Priorities and Probabilities re: the big switch debate
Bottom line seems to be that if we agree with the premise that: seeing the back and forth discussions on this list is its primary value and the reason why people subscribe (and perhaps even for some their entire interest in AIR!), then removing this value would be even a higher "disaster" than a lawsuit, etc. (and much more probable), as it will defeat nearly the entire purpose of this valued entity! Bob Berkman Associate Professor Media Studies & Film The New School New York NY In a message dated 5/12/2009 4:42:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, U.Matzat@tue.nl writes: On 11 May 2009 at 20:40, air-l-request@listserv.aoir.o wrote:
Message: 3 Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:25:34 -0400 From: Alex Halavais <alex@halavais.net> Subject: Re: [Air-L] Change of default reply setting on air-l To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Message-ID: <e0fe0c740905110625n71f690dfle9e0775ed700d1cc@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
May I ask a naive question? Several have suggested that changing the list to default to reply-to-author will have significant detrimental effects on the community, ranging from harm to ruin. Some have indicated that this is a well-researched fact.
I have done a study on the determinants of sending answers/providing information in academic emailing lists. While I was interested in other things, one of the many control variables indicates whether the default reply is to the group. This control variable has a significant positive effect on the likelihood of sending an answer to the whole list. The study compares the posting behavior of researchers in 47 academic emailing lists over a period of 2 months. For more details see Table 2 in the following: Matzat, U. (2009). "The Embeddedness of Academic Online Groups in Offline Social Networks: Reputation Gain as a Stimulus for Online Discussion Participation?" in: International Sociology, 24, 1: 63-92. Nevertheless I prefer the new setting (but not the sudden way it was implemented). Although I am on digest, it is hard for me to follow the discussions and only some of the postings are valuable to me. Best regards, Uwe _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322936x1201367173/aol?redir=http... =Mayfooter51209NO115)
I mostly lurk on this list, but what Bob says is true for me. I found AIR by tripping over this email list. I find a lot of things that way, though, and don't return to most of them. I joined the list and will join the organization because of the lively discussion on this list. Since I can't afford to join endless organizations, the one that will go in order for me to join this one is another organization dealing with a very similar area which has disappointed me by having almost no communication other than annual meetings. It doesn't make sense for organizations that focus even partly on new media communication to limit communication using new media. I run probably a dozen email lists. The largest have maybe 500 members each; the oldest is about 10 years old. All are set to reply to the group, and I don't remember the last time we had someone post something to the lists accidentally. I do have a policy of putting new members on moderate for 90 days. If they're going to make that mistake, or return the entire digest to the list, they generally do it during that time. I can catch it, ask if they meant to send it to the list, and remove it if they didn't. I don't see too many people do it twice. And these are not internet-savvy folks. Most of those lists happen to be on yahoo, where I can delete individual archived messages if I need to. Though, again, can't remember the last time I did. YMMV, TeryG On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:03 PM, <RBerkman@aol.com> wrote:
Bottom line seems to be that if we agree with the premise that:
seeing the back and forth discussions on this list is its primary value and the reason why people subscribe (and perhaps even for some their entire interest in AIR!), then removing this value would be even a higher "disaster" than a lawsuit, etc. (and much more probable), as it will defeat nearly the entire purpose of this valued entity!
Bob Berkman Associate Professor Media Studies & Film The New School New York NY
A few things: 1. It is probably true that mostly Internet unsavvy people are likely to accidentally send a personal note to the list. 2. I was such an unsavvy person many moons ago, and accidentally sent a personal reply to an email list that probably would have landed me in court. Though that would have happened less due to the content of my note as to the litigiousness of the person I snarkily referred to in my note, the effect would have been no less unpleasant. Luckily, the list was moderated. So, I appreciate the impulse of the exec. committee. However, 3. The only response I've received to one of my contributions to this thread was through private back-channel, not via the list. I suspect that may be due to the list change. Still, 4. I'm not sure anyone would have found this private exchange all that edifying and am sure most list members would have found it a waste of time to read. In addition, 5. In carrying on a private conversation with someone from the list, the possibility of interacting more closely with someone on the list opened up. So, I'd suggest that its tough to be dogmatic about what position the exec. committee and/or the membership should take on this topic.
hm... I wonder whether we just could do what others already suggested? decades ago mankind invented a handy tool to get a notion of the majorities wishes. voting. best dominik Christian Nelson wrote:
A few things: 1. It is probably true that mostly Internet unsavvy people are likely to accidentally send a personal note to the list. 2. I was such an unsavvy person many moons ago, and accidentally sent a personal reply to an email list that probably would have landed me in court. Though that would have happened less due to the content of my note as to the litigiousness of the person I snarkily referred to in my note, the effect would have been no less unpleasant. Luckily, the list was moderated. So, I appreciate the impulse of the exec. committee. However, 3. The only response I've received to one of my contributions to this thread was through private back-channel, not via the list. I suspect that may be due to the list change. Still, 4. I'm not sure anyone would have found this private exchange all that edifying and am sure most list members would have found it a waste of time to read. In addition, 5. In carrying on a private conversation with someone from the list, the possibility of interacting more closely with someone on the list opened up. So, I'd suggest that its tough to be dogmatic about what position the exec. committee and/or the membership should take on this topic. _______________________________________________ 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/
-- dominik m. rosenauer mag. phil. systemische psychotherapie klinische und gesundheitspsychologie systemisches coaching und supervision capistrangasse 4/15 1060 wien t: +43.664.531 54 78 e: dmrosenauer@psycheonline.at h: www.psycheonline.at
participants (4)
-
Christian Nelson -
Dominik M. Rosenauer -
RBerkman＠aol.com -
Tery G