Re: [Air-l] we need a better word than lurking
I like the concept of grazing, as well - as I said in my earlier post, I'm too used to the word "lurk" in its non-Internet usage to a) consider myself to be doing that, when I am not posting to lists, and b) consider others whose existence I am basically unaware of to be doing that. I am just curious: for those who consider "lurking" to be problematic or undesirable - is it problematic for the lurkers (who, as John Veitch point out, may be missing a learning opportunity), or for the lurkees - the people on the lists who do participate regularly? And if the latter, why? I haven't done much - well, any - reading in this area, so I don't know what the arguments could be, though I can speculate. Indeed, for some types of lists, I can see lack of participation becoming a problem. My department's graduate student list, during the seven years I've been there, has gone from a place where we used to discuss intellectual topics relevant to our field as well as departmental policies and politics, to a place where people announce parties and free food opportunities. Which are important, too, but the silence on other topics is deafening to the few of us who are still around from the "old days." It's definitely a symptom of a bigger change in the community. But in academic or professional lists where there remain a number of active participants on a variety of topics, the lurker load doesn't seem to be problematic (unless it's a question of maintenance or something). Unless it just bothers people who don't know who is reading their posts, or there is a concern that the list may stagnate. This thread was introduced because someone didn't think lurking should be considered a bad thing, and thus should have a label with less negative connotations, but in the discussion some fairly strong normative judgments about lurkers and lurking have emerged which seem to indicate that having a word with negative connotations is warranted. It's interesting. Jericho -- "Martin Garthwaite" <marting@gmail.com> wrote: Lurking has negative connotations, so I dislike it as a term also, I have always thought of this activity as "grazing", implies a non malicious activity of consuming what is freely available, as and when suits the grazer and fits in very neatly with the concept of the commons. I picked up the concept of grazing from Lessig.
jerichob@juno.com wrote:
This thread was introduced because someone didn't think lurking should be considered a bad thing, and thus should have a label with less negative connotations, but in the discussion some fairly strong normative judgments about lurkers and lurking have emerged which seem to indicate that having a word with negative connotations is warranted. It's interesting.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that "having a word with negative connotations" is a good thing... but the way I see it, this is a word that the Internet community chose to describe these people. Who are we to say "wow you know what, that word is bad. We're going to pick another one and use that instead because we don't like it." If it's the word in common usage, then I say use it. Why create a new jargon term, when one already exists? ;) I don't really know if lurking *is* considered a bad thing... maybe frustrating in channels that were once highly active and now are not, therefore needing a desperate infusion of new ideas and new blood... but I'd rather see someone lurk for a while and then participate (like me. hi!), instead of jumping in with both feet not knowing how things are done and causing an uproar that can upset the flow of discussions. I've seen *that* happen too many times before :) (sorry if someone brought this up before, I got lost in the thread for a bit!) -Christine
According to advertised estimates, AIR-L has 1700 enrolees. According to my estimates approximately 370 have posted something in the last year. That is a better than average participation according to John Veitch. I can think of many reasons people might not participate actively. But it is only speculation. I want to know, at some level, this population. I don't like value judgement based on speculating about someones intent. I want "Lurkers". I want to get to know them and to make my assessment based on good evidence, instead of folklore. James. Christine Moellenberndt <chris@inreach.com> wrote: jerichob@juno.com wrote:
This thread was introduced because someone didn't think lurking should be considered a bad thing, and thus should have a label with less negative connotations, but in the discussion some fairly strong normative judgments about lurkers and lurking have emerged which seem to indicate that having a word with negative connotations is warranted. It's interesting.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that "having a word with negative connotations" is a good thing... but the way I see it, this is a word that the Internet community chose to describe these people. Who are we to say "wow you know what, that word is bad. We're going to pick another one and use that instead because we don't like it." If it's the word in common usage, then I say use it. Why create a new jargon term, when one already exists? ;) I don't really know if lurking *is* considered a bad thing... maybe frustrating in channels that were once highly active and now are not, therefore needing a desperate infusion of new ideas and new blood... but I'd rather see someone lurk for a while and then participate (like me. hi!), instead of jumping in with both feet not knowing how things are done and causing an uproar that can upset the flow of discussions. I've seen *that* happen too many times before :) (sorry if someone brought this up before, I got lost in the thread for a bit!) -Christine _______________________________________________ The air-l@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/ --------------------------------- Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
