From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: Re: Usenet Culture (Was: Re: CFV? What's a CFV??)
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: HMC Academic Computing Services
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:31:06 GMT

In a prior article, Chip Salzenberg (chip@tct.com) writes:
> I believe in the demographic shift.  But I choose not to spend my
> volunteer time making ignorance more comfortable.

An interesting and revealing comment. Get ready for a philosophical
meandering.

The Macintosh made it possible for a lot of people who don't really
understand computers to use one, often for fairly powerful things. However,
the fact remained (and remains) that a lot of Mac users are fairly clueless
technically. To get the causality straight here, using a Mac does not cause
you to become technically inept: the technically inept are drawn to the Mac,
because it doesn't REQUIRE as much technical eptitude. Proficient folks can
certainly do more with it than neophytes, but the fact remains that the
Macintosh really is, to some extent, "the computer for the rest of us."

I think the trend has spread beyond the Macintosh, and that Gordon's
previous post was observing that trend. Computers are becoming less arcane,
which means that the standards for users and admins are dropping. The net is
growing, but the average level of competence is dropping as a direct result
of that.

Is this a good thing? If you have to become a techno-squid to use computers,
few people will want to become techno-squids, and thus few people will use
computers--but those who do will be expert. On the other hand, if any Joe
Schmoe can use a computer, there will be a lot more computer-use going on,
but the average quality of the users will drop. So whether this is a good
trend or not depends on whether you like widespread computing or user
quality.

It's a common dilemma between quality and quantity. Very few people are
certified neurosurgeons, because it takes a lot of hard work and talent to
become one. You don't hear people demanding that medical schools make it
easier to get certified, though, because it's seen as preferable to have a
few high-quality neurosurgeons rather than thousands of quacks and
incompetents. On the other hand, the vote in this country is extended to
anyone who can sign their name (you don't even have to be able to read, if
someone else tells you what to mark and where to sign), because it's seen as
more desirable to have a lot of voters rather than a particularly
intelligent electorate. We could only extend the vote to PhD's, and it would
probably improve the quality of the electorate's decision-making (though
whether a PhD is a useful measure of intelligence is an open question--pick
whatever standard you like). But, in the name of fairness, or egalitarianism,
or whatever, we let people vote even if they're not particularly clued.

And so this is the question for the net: do we want to make it difficult to
participate in Usenet, so as to insure that the particpaants will be truly
worthy/deserving/educated/what-have-you? Or do we want to try to make the
net more accessible to everyone, at the cost of introducing more bumbling
neophytes? Now, I'm sure Chip doesn't want to require an IQ test for net
access (well, pretty sure anyway), and I'm sure Gordon doesn't want to give
every thirteen-year-old in the country an e-mail account. But the point is
that there may be two competing philosophical approaches here, and both may
have their points.

Comments? I'll say more about how to reconcile the two views in a later post.
-- 
Josh Smith, User Support Coordinator  ::  irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA     ::  consult(std-disclaimer.pl).
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why
several of us died of tuberculosis." -Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts