From: dr@ducvax.auburn.edu (David Roller)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD:  sci.anthropology
Summary: a caution
Keywords: anthropology moderated unmoderated polluters
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:24:48 GMT

In article <1992Mar23.033734.8750@NeoSoft.com>, claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird) writes:
> 			.
> 			.
> 			.
> Feedback:  the prospect of a CFV for more than one
> newsgroup intimidates me.  Those wise to the ways
> of the Net tell me it's inherently difficult, for
> what I'll call structural reasons; accord on a hi-
> erarchy is simply a lot more involved than the usual
> up-or-down, yea-or-nay process involved in one vote
> for one group.  Moreover, the main question with
> sci.anthropology, as things stand now, is whether
> there are enough readers worldwide to warrant creation
> of a newsgroup.  Most agree that the barely-one-hundred-
> of-us aren't sufficiently numerous to support the sort
> of refinement you sensibly propose above.
> 
> I understand the desire for "definite parameters"; what
> I seek from sci.anthropology, though, *is* a "free-for-
> all", a free-for-all in which archaeologic data inform
> sociocultural speculations, or linguistic evidence is
> invoked to suggest new lines of productive primatologic
> research.  We all want, of course, to avoid the waste of
> anti-anti-...-Zionism, talk-show sociology, and related
> net pollutions.  How do we encourage one and discourage
> the other?  I'm not sure, but my reading of anthropology
> is that it's a discipline proud enough of and secure
> enough in its own interdisciplinarity to err on the side
> of inclusiveness.
> 
> I'm ready to take whatever direction is best for the
> health of sci.anthropology.  My own judgment is:  create
> one newsgroup now, define it broadly, and let it be un-
> moderated.
> -- 
> 
> Cameron Laird                           +1 713-579-4613
> claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net)
> cl@lgc.com (cl%lgc.com@uunet.uu.net)    +1 713-996-8546

I have misgivings about *starting* as an unmoderated group; I think the
problem of polluters has been <insert surperlative here> underestimated.
Also, the extreme unlikelyhood of moving from unmoderated to moderated
status seems to me to call for greater consideration of starting as a 
moderated group; there will be no other chance.

I worry that the name sci.anthropology would be a charismatic enough to 
attract the interest of a lot more, um, "participants" than those genuinely
interested in learning, and helping others learn, about anthropology.  It 
appears to me that an unmoderated group takes a while to develop into a 
group where the participants are mature enough to not squabble - I guess 
that any new group will attract the vandals; how long it takes for them 
to be bored or chased off is indeterminant.  For an unmoderated group, 
one should probably ask: 
 a) How much effort am I willing to spend discouraging vandals? 
 b) How many disillusioned potential participants are being risked?

I think there are a lot of people out there who have interesting and 
knowledgable insights, but who do not particularly enjoy posting.  These 
people are certainly not going to post if they think they'll be flamed; 
moreover, their perspective is likely to be more sensitive than those quick 
to post and flame.  I think the participation of quiter, more thoughtful 
types is worth the cost of a delay in response time.  If the delay becomes 
unacceptable, the moderated status could be removed - by then there should 
be an established culture which can discourage polluters.

Having made the case for starting as a moderated group, I feel a certain
obligation to mention some counter-arguments.  The issue of who would be
the moderator(s) is a problem.  Also, I am not an anthropologist; in the
first place, this probably means my opinion should count for less than 
others; in the second, I suspect the participation of those not directly 
in the field would be even more limited if the group were moderated.

To conclude: I would be willing to support either form of sci.anthropology,
but do want to caution those who favor an unmoderated form about the need for
vigilance - there really are belligerants out there.  My ideal would be for
sci.anthropology to be the Net equivilent of the friendly local anthroplogy 
department, where there is serious technical discussion, but also room for 
the layperson to ask somewhat naive questions.

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