use rules for internet mailing lists

[Diane Lewis]

> Date:          Wed, 2 Jul 1997 22:04:07 -0700
> Reply-to:      jqj at darkwing.uoregon.edu
> From:          "JQ Johnson" <jqj at darkwing.uoregon.edu>
> To:            Multiple recipients of list <web4lib at library.berkeley.edu>
> Subject:       use rules for internet mailing lists

> As the discussion on web4lib has become increasingly strident and the
> signal to noise ratio has decreased, I've begun to wonder whether a change
> in the posting policy would be in order.  I suggest this change not just
> for web4lib, but also as a topic that itself is worthy of discussion on the
> list, since web-based access to discussion lists is within the purview of
> web4lib.
> 
> Many courses at the University of Oregon use email discussions.  One of the
> recommendations I make to faculty setting up a discussion is that they set
> parameters for student participation.  In addition to a small grade
> component being assigned for participation, I always recommend that the
> faculty member set both minimum and maximum participation limits
> (depending, on the number of students in the course, naturally).  I've seen
> a strong correlation between such limits and successful pedagical use of
> computer mediated discussion.  For example, a typical recommended rule for
> a 100-student class (adapted from one faculty member's syllabus) is:
> 
>   Each student is required to post a minimum of two thought-
>   provoking messages to the group.  In order to avoid having
>   the on-line discussion become unmanageable, each student will
>   also have a maximum number of posted messages of 2 per week.
>   Also any given message should be no longer than 50 lines of
>   text.
> 
> My questions:
> 
> 1/ What guidelines can librarians suggest to improve the quality (and
> information content) of electronic discussions?
> 2/ for web4lib, would it be appropriate to have a similar max limit to the
> one my faculty member imposes, perhaps phrased as a guideline rather than a
> hard limit?
> 
> JQ Johnson                      office: 115F Knight Library
> Academic Education Coordinator  e-mail: jqj at darkwing.uoregon.edu
> 1299 University of Oregon       voice: 1-541-346-1746
> Eugene, OR  97403-1299          fax: 1-541-346-3485
> 
Non-technical response to a non-technical question.  Those opposed to 
theoretical discussion should hit their "delete" key.  

Interesting concept, JQ.  Not sure I would want to impose any limit on 
the number of times someone might wish to post.  Even the most 
garrulous of us sometimes has a pertinent point to make.  I'd hate to 
lose that chance by imposing an arbitrary limit when the "delete" key 
works so well for extraneous material.  

I'm not even sure I agree with the imposition of this gag rule in a 
class.  Imagine if the professor required that everyone speak at 
least twice in class discussion and also limited  participation to a 
certain number.  

I'd be really frustrated if  I could not speak 
whenever I thought it pertinent or I could not hear from certain 
members of the class because they'd reached their limit.  People would 
end up only contributing when they were very certain our point was relevant 
and actually hoarding their thoughts.  

In my experience with conversation, someone can say something 
that seems totally off the wall and spark someone else to a really 
creative thought.  Why is online discussion so different from the "live" 
kind?  Sorry to be so wordy, but I felt your point worthy of 
discussion.
Diane M. Lewis, Serial Records Librarian
& Exchange Librarian
U.S. Geological Survey Library
National Center--MS 950
Reston, Virginia 20192
(703)648-4399
dilewis at igsrglib01.usgs.gov  

"Whatever the cost of our libraries,
the price is cheap compared to an 
ignorant nation."--Walter Cronkite. 

With gratitude to those who gave their lives so that
we might speak freely, the ideas and opinions expressed
herein are mine alone.