to think about it. Never mind the thousands of dollars it costs to send that message around, or the fact that 1% (or maybe far less) of the people on the net care about that message, or the amount of communications time involved in sending it. Maybe we could afford such attitudes when we were a tiny little network. But we're BIG now and we just can't afford to keep operating that way-- trying to bury our heads in the sand pretending that these problems don't exist. --Lauren--