Dear all There have been some vibrant and important discussions lately on air-list and I, and am sure many others, have been following them with interest, appreciating the time and effort people put into free scholarly discussion. This has always been the case with air-list and I hope that it continues in that vein. All of us will be aware, after more than a decade's research into online communication, that from time to time, the freedom of the means of communication and the lack of co-presence can limit the effectiveness of the overall communicative process or produce unexpected and counter-productive damage to that process. As has been pointed out recently on the list, air does, like most lists, have a stated etiquette (http://www.aoir.org/?q=node/5). The etiquette is deliberately open to interpretation so as to enjoin each list subscriber to think carefully about the manner and content of their communications via the list as well as their reaction to others' communications. Balancing enthusiastic, engaged and productively antagonistic discussion with respect for others and their views does not happen because of the etiquette but because of people's commitment to those outcomes, guided by the etiquette. May I ask subscribers to utilise this guidance please. I would also remind subscribers that air-list is a service provided by the Association as one of the primary means of achieving the Association's primary objectives concerning scholarship of the Internet. Management of the conduct of the list, including permission to subscribe, conditions under which subscription is permitted, conduct of subscribers etc., remains at all times the prerogative of the Asssociation whose affairs are conducted by the Executive. Finally, the Executive is currently reviewing the etiquette statement and will be discussing whether or not it should be revised and if so, in what manner, at the Brisbane Executive meeting. Best wishes Matt Dr Matthew Allen Associate Professor in Internet Studies President Association of Internet Researchers Faculty of Media Society and Culture Curtin University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code 00301J http://smi.curtin.edu.au/NetStudies/allen.htm +61 8 92663511 (v) +61 8 92663166 (f)
Hi Matthew and the Executive Committee: One thing the Executive might want to consider is a maximum post per day rule. The E-Democracy email lists use that device as a way to keep any one person from dominating the discussion. Given that email lists can be hijacked by one or a small group of people, thereby drowning out other voices, threads and positions, the two post maximum helps keep the volume of participation somewhat more even. And even levels of participation are important for healthy discussion and the long-term success of an email-list community. Best wishes, ~Jenny Stromer-Galley
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Allen Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:50 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Air-list
Dear all
There have been some vibrant and important discussions lately on air-list and I, and am sure many others, have been following them with interest, appreciating the time and effort people put into free scholarly discussion. This has always been the case with air-list and I hope that it continues in that vein.
All of us will be aware, after more than a decade's research into online communication, that from time to time, the freedom of the means of communication and the lack of co-presence can limit the effectiveness of the overall communicative process or produce unexpected and counter-productive damage to that process.
As has been pointed out recently on the list, air does, like most lists, have a stated etiquette (http://www.aoir.org/?q=node/5). The etiquette is deliberately open to interpretation so as to enjoin each list subscriber to think carefully about the manner and content of their communications via the list as well as their reaction to others' communications. Balancing enthusiastic, engaged and productively antagonistic discussion with respect for others and their views does not happen because of the etiquette but because of people's commitment to those outcomes, guided by the etiquette. May I ask subscribers to utilise this guidance please.
I would also remind subscribers that air-list is a service provided by the Association as one of the primary means of achieving the Association's primary objectives concerning scholarship of the Internet. Management of the conduct of the list, including permission to subscribe, conditions under which subscription is permitted, conduct of subscribers etc., remains at all times the prerogative of the Asssociation whose affairs are conducted by the Executive.
Finally, the Executive is currently reviewing the etiquette statement and will be discussing whether or not it should be revised and if so, in what manner, at the Brisbane Executive meeting.
Best wishes Matt
Dr Matthew Allen Associate Professor in Internet Studies President Association of Internet Researchers Faculty of Media Society and Culture Curtin University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code 00301J http://smi.curtin.edu.au/NetStudies/allen.htm +61 8 92663511 (v) +61 8 92663166 (f) _______________________________________________ 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'm not sure (I dont remember if) if air was ever programmed for this or not - but I remember when I was running the postcolonial list - we configured it so that after three posts in a span of 24 hours - a member's post was automatically sent back. r
Hi Matthew and the Executive Committee:
One thing the Executive might want to consider is a maximum post per day rule. The E-Democracy email lists use that device as a way to keep any one person from dominating the discussion. Given that email lists can be hijacked by one or a small group of people, thereby drowning out other voices, threads and positions, the two post maximum helps keep the volume of participation somewhat more even. And even levels of participation are important for healthy discussion and the long-term success of an email-list community.
Best wishes, ~Jenny Stromer-Galley
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Allen Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:50 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Air-list
Dear all
There have been some vibrant and important discussions lately on air-list and I, and am sure many others, have been following them with interest, appreciating the time and effort people put into free scholarly discussion. This has always been the case with air-list and I hope that it continues in that vein.
All of us will be aware, after more than a decade's research into online communication, that from time to time, the freedom of the means of communication and the lack of co-presence can limit the effectiveness of the overall communicative process or produce unexpected and counter-productive damage to that process.
As has been pointed out recently on the list, air does, like most lists, have a stated etiquette (http://www.aoir.org/?q=node/5). The etiquette is deliberately open to interpretation so as to enjoin each list subscriber to think carefully about the manner and content of their communications via the list as well as their reaction to others' communications. Balancing enthusiastic, engaged and productively antagonistic discussion with respect for others and their views does not happen because of the etiquette but because of people's commitment to those outcomes, guided by the etiquette. May I ask subscribers to utilise this guidance please.
I would also remind subscribers that air-list is a service provided by the Association as one of the primary means of achieving the Association's primary objectives concerning scholarship of the Internet. Management of the conduct of the list, including permission to subscribe, conditions under which subscription is permitted, conduct of subscribers etc., remains at all times the prerogative of the Asssociation whose affairs are conducted by the Executive.
Finally, the Executive is currently reviewing the etiquette statement and will be discussing whether or not it should be revised and if so, in what manner, at the Brisbane Executive meeting.
Best wishes Matt
Dr Matthew Allen Associate Professor in Internet Studies President Association of Internet Researchers Faculty of Media Society and Culture Curtin University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code 00301J http://smi.curtin.edu.au/NetStudies/allen.htm +61 8 92663511 (v) +61 8 92663166 (f) _______________________________________________ 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/
-- Radhika Gajjala Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator School of Communication Studies 302 West Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43402 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik/index2.html For queries about BGSU's School of Communication Studies Grad program, email comsgrad@bgsu.edu For info on the Theory Research cluster at SCS - see http://scs.bgsu.edu/Research/ResearchClusters/theory.php
No, the air-l list never was like that. Steve's software wasn't set for that either. i was always pretty much adamantly against doing something like this :) I still am, but now I don't make the arguments in regards to list management. I can see both sides of having limited numbers of posts, but I'd rather have those people who our enthusiastic be able to convey that, and learn when... enthusiasm goes a bit too far through gentle prodding, or more serious measures if it goes beyond enthusiasm. Having been a listmom for quire some time, I think that in regards to list behavior, people should get appropriate hints, and when hints fail, they should be warned by list management and when warnings are insufficient, they should have a forced break, of 2 weeks where they can't post, and then if they continue after a 2 weeks break, then they should be removed. That would be what i would currently argue for. On Sep 13, 2006, at 6:15 PM, radhika gajjala wrote:
I'm not sure (I dont remember if) if air was ever programmed for this or not - but I remember when I was running the postcolonial list - we configured it so that after three posts in a span of 24 hours - a member's post was automatically sent back.
r jeremy hunsinger Assistant Professor Pratt Institute www.cddc.vt.edu wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
I would tend to agree with you r (who now feels like a list grand-mom ;-))
No, the air-l list never was like that. Steve's software wasn't set for that either. i was always pretty much adamantly against doing something like this :) I still am, but now I don't make the arguments in regards to list management. I can see both sides of having limited numbers of posts, but I'd rather have those people who our enthusiastic be able to convey that, and learn when... enthusiasm goes a bit too far through gentle prodding, or more serious measures if it goes beyond enthusiasm.
