I'm totally agree with Jeremy. This desicion may kill the whole idea. It's strange to see that people, studying Computer Mediated Communications don't understand how crucial such changes in settings may be to the communication and community in general. Please, change your mind and revert this setting back. Best wishes, Alexander. 2009/5/11 jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu>

gotta say, that... I think this is very detrimental to the community. This change fundamentally destroys the conversation construed as a group, and forces it to be between individuals, unless they consciously choose otherwise. This is a change I've always been against and I am against it now. Air-l should be about collegiality and sharing, not about replying to individuals. I think this setting should be reverted asap.

On May 10, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Holly Kruse wrote:

Up until now on air-l, replies to messages posted to the list went, by

...

default, to air-l. The default reply setting for air-l has been changed. As of now, replies to list posts will go privately to the message poster and not to air-l. If you would like people on the list to see your reply, you will need to manually insert the air-l address into the To: field of your reply.

Thanks for your attention to this change,

Holly Kruse List Manager, air-l holly@aoir.org holly-kruse@utulsa.edu

_______________________________________________ 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/

-- Alexander Semenov. MA student Faculty of Sociology Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES) http://www.msses.ru/English/index.html Graduate Student in Sociology at State Univercity - Higher School of Economics http://www.hse.ru/eng

I'm curious as to what was the process by which the executive committee sought input from AoIR members. Please will someone clarify how this (and other decisions) are taken (hopefully as democratically as possible). I'm fairly new to AoIR. Regards, Lisa On 5/10/09 7:51 PM, "Semenov Alexander" <semenoffalex@googlemail.com> wrote: I'm totally agree with Jeremy. This desicion may kill the whole idea. It's strange to see that people, studying Computer Mediated Communications don't understand how crucial such changes in settings may be to the communication and community in general. Please, change your mind and revert this setting back. Best wishes, Alexander. 2009/5/11 jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu>

gotta say, that... I think this is very detrimental to the community. This change fundamentally destroys the conversation construed as a group, and forces it to be between individuals, unless they consciously choose otherwise. This is a change I've always been against and I am against it now. Air-l should be about collegiality and sharing, not about replying to individuals. I think this setting should be reverted asap.

On May 10, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Holly Kruse wrote:

Up until now on air-l, replies to messages posted to the list went, by

...

default, to air-l. The default reply setting for air-l has been changed. As of now, replies to list posts will go privately to the message poster and not to air-l. If you would like people on the list to see your reply, you will need to manually insert the air-l address into the To: field of your reply.

Thanks for your attention to this change,

Holly Kruse List Manager, air-l holly@aoir.org holly-kruse@utulsa.edu

_______________________________________________ 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/

-- Alexander Semenov. MA student Faculty of Sociology Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES) http://www.msses.ru/English/index.html Graduate Student in Sociology at State Univercity - Higher School of Economics http://www.hse.ru/eng _______________________________________________ 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/ -- Lisa McLaughlin, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Communication & Program in Women's Studies Director of Graduate Studies, Master of Arts, Department of Communication Miami University-Ohio Editor, Feminist Media Studies Contact: Mass Communication Williams Hall Miami University-Ohio Oxford, Ohio 45056 USA Tele: +1 513-529-3547 Fax: +1 513-529-1835 Mobile: +1 513-291-0640 Email: mclauglm@muohio.edu

Hi all, I certainly agree that technical defaults have social implications, but in this case I don't really see how this change is going to "kill the whole idea." I don't know what systems other folks are using, but all three of the email systems I use (MSU web-based email, mail on the ipod touch, and Apple Mail) prompt me to hit reply or reply all. It's not even an extra click! Is this not the case for systems that others are using? In which case, it seems that the commands should do what they claim to do (eg reply to sender goes to the actual sender, reply to list goes to the list). I don't see why if someone wants to post to the list, this change would stop them from doing so. I'd also like to point out that a community is strengthened by interpersonal connections between individuals. These are often formed by dyadic messages - not everything needs to (or should) go to the group. On my systems at least, the default "reply to group" meant that sending a message to the poster involved a cumbersome process of copying and pasting an email address, whereas with the current default one has the option to do either with one click. On this same note, having messages sent to the group which aren't meant to be may be more detrimental to the community as it increases spam, which leads to people leaving the list altogether. So I don't really see this as the death knell for "community" other folks seem to see it as. On the other hand, if there is really no one else that finds this annoying, I'd be happy to retract my complaint (if that's what inspired the change). Nicole PS FWIW, the social scientist in me thinks we should try it out and see what results, if anything. Quoting "Semenov Alexander" <semenoffalex@googlemail.com>:

I'm totally agree with Jeremy. This desicion may kill the whole idea. It's strange to see that people, studying Computer Mediated Communications don't understand how crucial such changes in settings may be to the communication and community in general. Please, change your mind and revert this setting back. Best wishes, Alexander.

