- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Similar settings debate on Twitter
by Michael Zimmer 13 May '09

13 May '09

Also apropos the air-l debate over settings & community, a similar debate is occurring on Twitter, who recently made a "small settings update" where users no longer see public replies sent by friends to people they themselves are not following. (Fragmented conversations, they are called.) In the words on one commenter: "The new policy isn't something you have to opt-in to. It's not something you can opt-out of. It's true for people who use 3rd party Twitter clients to read their Tweets. It's more fundamentally closed than Facebook is; on that site I may not be able to view the profiles of strangers talking to my friends, but I can see that the conversations are happening and I can read the comments. This new Twitter policy breaks one of the fundamental rules of social activity streams: that I can discover new people by seeing who is conversing with the people I already know." Details here: <http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/twitter_puts_a_muzzle_on_your_friends_… > And you can follow the #fixreplies tweets here: <http://search.twitter.com/search?q=fixreplies > -mz -- Michael Zimmer, PhD Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies Associate, Center for Information Policy Research University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee e: zimmerm(a)uwm.edu w: www.michaelzimmer.org

1 0

And now for something not about the switch!
by Jasmine Pues 13 May '09

13 May '09

Dear ladies and gentlemen of this fine list, what would you consider the main works of the study of language and the Internet? I'm interested in hearing your opinions. ^.^ Thank you, Jasmine Pues

5 4

Re: [Air-L] More on the change
by William Bain 13 May '09

13 May '09

Just a couple of thoughts: first, would it not be possible to insert a clause in the list rules or description stating that aoir is not responsible for the views expressed, etc., etc.? This is done in many paper publications. second, if the membership votes, my experience has been that it's preferable to define a quorum and to vote on the basis of, say, 2/3 majority instead of simple majority. Maybe this is already the case in the organisation, I don't know. Cordially, Will

1 0

Postdoctoral fellowship in China's media and communications at the University of Technology, Sydney
by Elaine Lally 13 May '09

13 May '09

POST DOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOW UTS CHINA RESEARCH CENTRE The China Research Centre at UTS is Australias most productive and dynamic unit researching social and cultural change in China. Building on our history in promoting studies of Provincial China, we now expand our focus to explore the key issues of Chinas media and communications in the twenty-first century: Internet and cyberculture studies Digital media and online journalism Computer-mediated communication We are currently assembling an accomplished team of researchers to examine how China faces challenges in this area. In addition to making a number of strategic senior appointments, we invite applications for a 5-year Postdoctoral Fellowship. The Centre has an excellent reputation for collaborative research leadership in China Studies, including the ARC Asia Pacific Futures Research Network and the annual Provincial China Symposia. The Centre takes a collaborative approach to research that recognizes the need to disaggregate social and cultural change in China by locality, class and gender. Centre staff work regularly together on collective projects, publications and symposia. This is an opportunity for the best and brightest early career researcher to work on issues of contemporary media and communication from a China focus. The successful candidate will initially be appointed at Lecturer Level B, Step 1. The salary as at May 2009 is AUD 73,149. Salary range: $73,149 to $86,846 pa. The University offers salary packaging plus attractive superannuation. Application procedure: To obtain the Postdoctoral Research Fellow guidelines and instructions for applicants click on the additional information link below. Please include details of three referees in your CV. To send through your application please click on the link below. If you require further information on the position contact Claire Moore by email at Claire.Moore(a)uts.edu.au, or by telephone on +61 2 9514 1591. Closing Date: Friday 31 July 2009 Ref No. R230509 Location: Sydney Category: Research Work Type: Fixed Term Contract Job Ref : R230509 Open To : All applicants http://www.jobs.uts.edu.au/job/job_details.cfm?id=383231&from=

1 0

Re: [Air-L] And now for something not about the switch!
by scott＠scottmacleod.com 13 May '09

13 May '09

Thanks for all of these great resources, and to whomever set up the Webnographers.org wiki. I've added the books mentioned in this thread thus far. I'll leave it to all of you, and others, to add more resources to http://webnographers.org. Scott http://scottmacleod.com http://worlduniversity.wikia.com

