Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!pucc!PSYCH@TCSVM From: harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) Newsgroups: sci.psychology.digest Subject: PSYCOLOQUY V1 #11 (discussion : 243 lines) Message-ID: <9008241743.AA04370@reason.Princeton.EDU> Date: 24 Aug 90 17:35:50 GMT Sender: VMNNPOST@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Listserv to Netnews Gateway) Organization: Listserv to Netnews Gateway at pucc.Princeton.EDU Lines: 238 Approved: PSYCH@TCSVM PSYCOLOQUY Fri, 24 Aug 90 Volume 1 : Issue 11 Archives and organization Dane's memory query ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: david%harald.ruc.dk DS Stodolsky, Roskilde U. Ctr. Roskilde, Denmark Subject: Archives and organization Archives and organization: The social potential of electronic publishing I completely agree with William Gardner ["The Electronic Archive: Scientific Publishing for the 90s" (Psychological Science 1990, in press and PSYCOLOQUY, Volume 1: Issue 8] that: > network discussions will be most fruitful if > there are electronically archived references to serve as fixed of > points of reference for the discussion. While there are many functioning archives on the Internet and even a standard archiving software package freely available, the integration of archived articles with ongoing discussion on Usenet leaves much to be desired. One problem is that from the users point of view, reading current articles and retrieval of articles from archives are completely separate activities and require different types of knowledge and skills (This has been remedied to some degree in the latest version of nn, a news reading program). A proper integration requires consideration of both human interface, and technical and social factors. Such an integration may yield a media that is a mix of electronic mail and electronic publishing which has no current equivalent (see Stodolsky [1989], enclosed). The real question is whether efforts should be limited to the standard model for information exchange currently used. The alternative is that scientific societies play an active role in shaping the new media. I believe it will be beneficial if they did so. And I would be willing to argue it is their responsibility to do so, especially if the society claims expertise in any way relevant to the new media. I also agree that we need some central organization. However, the power of any such central organization should be limited as much as possible. If we take maximum advantage of the capabilities of network technology, central organization could be limited to the registration of user names. Another organizational question relates to what is the proper realm of activity for a given organization. A scientific society can run an archive, but this is not its central function. From an idealist's viewpoint, the scientific society's major responsibility is the management of a dialogue process that leads to an ongoing accumulation of knowledge. In the past, this function has been served by the publication of journals. If the media situation changes, the central function may be better served by new procedures for information exchange. To say: > Current electronic journal > models (including USENET) will not work because the flat ascii file won't > work. We need hypertext and professional standard typography, and anything > else is a step back from the utility available from print technology. is to confuse functions that are increasing becoming independent. These function are storage, distribution, and presentation. Usenet is primarily a distribution system. Its only formal rules concern distribution. It distributes ASCII files, hypertext documents, executable programs, and so on. Any form of information can be distributed as long as it conforms to certain standards for "packaging". I would prefer to say that Usenet is a medium in search of a model, rather than an electronic journal model itself. Archiving is logically and functionally independent. A given user may prefer to archive articles locally, or may prefer to retrieve them from a central source. This will be determined by personal work habits and by the relative cost of storage versus transmission, among other things. Similarly, the presentation of information is a separate function best controlled by the user. The adequate presentation of information can be facilitated by the producer, but in the case of computer networks, it is the user who determines, in the final analysis, what expense and effort should be devoted to information presentation. I have found the standard Macintosh (SE) computer to be an entirely adequate presentation device. Unfortunately, many of the display systems currently in use do not reach this standard and are not adequate for extended periods of reading. But it is the end user who must determine whether to upgrade a display system, or to read articles some other way. The organization of information can be discussed in terms of the placement of fonts on a page and the links between items in a hypertext document. It can also be discussed in terms of who gets published and who benefits from the system for scientific communication. Outrageous prices for journals are a well known problem; one major publisher has even taken court action to prevent distribution of a survey on the relative costs of journal publication (Holden, 1990). Currently, the structure of scientific communication is distorted by commercial interests. One example is the "star" system in which a very few scientists achieve great fame. These stars can then be "bought" by publishers who place their names on the mastheads of journals. Worse than the economic exploitation, is the lack of recognition of many highly competent researchers and of really innovative work. Innovative articles get published last, if at all (Dalton, 1988). I want to see questions relating to the social organization of science included in any discussion about new media. Failure to do so could have dire consequences for the both scientists and the general public. I completely agree with Gardner that a large effort is required to move the scientific communication system into the network environment. It will take a major investment