As a non-lurker who appreciates the art of lurking precisely because I am so bad at it (often at my own peril), I would like to reiterate a point that was made on here a few days back in defense of lurkers. Lurking on a list is READING, and, by any definition I can possibly think of, is NOT an inactive process. Readers are not passive beings. They are not wasting their lives indoors when they should be out playing in the fresh air, and I am surprised that so many academics would imply otherwise. This is not to say that speaking, debating, and dialogue are not useful and do not add to the learning process, as was so well put only a few short posts ago. But listening, digesting, and ruminating are equally important, and their worth seems often overlooked in our current era which mistakenly assumes that "interaction" somehow means "addition." Perhaps publish or perish has had more negative effects than we would like to admit - we now seem to prefer useless noise that makes us appear active than the actual hard work of reflection that bleeds into our lives and works in less obvious ways - an intelligent conversation with a colleague later on, a good class session with students, even an eye-opening encounter with the grocery sacker. Perhaps we would all do well to be quiet and merely think on an idea now and then and see how it brings itself forth in other arenas. -Alexis On Thu, 10 May 2007, James Whyte wrote: ::Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:19:40 -0700 (PDT) ::From: James Whyte <whyte.james@yahoo.com> ::Reply-To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::Subject: Re: [Air-l] we need a better word than lurking :: ::According to advertised estimates, AIR-L has 1700 enrolees. According to my estimates approximately 370 have posted something in the last year. That is a better than average participation according to John Veitch. :: :: I can think of many reasons people might not participate actively. But it is only speculation. I want to know, at some level, this population. I don't like value judgement based on speculating about someones intent. :: :: I want "Lurkers". I want to get to know them and to make my assessment based on good evidence, instead of folklore. :: :: James. :: ::Christine Moellenberndt <chris@inreach.com> wrote: :: jerichob@juno.com wrote: ::> This thread was introduced because someone didn't think lurking should ::> be considered a bad thing, and thus should have a label with less ::> negative connotations, but in the discussion some fairly strong ::> normative judgments about lurkers and lurking have emerged which seem ::> to indicate that having a word with negative connotations is ::> warranted. It's interesting. :: :: ::I wouldn't go so far as to say that "having a word with negative ::connotations" is a good thing... but the way I see it, this is a word ::that the Internet community chose to describe these people. Who are we ::to say "wow you know what, that word is bad. We're going to pick another ::one and use that instead because we don't like it." :: ::If it's the word in common usage, then I say use it. Why create a new ::jargon term, when one already exists? ;) :: ::I don't really know if lurking *is* considered a bad thing... maybe ::frustrating in channels that were once highly active and now are not, ::therefore needing a desperate infusion of new ideas and new blood... but ::I'd rather see someone lurk for a while and then participate (like me. ::hi!), instead of jumping in with both feet not knowing how things are ::done and causing an uproar that can upset the flow of discussions. I've ::seen *that* happen too many times before :) :: ::(sorry if someone brought this up before, I got lost in the thread for a ::bit!) :: ::-Christine :: ::_______________________________________________ ::The air-l@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/ :: :: :: ::--------------------------------- ::Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels ::in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. ::_______________________________________________ ::The air-l@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/ ::
I think it's more about a vocabulary that best transmit the message we are trying to send. Lurking, is, perhaps too broad a term, in the multiple social spaces that are available today facilitated by the internet. Should we use a term that perhaps could be used in so called media panics? I'm not saying we should be politically correct, but we should ask ourselves what most people (non academic audience) understand lurking to mean? Surely language is a living evolving creature, I for one am no fan of sticking with a term just because it has a history that other academics might understand in a particular context or situation. On 5/10/07, Christine Moellenberndt <chris@inreach.com> wrote:
jerichob@juno.com wrote:
This thread was introduced because someone didn't think lurking should be considered a bad thing, and thus should have a label with less negative connotations, but in the discussion some fairly strong normative judgments about lurkers and lurking have emerged which seem to indicate that having a word with negative connotations is warranted. It's interesting.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that "having a word with negative connotations" is a good thing... but the way I see it, this is a word that the Internet community chose to describe these people. Who are we to say "wow you know what, that word is bad. We're going to pick another one and use that instead because we don't like it."
