Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!ncar!tank!eecae!cps3xx!usenet
From: usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: The Namespace: A Serious Delusion for the Net
Message-ID: <5513@cps3xx.UUCP>
Date: 25 Nov 89 02:16:48 GMT
Reply-To: gcf@frith.egr.msu.edu (Gordon Fitch)
Organization: Beauty in the Beast
Lines: 102
Keywords:

There seems to be a delusion on the part of some people 
that the namespace structure -- the system of newsgroup
naming conventions -- is to help readers find articles 
they want to read.  This reason is often given in argu-
ments about what name a newsgroup should have, especially
what hierarchy it should be in.

This delusion is almost the opposite of the truth.  The 
function of the namespace is to help sysadmins filter out
articles they don't want on their systems.  That is why 
sci groups are better distributed than, say, soc groups.  
In other words, far from providing assistance, the 
namespace is used to _deny_ readers access to articles 
they (might) want to read.

The system of values which explains the particular value
of a newsgroup name and the hierarchy to which it belongs
reflects, I think, the authoritarian environment of the
average sysadmin (most sites are either academic or corp-
orate; academic institutions and corporations are almost
always organized on principles of hierarchic authority.)
Persons who work at responsible levels in such organiza-
tions must either internalize the official point of view 
or give a good simulation of having done so.

The namespace prefixes, then, are actually grades of 
validity or value with respect to an official point of 
view.

This is why comp.women and sci.aquaria were given so much
trouble: in the official view, one would have contained
social issues and the other recreational material.  Speech
about social issues or recreation has intrinsically _less_
_value_ than speech about computers or science.  (Extrin-
sically, it is hard to say why speech about, say, physics,
is of more or less value to a software company than speech 
about gender issues in employment.  Therefore, the dif-
ference of value must be intrinsic.  I assume the basis
of the difference in valuation is ultimately a religious 
matter.)

By using "improper"  names, the proponents of the 
contested newsgroups would be changing the language; if 
the language is changed, the system of organizational 
control is weakened.  Those who identify with the system 
thus feel that they have been attacked, and strike back, 
generally (if things have gone as far as a vote) by 
questioning the validity of the votes[1], the honesty of 
the vote-gatherer, and finally the voting system itself.  
If these fail, some of the sysadmins often try to 
sabotage the results of the vote by refusing to carry the 
newsgroup in question.  You can probably observe all of 
these tactics in currently unexpired articles on your 
system, in this newsgroup (news.groups), by looking at 
those which refer to sci.aquaria.

Eric Hoffer (ugh -- but give the devil his due) is said to 
have said that if you let people do what they want, they 
will mostly all do the same things.  It is interesting to 
see how the participants in Usenet, an anarchy, without any 
direct external pressure, attempt to form themselves at once 
into two contradictory polities, both taken from the 
external world: the authoritarian, pyramidical structure of 
the corporation, and the level political space of the 
democracy.  Since Usenet is a linguistic enterprise, it is
not surprising that a focus of the resultant conflict is
the language used to prescribe its structure.

Is there a solution to this problem?  Probably not.  The
procedure most in tune with actuality would reveal 
unacceptable truths.  For example, since mere readers don't 
matter as such, voting by mere readers would be eliminated.  
In its place, a self-appointed committee of the sysadmins 
from the really important sites could decide all such 
issues, or delegate it to a subcommittee.  (I'm sure they -- 
and we -- know who they are.) They could poll the readers or 
the less important sysadmins as they pleased.  Everyone would 
know what was going on, and people who didn't like the results 
of the system would be invited (as they often are now) to 
start a network of their own, or to use the alt net.   But 
consent would not have been engineered[2] and resentments 
would surface.  Better, then, the pass at democracy, with an 
occasional flap when it actually functions as such.

Needless to say, there are many other ways in which articles
could be categorized and cross-referenced, if anyone wanted 
to approach the problem with different purposes, presumptions, 
and, especially, values.

--
[1] Notice that this sort of attack is not often carried 
out against newsgroup proposals which "stay in their 
place."  The only exception I can think of was ..unitex,
where the motivation was equally political, but the 
politics was of a different level -- off-net politics.

[2] A phrase due to Noam Chomsky.  It has been inserted so
that those who dislike this article can refer to it as a 
"neo-Marxist Chomskyan screed", but only if they read it
almost to the end.
--
Gordon Fitch | gcf@frith | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf