discussion caliber

From
Date
Reply-To

I apologize in advance for continuing this discussion, but I believe I
have some important points to make.  Please bear with me.

jlipps@ucmp1.Berkeley.EDU (Jere H. Lipps) writes:

> So I am not complaining about amateur or passing interested persons
> posting technical and well thought out comments to our lists, but I
> don't think the kind very general, off-the-cuff silly stuff, and
> talks between folks like I see more and more of on the dinosaur
> list, will promote the professional use of PaleoNet, MicroPal,
> RadFolks, etc.  Once these things get cluttered with too many
> non-technical comments, people will begin to ignore them as a useful
> forum.  The dinosaur list, in my opinion, is approaching that.

To rephrase Una Smith's response, the character and usefulness
(however defined) of a newsgroup or mailing list is established by its
contributors.  Keeping that in mind, Jere, if you don't like what
you're starting to see in the dinosaur list, say it *THERE* not here.
As a subscriber and potential contributor, you are in a position to
fix the problem you perceive.  You can also do so as a subscriber and
contributor to *THIS* list.  By choosing to complain about the
dinosaur list *HERE*, you're having the opposite effect.  Many of the
people most capable of maintaining a high level discussion on the
dinosaur list are here, some of whom are subscribed there, others of
whom are not.  Those that are subscribed may be less likely to
complain about frivolous messages there after finding out that people
such as yourself are already starting to see the group as useless
(i.e. they'll think "why bother?").  Others here may choose not to
subscribe based upon the impressions that they're getting from
statements such as yours above.

I'm not suggesting that all professional paleontologists put in the
God-like efforts that Tom Holtz has put in during the past year, but
anything you write will influence what else is written there.  If you
don't like what's going on on the list, you can choose to make it
better rather than choosing to abandon it.  Personally, *I'd* prefer
that you choose the former, and am here encouraging you and everyone
else subscribed to both lists to do so.  As I wrote in response to a
complaint about a message sent to the dinosaur list ten days ago:

  Currently, if you see something that you think doesn't belong here,
  your three options are a) send mail to the person who sent out the
  message telling them that you didn't like their message (and
  preferably give them reasons), b) write to the list to voice your
  concern and see if (or try to get) others (to) share it and c) write
  to me (or someone else) and ask them to voice your concern allowing
  you to remain anonymous.

Please exercise any or all of these options before throwing in the
towel.

As Phillip Bigelow wrote:

: As far as whether this particular listserver will become polluted
: with amateurs, cranks, and other crack-pots; that's mostly up to the
: professionals, isn't it?

Yes, it is.  And (aside from performing some damage control for the
dinosaur list), I'm writing here because I think that some decisions
need to be made (at least implicitly) about *THIS* list.  Una Smith
wrote:

} IMHO, the single most important determinant of the behavior of new
} contributors to a forum, regardless whether mailing list or
} newsgroup, is the behavior of the current contributors.

While I still agree with that whole-heartedly, there are ways of
controlling it other than the passive and quasi-active ways that I and
others here have been advocating.  Mailing lists can be moderated, and
subscriptions can be made subject to approval by the list's owner.
Those that really feel that signal/noise is going to be a problem here
should consider creating a new list, or changing the current policies
by which Paleonet is maintained.  In the interests of maintaining some
semblence of signal on this list, I recommend that if you feel that
way you should make your opinion known to the list owners rather than
the entire list.  The owners are the only people in a position to act
upon such opinions, so it's a senseless waste for you to broadcast
them to everyone.

Once again, sorry for the diversion and thanks for your patience.

-- 
Mickey Rowe     (rowe@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu)