use rules for internet mailing lists

[Michael Iorns]

Howdy Folks.

Much of this kind of problem is covered by the etiquette "rules"
such as "me too" posting being unacceptable.

I am only a reasonably new subscriber to this list, but I am already
horrified by the amount of circular discussion of side-issues. 

A _personal_ monitoring of word limit and post frequency is essential, 
which is perhaps what the lecturers in the example are trying to instil 
in fledgeling students. 

The argument of the delete key is all very well, but receiving email 
costs money. Who are these people who keep wasting my money with 
self-important nonsense? Who CARES whether your library contains playboy? 
ONLY the person who asked the question: 
"> At 6:00 PM -0700 6/30/97, Hetherington Information Services wrote:
> 
> >Now I'm curious... Are there any other libraries that have Playboy in their
> >collection?
> "

Well send the damn reply back to the _person_ not to the whole list!

The poster of the message to which I am currently replying has provided 
another example, by quoting the entire first message, instead of selectively 
including only those specific points to which the reply is directed.

This creates a big long message containg everything already said, which 
contains the reply at the BOTTOM so we have to scroll all the way down 
to find it. This is an unfortunately common mailing list fault. I think 
I am smart enough to remember the general gist of what was said in the 
original message, if a sentence or two of the main point is provided. We 
usually don't have to read something more than once or twice to be able 
to recall it.

Online discussion IS different from "live", though this is not to say 
everything needs to be locked down. One major difference is that in a 
live discussion it is easy to let the other person know they have 
approached the limit of relevance and interest _as_ they are speaking, 
instead of them continuing to blithely pour out words without a reaction 
until AFTER those words have been sent, and done their damage. 

People have to be their own monitors. Damn, it doesn't work. If you want
to see who needs lessons, sort messages by sender and see who occupies the
most space in the list. It is always an interesting way to locate the 
mouth-offs.

Regards.
Michael.
Waikato University Library Computing Support
(sig below)

At 06:23 3/07/97 -0700, DILEWIS at IGSRGLIB01.ER.USGS.GOV wrote:\

>> 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?
>> 
>> 
>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.



               Michael Iorns|Private Bag 3105|iorns at waikato.ac.nz 
        Computing Consultant|    Hamilton    |Ph(64)7 838-4466x6737 
  Waikato University Library|  New Zealand   |Fx  " " 838-4017