Having been a listmom for quire some time, I think that in regards to list behavior, people should get appropriate hints, and when hints fail, they should be warned by list management and when warnings are insufficient, they should have a forced break, of 2 weeks where they can't post, and then if they continue after a 2 weeks break, then they should be removed. That would be what i would currently argue for.
On Sep 13, 2006, at 6:15 PM, radhika gajjala wrote:
I'm not sure (I dont remember if) if air was ever programmed for this or not - but I remember when I was running the postcolonial list - we configured it so that after three posts in a span of 24 hours - a member's post was automatically sent back.
r jeremy hunsinger Assistant Professor Pratt Institute www.cddc.vt.edu wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
_______________________________________________ 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/
-- Radhika Gajjala Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator School of Communication Studies 302 West Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43402 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik/index2.html For queries about BGSU's School of Communication Studies Grad program, email comsgrad@bgsu.edu For info on the Theory Research cluster at SCS - see http://scs.bgsu.edu/Research/ResearchClusters/theory.php
Whatever you devise is a form of censorship and has no place in scientific discourse. If you search the archives you will find that I have mostly responded to other people's assertions. This newest attempt to gag me, is no exception. The reason I respond so much is that is such fertile ground. What you can't know is the number of lurkers I have pulled off the sidelines and who are responding to me privately. Reid -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of radhika gajjala Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:02 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Air-list I would tend to agree with you r (who now feels like a list grand-mom ;-))
No, the air-l list never was like that. Steve's software wasn't set for that either. i was always pretty much adamantly against doing something like this :) I still am, but now I don't make the arguments in regards to list management. I can see both sides of having limited numbers of posts, but I'd rather have those people who our enthusiastic be able to convey that, and learn when... enthusiasm goes a bit too far through gentle prodding, or more serious measures if it goes beyond enthusiasm.
Having been a listmom for quire some time, I think that in regards to list behavior, people should get appropriate hints, and when hints fail, they should be warned by list management and when warnings are insufficient, they should have a forced break, of 2 weeks where they can't post, and then if they continue after a 2 weeks break, then they should be removed. That would be what i would currently argue for.
On Sep 13, 2006, at 6:15 PM, radhika gajjala wrote:
I'm not sure (I dont remember if) if air was ever programmed for this or not - but I remember when I was running the postcolonial list - we configured it so that after three posts in a span of 24 hours - a member's post was automatically sent back.
r jeremy hunsinger Assistant Professor Pratt Institute www.cddc.vt.edu wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
_______________________________________________ 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/
-- Radhika Gajjala Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator School of Communication Studies 302 West Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43402 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik/index2.html For queries about BGSU's School of Communication Studies Grad program, email comsgrad@bgsu.edu For info on the Theory Research cluster at SCS - see http://scs.bgsu.edu/Research/ResearchClusters/theory.php _______________________________________________ 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/
why whoever said democracy (online or offline) doesnt censure? and who on this list is so disempowered in life as not to be able to send a few sentences to the list? its so sad that people (and I include myself here) have to waste their time and energy arguing over all this when there is so much else to be done - both onine and offline. r (who is now heading back to her more important facebook newsfeeds...)
Whatever you devise is a form of censorship and has no place in scientific discourse.
If you search the archives you will find that I have mostly responded to other people's assertions. This newest attempt to gag me, is no exception.
The reason I respond so much is that is such fertile ground.
What you can't know is the number of lurkers I have pulled off the sidelines and who are responding to me privately.
Reid
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of radhika gajjala Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:02 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Air-list
I would tend to agree with you
r
(who now feels like a list grand-mom ;-))
No, the air-l list never was like that. Steve's software wasn't set for that either. i was always pretty much adamantly against doing something like this :) I still am, but now I don't make the arguments in regards to list management. I can see both sides of having limited numbers of posts, but I'd rather have those people who our enthusiastic be able to convey that, and learn when... enthusiasm goes a bit too far through gentle prodding, or more serious measures if it goes beyond enthusiasm.
Having been a listmom for quire some time, I think that in regards to list behavior, people should get appropriate hints, and when hints fail, they should be warned by list management and when warnings are insufficient, they should have a forced break, of 2 weeks where they can't post, and then if they continue after a 2 weeks break, then they should be removed. That would be what i would currently argue for.
On Sep 13, 2006, at 6:15 PM, radhika gajjala wrote:
I'm not sure (I dont remember if) if air was ever programmed for this or not - but I remember when I was running the postcolonial list - we configured it so that after three posts in a span of 24 hours - a member's post was automatically sent back.
r jeremy hunsinger Assistant Professor Pratt Institute www.cddc.vt.edu wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
_______________________________________________ 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/
-- Radhika Gajjala Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator School of Communication Studies 302 West Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43402 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik/index2.html
For queries about BGSU's School of Communication Studies Grad program, email comsgrad@bgsu.edu
For info on the Theory Research cluster at SCS - see http://scs.bgsu.edu/Research/ResearchClusters/theory.php _______________________________________________ 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/
-- Radhika Gajjala Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator School of Communication Studies 302 West Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43402 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik/index2.html For queries about BGSU's School of Communication Studies Grad program, email comsgrad@bgsu.edu For info on the Theory Research cluster at SCS - see http://scs.bgsu.edu/Research/ResearchClusters/theory.php
On Sep 13, 2006, at 7:33 PM, radhika gajjala wrote:
its so sad that people (and I include myself here) have to waste their time and energy arguing over all this when there is so much else to be done - both onine and offline.
"Have to"? That's the feeling I'm interested in. Does everyone feel that? They can't help but read everything posted to the list? Where does that come from? Is it, as I earlier suggested, due to a holdover of f2f habits, or something else? --Christian
actually yes, some people feel a responsibility to aoir, their colleagues and the larger effort they share. some of these people are acquaintances, some are colleagues, and some are friends, many we've met f2f, some not. personally, i appreciate all the efforts that so many people put into this list and this organization, and i tend to feel responsible (though less so now that i am not directly responsible) to it and the community involved. i 'have to' do some things for aoir, and i suppose i always will. On Sep 13, 2006, at 9:43 PM, Christian Nelson wrote:
On Sep 13, 2006, at 7:33 PM, radhika gajjala wrote:
its so sad that people (and I include myself here) have to waste their time and energy arguing over all this when there is so much else to be done - both onine and offline.
