From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CFV? What's a CFV??
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:27:47 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov's message of 17 Nov 92 19:56:51 -0400

In article <1992Nov17.235651.17091@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes (quoting me):
>>I'm sure you can find counterexamples (maybe you *are* a
>>counterexample), but it seems to me that there is a pretty broad
>>USENET consensus (among the knowledgeable) that one should read the
>>appropriate documents and take a little time familiarizing oneself
>>with the conventions and procedures of USENET before posting,
>>particularly to administrative groups concerned with the net's
>>configuration.
>
>That may have been workable a few years ago, but the USENET consensus
>you describe doesn't actually represent more than a handfull of people
>in comparison with readership surveys.

I still believe it represents a consensus among the knowledgeable.
The non-knowledgeable ought to be spending more energy becoming
knowledgeable before spending energy posting stupid (yes, you heard
me: "stupid") questions to an international readership.

>Lots of sites do NOT GET news.groups, and hence do not get "the net
>consensus". Some users have no idea that conventions and procedures
>exist (especially if they read ALT).

Then let those people stick to alt.  That's what it's there for, and I
think the "consensus" I've been describing (and it's damned
uncomfortable trying to speak for it, so take this stuff with a grain
of salt) allows for quite a bit of leeway over there.

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.

>What is so wrong with erring on the side of caution and being as clear
>as it hurts to be?

Nothing.  What is so wrong with expecting people to "err on the side
of caution" and put a bit of effort into researching a topic before
posting a question to the entire network?  I'd call most of the FAQ
documents I've read "as clear as it hurts to be," whatever that means.

>>Does the opinion of this consensus group count for more than the
>>collective opinion of all those freshmen and BBS "hackers" [used in
>>its semi-deleterious sense] who think it's OK to just post messages
>>with trivial and basic questions to a worldwide audience that is
>>trying to read the details of the aforesaid network configuration?  My
>>opinion is Yes, it does.
>
>Are we now debating who does and does not have a right to express an
>opinion and participate in net.politics, by virtue of current or
>chosen life standards? 

Oh, here we go.  Express an opinion contrary to the prevailing view
that all viewpoints and all opinions are exactly morally and
informationally equal, and the topic of "rights" instantly rears its
ugly head.  And what exactly are "chosen life standards"?  

I don't think it's relevant to an evaluation of someone's political
posts that he has "chosen" to wear Tie-Dye T-Shirts to fancy
restaurants.  

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.  

So I guess the answer is No, and Yes.

>That sounds pretty elitist to me. Are you sure that's what you wanted
>to convey?

I didn't intend directly to convey an attitude of elitism, though I
could probably be accurately accused of a generally elitist outlook.
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.)

>>A great deal of effort has gone into providing the swiftest and most
>>concise possible introduction to the conventions of this network.
>
>I'm not invalidating that at all. I'm merely suggesting that it is
>still insufficient and vague and difficult to access for those who do
>not know they should even access it.

"Ignorance is no excuse."  Actually, sometimes ignorance is an excuse,
but in the case that sparked this whole thread, I don't think it was.

Also, if you have specific suggestions as to how to improve any of the
basic FAQ documents, the new group creation procedure, or any other
aspect of this network's operations, we'd all love to hear them.
(That's me acting as officially-designated Consensus Spokesman again.)
If not, it doesn't mean you're not allowed to criticize, of course,
but I would like to know what defects you're referring to.  I find
that the newsgroup creation procedure document is far from vague and,
in fact, quite easy to access for those who put the most minimal
effort into using this net properly.

>>This thread was started when someone responded tersely and annoyed-ly
>>to some dolt who decided it was easier for him to post the question
>>"What does CFV stand for?" and sit back and wait for replies than to
>>do an extremely minimal amount of research on his own and educate
>>himself. 
>
>"Some Dolt"...hmmm...are you a system administrator and do you have
>users? 

Yes, and Yes.

>Do you call them dolts? 

No, I use the synonym for dolt:  "user"  [that's a joke].

>Some people aren't as good as we are about ferreting out relavent
>documentation. I have come to this conclusion after adminstering
>computers for quite a number of years and watching people ask me
>questions while the open documentation was sitting there on the page
>of interest. 

You were lucky.  Most of the questions I get are from users (and
students, for that matter) whose documentation is still in the box, in
the shrink wrap, sitting in the corner of their offices.

My favorite user story might be relevant here (and if not, it's still
entertaining):  

My office-mate and I were working when a user (a fellow faculty member
with a Ph.D. in computer science, you understand) came in and asked
about graphics "tools" on our Sun system.  (Most of the time this guy
was asking fairly basic Unix questions, which I didn't mind too much,
but he never seemed to pick up on the fact that I was always showing
him how to get man pages on commands he was asking me about.)  

I replied that I wasn't an expert with those particular tools, but
that I could provide him with the appropriate documentation.  His
exasperated reply: "Have you ever tried to *read* those Sun manuals?"
Before I could respond, my office-mate (bless his heart) piped up
with, "Yes, he has.  And that's why you're always in here asking him
how to do things."  It was truly a beautiful moment.  (And just for
the record, I share that user's frustration with Sun manuals.  It was
still a great response.)

>It is faster for most people to ask a human for answers than it is to
>ferret things out, search for relavence, and skim topics.

It's only "faster" for the half who's asking.  It slows down the rest
of us who try to wade through all the noise on newsgroups where FAQ's
are designed to suppress a lot of it.  

>>3) Give every user desiring net access a quiz (and a damn hard one)
>>about basic "netiquette" and proper procedures for getting
>>questions answered, as well as the basics of the newsreading 
>>software
>
>And this destroys the very spirit USENET thrives on. 

Come now.  "Destroys"?  The "very spirit"?  "Imminent death of net
predicted: film at 11."

>I wouldn't do this myself. 

But you just finished saying that a problem endemic to the net is that
most users don't know how to find (or even that they are supposed to
find) the basic documents that clarify procedures and conventions
here.  (I don't buy this excuse, myself, but I'll grant it for the
sake of argument.)  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'd also imagine most people wouldn't go to the trouble unless they
>perceived some value to it...which is hard to perceive unless you've
>actually used the net.

This is a good point.  Let me modify my original statement to say that
I'd only restrict access to news *posting* software.  All users would
be granted unlimited reading privileges, but would be required to
demonstrate a bit of knowledge before posting.  (I'm not talking about
encyclopedic knowledge here:  just a few basics.)  I'm no expert on
the news-reading software, but I think that implementing this would be
trivial.

>>Well, you got what you asked for, in spades:  a "random" USENET user
>>weighing in on the question of whether one view of what is important
>>in USENET use is more valid than another.  And, if you disagree, then
>>please explain to me within this "situational" context why I should
>>not have crossposted this article to sci.physics and rec.autos.driving.
>
>I disagree and you probably SHOULD have crossposted this to those
>groups.

D'oh!  There goes my reductio ad absurdam!
--
 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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.frp.misc