Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) Newsgroups: mod.comp-soc Subject: Re: Computer Networks and Literacy Message-ID: <884@hplabsc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Nov-86 14:06:59 EST Article-I.D.: hplabsc.884 Posted: Thu Nov 20 14:06:59 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Nov-86 02:49:52 EST Reply-To: hplabs!seismo!nbires!isis!aburt@hplabs.HP.COM Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Lines: 101 Approved: taylor@hplabs Reference: <882@hplabsc.UUCP> This article is from seismo!isis!aburt@hplabs.HP.COM (Andrew Burt) and was received on Thu Nov 20 08:32:19 1986 >It has been widely noted that our society seems to be moving away from >literacy, to a more voice and picture oriented way of doing things. > >Computer networks provide one small area where the trend is currently in the >other direction. >Will nets as we know them ever reach a substantial fraction of >the population? Allow me to relate the preliminary results of an `experiment' currently underway here at the University of Denver. First, some background. In our department, which is a combined math and CS dept., we have about 25 people, most of whom can use a computer of some sort. Now, our structure is fairly loose, and often times the department doesn't react to problems until the situation reaches the crisis stage; at which time we hold numerous faculty meetings to discuss solutions. Nearly always these meetings follow this pattern: The chairman states what the problems are and what we need solutions for, then opens the floor to discussion. First person addresses one of the issues for a while. Second person addresses some side issues to what person 1 said (issues which are in themselves meaningful, of course, and need to be discussed, but which are not the main purpose of this meeting). Person 3 addresses tangential issues to person 2's points. Eventually we circle back to where we started, with little having been resolved but everybody feeling better because they aired their pet grievances. At that point we adjourn the meeting due to the lateness of the hour. Analysis. The problems with the meetings are that there are too many issues that need discussing but because of the scarcity of regular times to discuss things before the entire faculty, they don't get discussed. We certainly need stronger leadership during these meetings, but that is not, unfortunately, something that will change. The experiment. It struck me that a USENET newsgroup format would be the perfect vehicle for all these discussions that many people want to discuss, all of which can thus exist simultaneously. Messages with followups, etc. It would reach the entire faculty, without the pressure of running out of time. So I created a local newsgroup for us, made the directory permissions such that only faculty could read the messages, gave accounts on the system to the 15 or so people who didn't have them, distributed handouts on how to use the system effectively and what it was for, and posted some juicy articles to get their blood flowing. In short, it was a recreation of the meeting atmostphere on-line. I monitored .newsrcs. 5-10 people read it regularly. Three or so others have looked in occasionally. Nobody except me ever posted anything. I prodded the chairman to post a short note, hoping the "authority figure" would cause others to get involved. No go. Ten or so never even bothered to log in. Aha, I figured, they don't know if there's anything there for them to bother checking. So I rigged up a printer so that infrequent users received paper notices they had either mail or pending faculty news articles. That is, giving them a definite reason to log in and know it would not be for nothing. One more person got on. A discussion began among students that was germain to the faculty newsgroup, so I had them cross post their messages. 40 messages have to date been posted to the group. I remain the only faculty member to actually post anything. Some people came to me in person to discuss my positions, which are the same ones I espoused during faculty meetings, and their discussions were no riskier than what they would have said during such a meeting. Yet they would not post. I am considering closing this experiment, which has been going on now for three months. Thoughts on the matter. I talked with a few people about their inhibitions. The strongest case people made was that they didn't like typing in what they had to say. It was far easier to utter it aloud than it was to write it down. Admittedly, writing has a more permanent quality to it than speaking, yet these are all well-trained thinkers who should at least have the open-mindedness to try the system. After all it's the CS department! Relating this to the article saying that computer networks are the only sign of reversing the trend of more graphical and vocal communication, I maintain this is not so. Even in a CS department (and we're a decent department, content-wise) half the faculty are loath to write down their thoughts (let alone try a system different than the one they're most familiar with). This is basically a sad story for all of us. We the netusers realize the great power of the net, but until we change the mindset of the rest of world networks will never reach their true potential. -- Andrew Burt isis!aburt / aburt@isis.cs.du.edu