"Have to"? That's the feeling I'm interested in. Does everyone feel that? They can't help but read everything posted to the list? Where does that come from? Is it, as I earlier suggested, due to a holdover of f2f habits, or something else? --Christian
_______________________________________________ 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 Assistant Professor Pratt Institute www.cddc.vt.edu wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
I appreciate your sense of commitment to the group, Jeremy, but I'm not clear on why that would compel you or anyone else on the list to feel they had to read every single message on the list. It can't be because of a fear of what a post might physically do to the list, so I assume its because of a fear of how it might impact the community. How could posts like Reid's, as obnoxious as they are, impact a community in a negative way? Do you suspect that others also can't help themselves reading the messages, then becoming frustrated with them, and then dropping from the list? This isn't a rhetorical question. I'm truly interested. I'd appreciate hearing from anyone about this. --Christian On Sep 13, 2006, at 10:00 PM, Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
actually yes, some people feel a responsibility to aoir, their colleagues and the larger effort they share. some of these people are acquaintances, some are colleagues, and some are friends, many we've met f2f, some not. personally, i appreciate all the efforts that so many people put into this list and this organization, and i tend to feel responsible (though less so now that i am not directly responsible) to it and the community involved. i 'have to' do some things for aoir, and i suppose i always will. On Sep 13, 2006, at 9:43 PM, Christian Nelson wrote:
On Sep 13, 2006, at 7:33 PM, radhika gajjala wrote:
its so sad that people (and I include myself here) have to waste their time and energy arguing over all this when there is so much else to be done - both onine and offline.
"Have to"? That's the feeling I'm interested in. Does everyone feel that? They can't help but read everything posted to the list? Where does that come from? Is it, as I earlier suggested, due to a holdover of f2f habits, or something else? --Christian
_______________________________________________ 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 Assistant Professor Pratt Institute www.cddc.vt.edu wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
_______________________________________________ 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/
Christian said:
How could posts like Reid's, as obnoxious as they are, impact a community in a negative way? Do you suspect that others also can't help themselves reading the messages, then becoming frustrated with them, and then dropping from the list?
I don't think that's the case so much as people seeing that only a small handful of people are posting ALOT, and that the conversation topic(s) are irrelevant to why they subscribed to the list, and so they unsubscribe. People have emailed me backchannel and some are saying it publicly that they are a hair's breath from unsubscribing from AoIR - people who are long-time readers of this list. That, to my mind, is unhealthy for this community. Best, ~Jenny
I think we need to take all discussion of list management off list. it is bad form to discuss it here. lets get back to topical discussions. the traditional way to report problems or opinions to aoir is to send things to the president or to the suggestions@aoir.org address.
I concur with Jeremy. To provide assistance with an END to discussions on air-l about list management, could everyone please a) refrain from responding to trolling (wherever it comes from) b) email me directly with views on list management - said views to be contributed to Exec discussion thanks to everyone on list for their patience, their interest, their useful posts and the general sense of commitment to the air community. I trust we are all capable of managing our own behaviour :) Matt Dr Matthew Allen Associate Professor Internet Studies Curtin University of Technology, CRICOS 00301J Australia m.allen@curtin.edu.au http://smi.curtin.edu.au/netstudies/allen.htm <https://email.curtin.edu.au/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://smi.curtin.edu.au/netstudies/allen.htm> +61 8 92663511 (v) +61 8 9266 3166 (f) President, Association of Internet Researchers http://www.aoir.org <https://email.curtin.edu.au/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.aoir.org/> ________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org on behalf of Jeremy Hunsinger Sent: Thu 14/09/2006 8:52 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] deep breath and pause I think we need to take all discussion of list management off list. it is bad form to discuss it here. lets get back to topical discussions. the traditional way to report problems or opinions to aoir is to send things to the president or to the suggestions@aoir.org address. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org <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/
Christian, I wouldn't say we all have the 'have to' impulse, having deleted a number of these recent emails outright rather than wade through them all while hoping for something list-relevant :) I'm not sure I see the connection between that kind of impetus and F2F habits, though - attending to list posts involves actively opening emails using a medium that was designed for asynchronous communication, which I don't see much of a parallel to in face to face spoken discourse (though I could certainly see a parallel between the unopened mail in the inbox to the summons of a telephone ring, where the 'expected' action is to give the message your time). I think defining 'the floor' as being the same in email and F2F is where I'm seeing the disconnect. Joshua Joshua Raclaw - PhD student Department of Linguistics Culture, Language & Social Practice University of Colorado at Boulder http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~raclaw/ Quoting Christian Nelson <xianknelson@mac.com>: * * On Sep 13, 2006, at 7:33 PM, radhika gajjala wrote: * * > its so sad that people (and I include myself here) have to waste their * > time and energy arguing over all this when there is so much else to be * > done - both onine and offline. * * "Have to"? That's the feeling I'm interested in. Does everyone feel * that? They can't help but read everything posted to the list? Where * does that come from? Is it, as I earlier suggested, due to a holdover * of f2f habits, or something else? * --Christian * * _______________________________________________ * 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 am addressing the term "list-relevant" Air-1 Archives contain: 1096 Articles that contain "education" as a topic 491 that have references to "jobs" 708 that have reference to "positions" 2084 that have reference to "PhD and education" Scholar.google.com reveals 103 peer reviewed articles on "Monster Board" Alone Scholar.google.com has 28,900 hits on "job search" Scholar.google.com has 224 hits on "internet job search" There are no references to Monster Board in the AOIR archive. "The New Production of knowledge" Gibbons et al makes significant points about PhD and Universities that parallels my view. I guess I have no clue as to what is listserv-relevant. There are only 600 references to "AOIR" total and some of them are about "Ambient Ingress Oxygen Rate" Reid -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of joshua raclaw Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:20 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Air-list Christian, I wouldn't say we all have the 'have to' impulse, having deleted a number of these recent emails outright rather than wade through them all while hoping for something list-relevant :) I'm not sure I see the connection between that kind of impetus and F2F habits, though - attending to list posts involves actively opening emails using a medium that was designed for asynchronous communication, which I don't see much of a parallel to in face to face spoken discourse (though I could certainly see a parallel between the unopened mail in the inbox to the summons of a telephone ring, where the 'expected' action is to give the message your time). I think defining 'the floor' as being the same in email and F2F is where I'm seeing the disconnect. Joshua Joshua Raclaw - PhD student Department of Linguistics Culture, Language & Social Practice University of Colorado at Boulder http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~raclaw/ Quoting Christian Nelson <xianknelson@mac.com>: * * On Sep 13, 2006, at 7:33 PM, radhika gajjala wrote: * * > its so sad that people (and I include myself here) have to waste their * > time and energy arguing over all this when there is so much else to be * > done - both onine and offline. * * "Have to"? That's the feeling I'm interested in. Does everyone feel * that? They can't help but read everything posted to the list? Where * does that come from? Is it, as I earlier suggested, due to a holdover * of f2f habits, or something else? * --Christian * * _______________________________________________ * 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/
