Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!crash!gryphon!mhnadel From: mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM (Miriam Nadel) Newsgroups: soc.women,news.misc Subject: Update on Guidelines for Posting to Soc.women Message-ID: <1129@gryphon.CTS.COM> Date: Wed, 5-Aug-87 16:43:20 EDT Article-I.D.: gryphon.1129 Posted: Wed Aug 5 16:43:20 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Aug-87 07:13:01 EDT Reply-To: mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM (Miriam Nadel) Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA Lines: 97 Summary: opinions requested Xref: mnetor soc.women:6062 news.misc:830 [This is an update on modifications I am making to the guidelines for posting to soc.women that I posted a couple of weeks ago. If you haven't seen these guidelines and would like to comment on them, please send me e-mail. So far I have heard from about 20 people. Some have raised questions that I wanted to get a better idea on how to deal with in this document and if they should be dealt with at all. Please respond by e-mail, rather than posting.] 1) In my introduction I referred to the articles in news.announce.newusers. One suggestion was that I should specifically point out the "How to Use the USENET Effectively" document which is provided with the 2.11 news release. I personally don't think that's necessary, but would like to know if others think it is or isn't a good idea. 2) Some responses suggested that the guidelines should discourage men from posting - this was phrased with various levels of vehemence. I have decided to include the following paragraph in the "Purpose of soc.women" section: >Both women and men are welcome to participate in soc.women. However, men >should be particularly sensitive to the anger that many women feel, even in >response to discriminatory episodes which may seem relatively minor. >Many men are not aware of the pain associated with how women are often >treated and should be careful to avoid belittling our concerns. Is this too harsh? Is it strong enough or too strong or about right? Does it sound insulting? Do you have any ideas on how I might say it better? I'm not quite sure exactly where to put this. I'm leaning towards putting it at the end of the "Purpose" section but am open to suggestions. 3) One paragraph I included in the "netiquette" section drew a lot of commentary and I agree it was poorly phrased. The original paragraph read as follows: >7) It is a good idea to cite references when stating facts. It is not >a good practice to discuss a personal experience that differs from >facts or statistics. For example, the issue of child support has risen >several times and someone always has a horror story that they claim >contradicts the figures given. Bear in mind that we are usually discussing >a general social issue, not your specific case. I am planning to modify this to say: >7) It is a good idea to cite references when stating facts. Discussion >of personal experiences is welcome, but one should be wary of excessive >generalization based on personal experience. For example, your >ex-wife's alimony demands do not imply that most women want men to support >them. 4) I am adding a paragraph to the "netiquette" section regarding how to deal with abusive e-mail. I realize the legal issues are not well defined in this matter so this paragraph may be excessively conservative. Feedback is always welcome. >8) Some posters to soc.women have received abusive e-mail in response to their >postings. The legal issues associated with this problem have not been >resolved. If it is an isolated incident, it is probably best to ignore the >abusive message. Repeated abusive mail from an individual may call for >action. In general, it is a good idea to contact the system administrator >of the offender's system, who may be able to verify the offender's identity >and take appropriate disciplinary actions. Under extreme conditions, posting >the offending material may be appropriate as a means of warning other >readers about the offender. However, this is an extreme measure and is not >generally advisable. 5) Two responses suggested including information on how to use the news software. For example, when suggesting response by e-mail instead of posting, I could include the information "in rn, you may do this by typing 'r';typing 'R' will include the article you are responding to." My feeling is that inclusion of this information would make the guidelines article too long and discourage people from reading it. However, I have thought about suggesting that one should ask their system administrator for information about how to use the news software. Do people think this would be helpful? 6) Someone suggested that I include some basic information sources on feminism for those with no background whatsoever. Again, I think this might make the article excessively lengthy. However, we now have a "basic feminist reading list" (a collection of my references and the ones Darci compiled) and I suppose mentioning its existence and my willingness to send a copy to anyone requesting one by e-mail wouldn't hurt. Comments? 7) There has been a suggestion that the guidelines be posted quarterly instead of monthly. Opinions are welcome. 8) I will send a copy of the revised guidelines to the appropriate backbone types approximately a week before the first "regular" posting (which will be on 1 Sept.). I assume that means chuq and Gene Spafford. Is this correct? Is there someone else I should send it to, what with Gene changing jobs and uunet growing and the alternate backbone, etc. ? Miriam Nadel -- "Did Beethoven do the dishes? Did Mozart sweep the floors?" - Ginny Reilly INTERNET: mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!mhnadel UUCP: {philabs, trwrb}!cadovax!gryphon!mhnadel