2009/5/11 jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu>

...

gotta say, that... I think this is very detrimental to the community.  This change fundamentally destroys the conversation construed as a group, and forces it to be between individuals, unless they consciously choose otherwise.   This is a change I've always been against  and I am against it now.  Air-l should be about collegiality and sharing, not about replying to individuals.   I think this setting should be reverted asap.

On May 10, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Holly Kruse wrote:

  Up until now on air-l, replies to messages posted to the list went, by

...

default, to air-l.  The default reply setting for air-l has been changed. As of now, replies to list posts will go privately to the message poster and not to air-l.  If you would like people on the list to see your reply, you will need to manually insert the air-l address into the To: field of your reply.

Thanks for your attention to this change,

Holly Kruse List Manager, air-l holly@aoir.org holly-kruse@utulsa.edu

_______________________________________________ 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/

-- Alexander Semenov. MA student Faculty of Sociology Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES) http://www.msses.ru/English/index.html

Graduate Student in Sociology at State Univercity - Higher School of Economics http://www.hse.ru/eng _______________________________________________ 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/

A) Briefly, a member of the Executive Committee suggested we make the change based on the following considerations:

This will eliminate emails, intended to be sent privately to another member of the list in response to a list post, being accidentally broadcast instead to ca. 2,000 list members. - and thereby entering our uneditable archives on Dreamhost.

actually we can edit those archives if necessary. However... I find it very questionable that the group would necessarily be forced to serve the mistakes or carelessness of individuals.

We've seen a fair number of these - I'm guilty of more than my share, and so perhaps I'm more sympathetic to this consideration. Very, very fortunately, so far at least, most of the emails have _not_ passed on comments or otherwise revealed information in more than mildly embarrassing embarrassing fashion.

I think this is a minor point. we have had few and I mean ... very few. I'd say we have 1 for every 10 on the cultstud-l list.

For that, we've had more than one request from respected - and certainly competent - list members to eliminate such emails from the archive record. Given our arrangements with Dreamhost, this is more or less just not possible.

we shouldn't e doing that anyway, but it can be done.

All of this raises the central worry that there exists a good possibility in the long run of the list that someone will indeed post to the list a note intended for a particular individual, but one containing very sensitive / confidential information, the publication of which on list could easily have disastrous consequences for the individuals involved, and perhaps others. Worst-case, some of us are concerned that this might make AoIR legally liable / open to suit.

get a lawyer. I don't see this. before this would happen, we would just edit the archive. You just contact dreamhost, and they'll send you the tar.gz, you take out the message and send it back. If this is a huge concern, then move off dreamhost to a listserv with easier access. The solution shouldn't be to hamstring the community because of a theoretical possibility.

B) To be sure, other points of view - very much along the lines that have now been extensively (and, thank you, very cordially) expressed by several list members - were in play in our discussion as well.

And: what was under discussion was a _trial_ run of the change, to see how far the concerns that such a change would dampen community conversation, etc., turned out to be true. (Hence my echoing the empirical sensibility of Nicole Ellison, above.)

a trial run is daft. this list isn't for experiments even by the exec. it is the primary means of communications for the association. we specifically chose against using an announce list back in the day, we had that option, to make this an announce-reply to sender list, but we didn't because it hampers people's capacity to talk to many people at once.

C) There was, however - and believe me, the irony is not lost on me - some miscommunication across the course of our email exchanges, such that our stalwart System Officer Holly Kruse understood the decision to have been made and one to be implemented.

2) So, while the change was made prematurely - the upside is that it has evoked just the sort of discussion that will be helpful to the Executive Committee in making any long-term decision on this matter. (As someone deeply committed to Habermasian and feminist understandings of democracy, it is clear to me that potential norms must be openly discussed and considered by those who will be affected by their possible adoption.)

In light of all of this, I propose the following: a) now that the change has been made, and that voices both pro and con are being raised - rather than switch back without further ado, I suggest we keep it in place for the time-being. This will have the further advantage of giving us some empirically-based sense of what effects will really follow from the change.