Reid, I'd be interested in the parallel to your views that you find in Michael Gibbons. His principal point, if I recall correctly, has to do with the difference between "Mode 1" and "Mode 2" approaches to the production and dissemination of knowledge. Is that your understanding? The "Mode 2" approach seems to have important implications for the relations between university research and the future of the Internet. Have you discussed that relationship? I don't recall is emphasizing the matter of the Ph.D. and university employment. Steve Eskow -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Dr. W. Reid Cornwell Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:27 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Air-list I am addressing the term "list-relevant" Air-1 Archives contain: 1096 Articles that contain "education" as a topic 491 that have references to "jobs" 708 that have reference to "positions" 2084 that have reference to "PhD and education" Scholar.google.com reveals 103 peer reviewed articles on "Monster Board" Alone Scholar.google.com has 28,900 hits on "job search" Scholar.google.com has 224 hits on "internet job search" There are no references to Monster Board in the AOIR archive. "The New Production of knowledge" Gibbons et al makes significant points about PhD and Universities that parallels my view. I guess I have no clue as to what is listserv-relevant. There are only 600 references to "AOIR" total and some of them are about "Ambient Ingress Oxygen Rate" Reid -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of joshua raclaw Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:20 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Air-list Christian, I wouldn't say we all have the 'have to' impulse, having deleted a number of these recent emails outright rather than wade through them all while hoping for something list-relevant :) I'm not sure I see the connection between that kind of impetus and F2F habits, though - attending to list posts involves actively opening emails using a medium that was designed for asynchronous communication, which I don't see much of a parallel to in face to face spoken discourse (though I could certainly see a parallel between the unopened mail in the inbox to the summons of a telephone ring, where the 'expected' action is to give the message your time). I think defining 'the floor' as being the same in email and F2F is where I'm seeing the disconnect. Joshua Joshua Raclaw - PhD student Department of Linguistics Culture, Language & Social Practice University of Colorado at Boulder http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~raclaw/ Quoting Christian Nelson <xianknelson@mac.com>: * * On Sep 13, 2006, at 7:33 PM, radhika gajjala wrote: * * > its so sad that people (and I include myself here) have to waste their * > time and energy arguing over all this when there is so much else to be * > done - both onine and offline. * * "Have to"? That's the feeling I'm interested in. Does everyone feel * that? They can't help but read everything posted to the list? Where * does that come from? Is it, as I earlier suggested, due to a holdover * of f2f habits, or something else? * --Christian * * _______________________________________________ * 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/
Steve, In mode 1 the Universities and their social structures and customs (praxis) have a stranglehold on the creation and dissemination of knowledge. In mode 2 applications become a major driving force. In this scenario practitioners in search of solutions to real world problems take on a more important role. These practitioners are not likely to be Ph.D.s. Gibbons does not directly say this but it is inherent in the mode 2 schema. I have interviewed and evaluated industrial scientists for decades. Moderate deep learning, creativity and a real world vision is the sought after commodity. This is directly opposite of the institutional hiring and research policies of the Universities. Which brings us directly back to the article in TheScience magazine. Also in industry the sharing of knowledge is the rule, in academia the ownership of knowledge prevails. I know this is counter-intuitive considering that Universities are centers of learning. One only has to look at disciplinarity in Universities and the difficulty of establishing true cross-disciplinarity. You see the same thing happening in this listserv conflict. Ie. "We own the knowledge" about the internet." You're not an academic so you don't know anything. My views are particularly problematic because I'm a heretic in the "Temple of Phud" and alien with my real world orientation. Perish the future. I'm really enjoying this exchange. Reid -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Steve Eskow Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:08 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org; wrc@tcfir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Air-list Reid, I'd be interested in the parallel to your views that you find in Michael Gibbons. His principal point, if I recall correctly, has to do with the difference between "Mode 1" and "Mode 2" approaches to the production and dissemination of knowledge. Is that your understanding? The "Mode 2" approach seems to have important implications for the relations between university research and the future of the Internet. Have you discussed that relationship? I don't recall is emphasizing the matter of the Ph.D. and university employment. Steve Eskow -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Dr. W. Reid Cornwell Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:27 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Air-list I am addressing the term "list-relevant" Air-1 Archives contain: 1096 Articles that contain "education" as a topic 491 that have references to "jobs" 708 that have reference to "positions" 2084 that have reference to "PhD and education" Scholar.google.com reveals 103 peer reviewed articles on "Monster Board" Alone Scholar.google.com has 28,900 hits on "job search" Scholar.google.com has 224 hits on "internet job search" There are no references to Monster Board in the AOIR archive. "The New Production of knowledge" Gibbons et al makes significant points about PhD and Universities that parallels my view. I guess I have no clue as to what is listserv-relevant. There are only 600 references to "AOIR" total and some of them are about "Ambient Ingress Oxygen Rate" Reid -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of joshua raclaw Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:20 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Air-list Christian, I wouldn't say we all have the 'have to' impulse, having deleted a number of these recent emails outright rather than wade through them all while hoping for something list-relevant :) I'm not sure I see the connection between that kind of impetus and F2F habits, though - attending to list posts involves actively opening emails using a medium that was designed for asynchronous communication, which I don't see much of a parallel to in face to face spoken discourse (though I could certainly see a parallel between the unopened mail in the inbox to the summons of a telephone ring, where the 'expected' action is to give the message your time). I think defining 'the floor' as being the same in email and F2F is where I'm seeing the disconnect. Joshua Joshua Raclaw - PhD student Department of Linguistics Culture, Language & Social Practice University of Colorado at Boulder http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~raclaw/ Quoting Christian Nelson <xianknelson@mac.com>: * * On Sep 13, 2006, at 7:33 PM, radhika gajjala wrote: * * > its so sad that people (and I include myself here) have to waste their * > time and energy arguing over all this when there is so much else to be * > done - both onine and offline. * * "Have to"? That's the feeling I'm interested in. Does everyone feel * that? They can't help but read everything posted to the list? Where * does that come from? Is it, as I earlier suggested, due to a holdover * of f2f habits, or something else? * --Christian * * _______________________________________________ * 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
Reid, and all, I am new to this list, and not sensitive to the issues generating discussion of how to control behavior and truth-telling here. The matter of the relations between universities and the larger society seems critical to the future of the Internet. So: Reid describes Michael Gibbons' Mode 1 and Mode 2 this way: <<In mode 1 the Universities and their social structures and customs (praxis)have a stranglehold on the creation and dissemination of knowledge. In mode 2 applications become a major driving force. In this scenario practitioners in search of solutions to real world problems take on a more important role.These practitioners are not likely to be Ph.D.s. Gibbons does not directly say this but it is inherent in the mode 2 schema.>> The statements in this paragraph are factually false, and distort Gibbons' message. First, and most important: the universities have never had, or claimed, or wanted "a stranglehold on the creation and dissemination of knowledge." Had they wanted such a "stranglehold" they have never had the power to prevent the government, the military, the industrial research laboratory, or the solitary explorer in his basement from researching. Indeed, a major criticism of university research is that it has often been compromised by its dependence on funds from these non-university sources, and that its research agenda has often been shaped by donor interests rather than society's needs and thus there has developed the drift to applied rather than basic research. Gibbons' Mode 2 is largely in effect now: "partnerships" and close collaboration between the university research lab and the research activities of the business, industry, the military, and government. The trend is in this direction, and it is unlikely that it will stop. In one view we now need another independent research effort to determine whether the long term interests of the nation and the world are being neglected in the pursuit of research devoted to products and processes with an immediate profit potential. This trend and current needs for researchers seem to offer no clear signal for our need for researchers at the Ph.D. level. Part of that answer seems related to the question of how research attention is divided between basic and applied research. Steve Eskow I have interviewed and evaluated industrial scientists for decades. Moderate deep learning, creativity and a real world vision is the sought after commodity. This is directly opposite of the institutional hiring and research policies of the Universities. Which brings us directly back to the article in TheScience magazine. Also in industry the sharing of knowledge is the rule, in academia the ownership of knowledge prevails. I know this is counter-intuitive considering that Universities are centers of learning. One only has to look at disciplinarity in Universities and the difficulty of establishing true cross-disciplinarity. You