Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!chuq
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: renaming sci.*
Message-ID: <37888@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 17 Jan 90 15:44:37 GMT
References: <50970@bbn.COM> <9001170817.AA01477@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu>
Organization: Fictional Reality: where your dreams can come true
Lines: 57

peterson@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J Peterson) writes:

>|    Change sci.* to univ.*.

>Forgive me, but to quote Michael Palin in Monty Python's "Argument Clinic"
>sketch, "What a stupid concept."

Yeah. Besides the fact that "univ" is an amazingly ambiguous name (a top
level name really *has* to be self-documenting to be effective. or we'll
spend all our time explaning what 'univ' means. I can think of two or three
possible definitions for the term, but I think most folks would just be
confused.

If we're going to do something to sci, simply renaming it won't work. You'll
just end up with a  new, confused, screwed up top-level domain. My thought
has been to just delete the domain completely, creating instead two second
level domains in misc, misc.sci and misc.tech. I was the person who first
pushed for the creation of sci, and in retrospect I think it was a mistake.
I don't think, based on the groups that are in it, that it was either
well-thought out or deserving of a top-level domain. We'd be much better off
with a "micro.*" top-level domain to split the personal computer material
out from comp than we are with "sci.*"

>  (1) Why limit the context of the sci.* groups to university level
>      discussions?  There are plenty of message threads that are both above
>      and below university level.  Who would decide what level a particular
>      posting or thread was on?

We have enough trouble keeping technical content in sci.all. Adding the
EXTRA requirement of a specific level of competency to the content simply
raises the number of inappropriate postings. It won't raise the quality of
the postings one whit.

>  (2) Why change the actual name?  Why not just alter the purpose of sci.*?

Because some folks believe that by changing the name, you can magically
change the content. This is arguably not true, but people like to believe it
anyway...

>      discussions here have shown.  But that group could just as easily
>      have been named ent.arts.cinema, rec.media.cinema, or something

The name is a placeholder. it should be designed to help people find the
appropriate topic easily and unambiguously. That's the whole purpose of all
the namespace wars.

Some folks have decided that names are not just placeholders, but are also
filters -- a specific name will keep inappropriate postings out of a group
by some sort of magic. This isn't true. Moderators keep inappropriate
postings out of a group. Names just make the group easier or harder to find.

-- 

Chuq Von Rospach   <+>   chuq@apple.com   <+>   [This is myself speaking]

Oh, saith you that this should be some pithy saying, but frankly, I can't
think of anything to say. -- William Shakespeare