From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CFV? What's a CFV??
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:07:14 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov's message of 19 Nov 92 05:35:37 -0400

In article <1992Nov19.093537.14856@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes, quoting me:
>[on motivation for users' "decreasing their own ignorance"]
>However, the motiviation for doing so in a depth-wise manner has some
>correlation with the perceived utility of the subject matter.  If the
>utility of the information is not known until one has contemplated the
>ramifications thereof, how can you imply that the motivation should be
>there?

Well, why are they doing it now?  It's not hard to post, but it's
slightly non-trivial for a new USENET reader.  Right now a user has to
step over a one-foot fence to post.  I'm asking that he have to climb
over a three-foot fence.  It's not to exclude anyone (though I'm not
shedding any tears at the prospect of losing the input of anyone too
lazy to read a FAQ before posting), but to increase the initial
quality of their input.  (The fence analogy is a lousy one because
climbing a fence doesn't improve a person's ability to make use of his
new location, whereas a quiz on USENET procedures does.  I am doing
the best I can.)

>>A site that doesn't get news.groups whose management (or users) think
>>should have an equal voice in USENET's configuration is a screwed-up
>>site.
>
>Again, unwilling ignorance ("I didn't even know that was open for
>discussion") is not a justification for coercion or negativity.

Well, coercion doesn't seem to be an issue here.  As for "negativity,"
shouldn't we be negative about ignorance (willing or unwilling)?  If
we're not even willing to declare ignorance a bad thing (it does not
require that we condemn the ignorant to do so), then we deserve the
abysmal S/N ratio we have now.

>>And what exactly are "chosen life standards"?  
>
>I was referring to the apparently demeaning use of "BBSers" and "Hackers".

My parenthetical note about my use of the word "hackers" was intended
to indicate that I meant this in the sense of someone who is impressed
with his newfound net access but is in reality simply making an ass of
himself.  I'm a "hacker culture" guy, myself, from way back.  

>>However, I do think it's relevant to an evaluation of someone's posts
>>in news.groups, for example, that his "chosen life standards" include
>>near-willful ignorance of the USENET conventions on the subject and a
>>wanton disregard for contributing pure noise to a forum that already
>>has way too much noise.  
>
>Well, some BBSers do that and some don't. 

I didn't mean that the fact someone uses a BBS to read and post (as
opposed to .edu, .com, etc. sites) automatically means he fits the
type I'm talking about, and I'm sorry I left that impression.  I was
making use of a stereotype as a sort of conceptual shorthand.

>>Sadly, a great many people seem to believe that the "elitist" view
>>that some opinions should and do count for more than others (trivial,
>>reductio ad absurdam examples provided on request) translates into a
>>desire to see all "non-qualified" opinions somehow suppressed or
>>stamped out.  Those people are wrong.  (Whoops, there I go again.)
>
>If you cite the example of news.groups...I'd say that these people
>are plentiful. 

Which people?  The "wrong" ones, or the ones who want to stamp out
"non-qualified" opinions?  And keep in mind a lot hinges on your
definition of "stamp out."

>Yes, I did. A user can only become aware if they wish it. To force 
>awareness on them (by means of the carrot of access) is not my 
>responsibility.

No, it certainly isn't, and I was very careful not to suggest that
what I proposed ought to be a "responsibility" of sysadmins of news
sites.  Hypothetically, it might be a better world if it were, but I'm
not advocating that step at all.  I'm just saying it's what *I* would
do before allowing users to post, just because I don't want "homework
on the net" questions and lot of FAQs going out from
*.scs.usna.navy.mil (the domain I administer).  Call it institutional
pride.

>>Do you have a better solution, or should we all just tolerate
>>unlimited noise on every group, without ever expressing disapproval,
>>for fear of being branded "elitist"?
>
>(I hate to say this) I *will* make the attempt to come up with one.

Well, good luck.  Better men than I have been there, tried and failed.
I think the current system is quite good (I echo here the sentiments
of those who have noted how bad things might be if it *weren't* for
the FAQs), but something does need to be done.  If access is spread
wider and wider at the current exponential rate, without any barriers
at all to active participation, we'll have a pretty ugly, useless
network in the space of a few years.  I'll be long gone from it by
then, but I still don't much like the prospect.  (Note that this isn't
"imminent death of the net predicted," it's "not-so-imminent
uselessness of the net predicted," a far safer prediction.)
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~