No, we shouldn't. It will just stay in place if you leave it in place, within a week people will begin to change their norms and expectations to the list. I've already had people reply to me directly from the list when they've mean tto reply to the list itself. I hate to say it, but there is really no reason to make this change. I see that some people might be for it. But i think the majority see that it substantially changes the nature of the list in ways that detracts from the nature of AoIR. This is something that should be voted on before it is changed, voted on by the members. It is akin to something like founding a journal, changing membership fees, etc. This is the main communication medium for the organization, changes should not just be decided for the organization. A vote at the annual meeting or referendum during the upcoming election seems necessary before letting this change in place.

Why don't we just vote on the change? Simple majority wins. ren On 11 May 2009, at 14:35, Dominic Pinto wrote:

agree with jeremy

Dominic Pinto http://www.ecademy.com/user/dominicpinto http://www.linkedin.com/in/dominicpinto

e-m: dominic.pinto@ieee.org Skype: zorrodp M: +44 780 302-8268 Ph: +44 207 379-8341 In the U.S. M/Cell: +1 215 667-3001

________________________________ From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> To: Charles Ess <charles.ess@gmail.com> Cc: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Sent: Monday, 11 May, 2009 12:25:29 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] Change of default reply setting on air-l

...

A) Briefly, a member of the Executive Committee suggested we make the change based on the following considerations:

This will eliminate emails, intended to be sent privately to another member of the list in response to a list post, being accidentally broadcast instead to ca. 2,000 list members. - and thereby entering our uneditable archives on Dreamhost.

actually we can edit those archives if necessary. However... I find it very questionable that the group would necessarily be forced to serve the mistakes or carelessness of individuals.

...

We've seen a fair number of these - I'm guilty of more than my share, and so perhaps I'm more sympathetic to this consideration. Very, very fortunately, so far at least, most of the emails have _not_ passed on comments or otherwise revealed information in more than mildly embarrassing embarrassing fashion.

I think this is a minor point. we have had few and I mean ... very few. I'd say we have 1 for every 10 on the cultstud-l list.

...

For that, we've had more than one request from respected - and certainly competent - list members to eliminate such emails from the archive record. Given our arrangements with Dreamhost, this is more or less just not possible.

we shouldn't e doing that anyway, but it can be done.

...

All of this raises the central worry that there exists a good possibility in the long run of the list that someone will indeed post to the list a note intended for a particular individual, but one containing very sensitive / confidential information, the publication of which on list could easily have disastrous consequences for the individuals involved, and perhaps others. Worst-case, some of us are concerned that this might make AoIR legally liable / open to suit.

get a lawyer. I don't see this. before this would happen, we would just edit the archive. You just contact dreamhost, and they'll send you the tar.gz, you take out the message and send it back.

If this is a huge concern, then move off dreamhost to a listserv with easier access.

The solution shouldn't be to hamstring the community because of a theoretical possibility.

...

B) To be sure, other points of view - very much along the lines that have now been extensively (and, thank you, very cordially) expressed by several list members - were in play in our discussion as well.

And: what was under discussion was a _trial_ run of the change, to see how far the concerns that such a change would dampen community conversation, etc., turned out to be true. (Hence my echoing the empirical sensibility of Nicole Ellison, above.)

a trial run is daft. this list isn't for experiments even by the exec. it is the primary means of communications for the association.

we specifically chose against using an announce list back in the day, we had that option, to make this an announce-reply to sender list, but we didn't because it hampers people's capacity to talk to many people at once.

...

C) There was, however - and believe me, the irony is not lost on me - some miscommunication across the course of our email exchanges, such that our stalwart System Officer Holly Kruse understood the decision to have been made and one to be implemented.

2) So, while the change was made prematurely - the upside is that it has evoked just the sort of discussion that will be helpful to the Executive Committee in making any long-term decision on this matter. (As someone deeply committed to Habermasian and feminist understandings of democracy, it is clear to me that potential norms must be openly discussed and considered by those who will be affected by their possible adoption.)

In light of all of this, I propose the following: a) now that the change has been made, and that voices both pro and con are being raised - rather than switch back without further ado, I suggest we keep it in place for the time-being. This will have the further advantage of giving us some empirically-based sense of what effects will really follow from the change.

No, we shouldn't. It will just stay in place if you leave it in place, within a week people will begin to change their norms and expectations to the list. I've already had people reply to me directly from the list when they've mean tto reply to the list itself.

I hate to say it, but there is really no reason to make this change. I see that some people might be for it. But i think the majority see that it substantially changes the nature of the list in ways that detracts from the nature of AoIR.

