Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pacbell!well!fico2!everexn!karen
From: karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: *real* change won't happen
Message-ID: <1989Oct19.003117.809@everexn.uucp>
Date: 19 Oct 89 00:31:17 GMT
Organization: Everex Systems, Inc.
Lines: 63


brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:

: In other words, who the [****] cares?   All this fuss about whether a group
: goes in a hierarchy that might give it 5% more distribution?  

I get a different impression than Brad does about why people are so
vociferous in their lobbying for one naming arrangement over another.
I think that the real issue in .namings is not distribution; it's cachet.
If I'm going to go to the time and trouble to try to get a newsgroup off of
the ground, that means that the subject is near and dear to me.  Naturally
I'm going to hold my subject in high esteem.  I'm going to want quality
discussions and quality contributions.  I might even be surprised
when I find out that others aren't as impressed by my pet subject as I am!

dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:

: If domain
: names are based only on the quality of discussion, the "self-fulfilling
: prophecy" law rears it's head.  Everybody will then of course want their
: group in this domain -- because everybody believes, or at least hopes, that
: their group will be high-quality....
 
[and later:]
 
: What I suggest instead is that quality of discussion should *never* be an
: explicit factor in the naming of new groups.  If it is, then on comes the
: self-fulfilling prophecy.... 
: 
: To get away from this eternal problem, the name of a new group should be
: based *solely* on the nature of the proposed group, and not at all on
: the predicted quality.  

While I agree with David in principle on this point, looking at the
situation pragmatically, I don't see that naming a new group based only
upon what type of group it is is going to take care of the implicit
value-judging that is going on here. 

The implicit hierarchy that currently exists is interesting, and it shouldn't
surprise anyone.  Hasn't our culture always valued logic over emotion, and
the objective over the subjective?  The "top level" groups are for the most
part technical in nature.  The "bottom" level groups tend more toward
subjective impression and emotion.  Isn't this an example of our cultural
history at work?  I say, you can call the groups whatever you want; but you
can't erase a long history of elevating the scientific method over
subjective impression and emotion by shuffling some groups around and
giving them new names!

I really like the idea of an anarchistic information/idea-sharing exchange.
I really do.  It's possible that getting rid of the classifications might
make a difference.  But I have a hard time believing it.  I guess I'm
getting older and less idealistic.  I'm not a cynic yet, but I find that
in this instance, I'm a skeptic.  You can't have a class system and
anarchy, too.

Karen


-- 
Karen Valentino  <>  Everex North (Everex Systems)  <>  Sebastopol, CA
                    ..pacbell!mslbrb!everexn!karen
         "Buy land.  They've stopped making it." -- Mark Twain
              (thanks to jeffd for the loan of this quote)