see the same thing happening in this listserv conflict. Ie. "We own the knowledge" about the internet." You're not an academic so you don't know anything. My views are particularly problematic because I'm a heretic in the "Temple of Phud" and alien with my real world orientation. Perish the future. I'm really enjoying this exchange. Reid -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Steve Eskow Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:08 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org; wrc@tcfir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Air-list Reid, I'd be interested in the parallel to your views that you find in Michael Gibbons. His principal point, if I recall correctly, has to do with the difference between "Mode 1" and "Mode 2" approaches to the production and dissemination of knowledge. Is that your understanding? The "Mode 2" approach seems to have important implications for the relations between university research and the future of the Internet. Have you discussed that relationship? I don't recall is emphasizing the matter of the Ph.D. and university employment. Steve Eskow -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Dr. W. Reid Cornwell Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:27 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Air-list I am addressing the term "list-relevant" Air-1 Archives contain: 1096 Articles that contain "education" as a topic 491 that have references to "jobs" 708 that have reference to "positions" 2084 that have reference to "PhD and education" Scholar.google.com reveals 103 peer reviewed articles on "Monster Board" Alone Scholar.google.com has 28,900 hits on "job search" Scholar.google.com has 224 hits on "internet job search" There are no references to Monster Board in the AOIR archive. "The New Production of knowledge" Gibbons et al makes significant points about PhD and Universities that parallels my view. I guess I have no clue as to what is listserv-relevant. There are only 600 references to "AOIR" total and some of them are about "Ambient Ingress Oxygen Rate" Reid -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of joshua raclaw Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:20 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Air-list Christian, I wouldn't say we all have the 'have to' impulse, having deleted a number of these recent emails outright rather than wade through them all while hoping for something list-relevant :) I'm not sure I see the connection between that kind of impetus and F2F habits, though - attending to list posts involves actively opening emails using a medium that was designed for asynchronous communication, which I don't see much of a parallel to in face to face spoken discourse (though I could certainly see a parallel between the unopened mail in the inbox to the summons of a telephone ring, where the 'expected' action is to give the message your time). I think defining 'the floor' as being the same in email and F2F is where I'm seeing the disconnect. Joshua Joshua Raclaw - PhD student Department of Linguistics Culture, Language & Social Practice University of Colorado at Boulder http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~raclaw/ Quoting Christian Nelson <xianknelson@mac.com>: * * On Sep 13, 2006, at 7:33 PM, radhika gajjala wrote: * * > its so sad that people (and I include myself here) have to waste their * > time and energy arguing over all this when there is so much else to be * > done - both onine and offline. * * "Have to"? That's the feeling I'm interested in. Does everyone feel * that? They can't help but read everything posted to the list? Where * does that come from? Is it, as I earlier suggested, due to a holdover * of f2f habits, or something else? * --Christian * * _______________________________________________ * 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
Welcome to the Ambient Ingress Oxygen Rate list :-) I am very curious about this discussion but couldn't read the initial posts in "The Scientist" which seemed to be a subscription-only paper. Would anyone be willing to summarise? Thank you, Elizabeth (A final-year PhD student after 12 years in the corporate world... still trying to decide what next) On 14 Sep 2006, at 05:27, Dr. W. Reid Cornwell wrote:
There are only 600 references to "AOIR" total and some of them are about "Ambient Ingress Oxygen Rate"
Reid
Elizabeth Van Couvering PhD Student Department of Media & Communications London School of Economics and Political Science http://personal.lse.ac.uk/vancouve/ e.j.van-couvering@lse.ac.uk
On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:19 PM, joshua raclaw wrote:
Christian,
I wouldn't say we all have the 'have to' impulse, having deleted a number of these recent emails outright rather than wade through them all while hoping for something list-relevant :)
I'm sure that its not a universal phenomenon. Probably varies at least by how long people have used email and at what point in their life they began.
I'm not sure I see the connection between that kind of impetus and F2F habits, though - attending to list posts involves actively opening emails using a medium that was designed for asynchronous communication, which I don't see much of a parallel to in face to face spoken discourse
That's my point. f2f and email comm. are quite different. Yet some folks on the list still seem to treat the list's email as though it were part of a f2f dialogue. Hmmm. --Christian
As a current listdad for a bunch of high-volume lists, I don't censor or use any "X post per person" rule...I'm not opposed to moderated lists (what some might call censorship) but in the latter case I think that posting quotae run counter to the concepts of "information freedom" (sic), responsible adult behaviour, and stifles legitimate discourse, not to mention places the list admins in the perpetual "you can say something only ONCE more today!" mode -- thereby turning them into glorified babysitters who constantly end up shushing people and subsequently appearing to many to be on a permanent ego/power trip. However, such a rule could have its place somewhere -- perhaps in a very specific venue -- but I wouldn't endorse it myself, and certainly not here in a forum where one of its key goals is the discussion of Internet communications theory. That said, on nearly every list I've ever run, participated, or lurked on, the underlying principle is that if you're perceived as 'dominating' a discussion and if your comments are viewed as noise, very quickly you'll become viewed/treated as such by subscribers and their individual "mental filters" will come into play, if not also technical ones in their MUA if they really want to avoid you. (Of course, I am referring to those who are trolls and not just any type of frequent posters.) I agree with Jeremy...on my lists, if someone gets too far off-topic or keeps breaking the list rules, I pull them aside to warn them. If it continues, they get removed straight away -- that's the only time I exercise my "iron hand as listdad." (That has rarely happened, as most folks tend to be respectful and responsible when warned, at least on my lists.) Frankly, AOIR-L is one of the better-managed lists I've encountered and the folks participating generally are responsible and keep on-topic and on-charter. Certainly, there are a good number of high-volume threads here that I ignore and skip, but as long as periodic spikes of traffic (even what some might perceive as trolling) don't evolve into a perpetual flame-fest or recurring trollage, I don't have a problem, because normalization/equilibrium will return fairly soon either through the list admin's actions directly or after a large number of complaints sent by other subscribers. (Compare that with some of the security lists I'm on where the admins refuse to do anything when folks troll or otherwise significantly stray from the list charter, which leads often to a horrendous signal-to-noise ratio and overall lower utility of the list for many participants/lurkers, even after we complain in droves.) Just my .04 this evening. -rf On 9/13/06 6:52 PM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote:
Having been a listmom for quire some time, I think that in regards to list behavior, people should get appropriate hints, and when hints fail, they should be warned by list management and when warnings are insufficient, they should have a forced break, of 2 weeks where they can't post, and then if they continue after a 2 weeks break, then they should be removed. That would be what i would currently argue for.
Is it just me, or does anyone find this kinda funny. I mean, it strikes me a bit odd--an odd importation of face-to-face communication notions into a non-f2f setting--to suggest that someone can "dominate" discussion on an email list. Unlike f2f conversation, email list participants can filter the stuff they get from the list either automatically or by deleting any message they see that comes from a certain person. Either filtering method is quite easy to engage in, so non-use of filtering can't be blamed on laziness. Does anyone else get the feeling that we tend to attend to list posts in a manner similar to the way that we attend to topical f2f utterances--i.e, we focus on them, give them the floor, without discrimination. Anyone with similar insights? --Christian Nelson On Sep 13, 2006, at 6:15 PM, radhika gajjala wrote:
I'm not sure (I dont remember if) if air was ever programmed for this or not - but I remember when I was running the postcolonial list - we configured it so that after three posts in a span of 24 hours - a member's post was automatically sent back.
r
Hi Matthew and the Executive Committee:
One thing the Executive might want to consider is a maximum post per day rule. The E-Democracy email lists use that device as a way to keep any one person from dominating the discussion. Given that email lists can be hijacked by one or a small group of people, thereby drowning out other voices, threads and positions, the two post maximum helps keep the volume of participation somewhat more even. And even levels of participation are important for healthy discussion and the long-term success of an email-list community.