If it's the word in common usage, then I say use it. Why create a new jargon term, when one already exists? ;)
I don't really know if lurking *is* considered a bad thing... maybe frustrating in channels that were once highly active and now are not, therefore needing a desperate infusion of new ideas and new blood... but I'd rather see someone lurk for a while and then participate (like me. hi!), instead of jumping in with both feet not knowing how things are done and causing an uproar that can upset the flow of discussions. I've seen *that* happen too many times before :)
(sorry if someone brought this up before, I got lost in the thread for a bit!)
-Christine
_______________________________________________ The air-l@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/
-- Martin Garthwaite PhD candidate, London Knowledge Lab www.lkl.ac.uk +447957 764819 Skype id mgarthwaite1330 MS IM marting@gmail.com
IMHO, the use of lurker, troll, flame, sockpuppet etc. is the language of folklore and not the language of scholarship. For that reason they lack operational definition and carry with them the negative connotations of fokloric understanding. Various scholars on this list have challenged their use. Susan Lange comes to mind. James Martin Garthwaite <marting@gmail.com> wrote: I think it's more about a vocabulary that best transmit the message we are trying to send. Lurking, is, perhaps too broad a term, in the multiple social spaces that are available today facilitated by the internet. Should we use a term that perhaps could be used in so called media panics? I'm not saying we should be politically correct, but we should ask ourselves what most people (non academic audience) understand lurking to mean? Surely language is a living evolving creature, I for one am no fan of sticking with a term just because it has a history that other academics might understand in a particular context or situation. On 5/10/07, Christine Moellenberndt wrote:
jerichob@juno.com wrote:
This thread was introduced because someone didn't think lurking should be considered a bad thing, and thus should have a label with less negative connotations, but in the discussion some fairly strong normative judgments about lurkers and lurking have emerged which seem to indicate that having a word with negative connotations is warranted. It's interesting.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that "having a word with negative connotations" is a good thing... but the way I see it, this is a word that the Internet community chose to describe these people. Who are we to say "wow you know what, that word is bad. We're going to pick another one and use that instead because we don't like it."
If it's the word in common usage, then I say use it. Why create a new jargon term, when one already exists? ;)
I don't really know if lurking *is* considered a bad thing... maybe frustrating in channels that were once highly active and now are not, therefore needing a desperate infusion of new ideas and new blood... but I'd rather see someone lurk for a while and then participate (like me. hi!), instead of jumping in with both feet not knowing how things are done and causing an uproar that can upset the flow of discussions. I've seen *that* happen too many times before :)
(sorry if someone brought this up before, I got lost in the thread for a bit!)
-Christine
_______________________________________________ The air-l@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/
-- Martin Garthwaite PhD candidate, London Knowledge Lab www.lkl.ac.uk +447957 764819 Skype id mgarthwaite1330 MS IM marting@gmail.com _______________________________________________ The air-l@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/ --------------------------------- Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Subject: Re: [Air-l] we need a better word than lurking
IMHO, the use of lurker, troll, flame, sockpuppet etc. is the language of folklore and not the language of scholarship. For that reason they lack operational definition and carry with them the negative connotations of fokloric understanding. Various scholars on this list have challenged their use. Susan Lange comes to mind.
Folk understandings and scholarly understandings of terminology are often not terribly different. Terms such as "troll" have consensus-based definitions, evolved over a period of many years. I don't think anyone would disagree that a "troll" is someone who is violating the established, historical conventions of the listserv in an antagonistic fashion. "Flaming", or making caustic remarks toward, the established principals (or other active participants) of an organization is certainly trollish behavior. We call the folks who do this out of a lack of understanding of the group's norms "newbies", or "n00bs", who may find the group's reactions rather perplexing due to their (the newbie's) lack of understanding of pre-existing relationships. Is this a set of folk definitions, or scholarly? It would pass in many circles as either, depending on the experiences and situatedness of the reader. Each term certainly has a workable operationalization - claims to the contrary fall short of argumentative aims... --elijah
I don't think anyone would disagree that a "troll" is someone who is violating the established, historical conventions of the listserv in an antagonistic fashion.
