leah%smith@ast.dsd.northrop.com (L.A.Z. Smith) (04/12/91)
This is the second Request for Discussion regarding the proposed
newsgroup, misc.writing. Voting shall be held from April 28 through
May 28.
Post your comments to news.groups or send them to leah@smith.chi.il.us
or leah%smith@ast.dsd.northrop.com (or if all else fails, in care of
smithr@ast.dsd.northrop.com).
HISTORY AND SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS DISCUSSION
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The idea of a newsgroup for writers first came up when Peter Franks
suggested "rec.arts.writing" on Feb. 16. I had been about to propose a
writing group myself when he beat me to it. Instead, I followed up,
recommending "misc.writing" as more appropriate for a general writing
newsgroup. Informal discussion ensued. Meanwhile, Joseph Chew put in a
Request for Discussion of "sci.tech-comm," a technical communication
newsgroup, on March 7.
Chew's proposal met with some controversy, for a variety of reasons, and
he agreed to consider coming under the umbrella of the general writing
group, and to hold off on a Call for Votes on sci.tech-comm until after
the formal discussion of misc.writing.
I wrote a Request for Discussion of misc.writing and it was posted March
28. Since then, 34 people have contributed to the discussion (as of
postings received here by April 10). *No one* has objected to the
creation of a writing group.
NON-WORDS AND TECHNO-TRIVIA
Discussion of the integration of the various facets of technical
communication which aren't, strictly speaking, "writing" has taken up a
lot of bandwidth; however, this controversy has almost exclusively been
among four people. I'm therefore content to let the rather open-ended
wording of my original proposal stand.
ONE NEWSGROUP OVER ALL
Only four individuals felt strongly that a single newsgroup would be
insufficient to begin with. Almost everyone else felt that we should
see what the traffic is like first. Many said that they did more than
one kind of writing themselves or wanted to exchange ideas with writers
of other genres. Several people pointed out that all forms of writing
have much in common.
SORTING OUT THE KITCHEN SINK
Many have supported the idea of carefully identified subject lines so
that people can easily avoid those subjects they don't care to read. I
intend to encourage this strongly through a periodic posting to the
newsgroup. I have been collecting advice on kill files and other
tactics for weeding out unwanted subjects and will gladly share.
(Newsreader experts: send me your ideas, please.)
KEEP YOUR WRITING TO YOURSELF
Enough people felt strongly that misc.writing should not be a place to
post examples of one's work for critical analysis that I have amended
the charter to make it more emphatic on this point. Only two posters
supported the concept of an on-line writers' workshop at all. The idea
of the newsgroup as a meeting place for those who want to exchange works
for critiquing via e-mail was well received, however.
THERE IS A TIME FOR EVERY PURPOSE
A couple of people suggested cutting the formal discussion short; one
person objected vehemently. I was inclined to be middle of the road
until I noticed the first-time comment from Edinburgh posted on April 5,
eight days after the RFD was posted. That article took several more
days to get here. Those of you who have good connections to the
Internet tend to forget the lag-time for us out in the hinterlands
(connectively speaking). Besides, the April 28 to May 28 voting dates
work out better for processing here.
Following is the proposed misc.writing charter and supporting material,
amended slightly from its first appearance. (I took out my crack about
editors. Sorry, but I'm an officer of a Newspaper Guild unit about to
go into nasty negotiations -- conditions are definitely adversarial.)
TENTATIVE CHARTER
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Misc.writing is a forum for discussion of writing in all its forms --
scholarly, technical, journalistic, artistic and mere day-to-day
communication. It is a venue for professional writers, would-be
professionals and all those who write to communicate.
Misc.writing is primarily about writing in English. As such, it
includes consideration of linguistics, grammar and style as they relate
to composition. It is not, however, limited to discussion of writing
for print -- topics may include a variety of other media and means of
communication.
In addition to discussion about the process of writing, misc.writing
also addresses writing as a trade, including (but not limited to)
reviews of books about writing; notices of workshops and writers' group
meetings; and information about marketing and publishing. Tools for
writing may be a topic, as well.
Questions about how to write, writing problems and how to improve one's
writing are welcome, but long excerpts of written works should not be
posted. However, the group may serve as a meeting place for those who
wish to exchange works to critique via e-mail.
Although the group is general in nature, misc.writing welcomes
discussions about specific forms of writing; contributors are encouraged
to identify their topic by including explicit tags such as "TECHNICAL:"
or "JOURNALISM:" in subject lines.