Best wishes, ~Jenny Stromer-Galley
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Allen Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:50 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Air-list
Dear all
There have been some vibrant and important discussions lately on air-list and I, and am sure many others, have been following them with interest, appreciating the time and effort people put into free scholarly discussion. This has always been the case with air-list and I hope that it continues in that vein.
All of us will be aware, after more than a decade's research into online communication, that from time to time, the freedom of the means of communication and the lack of co-presence can limit the effectiveness of the overall communicative process or produce unexpected and counter-productive damage to that process.
As has been pointed out recently on the list, air does, like most lists, have a stated etiquette (http://www.aoir.org/?q=node/5). The etiquette is deliberately open to interpretation so as to enjoin each list subscriber to think carefully about the manner and content of their communications via the list as well as their reaction to others' communications. Balancing enthusiastic, engaged and productively antagonistic discussion with respect for others and their views does not happen because of the etiquette but because of people's commitment to those outcomes, guided by the etiquette. May I ask subscribers to utilise this guidance please.
I would also remind subscribers that air-list is a service provided by the Association as one of the primary means of achieving the Association's primary objectives concerning scholarship of the Internet. Management of the conduct of the list, including permission to subscribe, conditions under which subscription is permitted, conduct of subscribers etc., remains at all times the prerogative of the Asssociation whose affairs are conducted by the Executive.
Finally, the Executive is currently reviewing the etiquette statement and will be discussing whether or not it should be revised and if so, in what manner, at the Brisbane Executive meeting.
Best wishes Matt
Dr Matthew Allen Associate Professor in Internet Studies President Association of Internet Researchers Faculty of Media Society and Culture Curtin University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code 00301J http://smi.curtin.edu.au/NetStudies/allen.htm +61 8 92663511 (v) +61 8 92663166 (f) _______________________________________________ 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/
-- Radhika Gajjala Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator School of Communication Studies 302 West Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43402 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik/index2.html
For queries about BGSU's School of Communication Studies Grad program, email comsgrad@bgsu.edu
For info on the Theory Research cluster at SCS - see http://scs.bgsu.edu/Research/ResearchClusters/theory.php _______________________________________________ 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/
Christian -- I think one important thing to consider here is the difference between receiving a list email by email vs. the digest version. The former allows people to hit delete or create filters, while the latter makes it much more of a cognitive chore (not a major one, but perhaps enough of one to disuade a person from bothering) as all the filtering must be done within a message. Nancy
Is it just me, or does anyone find this kinda funny. I mean, it strikes me a bit odd--an odd importation of face-to-face communication notions into a non-f2f setting--to suggest that someone can "dominate" discussion on an email list. Unlike f2f conversation, email list participants can filter the stuff they get from the list either automatically or by deleting any message they see that comes from a certain person. Either filtering method is quite easy to engage in, so non-use of filtering can't be blamed on laziness. Does anyone else get the feeling that we tend to attend to list posts in a manner similar to the way that we attend to topical f2f utterances--i.e, we focus on them, give them the floor, without discrimination. Anyone with similar insights? --Christian Nelson
On Sep 13, 2006, at 6:15 PM, radhika gajjala wrote:
I'm not sure (I dont remember if) if air was ever programmed for this or not - but I remember when I was running the postcolonial list - we configured it so that after three posts in a span of 24 hours - a member's post was automatically sent back.
r
Hi Matthew and the Executive Committee:
One thing the Executive might want to consider is a maximum post per day rule. The E-Democracy email lists use that device as a way to keep any one person from dominating the discussion. Given that email lists can be hijacked by one or a small group of people, thereby drowning out other voices, threads and positions, the two post maximum helps keep the volume of participation somewhat more even. And even levels of participation are important for healthy discussion and the long-term success of an email-list community.
Best wishes, ~Jenny Stromer-Galley
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Allen Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:50 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Air-list
Dear all
There have been some vibrant and important discussions lately on air-list and I, and am sure many others, have been following them with interest, appreciating the time and effort people put into free scholarly discussion. This has always been the case with air-list and I hope that it continues in that vein.
All of us will be aware, after more than a decade's research into online communication, that from time to time, the freedom of the means of communication and the lack of co-presence can limit the effectiveness of the overall communicative process or produce unexpected and counter-productive damage to that process.
As has been pointed out recently on the list, air does, like most lists, have a stated etiquette (http://www.aoir.org/?q=node/5). The etiquette is deliberately open to interpretation so as to enjoin each list subscriber to think carefully about the manner and content of their communications via the list as well as their reaction to others' communications. Balancing enthusiastic, engaged and productively antagonistic discussion with respect for others and their views does not happen because of the etiquette but because of people's commitment to those outcomes, guided by the etiquette. May I ask subscribers to utilise this guidance please.
I would also remind subscribers that air-list is a service provided by the Association as one of the primary means of achieving the Association's primary objectives concerning scholarship of the Internet. Management of the conduct of the list, including permission to subscribe, conditions under which subscription is permitted, conduct of subscribers etc., remains at all times the prerogative of the Asssociation whose affairs are conducted by the Executive.
Finally, the Executive is currently reviewing the etiquette statement and will be discussing whether or not it should be revised and if so, in what manner, at the Brisbane Executive meeting.
Best wishes Matt
Dr Matthew Allen Associate Professor in Internet Studies President Association of Internet Researchers Faculty of Media Society and Culture Curtin University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code 00301J http://smi.curtin.edu.au/NetStudies/allen.htm +61 8 92663511 (v) +61 8 92663166 (f) _______________________________________________ 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/
-- Radhika Gajjala Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator School of Communication Studies 302 West Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43402 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik/index2.html
For queries about BGSU's School of Communication Studies Grad program, email comsgrad@bgsu.edu
For info on the Theory Research cluster at SCS - see http://scs.bgsu.edu/Research/ResearchClusters/theory.php _______________________________________________ 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/
hadn't thought of that wrinkle. I guess that why I don't subscribe to digests! Thanks, Nancy. --Christian On Sep 13, 2006, at 7:57 PM, Nancy Baym wrote:
Christian --
I think one important thing to consider here is the difference between receiving a list email by email vs. the digest version. The former allows people to hit delete or create filters, while the latter makes it much more of a cognitive chore (not a major one, but perhaps enough of one to disuade a person from bothering) as all the filtering must be done within a message.
