On 15 Dec 99, at 16:51, Wendy L Corfield wrote:
> Thanks Robert for the response to my attempt at keeping this discussion
> thread going. It is a particular interest of mine.
As it is for me, since it ties into a lot of the work I do regarding
civility, consideration and communication.
> I guess I must be someone who does not take things quite so seriously -
> part of my management style I guess. But lets not get hung up about that.
> We could extend this into a thread about expectancy theory, the erosion
> of tolerance levels, the break down of systems and the like (although
> these are interesting areas too), but I will keep to the subject. If you
> want to control the information, if you want to stem the flow from a
> multi-source, multi faceted, complex audience like this, then you (or
> someone else) will have to spend more time managing "who" is on the list
> and even going as far as sensoring contributions - in a sense putting a
> lock on the gates.
I think we need to be clear here about what we are talking about. I
have an expectation that people will attempt to learn the basic
norms of conduct, and take into consideration the effect of their
actions on others, whether it be in a staff meeting, on a phone call
or whatever. When I go to a meeting, for example, that purports to
discuss x, then call me foolish but I expect that's what we will do,
not discuss someone's date last night, or some other thing that
isn't of interest IN THAT FORUM.
I don't want control of information. But I do expect that if people
want to maximize the effectiveness of this forum (or any other),
then they need to do basic things, like stick to topic, avoid
inconveniencing others through their lack of knowledge, etc.
Handing out the key to certain contributors deemed
> worthy of submitting material. I would think this path comes with its
> own perils.
Sure, but it's illusory. There is NO control of information flow that
can't be altered through initiative. I have set up a number of
discussion lists because I was dissatisfied with what was there.
Anyone can do so, and create their own virtual world where they
can do as they wish.
There is an incredible amount of scholarly work dealing with
> the chaotic system we call the internet, which I'm sure many of you have
> seen. Unless you (a) manage the membership and sensor the contributions
> and/or (b) control access to this site by constructing firewalls (which
> require very heavy duty maintenance) then it is virtually impossible to
> stop people exploiting this source for what they want.
The key, as with anything, is education. Unfortunately, many
people take offense at any effort to educate people so they can
behave within the norms and expectations, and even clearly stated
guidelines that exist. I'm sure I will receive yet more hate mail for
even suggesting that people should exert just a bit more
consideration for others, and LEARN how to use the technology
responsibly.
And I bet some of those senders themselves expect their own
students to abide by what are generally accepted classroom
conduct guidelines.
>
> If I could be so presumptious to assume that you believe there is a middle
> ground somewhere between sensorship and the chaotic mess other lists had
> become. I guess such things as better descriptors in the subject line, and
> no attachments could be some practical solutions. But this position will
> still require some dimension of information management.
No, I see this as managing the form in whcih information is used,
not the content. Even so, think about meetings. Do you like going
to meetings that don't focus on the purpose? Do you teach that
meetings are a forum to do whatever one likes? Is the expectation
that people will behave considerately at meetings a form of bad
censorship?
Again, why is it different here?
By that I mean
> information that is filtered, sorted and discarded. This is a form of
> sensorship. I sometimes actually visit the sites put there by consultants
> on the "cadge". Not all have proved useless, or time-consuming. Quite
> the contrary, I have even purchased some reference material in this way.
I have no problem with informative posts. I DO have a problem with
people who can't be bothered to learn how to unsubscribe from a
list and pepper our mailboxes to absolutely no purpose. Or similar
things like not sending attachments, which have a bunch of
reasons why that practice should be absolutely forbidden (there
was a virus distributed on the hrnet list yesterday via attachment).
> So this begs the question, where is the line between what is useless
> information and what is knowledge in terms of organisational
> communication/management?
If you WANT unsubscribe requests in your mailbox, fine. If you
want a dozen "send me your stuff" requests that should go
privately, fine. I think most of us could do without them and agree
that they shouldn't be sent to the list. I think we can draw some
lines, and most of those lines have been drawn.
The problem is people can't be bothered to learn appropriate
behavior or even abide by the exceedingly simple rules on this list.
For example, a scholarly journal exercises
> quite necessary and strict editorial rights over its copy. Its audience
> takes what it needs and doesn't usually have the opportunity of response
> except in the form of a letter to the editor. This is a completely
> different forum. To exercise that level of control over this list (and
> maintain the freshness and indeed spontaneity of its members) I would
> think is almost impossible.
There IS a solution that doesn't censor posts as they go through,
but ensures that people who habitually make the list experience
less useful to others simply lose the ability to do so in the future.
Much like enforcing classroom procedures. Those that abuse the
priveledge of participating civilly lose that.
On my performance management list (which is normally a
moderated forum), I allowed people to post as they wished for a
week while I was awa;y. I came back to find a mess of unsubscribe
messages, and a flame war going on. One guy, a prominent author
had posted several exceedingly rude messages to another person.
The solution was simple. He simply didn't get to post again.
Nobody on the list signed on to discuss this guy, or who said what,
or read his nastygrams. In the one week I was away, about 25% of
list members got sick of the whole act, and quit the list.
But heck, these days, expecting people to follow basic courtesies
isn't in vogue. Or at least, we want others to follow the basic
courtesies towards us, but don't want people expecting US to do
the same.
Visit the work911.com supersite at
http://www.work911.com
for work related articles, or to find almost anything including
book reviews and suggestions, discussion lists and more.