This is something that should be voted on before it is changed, voted on by the members. It is akin to something like founding a journal, changing membership fees, etc. This is the main communication medium for the organization, changes should not just be decided for the organization. A vote at the annual meeting or referendum during the upcoming election seems necessary before letting this change in place.

_______________________________________________ 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/

Hello, I'm curious of one thing about this new setting. Some posts suppose we can keep it in order to *test* its impact. But how could we measure these mails - and their potential benefits - whose have been sent to others and not to the list ? Regards, Manuel Boutet.

I agree with everyone. The resources and information that others have posted in response to questions and ideas has been most helpful. It's been my experience that one of the ingredients for successful communications and use of technology is the ease of use. Why change something that is working? On 5/10/09 7:19 PM, "jeremy hunsinger" <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote:

gotta say, that... I think this is very detrimental to the community. This change fundamentally destroys the conversation construed as a group, and forces it to be between individuals, unless they consciously choose otherwise. This is a change I've always been against and I am against it now. Air-l should be about collegiality and sharing, not about replying to individuals. I think this setting should be reverted asap.

On May 10, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Holly Kruse wrote:

...

Up until now on air-l, replies to messages posted to the list went, by default, to air-l. The default reply setting for air-l has been changed. As of now, replies to list posts will go privately to the message poster and not to air-l. If you would like people on the list to see your reply, you will need to manually insert the air-l address into the To: field of your reply.

Thanks for your attention to this change,

Holly Kruse List Manager, air-l holly@aoir.org holly-kruse@utulsa.edu

_______________________________________________ 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/

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Richard Forno <rforno@infowarrior.org> wrote:

Frankly, speaking as a technologist and long-time email list admin myself, I just don't see what the fuss is all about.

Although I think others may share the same opinions I am about to offer, I only speak for myself when I say that I think the fuss is about the fact that: 1. Even small technological changes can have immense social and political repercussions. I am sensitive to this as it's pretty close to much of what I study and write. In fact, it's an idea that is pretty central to much of the work that has gone on in areas like social informatics for the past decade or two or three. 2. The change appears to have been made without input from or warning to the community. Kevin

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Gordon Carlson <gordycarlson@gmail.com> wrote:

What is the social or political repercussion in this particular case?

As already argued by many others, changing the default behavior of the "Reply" button to direct replies to only the original writer instead of the entire list seems to be a pretty big social repercussion in itself. In fact, using Gmail I've had to change my own behavior to send my replies to you to the entire list. I've had to (a) use the "Reply to all" button instead of the "Reply" button that I almost always use, (b) remove your e-mail address from the "To:" field so you don't get two copies of my messages, and (c) move the AoIR listserv address from the "Cc:" field to the "To:" field. That all seems a bit excessive compared to the old behavior of just hitting the "Reply" button. We could certainly make some improvements to my e-mail client but I think my general point stands: This change presents a (admittedly low) barrier to the standard and welcome practice of replying to the entire community. I personally think that replying to the whole community was the right default and it's what I've used on the (much smaller) listservs I'd administered. I believe that the value of regularly encouraging community discussion and sharing outweighs the occasional personal message accidentally sent to everyone. Reasonable people can disagree about that as amply demonstrated by this ongoing discussion. :) Kevin

Its never a good idea when thinking about the rules by which a group or an organization are structured to depend on the actions of individuals to support that group. This is the failure of individualistic thinking. "If we just have a few more people with strong character and a willingness to contribute to the good of the society the current economic crisis could be over." As social scientists we know that structures have a huge impact on the ways that people act. Agency always occurs within the context of some set of grooves that are there. People can step out of the groove and do other things, but in fact many people in many situations won't. I am most impressed by Phillipa's comments, which in a very measured way point out that the gifts we all receive - this generalized reciprocity that many of us have been claiming are an extraordinary benefit of the Internet - depend upon replies going to the list. And that on balance, these gifts are worth having to delete or filter a few emails. I would suggest this is a big deal and if we rely on people hitting the 'reply all' button, then 1) this is very naive thinking about social behavior and we ought to go back to Soc 101 and 2) there will be many more gifts lost to the community. Wes Wesley Shumar Professor of Anthropology Department of Culture and Communication Drexel University 3141 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 215-895-2060 shumarw@drexel.edu http://www.shumarw.com/ On May 10, 2009, at 10:42 PM, Richard Forno wrote:

Holly, thanks for this change, even though it seems that I'm in the minority who appreciates it.