Except that "troll" was originally a verb in Internet usage. It was the act of injecting comments, often subtle digs, into a discussion for the purpose of getting people upset. It was the fishing sense of trolling. So in that sense, flaming is not troll-like behaviour. The names of actions and programs in the early years of the Internet showed a delightful creativity that I think we should avoid losing. "Lurk" still strikes me as perfect; and "ping", "finger", etc. had their superb moments. Neil Randall
As a verb it is harmless. As a noun it could be viewed as an attack in itself. James Neil Randall <nrandall@watarts.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
I don't think anyone would disagree that a "troll" is someone who is violating the established, historical conventions of the listserv in an antagonistic fashion.
Except that "troll" was originally a verb in Internet usage. It was the act of injecting comments, often subtle digs, into a discussion for the purpose of getting people upset. It was the fishing sense of trolling. So in that sense, flaming is not troll-like behaviour. The names of actions and programs in the early years of the Internet showed a delightful creativity that I think we should avoid losing. "Lurk" still strikes me as perfect; and "ping", "finger", etc. had their superb moments. Neil Randall _______________________________________________ The air-l@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/ --------------------------------- We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
On 5/10/07, Neil Randall <nrandall@watarts.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
Except that "troll" was originally a verb in Internet usage. It was the act of injecting comments, often subtle digs, into a discussion for the purpose of getting people upset. It was the fishing sense of trolling.
So in that sense, flaming is not troll-like behaviour.
Indeed. In fact, frequently trolls were often the oldest subscribers on Usenet, who toyed with newbies by making ridiculous statements that would *encourage* flaming. Indeed, that is the definition that still appears in the Jargon File (though I'm not sure that makes it canonical). But I'm not sure that is all that different from Elijah's definition. "Subtle digs" are indeed antagonistic to open discourse, and while they are not, generally, flames themselves, they are intended as flame-bait. Thus the admonition: DFTT.
The names of actions and programs in the early years of the Internet showed a delightful creativity that I think we should avoid losing. "Lurk" still strikes me as perfect; and "ping", "finger", etc. had their superb moments.
I second the idea of not tossing out "the lurker." It may say something about the culture of early internet adopters that lurking doesn't seem to carry some of the real world sense of a pejorative to those who used it. It was considered an element of nettiquette to lurk on a new list before diving into discussion. Without reinscribing a stereotype, I wonder if this reflected a culture in which gregariousness and garrulousness were not particularly valued traits, and being a "lurker" didn't carry special social stigma. I don't think "lurking" suggests particular inattentiveness, or inactivity--just a lack of direct engagement in conversation. I don't think it can be used without provisional definition, but I don't think the potential RL negative connotations should remove it from our discourse. As an aside, "ping" and "finger" are, I think, different sorts of animals: unix commands that happen to also be easily vocalized. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "fsck" or "rm -rf" in a conversation, but that may just be because I don't talk to people in real life. (In any case, I would be reticent about mentioning people I was planning to "finger" in mixed conversation.) Alex -- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net //
I am hoping that someone who is "more established" than I will challenge this argument. James elw@stderr.org wrote:
Subject: Re: [Air-l] we need a better word than lurking
IMHO, the use of lurker, troll, flame, sockpuppet etc. is the language of folklore and not the language of scholarship. For that reason they lack operational definition and carry with them the negative connotations of fokloric understanding. Various scholars on this list have challenged their use. Susan Lange comes to mind.
