On: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 23:04:00 CDT;  Re: improving list content;
Allison Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
> Maybe we can ask those who want to sign off to give some sort of
> reason?  Too much to ask for?
 
We could ask; we might get some valuable feedback.  I think that dialog
should take place between the list-owner and the person signing-off.  The
person signing-off should be assured of anonymity.  Quarterly or bi-
annual summaries could be posted to the list to close the feedback loop.
Obviously, it would be more work for our already overloaded list-owner
(or a helper), and improvements in the current situation would be long-
coming.
 
> one persons garbage is another persons information.
 
I had considered this, but I believe it can be overstated.  Yes,
different people have different opinions about what is relevant, but as
messages get further into the realm of junkiness, the effectiveness of
the list is diminished.  Noise does have a cost (actually, several).
 
> Monitoring [moderating] the list in any form is nothing but censorship.
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^
I wouldn't necessarily characterize the light-handed form that Peter
Rauch described as "censorship".  But like Peter, I'm not really in favor
of the (one and only) Museum list becoming moderated, for reasons Peter
has already stated.
 
> People choose to quit the list.  Thats their problem.
 
It's also our problem.  Again, there are some really knowledgeable people
out there (with perhaps THE answer to YOUR question) that have looked and
then CHOSEN to keep themselves out of this loop.  Who's the loser?  Can
we influence their choices?
 
> But you see, as the discussion evolves, it turns from serious, to
> commentary, to something entirely different...maybe a new idea, or
> question which has sprung up from the previous discussion.
 
and Peter Rauch wrote:
 
> Allison Smith's comments about how ideas/discussion on one topic often
> (d)evolve into other(s) reflects an extremely common phenomenon on many
> lists.
> More than just a phenomenon, it is an important catalyst/stimulus/
> spark, as Allison also observes.
 
I had thought about this, too.  An excellent example is the recent
discussion that began with someone's pet peeve about the representation
of an artist's name -- not something I cared too much about (or so I
thought).  It ended with poetry (nice touch) that actually brought the
important issue (to me) to the fore.  What are the alternative strategies
for representing personal names in a database, and what are their pros
and cons?  This is a VERY VERY important issue that I'm sure concerns
many on this list.  (Unfortunately, I don't think that aspect got any
discussion -- Any takers?)
 
But back to the issue at hand...  Instead of calling it "Improving list
content", a better title would be "An improved mechanism for reaching our
community".  (accentuate the positive)
 
I think we do have a problem, and I don't think that fear of becoming
censors should paralyze and keep us from devising an imaginative
solution; one that neither censors, nor discourages people from listening
and participating.  The issue should instead be cast in terms of
augmenting choices, and then cost/benefit.
 
So let me modify my earlier, only half serious, proposal:
 
Museum-L could be left as it is, and a "best of" moderated list could be
added for people with too much to do.  ALL submissions (including replies
from the moderated list) would go to the UNmoderated list.  The moderator
(and/or editors) would then pass through all the requests for
information, complete or edited versions of substantive discussion, etc.,
that would appeal to the very busy.  I think this could work.  The idea
is to make the two lists a superset/subset tandem.  Individuals could
choose one or the other (both would be just duplication).  And, in
conjunction with the listserv/gopher/web archives, the editors wouldn't
have to be too paranoid about clipping things too short -- the scholarly
(or confused) reader could always go back to the complete archive.
 
Yes, it would be more work for the management, but I would be willing to
help (as I'm sure others would).
 
Comments?
 
/Stan Blum