Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 16:51:24 EST From: Wes Morgan Subject: File 4-- Readers' Reply: "Bury Usenet?" (CuD #4.10) (In response to "Bury r, Usenet," in CuD #4.10): I would like to address a point which neither Steinberg nor Sanio mentioned; the "variety" factor. I certainly agree with Steinberg's implied position that television is a vast wasteland. However, there are still many portions of the television medium which provide useful, informative services. The obvious example for US viewers is PBS, which consistently airs in- tellectually stimulating and through-provoking programs. For those of us served by cable television, the Discovery Channel, CNBC, C-SPAN, and Lifetime Medical Television are additional examples of "quality TV", in my opinion. With Usenet, we can find parallels for both "Three's Company" and the Discovery Channel. Can Steinberg deny the beneficial aspects of newsgroups such as comp.sys.sun.*, comp.unix.admin, or comp.lang.c? While there are certainly newsgroups which have degenerated into digital shouting matches, there is still a wide variety of rational, informative discussion in Usenet. Steinberg mentions the lack of "collaboration" among Usenet participants. As rebuttal to that statement, I offer the dozens of situations/problems for which I have found solutions/resolutions via Usenet newsgroups. I have been made aware of countless bugs, security holes, and "lurking" problems through Usenet. I've also participated in several beta tests of software through Usenet; I've reviewed papers and policies, received bug reports on my own code, and shared my own experiences with hundreds of Usenet readers. >He describes USENET as >"a noble but failed experiment" and suggests to abandon it and >research other directions in order to improve communications and >quality of life. Is the television or print media in danger of abandonment? I don't think so. It still serves a large group of people, whose needs and wants lie in almost every part of the intellectual spectrum. >Browsing may be hard in high-traffic boards, especially when the subject >information is poor or dated during a longer-lasting discussion thread. I'd point out that finding something decent on the television may be equally difficult; the routine location of a "quality" program on the radio is almost impossible. Of course, we all develop our own personal "schedule" of quality television and radio programs; I'm sure that each of us could easily rattle off the time slots of those programs which we find appealing. We may examine several copies of a given magazine, evaluating its relevance to, and addressing of, our needs or preferences. If a particular magazine doesn't appeal to us, we cancel that subscription (or stop borrowing it from a library or friend). I'm sure that each of us could easily rattle off the names of those magazines which we find appealing. An identical "scheduling" occurs among Usenet readers. As we participate in Usenet, we naturally dismiss those newsgroups which we find unappealing; the Usenet "subscription" mechanism implements this quite well. At one time or another, I have read every newsgroup carried by my site; over the years, that huge list has been "pared down" to those 250 newsgroups which appeal to me. I would assume that every Usenet reader does the same; I don't believe that anyone could read *every* newsgroup. Given this personal "scheduling", what is the difference between Usenet and any other medium? >- "low bandwidth", meaning messages in 80-column ASCII opposed to multi- > media communication This is an almost necessary limitation of the medium. Sites participating in Usenet run the gamut of computing systems; almost every type of computer system is represented in Usenet. While there are Crays and Suns on the net, there are also AT&T 3b1s, PCs, Macintoshes, Primes, and even (I believe) a Tandy Color Computer or two. Many Usenet sites cannot support multimedia; should those sites be excluded? Should Steinberg deprive himself of a sub- stantial audience by submitting his articles in multimedia format? >Steve's comments on poor mastership of written language sound a bit >arrogant and elitist to me. They certainly do. Does Steinberg wish to replace newsgroup moderators with "grammar police"? {sarcasm++;} Shall we accept the _MLA Handbook_ as the sole authority for Usenet style? Perhaps we should adopt "The Elements of Style" or the GPO Style Manual as our Writs of Common Wisdom. As an alternative, we may simply require a cer- tain score on the _Usenet Qualification Examination_. Of course, all pros- pective Usenet articles must be properly justified and proofread. {sarcasm--;} Usenet works; it may have a few worn springs in its digital suspension, and some of its passengers may be a bit rowdy, but it stills takes more people from point A to point B than any current alternatives. Moving on to Steinberg's comments on moderated newsgroups....... >> However, there is the insidious danger of moderator bias. Does the same danger exist in the television or print media? Does the same danger exist when you submit a book to a publisher? Does the same danger exist when you submit a paper to a journal? This "insidious danger" (as Steinberg so hyperbolically phrases it) is a natural, necessary part of the moderation/editing process. How can it be a "danger" when all participants in the process know that certain editorial standards are being applied? Most newspapers reserve the right to edit Letters to the Editor; why doesn't anyone complain about that? Newspapers do not print every letter they receive; why don't we hear a great hue and cry about that 'bias'? I believe that this behavior continues, unassailed, because all parties involved understand that it is part of the natural pro- cess. >> Whether Townsend actually censors messages he disagrees with is not >> important. Actually, Patrick is *incapable* of "censoring" messages with which he disagrees. He may choose not to include your article in his digest; that's his right/obligation as the editor/moderator. However, he is NOT censoring you; you may still distribute that article far and wide, through several different media. He has no means by which he can pre- vent you from doing this. Therefore, he is not censoring you; he is merely preventing you from using HIS service to disseminate your infor- mation and/or opinions. This is NOT censorship; it is management. While Random House may not accept your book for publication, do they prevent you from securing the services of Bantam Books as your publisher? I don't think so. Why, then, is Patrick's parallel action assailed as "censorship"? >> The perception -- and the possibility -- are there. That perception, and its related possibility, are present in every form of mass media. That possibility applies to _Newsweek_, _Southern Living_, _Byte_ and _The Edmonton Herald-News_ equally. How do you propose to eliminate this possibility in every form of mass communication? More importantly, why should an electronic journal be held to a different standard than its hardcopy counterparts? >>1: There is no danger because an alternate group with no moderator can >>be easily formed. > >This is completely orthogonal to my article on USENET. Sure, we can >start an alternate group, but this just brings us back the noise >problem and we will be no closer to a more effective USENET. Why is this orthogonal? You have now argued, in successive articles, that both unmoderated and moderated newsgroups are inefficient; how, then, shall we meet your goal of a clean, efficient electronic mass medium? >If a moderator can censor, and >many people think he is, then the newsgroup is surely less trustworthy >than an unmoderated one. Let me ask you this: do you base your entire opinion on one source of information? I read national, regional, and local newspapers; I have found that each provides a different viewpoint on the same issues. In Usenet, I read both info.academic-freedom and alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk; I have found that each provides a different viewpoint on the same issues, since one is moderated and the other is free of moderation. >I merely used Townson's newsgroup because his moderation has become >the most controversial. I don't think Townson would disagree with >this. I certainly could have used CuD as my example, and pointed out >that many people believe that the anti-hacker viewpoint is censored >from the digest, but this perception is held by fewer people. This perception may exist, but both mailing lists are experiencing sustained growth. Could it be that people accept a certain bias or influence in a given medium, just as we do with our daily newspaper or television news broadcast? Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253