Such guidelines shall be enforced by peer pressure only.
Misc.writing is an unmoderated newsgroup.
============================================================
WHY ANOTHER NEW GROUP?
Almost everyone writes -- if not books and articles, then memos to
colleagues or letters to mother. Writing is critical to most
professionals' jobs, whether it be the major part of their work or
simply the documentation of it.
At present, there is no group for general discussion of writing.
Related discussions therefore tend to be all over the net, with sci.lang
and rec.arts.books taking the brunt of them. The latter, as its
regulars should agree, is already large enough without this traffic.
Two groups on the alt.net, alt.prose and alt.prose.d exist, but they are
devoted to fiction and were, according to one of the founders, "created
primarily to allow writers to have their works of fiction (or
non-fiction, but the emphasis has always been on the former) read and
critiqued (in the .d group) by their fellow writers."
Posting of written works will be discouraged in misc.writing, where the
emphasis will be discussions of the process and business of writing.
While everyone who writes in any capacity is welcome, the primary focus
is on those who do it for a living -- on this network, that means mainly
journalists and technical writers.
Various groups in the comp hierarchy discuss aspects of technical
communication, but do not adequately provide a forum for the many
technical writers on the net.
The creation of misc.writing may be the beginning of a hierarchy. If
traffic justifies it, further groups could be proposed, along the lines of:
misc.writing
misc.writing.technical
misc.writing.journalism
misc.writing.educational
misc.writing.fiction
misc.writing.grammar
misc.writing.biff, etc.
However, we will begin with the initial group, misc.writing, and
see how it goes.
WHY MISC?
Because there is no other good fit. The rec.arts hierarchy is out
because of the professional leaning of the proposed group. It's
difficult to make a case for writing as a science, and "sci.writing"
would in any case have the effect of misleading people into thinking it
was for writing about science.
WHAT NEXT?
Post your comments to news.groups. You may also send e-mail to me at
the address below. I ask that those who have already made their
feelings known refrain from repeating themselves. If you have something
new to add, or are new to the discussion, please join in. Voting begins
April 28.
Almost everyone writes, for one reason or another, and a common ground
for discussion of the process and its peculiarities is greatly needed on
the net. Even the best of professionals can benefit from others' tips,
and those for whom writing is a necessary chore can find help from those
who do it constantly.
And if misc.writing turns out to be a means for improving the general
quality of writing on the net, all the better. Let's consider it.
--
L.A.Z. Smith leah@smith.chi.il.us
Wheeling, Illinois
leah%smith@ast.dsd.northrop.com
(If the above don't work, send mail to:
smithr@ast.dsd.northrop.com)
CONTRIBUTORS TO THE DISCUSSION THUS FAR
alberti@boombox.micro.UMN.EDU (Bob Alberti)
andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
barney@emx.utexas.edu (Barney C. McCartney)
bentson@sumax.seattleu.edu (Cindy Bentson)
clm4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Cari L. McAskill)
cnorman@ucsd.edu (Cyndi Norman)
daj@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan)
durrell@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell)
ellen@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Ellen M. McDonald)
fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Oceanstar)
fscll@acad3.alaska.edu (Christopher L. Lott)
geyer@galton.uchicago.edu (Charles Geyer)
gregory@csri.toronto.edu (Kate M. Gregory)
hans@lfcs.edinburgh.ac.uk (Hans Huttel)
hychejw@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff Hyche)
Jeff.Abbott@hub.dsg.ti.com (Jeff Abbott)
joan@med.unc.edu (Joan Shields)
jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
ken@racerx.UUCP (Ken Hardy)
leah@smith.chi.il.us (L.A.Z. Smith)
lmann%jjmhome@m2c.m2c.org (Laurie Mann)
LNH1@pasvax.physics.arizona.edu (Larry Hammer)
lvron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham)
raisch@Control.COM (Robert Raisch)
rcharman@burn.Princeton.EDU (Robert Craig Harman)
rmr@sgi.com (Robert Reimann)
salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au (Linden Salter-Duke)
sfleming@cs.hw.ac.uk (Stewart T. Fleming)
stevep@dgp.toronto.edu (Stephen Portigal)
tmaddox@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Maddox)
vortex@vpnet.chi.il.us (Jason J. Levit)
writer@irie.ais.org (Dan Romanchik)