reid@Glacier.ARPA (Brian Reid) (08/12/85)
There is a fatal flaw in the current set of rules, enumerated by Gene, about
how a new group is created. That flaw is that virtually nobody reads
net.news.group, and the set of people who read it are not at all
representative of the netwide readership.
In the beginning netnews was like ham radio--in order to participate you had
to be a technologist yourself. I used to be a radio ham (WA3AEJ) many years
ago (1962-1965). What I found was that all people ever talked about was ham
radio equipment. It was a completely self-referential medium.
USENET is only about 2% self-referential. By this I mean that only about
2% of the traffic on USENET is spent talking about USENET. This is really
good. But if you want to make USENET into a true democracy--"Radio Free
Usenet" as John Gilmore likes to call it--then you have to involve that
fraction of the other 98% who actually care.
I like what has just happend with net.bizarre. It is a "people's group".
I think there is worthless bad craziness flowing on it, but then most of
the "people's newspapers" of the 1960's had bad craziness in them too.
Counter to the official USENET policy, I assert that the only true reason
to prohibit every clown SA who know how to type "inews -C" from creating an
"official" newsgroup is the name space pollution that Chuqui constantly
worries about. This is a real problem, and basically nothing except
authoritarianism can fix it.
I would also like to assert that the way a person beccomes a USENET bigwig
is to start acting like one. One of the ways he can start acting like one is
to say important things and act official. Another way he can do it is to
start creating newsgroups, and run the risk of Gene hating him forever, of
being put in the same booth in computer purgatory that contains Frank Adrian.
I'm in the mood to run that risk. I'd like to feel important. Sort of like
the Rambo of USENET. In a few weeks I will most likely create a
new newsgroup. I am going to call it "net.whimsy", and its purpose is to
hold things that are whimsical. The official description that I will send
around with it will look something like this:
net.whimsy Whimsical things. This newsgroup is for posting
things that you would love to show your mother,
if only she read USENET. No followups permitted,
no cross-postings permitted. If you post something
here that would embarass you if your mother saw it,
then you are a bad person.
There has been a "whimsy" mailing list at Xerox PARC for about 5 years, and
it is very very successful. Because it is a mailing list, its moderator can
actually remove from it anybody who violates the rules.
p.s. My mother reads USENET. She is {yale,princeton}!spock!breid. I'm sure
she doesn't read net.news.group.
--
Brian Reid decwrl!glacier!reid
Stanford reid@SU-Glacier.ARPAchuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (08/12/85)
In article <10609@Glacier.ARPA> reid@Glacier.UUCP (Brian Reid) writes: >Counter to the official USENET policy, I assert that the only true reason >to prohibit every clown SA who know how to type "inews -C" from creating an >"official" newsgroup is the name space pollution that Chuqui constantly >worries about. This is a real problem, and basically nothing except >authoritarianism can fix it. I tend to back up Brian on this. If there was a good way to dynamically flex the naming space to meet what the network needs, I'd jump at it. What I've pushed for in the past is to simply allow all group requests to be created if there seems to be any reasonable excuse for it to exist, but to get rid of the groups who have either passed out of the 'fad' stage into oblivion or simply didn't really meet the need. The big problem is that once a group exists, it is almost impossible to delete again, so we make it difficult for potentially useful groups like (rlr will kill me for this...) net.music.jazz from being created because groups like net.theater or net.games.go -- groups that either didn't prove out their potential or didn't survive the initial faddish interest -- become almost impossible to get rid of. If we could shrink the naming space as easily as we could grow it, I'd LOVE to simply let a group prove itself or not in practice. Unfortunately, the network seems to feel that deleting groups is fascist, and any attempt to do so dumps lots of rotten vegetables on the heads of those who try. Because of this, it is almost as hard to create a group as it is to delete one, and I think everyone loses because of it. Personally, I'd love to work out some 'standard' criteria for what makes a viable newsgroup, and then let groups get created by some very liberal standard. If it doesn't work out in 90 days, nuke it, and then review the naming space every six months or so. Nah... terribly fascist... *grin* >I would also like to assert that the way a person beccomes a USENET bigwig >is to start acting like one. One of the ways he can start acting like one is >to say important things and act official. I'll agree wholeheartedly to this... If you're willing to duck rotten vegetables, talk loudly and occasionally seem to make sense, eventually people expect you to give up evenings and weekends and work at keeping the net running smoothly so that they can use it to call you a fascist... I wasn't elected, I sort of backed into it by default in just this way. I certainly wouldn't try to stop new blood from working on the network -- the best ideas tend to come from those that don't know what you can't do, and do it anyway... -- Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/15/85)
> new newsgroup. I am going to call it "net.whimsy", and its purpose is to > hold things that are whimsical. The official description that I will send How is this, in practice, going to differ from "net.bizarre"? -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian werewolf) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/16/85)
> oblivion or simply didn't really meet the need. The big problem is that > once a group exists, it is almost impossible to delete again, so we make it The best way to deal with groups, as with laws, is to build in a time limit. Unfortunately this is rarely, if ever, done. -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian werewolf) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076