Folk understandings and scholarly understandings of terminology are often not terribly different. Terms such as "troll" have consensus-based definitions, evolved over a period of many years. I don't think anyone would disagree that a "troll" is someone who is violating the established, historical conventions of the listserv in an antagonistic fashion. "Flaming", or making caustic remarks toward, the established principals (or other active participants) of an organization is certainly trollish behavior. We call the folks who do this out of a lack of understanding of the group's norms "newbies", or "n00bs", who may find the group's reactions rather perplexing due to their (the newbie's) lack of understanding of pre-existing relationships. Is this a set of folk definitions, or scholarly? It would pass in many circles as either, depending on the experiences and situatedness of the reader. Each term certainly has a workable operationalization - claims to the contrary fall short of argumentative aims... --elijah _______________________________________________ The air-l@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/ --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
I am hoping that someone who is "more established" than I will challenge this argument.
Not that i'm established but lets have a go
Folk understandings and scholarly understandings of terminology are often not terribly different.
This might be true, but its not really an argument in favour of keeping those understandings similar. Biases in everyday uses of terms may affect the nature of the research that is carried out. It may prevent fresh ways of looking at things.
Terms such as "troll" have consensus-based definitions, evolved over a period of many years.
whose concensus? i think enough people have said things in this thread to show that there is a remarkable spread of meanings and bahaviours in the term 'troll', and my experience of list or newsgroup life seems to show (to me) that the rhetoric of naming someone as troll, or whatever, is part of the way that person is categorised, resists categorisation etc and is thus part of the politics of the list, the way the established members defend and maintain both themselves and the ambience/mood/etiquettes of the list (sometimes necessarily). In other words, what becomes trolling is defined in action, not beforehand. It is usually aimed at newbies and strangers who have not built up a place on the list, and is less aimed at those who have built up a place, even though the behaviour may be 'objectively' (if you will pardon me) indistinguishable. it thus has to do with the 'hiddeness/familiarity' dimensions of both people and intention
I don't think anyone would disagree that a "troll" is someone who is violating the established, historical conventions of the listserv in an antagonistic fashion.
to me 'antogonistic' is rarely a given. It is a matter of interpretation. As such, making the allocation is again a political/social act. It also begs the question of what is established tradition, how it is maintained and who it applies to. Again in my experience, tradition applies in different degrees to different people, and it is continually being created and argued over. One of things about being on mailing lists or newsgroups line is that there is rarely any marker of tradition other than what is occuring at the moment and the memories of participants - many of whom may only have been present for a day or too. There are wider cultural conventions and contradictions at play as well in making these traditions and knowledges, these also need to be considered. i don't think the online is yet its own world.
"Flaming", or making caustic remarks toward, the established principals (or other active participants) of an organization is certainly trollish behavior.
It seems you agree with the political/rhetorical/interpretational aspects here. Again i would simply say that this is not 'objective', but is something which becomes decided by some people and the effect of decision depends on many things about list controll (moderators, moderators support groups and the 'professional'/offline connections between group members etc - which then takes us elsewhere in the society and possibly to already established factors/factions/frictions)
We call the folks who do this out of a lack of understanding of the group's norms "newbies", or "n00bs", who may find the group's reactions rather perplexing due to their (the newbie's) lack of understanding of pre-existing relationships.
Agreed, expect i don't know if *everyone* (who is the 'we' here - point made to demonstrate the dynamics of category formation and status) calls such people 'n00bs'.
Is this a set of folk definitions, or scholarly? It would pass in many circles as either, depending on the experiences and situatedness of the reader. Each term certainly has a workable operationalization - claims to the contrary fall short of argumentative aims...
i guess i am arguing that the terms do not reflect any workable operationalisation. They are terms of abuse and politicing. they may be necessary, and so on, for that politicing and social maintenance, but the whole dynamic is more intersting than easy acceptance of the terms suggests jon (all of this is covered in much more detail in my ethnography of the mailing list cybermind, which is due from Peter Lang, in (i think) the series New literacies and Digital epistemologies, hopefully very soon).
--elijah _______________________________________________ The air-l@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/
--------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. _______________________________________________ The air-l@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/
Subject: Re: [Air-l] we need a better word than lurking
I am hoping that someone who is "more established" than I will challenge this argument.