IMHO contrary to much of what's been written against this change thus far, this minor tweak does absolutely nothing to contrain Info- sharing or group conversations here in the slightest - any list member can reach the entire list, they just need to click a different button on their mail client . Big deal. Maybe a few of us have to think about which button to click when replying to list traffic a few times until it becomes second nature here after all these years, but that's about it. So again - big deal! Call me naive, but I don't understand why folks are so adamantly-opposed to this very minor change.....based on the comments tonight, you'd think the AIR execs were moderating AIR-L or enacting some other oppressive policy upon us.

I do not think it's unreasonable for someone to have to click "reply- all" to reach everyone when on a mailing list ... in fact, AIR-L is the *only* list that I am on that didn't do that by default, and I've been "burned" by having a note intended in response to one person being sent to the whole list because I was 'conditioned' based on how every other list I've been on functions.

That said, if any CMC specialists wiser than me want to explain how this is such a detriment to the flow of information here (other than perhaps 'raising the bar' in some minor way by forcing people to re- think which button they click to reply-to-everyone), please enlighten me.

Frankly, speaking as a technologist and long-time email list admin myself, I just don't see what the fuss is all about.

-rick (apparently an "AIR-L heretic")

On May 10, 2009, at 19:19 , jeremy hunsinger wrote:

...

gotta say, that... I think this is very detrimental to the community. This change fundamentally destroys the conversation construed as a group, and forces it to be between individuals, unless they consciously choose otherwise. This is a change I've always been against and I am against it now. Air-l should be about collegiality and sharing, not about replying to individuals. I think this setting should be reverted asap.

On May 10, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Holly Kruse wrote:

...

Up until now on air-l, replies to messages posted to the list went, by default, to air-l. The default reply setting for air-l has been changed. As of now, replies to list posts will go privately to the message poster and not to air-l. If you would like people on the list to see your reply, you will need to manually insert the air-l address into the To: field of your reply.

Thanks for your attention to this change,

Holly Kruse List Manager, air-l holly@aoir.org holly-kruse@utulsa.edu

_______________________________________________ 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/

_______________________________________________ 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/

jeremy hunsinger schrieb:

gotta say, that... I think this is very detrimental to the community. This change fundamentally destroys the conversation construed as a group,

I guess this assumption can be taken as falsified after a short look at all the group discussion taking place right now - after the change? ;-)

Hi all, Like many of you, I've got a lot to do on this lovely Monday morning, but wanted to make a few quick points. 1. As Alex notes, experience is important. But they will differ. For instance, one person argued that seeing the "reply" go to the whole group somehow increases the poster's sense of community. This is not the case for me, at all.  2. Technical setups will also differ. I've received emails addressed to the group and to me personally, but I only get them once. Also please note that emails can be sent without an address in the To: line (as with this email), so you don't need to cut and paste the AOIR address from the CC to the To line with the new system (and perhaps won't have to delete other addresses - additionally, it may be possible to have the system remove the individual addresses when reply-all is hit). 3. Like Alex, I'd also be curious to hear about any research or theory that might enlighten us on this issue. For instance, people have pointed out that there have only been a handful of cases in the last year or so in which replies have unintentionally gone to the list. If we agree with tenets of Bandura's Social Learning theory, we learn by watching others and seeing whether their behaviors are rewarded or punished. So even though the number of instances are small, we don't know whether some members (newbies for instance) are seeing others post to the list by mistake and experience negative outcomes, thus teaching them that posting is difficult and/or likely to result in embarrassment, etc. Thus the handful of cases might actually have a larger negative impact over time on the health of the list. (Just throwing this out there as a potential theoretical approach we could apply.) 4. I think the unfortunate way it was introduced, which Charles has explained, means that it's not really going to get a fair shake because the change is wrapped up in other feelings of resentment, etc. 5. The list is multi-disciplinary, thus assumptions that everyone will have the same training and exposure to research/theory (e.g. "sociology 101") don't move us forward, in my opinion. Thanks, Nicole Quoting "Emma Duke-Williams" <emma.dukewilliams@gmail.com>:

2009/5/11 Ralf Bendrath <bendrath@zedat.fu-berlin.de>:

...

I guess this assumption can be taken as falsified after a short look at all the group discussion taking place right now - after the change?

;-)

Aye, but how many "replies" have gone just to the sender, rather than to the list ...also, because of the change, folks are actively thinking about what they're doing with their reply buttons ;)

-- Emma Duke-Williams: School of Computing/ Faculty eLearning Co-ordinator, University of Portsmouth, UK. Blog: http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~duke-wie/blog/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/emmadw SL: Emmadw Rickenbacker _______________________________________________ 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/