to free the system from the dominance of commercial interests, but the benefits will outweigh the costs. Counteracting commercial interests requires a massive, but decentralized investment. Democratization of scientific communication is a solution to the domination of science by outside interests and could lead to the achievement of real scientific freedom. References Dalton, R. (1988, August 29). Is anonymity essential to objective peer review? Current Contents - Social and Behavioral Sciences, (35), 13-14. (Reprinted from [1988, July 11]. The Scientist, 2[13], 5, 10.) Gardner, William P. (1990, 25 May) PSYCOLOQUY, Volume 1 : Issue 8. Holden, C. (1990, April 20). Gordon & Beach impanels a journal jury. Science, 248(4953), 290-9. ------------------------------- enclosed article ---------------------- From: stodol@freja.diku.dk (David Stodolsky) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups Subject: Re: Mutual Moderation (was: Semi-moderated newsgroups) Keywords: moderation newsgroups semi-moderated peer review quality Message-ID: <5058@freja.diku.dk> Date: 17 Dec 89 22:30:51 GMT Organization: DIKU, U of Copenhagen, DK rayan@cs.toronto.edu (Rayan Zachariassen) writes in <89Dec13.033005est.2334@neat.cs.toronto.edu> >I was also >worried about the immense added volume in just passing "I like this >article" type control messages around the net. This would be the first order effect. But consider the drop in volume that would occur when certain people found out that they were getting negative reputations from posting in certain groups. Or if they couldn't take the hint, that no one was reading their postings. The overall objective of the moderation is to give people enough feedback so that they will not post things that are not worth reading. If mutual moderation was generally adopted, then review messages would get net wide distribution and referenced messages would be dynamically distributed. That is, if a message got good reviews, then a lot of systems would ask for it. Your software would always be looking at the review messages and when a referenced message passed your criteria, it would be requested. Sort of what happens manually with book reviews. Such a requested message could also go on to disk of each system it passed through, where it would be retained for a while. So if you were requesting a message that was already in demand, it would probably be on the next system (or your own) already. In _Babar: An Electronic Mail Database_ (SSL Technical Report [P88-00015], Xerox PARC, April 1988) Steve Putz said that mail management is faced with the problems of how to handle the categorizing and shared access. These problems also seem to be present in the Usenet news system. News and mail need to be integrated in some way for mediated communication to function effectively. Doing this would also probably eliminate the need for votes on newsgroup creation, since newsgroups would not function much differently than mailing lists. I can see two extremes for document distribution, and both of these reduce traffic. The first concerns documents that almost no one reads. These can fly around on the author's disk as long as the electric bill is paid :-) in the hopes of being discovered. The second concerns eternal gems of wisdom that are constantly referred to. These would just sit permanently (except for the rare update :-) on every machine's disk waiting to be read. So what is needed, for an effective solution, is an integration of news, mail, and archives that balances transmission and storage costs given the mix of messages and readers. David S. Stodolsky Office: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 21 38 Department of Computer Science Home: + 45 31 55 53 50 Bldg. 20.2, Roskilde University Center Internet: david@ruc.dk Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01 ------------------------------ From: andrew%rick.doc.ca@pucc (Andrew Patrick) Subject: Dane's memory query | From: jean%mcc.com@pucc (Jean McKendree) | Subject: A response to Frank Dane's memory query | | In response to Frank Dane's question about studies of the problem | of not being able to retrieve something from memory: | | A related topic is problem-solving and creativity as related to | "incubation", i.e. putting aside the task for awhile and coming | back later. There are a number of papers on this phenomenon, | some even arguing that it doesn't happen. Some recent papers have | found evidence that it is indeed a reliable phenomenon and they | attempt to develop a theory of the cognitive mechanisms that underlie | it, usually centering on priming effects. One very interesting and | imaginative dissertation is: | C. Kaplan, "Hatching a Theory of Incubation: Does putting a problem | aside really help?", Carnegie-Mellon Psychology Department, Pittsburgh, | PA, 1989. | | I think he is revising it now for publication. Never miss an opportunity to plug your own work :-) See: Patrick, A.S. (1986). The role of ability in creative 'incubation'. PERSONALITY & INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 7, 169-174. More relevant to the study of memory is: Read, J.D., & Bruce, D. (1982). Longitudinal tracking of difficult memory retrievals. COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 14, 280-300. -- Andrew Patrick, Ph.D. | Old Address: andrew@dgbt.crc.dnd.CA andrew@dgbt.doc.CA | Alternate Address: andrew@doccrc.BITNET Dept. of Communications, Ottawa, CA | Slow Address: andrew@dgbt.UUCP "Creativity is a function of the tools you work with." ------------------------------ PSYCOLOQUY is sponsored by the Science Directorate of the American Psychological Association (202) 955-7653 Co-Editors: (scientific discussion) (professional/clinical discussion) Stevan Harnad Perry London, Dean, Cary Cherniss (Assoc Ed.) Psychology Department Graduate School of Applied Graduate School of Applied Princeton University and Professional Psychology and Professional Psychology Rutgers University Rutgers University Assistant Editors: Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli Psychology Department Psychology Department Princeton University Rutgers University End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest ******************************