From: dr@ducvax.auburn.edu (David Roller)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.anthropology (LONG) (long response, too)
Summary: Usenet and Science culture clash problems
Keywords: moderation anthropology vote pollution
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:08:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr09.153022.4395@NeoSoft.com>, claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird) writes:
> I summarize the sci.anthropology discussion as it
> has crossed my screen:
> A.  non-issues  <which I've deleted>
> B.  issues:
>     1.  CFV:  <also deleted>
>     2.  moderation:  the majority of respondents have
>             written, "gosh, look how awful sci.archaeology
>             and sci.history have been; oh, well, go ahead
>             without moderation, the advantages still out-
>             weigh the disadvantages", or words close to
>             those.  A few people, though, have swayed me
>             considerably with the observation that the
>             target audience for sci.anthropology is
>             culturally different from that for, say,
>             comp.unix.msdos.  Yes, sci.anthropology readers
>             can, on a technical level, simply ignore ("kill")
>             messages that are ill-considered, un-anthropologic,
>             or hostile.  However, one of the aims common to many
>             of us is to invite the anthropologic community onto
>             the global electronic village, and first encounters
>             with the bombardments of the cyberNazis and anti-anti-
>             anti-...-Turcophiles are sure to convince them that
>             the internets are Bad Ideas (and maybe they'd be
>             right ...).
>  <remainder deleted>

When you open a new news group on the net, you are in effect opening it to the
whole world, and a lot of people out there don't have a _science_ education,
or an appreciation of conventions and worldviews that people with a science 
education take for granted.  Basic stuff, like:

   - being careful to direct arguments toward the *idea* rather than
       toward the person who presented the idea;
   - an appreciation for how long, and how much work it takes, to 
       even begin to have a measure of competence in a scientific field;
   - being careful in communicating, whether reading other's work,
       or presenting one's own view (see also below);
   - the difference between science and technology 
       (Two observations here:  1. It quickly gets tiresome to wade through
       yet another post about how scientific inquiry is a frivilous luxury
       compared to the Really Important stuff, which has Economic Value.
       2. Many polluters have good technical backgrounds, and apparently 
       infer from their successes that they also understand science, 
       *whatever* the field);
   - recognizing when you are out of your field;
   - being, well, a little humble, since there's always a chance
       that you're wrong.  

I've noticed (at least) a couple of common problems with this culture clash:
 1) Those with a scientific education/background will tend to understate their 
   case, while the others are more lax in their accuracy.  Many without a 
   scientific background will present a notion they just crocked up with a 
   greater strength of assurance that someone with a scientific background
   would present mainstream thought.  For a reader, this can be (at least)
   confusing and irratiting.  Moreover, the ego of the polluters is often 
   too large to listen or admit error.
 2) Those without a scientific background seem to believe that science is
   about having arguments, and usenet is about entertainment and retorical
   prowess.  For example, people with no apparent competence in a field 
   will "ask" elementary questions in a belligerent manner.  I've seen cases
   where, had the "challenge" been presented in a non-freshman course, the 
   polluter would have either been laughed out of the classroom, or asked 
   to leave, *probably by the students* (I doubt I'm the only person to 
   have see this - it's too common).  On usenet, the "challenges" may well
   be perceived as credible (I have seen cases where the bogus "challenge" 
   has rallied other polluters to repeat the "challenge"), and any effort 
   to intercede carries a significent risk of exciting the polluter to 
   increase posting, expanding the range to personal attacks.

I suspect the crux of the difficulty is a misunderstanding of the nature and
purpose of scientific disputes.  In a typical scientific dispute, there is a 
strong underlying agreement that the primary goal is to understand, not to
win some debate, or appear enormously clever.  When this goal is not shared,
it is at best a significant waste of time, it is usually disruptive, and it
can be quite unpleasant.

I think the avoidance of these problems is worth the *response time delay*
of moderation.  On the other hand, I am sensitive to the time constraints of
the moderator - I ment to post this several days ago; I had to consciously
set the time aside to post now.  If sci.anthropology ends up *not* being
moderated, I think there should be a conscious, concerted effort to 
establish and maintain a convival, _science_ (I'm not sure what else to
call it) culture.  It may take a non-trivial effort, as the polluters seem 
to have a lot more time available for posting than non-polluters.

*Soapbox mode on*
  I do not accept the argument that "this is Usenet, the flame fests and 
pollution are part of Usenet, and if one doesn't like it, they should stay 
out (or use kill files)".  I've seen counter-examples; more importantly I've
seen too many cases where some of the best contributors have simply bailed
out because of pollution and attacks; in some cases I've been unaware of
the attacks (or they seemed mild by usenet standards), in other cases the
attacks were obvious and not mild, but were tolerated by the other members
of the news group.  [There are a number of reasons one might implicitly
tolerate, through silence, such attacks: One could be too busy, find the
attacks so incredulous that one can't believe any sane person would make
them, be disinterested in the particular thread (perhaps not seeing it 
because of a kill file), not perceive it as *their* fight, or be reluctant
to be attacked oneself.  Unfortunately, such silence is indistinguishable 
from the silence of one who thinks the attack has value, or *is* justified.]
  In a _science_ culture, such attacks and pollution would be considered
deviant; I submit the payoff of that culture is worth considerable effort.
*Soapbox mode off*

	D.R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Roller  |  Internet = dr@ducvax.auburn.edu   |  "Because we're all
Auburn Univ.  |    Bitnet = dr@auducvax            |   in this together."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------