From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Subject: Re: Reluctant call moder(and sci.physics.research-NOT!)
Summary: The "researcher" and Usenet 
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:33:02 GMT

In article <MERRITT.92Dec23122850@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>Perhaps not facist, narrow sighted is a better term. I still think
>that it will be a very boring place.

So don't read it.  The professionals on the net tend to find sci.physics
"boring" as it is; we will be much happier, I predict, reading the moderated --
and therefore, we hope, content-rich -- research group that you find "boring."
I know of no dictum that says that Usenet discussion groups must be
"entertaining;" some of us hope that they will be beneficial as well.  Don't
let *your* boredom decrease *our* benefit from the net.

>Correct. If your a graduate student you should be working on your thesis
>not reading the USENET(libraries are still the prefered source of info) . 
>I you are a researcher chances are your reading USENET for a break, 
>or relaxation(as might a grad student)in which case the last thing you
>want to do is discuss your reasearch.

There are two major flaws in this reasoning.  First, few researchers of any
reasonable proficiency are unwilling to discuss their research, particularly
in a forum where it might be well received, as it would in a research-oriented
community of news readers such as sci.physics.research might (we hope *would*)
generate.  Usenet is more "conversational" than "publicational," which is
relevant: it has been very much my experience that the researcher will like
TALKING about research, whether we like writing about it or not.  It is my
hope that sci.physics.research will be a forum for exactly that: researchers
"talking" about research in a much more colloquial sense than is achievable
in professional journals.  Researchers *will* participate in such a forum; we
already do, albeit with some reluctance owing to the unsatisfactory nature of
the forum as it now exists.

Second, even the most reticent researcher likes ASKING about things, for the
simple and obvious reason that research is not conducted in a vacuum.  Much
of a researcher's time is spent swapping yarns with others in the business
and poking around for solutions to problems encountered in the research.  The
Usenet sci groups are marginally useful for this poking around, precisely
because the noise in the unmoderated groups has driven so many researchers
away.  A moderated group, in which the busy researcher could ask the questions
with some assurance that the answers will be worth reading and that it won't
be necessary to wade through a pile of dreck to find them, is likely to look
much better in this regard, and may -- one hopes -- even get some of the
professionals back into the system.

One other point is that the moderated nature of sci.physics.research is not
necessarily designed just to restrict participation to "researchers."  The
definition of "research" is likely to be quite broad indeed, particularly (at
least in my view as a potential co-moderator) when it comes to people asking
for answers to questions.  (Personally, as a co-moderator, I would try to
re-direct many or most of the resulting answers to the poster via e-mail,
but that's a separate issue.)

Look -- if you don't like a moderated group for physics issues, that's fine;
don't read it.  But there *are* people whose interests are served by such a
group, and to oppose it because it is "boring" does those people a
disservice.  And the unmoderated group sci.physics will continue to exist, for
the entertainment (what else can it be called?) of those who find the more
serious group "boring."

-- 
Bill Johnson				| My suggestion for an Official
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| Usenet Motto: "If you have nothing
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| to say, then come on in, this is the
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| place for you, tell us all about it!"