1 0

More on the change
by Gilbert B. Rodman 12 May '09

12 May '09

Hi, all -- Thanks to Charles for providing the extra context, which is very helpful. Since he says the Exec is looking for input from the list as a whole, here's my small contribution. Seems to me that either setup is inconvenient for someone: the new system places a burden (however small) on people who want to keep an ongoing conversation onlist, the old system places a burden (however small) on people who want to reply offlist to messages that appeared onlist. Neither of these burdens is exactly outrageous -- we're not talking about poll taxes or mandatory 30-day waiting periods here -- but they're still likely to produce very different types of list activity. The new system makes people who want to keep an open dialogue going do a small amount of extra work, while it protects people who aren't actually trying to contribute to a public conversation from doing so accidentally. The old system makes people who wanted to continue onlist conversations privately do a small amount of extra work, while it allows people who want to have a public conversation to do so easily. At the risk of echoing Marj's comments, the new system seems like an ideal choice if we assume that AIR-L is primarily an announcement-centered list for CFPs, job postings, and such. The tiny bit of extra friction involved in keeping a conversation going onlist keeps the air(-l) relatively clear so that the those announcements can happen. If, however, we assume that AIR-L is supposed to be a "place" where internet researchers can converse with one another in an open forum, then the old system is better -- especially since the list hasn't exactly been flooded with embarrassing and/or career-killing personal messages -- since it offloads that tiny bit of extra friction onto people who aren't actually trying to keep that public conversation going anyway. Personally, I favor the old system. As long as we're hoping that AIR-L is for open dialogue as much as (if not more than) it is for announcements, it seems to me that the bias -- however small it might be, either way -- should run in favor of the people who're doing the most work to keep that conversation going. Put a slightly different way, the "accidents" in the new system hurt that open dialogue, since those accidents involve would-be posters forgetting to use "reply-all" and thus sliding into private conversations. And that seems like a much steeper price to pay than the occasional personal message slipping through every few months. cheers gil PS: One additional bit of context for my remarks above. Since 1996, I've managed a public listserv that currently has 2250 members and averages roughly 100 posts every month. It's always been set up so that replies go to the whole list. We get a handful of accidental personal messages every year ... and I suspect I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of those that were scandalous enough to raise anyone's eyebrows. When we've had serious scandal/trouble -- and it's been a while (he said, tempting fate recklessly) -- it's almost always come from people who knew quite well that they were posting to the whole list. Obviously, different lists have different purposes, involve different communities, and produce different cultures of their own. But, in my experience anyway, the biggest threat to lively onlist dialogue comes from spam and flames, not from the occasional "I am very interested in your job/conference/book-project" message that accidentally slips through.

4 4

Priorities and Probabilities re: the big switch debate
by RBerkman＠aol.com 12 May '09

12 May '09

Bottom line seems to be that if we agree with the premise that: seeing the back and forth discussions on this list is its primary value and the reason why people subscribe (and perhaps even for some their entire interest in AIR!), then removing this value would be even a higher "disaster" than a lawsuit, etc. (and much more probable), as it will defeat nearly the entire purpose of this valued entity! Bob Berkman Associate Professor Media Studies & Film The New School New York NY In a message dated 5/12/2009 4:42:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, U.Matzat(a)tue.nl writes: On 11 May 2009 at 20:40, air-l-request(a)listserv.aoir.o wrote: > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:25:34 -0400 > From: Alex Halavais <alex(a)halavais.net> > Subject: Re: [Air-L] Change of default reply setting on air-l > To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > Message-ID: > <e0fe0c740905110625n71f690dfle9e0775ed700d1cc(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > May I ask a naive question? Several have suggested that changing the > list to default to reply-to-author will have significant detrimental > effects on the community, ranging from harm to ruin. Some have indicated > that this is a well-researched fact. I have done a study on the determinants of sending answers/providing information in academic emailing lists. While I was interested in other things, one of the many control variables indicates whether the default reply is to the group. This control variable has a significant positive effect on the likelihood of sending an answer to the whole list. The study compares the posting behavior of researchers in 47 academic emailing lists over a period of 2 months. For more details see Table 2 in the following: Matzat, U. (2009). "The Embeddedness of Academic Online Groups in Offline Social Networks: Reputation Gain as a Stimulus for Online Discussion Participation?" in: International Sociology, 24, 1: 63-92. Nevertheless I prefer the new setting (but not the sudden way it was implemented). Although I am on digest, it is hard for me to follow the discussions and only some of the postings are valuable to me. Best regards, Uwe _______________________________________________ The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322936x1201367173/aol?redir=htt… =Mayfooter51209NO115)

4 3

Change of default reply setting on air-l
by andrea baker 12 May '09

12 May '09

Hello, I agree with Lois. Why change something for the whole list when only a few mistakes are made by individuals per year? The idea of a vote seems a good one at this point. I'm not sure--is this post getting through? :-) cheers, a

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Change of default reply setting on air-l
by RBerkman＠aol.com 12 May '09

12 May '09

(Interesting to ponder what might have been the result if we all could have only replied to the initial sender of this thread!) Robert Berkman Associate Professor Media Studies & Film The New School ************** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322936x1201367173/aol?redir=htt… hmpgID=115&bcd=Mayfooter51209NO115)

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Change of default reply setting on air-l
by William Bain 12 May '09

12 May '09

Jeremy Hunsinger wrote: "if the exec comm isn't going to revert the setting, then it should change the list etiquette page and disclaimer notices. http://aoir.org/?page_id=3 ", which seems to me an excellent point. I also agree with the many other good arguments in favor the original system of default reply to the listserv. By the way, my Yahoo mail just gets my post bounced if I press _either_ "reply to" or "reply all". At least that's what happens with the standard settings, maybe there's a way to change that. Otherwise I usually press the hotworded address I want to reply to. I assume I'm interpreting "reply to" correctly in the discussion, maybe not...... Best regards, Will William Bain PhD Candidate Literary Theory Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona

2 1