Nancy
Is it just me, or does anyone find this kinda funny. I mean, it strikes me a bit odd--an odd importation of face-to-face communication notions into a non-f2f setting--to suggest that someone can "dominate" discussion on an email list. Unlike f2f conversation, email list participants can filter the stuff they get from the list either automatically or by deleting any message they see that comes from a certain person. Either filtering method is quite easy to engage in, so non-use of filtering can't be blamed on laziness. Does anyone else get the feeling that we tend to attend to list posts in a manner similar to the way that we attend to topical f2f utterances--i.e, we focus on them, give them the floor, without discrimination. Anyone with similar insights? --Christian Nelson
On Sep 13, 2006, at 6:15 PM, radhika gajjala wrote:
I'm not sure (I dont remember if) if air was ever programmed for this or not - but I remember when I was running the postcolonial list - we configured it so that after three posts in a span of 24 hours - a member's post was automatically sent back.
r
Hi Matthew and the Executive Committee:
One thing the Executive might want to consider is a maximum post per day rule. The E-Democracy email lists use that device as a way to keep any one person from dominating the discussion. Given that email lists can be hijacked by one or a small group of people, thereby drowning out other voices, threads and positions, the two post maximum helps keep the volume of participation somewhat more even. And even levels of participation are important for healthy discussion and the long-term success of an email-list community.
Best wishes, ~Jenny Stromer-Galley
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Allen Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:50 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Air-list
Dear all
There have been some vibrant and important discussions lately on air-list and I, and am sure many others, have been following them with interest, appreciating the time and effort people put into free scholarly discussion. This has always been the case with air-list and I hope that it continues in that vein.
All of us will be aware, after more than a decade's research into online communication, that from time to time, the freedom of the means of communication and the lack of co-presence can limit the effectiveness of the overall communicative process or produce unexpected and counter-productive damage to that process.
As has been pointed out recently on the list, air does, like most lists, have a stated etiquette (http://www.aoir.org/?q=node/5). The etiquette is deliberately open to interpretation so as to enjoin each list subscriber to think carefully about the manner and content of their communications via the list as well as their reaction to others' communications. Balancing enthusiastic, engaged and productively antagonistic discussion with respect for others and their views does not happen because of the etiquette but because of people's commitment to those outcomes, guided by the etiquette. May I ask subscribers to utilise this guidance please.
I would also remind subscribers that air-list is a service provided by the Association as one of the primary means of achieving the Association's primary objectives concerning scholarship of the Internet. Management of the conduct of the list, including permission to subscribe, conditions under which subscription is permitted, conduct of subscribers etc., remains at all times the prerogative of the Asssociation whose affairs are conducted by the Executive.
Finally, the Executive is currently reviewing the etiquette statement and will be discussing whether or not it should be revised and if so, in what manner, at the Brisbane Executive meeting.
Best wishes Matt
Dr Matthew Allen Associate Professor in Internet Studies President Association of Internet Researchers Faculty of Media Society and Culture Curtin University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code 00301J http://smi.curtin.edu.au/NetStudies/allen.htm +61 8 92663511 (v) +61 8 92663166 (f) _______________________________________________ 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/
-- Radhika Gajjala Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator School of Communication Studies 302 West Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43402 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik/index2.html
For queries about BGSU's School of Communication Studies Grad program, email comsgrad@bgsu.edu
For info on the Theory Research cluster at SCS - see http://scs.bgsu.edu/Research/ResearchClusters/theory.php _______________________________________________ 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/
Also a disruptive person (and I speaking only in the general here) can hijack the entire direction of a list, thus limited the beneficial effect of filtering out an individual's messages. A troll, for example, might work to intentionally raise disruptive points and get other list members talking about irrelevant or unproductive topics. Filtering out the comments of the troll, in that case, will not restore the integrity of the list. Again, I am just speaking generally. Mark
Is it just me, or does anyone find this kinda funny. I mean, it strikes me a bit odd--an odd importation of face-to-face communication notions into a non-f2f setting--to suggest that someone can "dominate" discussion on an email list. Unlike f2f conversation, email list participants can filter the stuff they get from the list either automatically or by deleting any message they see that comes from a certain person. Either filtering method is quite easy to engage in, so non-use of filtering can't be blamed on laziness. Does anyone else get the feeling that we tend to attend to list posts in a manner similar to the way that we attend to topical f2f utterances--i.e, we focus on them, give them the floor, without discrimination. Anyone with similar insights? --Christian Nelson
-- Mark Warschauer Associate Professor of Education and Informatics University of California, Irvine 2001 Berkeley Place Irvine, CA 92697-5500 tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965 markw@uci.edu; http://www.gse.uci.edu/faculty/markw
I want to second what Mark posted and also offer up a few more thoughts on the rationale for a 2 post max rule (which I recognize I'm now violating ;-). The rationale established by the E-Democracy Project, as I understand it, is that there is a risk with email lists that a small group of people can effectively control the topic agenda, hijack existing threads, and move conversations along much faster than others can keep up with. Attention is a limited resource, and if one's inbox is full of emails from three people who in the end are mostly having a conversation with themselves (especially if it's viewed as "nasty"), then the other 100 people are in effect left out/left behind/or quit because the conversation is no longer fulfilling. By holding to a two post rule, it slows the conversation down, allows emotions to cool, and (hopefully) more rational posts to be advanced. It also allows other voices in. I know that seems strange to say in an online context, since the ability to "speak" is unlimited, but again attention is the limited resource, and people will stop attending to email lists where a small group of people overwhelming dominate it. Then, the email list collapses under the weight of the vocal few. Some people use their email filters to block out those whom they don't wish to hear, but for the integrity of the discussion and the cohesion of the community it's better if people aren't filtering out individuals they don't "like." [I'm being a little flip here. We filter out people for many reasons, I know.] We should, ideally, be exposed to positions we don't wish to hear, even if the end result is a cognitive dismissal of the position. Of course, this is one of the big debates with online communication - do we self-select what we wish to be exposed to? Technicaly, sure. Ideally, no. So, filtering, at least to my mind, is an easy solution but robs the community of exposure to diverse perspectives, even opinions we find problematic for whatever reason. So, the two post rule becomes a way to facilitate an important element of healthy discussion, which is equality of participation among its producers, without necessarily censoring (or censuring) anyone. Best wishes, ~Jenny
Also a disruptive person (and I speaking only in the general here) can hijack the entire direction of a list, thus limited the beneficial effect of filtering out an individual's messages. A troll, for example, might work to intentionally raise disruptive points and get other list members talking about irrelevant or unproductive topics. Filtering out the comments of the troll, in that case, will not restore the integrity of the list. Again, I am just speaking generally. Mark
Jennifer, You wrote: "By holding to a two post rule" Don't you think that two posts are not enough? Learning is social as well (at least in part) and debate around on-topic issues is part of social learning about a given practice (in this case, "research about the Internet"). By slowing down the posts, one would run the risk to slow down learning as well. Might work for E-democracy, but... is it sustainable in a research forum or does it simply shut debate down and favor the status quo? Rosanna Tarsiero
My mail program (Apple) allows me to very quickly create rules to filter names, subject headings, etc. Is that peculiar only to Apple? Anybody have info. re: MS's program, or Eudora? Thanks for any info. --Christian On Sep 13, 2006, at 8:12 PM, Mark Warschauer wrote:
Also a disruptive person (and I speaking only in the general here) can hijack the entire direction of a list, thus limited the beneficial effect of filtering out an individual's messages. A troll, for example, might work to intentionally raise disruptive points and get other list members talking about irrelevant or unproductive topics. Filtering out the comments of the troll, in that case, will not restore the integrity of the list. Again, I am just speaking generally. Mark
Is it just me, or does anyone find this kinda funny. I mean, it strikes me a bit odd--an odd importation of face-to-face communication notions into a non-f2f setting--to suggest that someone can "dominate" discussion on an email list. Unlike f2f conversation, email list participants can filter the stuff they get from the list either automatically or by deleting any message they see that comes from a certain person. Either filtering method is quite easy to engage in, so non-use of filtering can't be blamed on laziness. Does anyone else get the feeling that we tend to attend to list posts in a manner similar to the way that we attend to topical f2f utterances--i.e, we focus on them, give them the floor, without discrimination. Anyone with similar insights? --Christian Nelson
-- Mark Warschauer Associate Professor of Education and Informatics University of California, Irvine 2001 Berkeley Place Irvine, CA 92697-5500 tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965 markw@uci.edu; http://www.gse.uci.edu/faculty/markw _______________________________________________ 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 concur Christian. I don't necessarily feel compelled to read everything that comes from the list. Topics come and go all the time. Some are more cautious, cogent and written with integrity, others are not. Filtering may just put strain on the flow of ideas and opinions. Who will be the "guarding angel" to protect us from the less desired opinions? The frequency of posts? The level of viciousness or divisiveness? How are we going to supervise that? Jarek
From: Christian Nelson <xianknelson@mac.com> Reply-To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Air-list Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:50:05 -0400
Is it just me, or does anyone find this kinda funny. I mean, it strikes me a bit odd--an odd importation of face-to-face communication notions into a non-f2f setting--to suggest that someone can "dominate" discussion on an email list. Unlike f2f conversation, email list participants can filter the stuff they get from the list either automatically or by deleting any message they see that comes from a certain person. Either filtering method is quite easy to engage in, so non-use of filtering can't be blamed on laziness. Does anyone else get the feeling that we tend to attend to list posts in a manner similar to the way that we attend to topical f2f utterances--i.e, we focus on them, give them the floor, without discrimination. Anyone with similar insights? --Christian Nelson
On Sep 13, 2006, at 6:15 PM, radhika gajjala wrote:
I'm not sure (I dont remember if) if air was ever programmed for this or not - but I remember when I was running the postcolonial list - we configured it so that after three posts in a span of 24 hours - a member's post was automatically sent back.
