Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:11:19 CDT
From:         Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Final Comments on Lurkers

6 Messages, 164 Lines
*-----
Moderator's Note:  The idea of a Lurker's Week was an interesting concept
and the discussion that followed, on both the week and the word, raised
many interesting comments and observations.  PACS-L deeply appreciates
our contributors and we are equally appreciative of our lurkers, readers,
observers, and just plain subscribers.  So welcome back to those who
sat out "Lurker's Week" and thanks to those who contributed to the
discussion.  We hope all of you will feel welcome to read PACS-L
regularly and contribute when you have the interest and the time.
Now on to other topics!  Thanks.
--Dana Rooks, Moderator, PACS-L
*-----
From:         Elizabeth Lane <ELANE3@UA1VM>
Subject:      Re: lurker, the word not the week

Elizabeth Villeponteaux writes:
>No one -- not even the writer of a jargon dictionary, however authoritative a
>source it may be -- can simply declare a term to be no longer pejorative and
>expect that to be the end of it.  We are using English in these discussions,
>and the term already has a meaning, with most definitely pejorative
>connotations.

Well, there is some truth there. However, there are two things to keep in
mind. First, English is by no means a language that cannot tolerate
changes in meaning based on revised usage; compare a few definitions in
the 2nd and 3rd editions of the American Heritage Dictionary and you'll
have proof of that. Second, meanings are often different basedon context
and culture. In the distinct culture of computing, the term "lurker" does
not have the same pejorative sense that the first dictionary definition
provided here conveyed. What the person quoting the hacker's dictionary
was doing was showing that the meaning of the word was variable.

This all seems to me to be a bit of an overreaction; someone seems to
have taken offense at the use of the term, and we're now getting more
worked up about it than the issue really demands. Would it be so much to
ask for those unfamiliar with the term in this context to accept that in
this environment, it is not meant in a derogatory sense?

| Elizabeth Lane                   Internet: elane3@ua1vm.ua.edu |
| University of Alabama            BITNET:   ELANE3@UA1VM        |
*-----

From:      "Walt Crawford" <BR.WCC@RLG>
Subject:   Readers, not lurkers

A brief comment following "lurkers' week":

Yes, the term "lurker" is pejorative; my sense is that
computer insiders (like most insiders) tend to come up
with pejorative names for those who aren't insiders.

How about "reader"? And, as with any successful
publication, it's the readers as well as the (far
fewer) writers who make PACS-L worthwhile.
As one who seems to be tending toward readership
these days...

PS: My little connectedness-and-creativity
spot-check made it into the November 4 Chronicle
of Higher Education, Page A17. Unfortunately, it
doesn't mention PACS-L by name.
-walt crawford-
 br.wcc@rlg (BITNET); br.wcc@rlg.stanford.edu (Internet)
*-----

From:     <WARES@FORDMRH1>
Subject:  end of the "lurking" controversy

Why can't we all agree:
        1. Maybe "lurkers" was an unfortunate word; but ...
        2. No offense was intended
and then forget about it?
                                 Michael Wares
                                 Fordham University Library
                                 Bitnet:wares@fordmrh1
                                 Internet:wares@rhoda.fordham.edu
*-----

From: UNIVERSITEITSBIBLIOTHEEK KU NIJMEGEN <J.Verbaas@ubn.kun.nl>
Subject: Re: lurker, the word not the week

Let's stop talking about 'lurking'.

A 'lurking' dutchman
*-----

From: mcohen@stmarys-ca.edu (Martin Cohen)
Subject: Lurking

I'm induced to speak by the comments of Bess Villeponteaux.

Being accustomed to both read and write, but knowing that the
world would be a mad place if people wrote as much as they
read AND expected that many people would read what they wrote
(i.e. if everyone were writing for "publication" but few felt
the obligation to read substantially more than they wrote),
I have not felt uncomfortable continuing to 'lurk'.

Wordplay aside, it seems to me that those who contribute to the
discussion, question-and-answer, etc on lists have a legitimate
concern about the fact that many read but few write. Except for
those who would like to use the lists as vanity presses, or
clubs where they preen but reject the comments of others (neither
of which seems a fair characterization of this list) - it
seems to me that they are noting that a medium of communication
which can be used for people to speak may be turning into one
in which a few professional communicators speak, and the rest
of us listen. In that sense, they are right to be concerned about
"lurkers." There's already enough of professional communicators
chatting with one another on radio and TV talk shows, newspaper
columns and opinion leaders.

Do let us speak where we have the chance (and the time).

Martin Cohen, Saint Mary's College Library, Moraga CA
*-----

From:         Dan Lester <ALILESTE@IDBSU>
Subject:      the TRUE meaning of "lurker"

>From: rtennant@library.Berkeley.EDU (Roy Tennant)
>I had been "lurking" about the "lurker" discussion, until finally I
>lost my composure entirely and looked up "lurker" with my MS-Word
>online thesaurus. This is what I found.
>
>"Lurk" synonyms: sneak, prowl, creep, slink, steal, skulk, glide

Big deal, Roy.  I've never known a librarian yet who considered any
one dictionary or thesaurus to be the be-all and end-all for definitions.
Usually, librarians use appropriate specialist dictionaries when
they are looking for specialist definitions.

Although I will not argue with the ones shown, my Webster's New World
(in paper format) lists several definitions for lurk, and also elaborates
on most of the "synonyms" you list.  The second of three definitions
of "lurk" in my dictionary is: "to exist undiscovered or unobserved",
which seems to fit perfectly for those who read the lists and never
or rarely post.    That definition does NOT seem negative to me.

>denotations are decidedly negative? At the risk of derailing
>network lore, can I suggest a substitute? How about "observer?".

   You can suggest anything you want, of course, but don't count on
it catching on.  The paper version of The New Hacker's Dictionary
says a lurker is:  "One of the 'silent majority' in a electronic forum;
one who posts occasionally or not at all but is known to read the
group's postings regularly.  This term is not pejorative and indeed
is casually used reflexively: 'Oh, I'm just lurking.'  Often used in
_the lurkers,_ the hypothetical audience for the groups flamage-emitting
regulars."

   Yes, I'm back from 14 days of lurking....and hope that neither Roy
nor others will consider this to be flamage.....
   Remember, "lurker" is NOT pejorative, and represents the MAJORITY
of those receiving this list.  Perhaps we should ALL be thankful that
all 4000 don't post every day, and that I've taken two weeks off from
posting.

* Dan Lester                          Bitnet:   alileste@idbsu              *
* Associate University Librarian      Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu    *
* Boise State University                                                    *
* Boise, Idaho  83725                 BSU and I have a deal: I don't speak  *
* 208-385-1234                        for them and they don't speak for me. *