The Cons DistList is potentially the best means that exists for sharing
conservation information.  However, its membership has not diversified
significantly to represent all the sub-disciplines of the field - in spite
of Walter Henry's valiant efforts to create interest.  The focus of the
DistList remains overwhelmingly books and paper conservation.  Why is this
the case, given the great need that all conservators have for access to
information?
 
Some possible reasons that occur to me: 1) There may be limitations inherent
in a moderated list that inhibit discussion.  The relationship with the
moderator might interpose itself between peers, altering the character of
free exchange.  The ease of give and take, questioning and clarification,
immediacy of response - the informality - of an unmoderated list are not
possible in this format.  2) The DistList is firmly established as a forum
for books and paper conservation.  Consequently, a contribution from another
specialty may be accompanied by feelings of intrusiveness.  Such subtleties,
coupled with the knowledge that one's specialty is not well represented on
the list, might be a further constraint to participation.  3) And clearly,
if the larger conservation community attempted to utilize the resources
of this list, its resources would be quickly exceeded.
 
There may be some foundation, then, for the argument in favor of separate
lists for some conservation related discussions.  However, mindful that
museum conservation still constitutes one large interest group - archives,
indices, bibliographies should probably always be kept in one location (say
on the palimpsest gopher, for instance.)
 
David Walker
Talisman Textile Conservation
[log in to unmask]