r
Hi Matthew and the Executive Committee:
One thing the Executive might want to consider is a maximum post per day rule. The E-Democracy email lists use that device as a way to keep any one person from dominating the discussion. Given that email lists can be hijacked by one or a small group of people, thereby drowning out other voices, threads and positions, the two post maximum helps keep the volume of participation somewhat more even. And even levels of participation are important for healthy discussion and the long-term success of an email-list community.
Best wishes, ~Jenny Stromer-Galley
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Allen Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:50 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Air-list
Dear all
There have been some vibrant and important discussions lately on air-list and I, and am sure many others, have been following them with interest, appreciating the time and effort people put into free scholarly discussion. This has always been the case with air-list and I hope that it continues in that vein.
All of us will be aware, after more than a decade's research into online communication, that from time to time, the freedom of the means of communication and the lack of co-presence can limit the effectiveness of the overall communicative process or produce unexpected and counter-productive damage to that process.
As has been pointed out recently on the list, air does, like most lists, have a stated etiquette (http://www.aoir.org/?q=node/5). The etiquette is deliberately open to interpretation so as to enjoin each list subscriber to think carefully about the manner and content of their communications via the list as well as their reaction to others' communications. Balancing enthusiastic, engaged and productively antagonistic discussion with respect for others and their views does not happen because of the etiquette but because of people's commitment to those outcomes, guided by the etiquette. May I ask subscribers to utilise this guidance please.
I would also remind subscribers that air-list is a service provided by the Association as one of the primary means of achieving the Association's primary objectives concerning scholarship of the Internet. Management of the conduct of the list, including permission to subscribe, conditions under which subscription is permitted, conduct of subscribers etc., remains at all times the prerogative of the Asssociation whose affairs are conducted by the Executive.
Finally, the Executive is currently reviewing the etiquette statement and will be discussing whether or not it should be revised and if so, in what manner, at the Brisbane Executive meeting.
Best wishes Matt
Dr Matthew Allen Associate Professor in Internet Studies President Association of Internet Researchers Faculty of Media Society and Culture Curtin University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code 00301J http://smi.curtin.edu.au/NetStudies/allen.htm +61 8 92663511 (v) +61 8 92663166 (f) _______________________________________________ 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/
-- Radhika Gajjala Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator School of Communication Studies 302 West Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43402 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik/index2.html
For queries about BGSU's School of Communication Studies Grad program, email comsgrad@bgsu.edu
For info on the Theory Research cluster at SCS - see http://scs.bgsu.edu/Research/ResearchClusters/theory.php _______________________________________________ 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/
Jenny: I strongly support your request that the Executive consider alternatives such as limiting the number of daily posts. The quality of this list is degenerating rapidly and action is required. Nick Jankowski At 11:27 PM 9/13/2006, you wrote:
Hi Matthew and the Executive Committee:
One thing the Executive might want to consider is a maximum post per day rule. The E-Democracy email lists use that device as a way to keep any one person from dominating the discussion. Given that email lists can be hijacked by one or a small group of people, thereby drowning out other voices, threads and positions, the two post maximum helps keep the volume of participation somewhat more even. And even levels of participation are important for healthy discussion and the long-term success of an email-list community.
Best wishes, ~Jenny Stromer-Galley
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Allen Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:50 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Air-list
Dear all
There have been some vibrant and important discussions lately on air-list and I, and am sure many others, have been following them with interest, appreciating the time and effort people put into free scholarly discussion. This has always been the case with air-list and I hope that it continues in that vein.
All of us will be aware, after more than a decade's research into online communication, that from time to time, the freedom of the means of communication and the lack of co-presence can limit the effectiveness of the overall communicative process or produce unexpected and counter-productive damage to that process.
As has been pointed out recently on the list, air does, like most lists, have a stated etiquette (http://www.aoir.org/?q=node/5). The etiquette is deliberately open to interpretation so as to enjoin each list subscriber to think carefully about the manner and content of their communications via the list as well as their reaction to others' communications. Balancing enthusiastic, engaged and productively antagonistic discussion with respect for others and their views does not happen because of the etiquette but because of people's commitment to those outcomes, guided by the etiquette. May I ask subscribers to utilise this guidance please.
I would also remind subscribers that air-list is a service provided by the Association as one of the primary means of achieving the Association's primary objectives concerning scholarship of the Internet. Management of the conduct of the list, including permission to subscribe, conditions under which subscription is permitted, conduct of subscribers etc., remains at all times the prerogative of the Asssociation whose affairs are conducted by the Executive.
Finally, the Executive is currently reviewing the etiquette statement and will be discussing whether or not it should be revised and if so, in what manner, at the Brisbane Executive meeting.
Best wishes Matt
Dr Matthew Allen Associate Professor in Internet Studies President Association of Internet Researchers Faculty of Media Society and Culture Curtin University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code 00301J http://smi.curtin.edu.au/NetStudies/allen.htm +61 8 92663511 (v) +61 8 92663166 (f) _______________________________________________ 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/
participants (15)
-
Christian Nelson -
Dr. Steve Eskow -
Dr. W. Reid Cornwell -
Elizabeth Van Couvering -
J. J. -
Jankowski -
Jennifer Stromer-Galley -
Jeremy Hunsinger -
joshua raclaw -
Mark Warschauer -
Matthew Allen -
Nancy Baym -
radhika gajjala -
Richard Forno -
Rosanna Tarsiero