Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!gatech!akgua!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison!steinmetz!putnam
From: putnam@steinmetz.UUCP (jefu)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Writing, programming, music and mechanics
Message-ID: <809@steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Jun-86 08:29:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: steinmet.809
Posted: Fri Jun 20 08:29:56 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Jun-86 13:20:29 EDT
References: <2671@sdcc6.UUCP> <1445@ihuxn.UUCP>
Reply-To: putnam@kbsvax.UUCP (jefu)
Organization: GE CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 68

In article <1445@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes:
>--
>> My research over the past two years has been how to improve and
>> foster writing by using electronic mail to facilitate discussions of
>> social science lecture class topics.  One of the things I notice
>> reading the news is the overall high quality of the writing in the
>> articles.  It is not possible to pass this off as being the result
>> of a few articulate posters, there are too many people involved.  My
>> point, and question, is this: how much of this is attributable to
>> a possible correlation between programming and writing?
>
>The quality of writing on the net is somewhere between poor and
>pathetic.  It is replete with errors in spelling and grammar.
>Most computer professionals (in my experience) cannot write their
>way out of a paper bag.  But then, most never learned how.
>What you stand in awe of is indeed the work of a few articulate
>posters.  Or else you yourself cannot recognize bad prose.

The general quality of english in postings is not up to professional writing
standards - but on the whole it is not as bad as all that.  Since first
seeing the claim that the writing is "between poor and pathetic", i have 
scanned several newsgroups looking almost exclusively at writing quality 
and style.  I think i can safely claim that most postings are actually
quite well written - as outlined below.

Spelling : I only noticed a few spelling mistakes in the articles that could
    not be explained by mistyping.  I think that a few of those were probably
    deliberate.  

Grammar : Well within normal variation with a few exceptions that were 
    exceptionally bad.  I believe that at least one of the exceptions was
    deliberate and a few were people to whom english was a second language.

Clarity : Poor to excellent with the norm slightly above good.  Some of the
    clearest writing was in net.physics, and some of the poorest was in net.ai.
    I think that this is self-correcting as unclear postings get flamed and
    heavily criticized.  The generally good level in net.physics may
    well be due to the difficult nature of the subjects discussed there. 
    Some articles should probably have had smilies attached to help clarify
    that (if?) they were satiric.  Some of the soapbox groups contain
    postings attacking the clarity of other postings, but i think that in many
    cases the attacks on clarity are substituting for attacks on content, as
    i have not often found the original postings unclear to any great extent.

Style : Poor to good.  But that is about what i would expect.  USENET 
    submissions cannot be rated on the same scale as New Yorker articles.  The
    intent of the writing is different, and the mode of composition is 
    different.  I do not expect E.B. White in net.lang.c, and would be
    more than astonished to see a discussion of pointers vs arrays in 
    Talk of the Town.  

On the whole, i think that a USENET style forum (but not USENET itself) would
be an excellent tool for teaching writing skills, as it might well motivate
students to write.  They would learn to write in order to communicate in
a medium that _demands_ writing rather than learning to write just to get
a good grade in a course. 





    
   

-- 
               O                   -- jefu
       tell me all about           -- UUCP: {rochester,edison}!steinmetz!putnam
Anna Livia! I want to hear all.... -- ARPA: putnam@GE-CRD