From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:27:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.215127.4208@smsc.sony.com> markc@smsc.sony.com (Mark Corscadden) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.160818.19578@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>>...  We will be excluding such things as: *bian's
>>endless thread, discussions of religion and politics (which threads on
>>sci.physics often turn into), endless repeats of questions that are in
>>the FAQ, re-re-rehashes of discussions ofthe interpretations of quantum
>>mechanics, etc..
>
>How did re-re-rehashes of the interpretations of quantum mechanics make
>it's way onto the scrap heap?  How does eliminating such discussions fit
>in with the goal of making sci.physics.research "lightly" moderated?
>(No, I did not miss the "re-re-re" in "re-re-rehashes".)
>
>I'm looking at the original proposal from Matt Austern, and the goal
>seems to be to eliminate clearly inappropriate articles, that is, noise
>having nothing to do with legitimate physics.  Do discussions of the
>interpretations of quantum mechanics really fit that category, in all
>fairness?  Things covered in the FAQ, yes; but a comprehensive FAQ on
>QM interpretations doesn't exist.  Maybe that's because there isn't
>enough consensus to allow a comprehensive FAQ entry to be written.

     No, and this is an extremely poor instructional medium in some
     respects (maybe in most respects).  The FAQ can never be a textbook,
     nor can the group.  I think once no substantial new information is being
     exchanged it should should be cut off.  As far as the time-delay
     before such a subject with exactly the same information as before
     can come up again, I suppose that should be when whoever receives
     it has forgotten the last time he posted on the same subject.
     I'm hoping that this will not happen often, and that we can
     discuss new information with each iteration of a subject (though
     maybe with some old thrown in).

>I've found the discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics
>to be very valuable and educational, and other discussions which would
>be of little interest to professionals.  Are people who are intensely
>interested in physics but committed to some other career path (like
>software engineering) going to find sci.physics.research to be a
>more-or-less hostile environment where their curiosity is not welcome?

     I hope not.  I was hoping that the presence of someone outside
     physics proper might indicate that all are welcome.

>There are always going to be new readers as well; will they find that
>they are not very welcome too since their topics of interest were already
>discussed last year and the year before (no re-re-rehashes)?

     New readers are a problem.  I know that I read Usenet for over 
     a year and a half before posting anything.  That would be an 
     extreme suggestion, but one should probably sit around for a while
     listening to the hubbub.  If one does this, such rererehashes are
     bound to come up a couple of times in sci.physics.  Even if
     one doesn't wait, if the poster is redirected to sci.physics,
     the necessary rerererehash can occur.

     But we have exactly the same problems with connectivity.  I know
     that my reception is different from UNC's which is different
     from Brett McInnes's out there across the ocean.  Things will
     be missed.

>What about a compromise?  For certain topics like the interpretations
>of quantum mechanics the moderators could mandate a standard subject
>line, requiring that it start with "QMI" for example, to allow a simple
>killfile entry to be used by the non-interested.  Would that be enough?

     I hope that this is not necessary.  It seems to somewhat mitigate
     the purpose of the new group.

                               dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926