Really, what's to challenge? These are my opinions and observations, formed over a fairly long period of time, and I'm not likely to change them. A further question - what, really, is the problem with negatively-connoted terms? They are assigned to actions that are most frequently understood as highly obnoxious: one almost *expects* the descriptive terms to accrue emotional baggage. What, exactly, is your beef with trolls? --elijah
James
elw@stderr.org wrote:
Subject: Re: [Air-l] we need a better word than lurking
IMHO, the use of lurker, troll, flame, sockpuppet etc. is the language of folklore and not the language of scholarship. For that reason they lack operational definition and carry with them the negative connotations of fokloric understanding. Various scholars on this list have challenged their use. Susan Lange comes to mind.
Folk understandings and scholarly understandings of terminology are often not terribly different.
Terms such as "troll" have consensus-based definitions, evolved over a period of many years. I don't think anyone would disagree that a "troll" is someone who is violating the established, historical conventions of the listserv in an antagonistic fashion. "Flaming", or making caustic remarks toward, the established principals (or other active participants) of an organization is certainly trollish behavior. We call the folks who do this out of a lack of understanding of the group's norms "newbies", or "n00bs", who may find the group's reactions rather perplexing due to their (the newbie's) lack of understanding of pre-existing relationships.
Is this a set of folk definitions, or scholarly? It would pass in many circles as either, depending on the experiences and situatedness of the reader. Each term certainly has a workable operationalization - claims to the contrary fall short of argumentative aims...
--elijah _______________________________________________ The air-l@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/
--------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. _______________________________________________ The air-l@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/
Your thinking speaks for itself, I don't need to say anything. James elw@stderr.org wrote:
Subject: Re: [Air-l] we need a better word than lurking
I am hoping that someone who is "more established" than I will challenge this argument.
Really, what's to challenge? These are my opinions and observations, formed over a fairly long period of time, and I'm not likely to change them. A further question - what, really, is the problem with negatively-connoted terms? They are assigned to actions that are most frequently understood as highly obnoxious: one almost *expects* the descriptive terms to accrue emotional baggage. What, exactly, is your beef with trolls? --elijah
James
elw@stderr.org wrote:
Subject: Re: [Air-l] we need a better word than lurking
IMHO, the use of lurker, troll, flame, sockpuppet etc. is the language of folklore and not the language of scholarship. For that reason they lack operational definition and carry with them the negative connotations of fokloric understanding. Various scholars on this list have challenged their use. Susan Lange comes to mind.
Folk understandings and scholarly understandings of terminology are often not terribly different.
Terms such as "troll" have consensus-based definitions, evolved over a period of many years. I don't think anyone would disagree that a "troll" is someone who is violating the established, historical conventions of the listserv in an antagonistic fashion. "Flaming", or making caustic remarks toward, the established principals (or other active participants) of an organization is certainly trollish behavior. We call the folks who do this out of a lack of understanding of the group's norms "newbies", or "n00bs", who may find the group's reactions rather perplexing due to their (the newbie's) lack of understanding of pre-existing relationships.
Is this a set of folk definitions, or scholarly? It would pass in many circles as either, depending on the experiences and situatedness of the reader. Each term certainly has a workable operationalization - claims to the contrary fall short of argumentative aims...
--elijah _______________________________________________ The air-l@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/
--------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. _______________________________________________ The air-l@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/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@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/ --------------------------------- Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
Subject: Re: [Air-l] we need a better word than lurking
Your thinking speaks for itself, I don't need to say anything.
I think, given the pattern of activity and behavior you've been so diligently working to establish, that I should tag this as a personal attack. --e
I'm sorry you perceive it that way. It was not my intent.I simply disagree and don't intend to argue with you. Let others judge the merit. James elw@stderr.org wrote:
Subject: Re: [Air-l] we need a better word than lurking
Your thinking speaks for itself, I don't need to say anything.
I think, given the pattern of activity and behavior you've been so diligently working to establish, that I should tag this as a personal attack. --e _______________________________________________ The air-l@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/ --------------------------------- Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
participants (9)
-
Alex Halavais -
Alexis Turner -
Christine Moellenberndt -
elw＠stderr.org -
James Whyte -
jerichob＠juno.com -
Jonathan Marshall -
Martin Garthwaite -
Neil Randall