Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Article Classification is the key to solving USENET problems.
Message-ID: <3340@looking.UUCP>
Date: 19 May 89 05:03:02 GMT
References: <3222@looking.UUCP> <3233@looking.UUCP> <8376@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <3239@looking.UUCP> <8525@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 73

It has always been the practice in news.admin that admins can make suggestions
and bring forth ideas on ways USENET could change or move.  I have only seen
a few cases where things said here were anything more than suggestions or
ideas.  I don't think anybody wants to repeat those incidents!

The reason I push a high level of article classification is because it
moves the locus of problem solving on usenet.  Once done, it moves it
from the posters to the readers.

It's very hard for me to do something about what you post, after all, and
sometimes impolite for me to try.  But it is easy (in the political sense,
not necessarily the software sense) for me to do something about my
readers -- *as long as the information is there*.

If we agree to try to put the information in -- any reasonable, useful
information -- then each person gets to decide what type of usenet
they would like to read.

This is the true way of anarchy.  The decisions are distributed, not
centralized.  But such anarchy doesn't work without some sort of system
underneath.   If building up facets to the system actually helps
decentralize decisions, then this 'building' actually helps the anarchy,
no matter what your intuition might say.

While reading tools can be shared, they are run on individual machines
under the full control of the reader.  Only the posting format is global.
That's why I have made a postnews that does what I suggest to give away.
My reading tools are for me to use, sell, give away or erase, as I see
fit -- they are personal tools, and it doesn't matter who runs them.

A posting program, on the other hand is executed by one person, but the
output is used by tens of thousands.  This makes a posting program more
than a personal tool.  You actually run the posting program not for yourself,
but for the readers, and it should be the best posting program that the
readers can want, not the best posting program for the poster.

Think of how many usenet debates can be settled with strong article
classification:
	
	a) This group needs to be split!
		- Those interested in the split simply classify your
		articles and uses readers that can deal with the
		classification.  Encourage others to do so.
	b) I wish only women/men/phds/grads/pros/wizards/novices would
	post to this group!
		- Classify yourselves, voluntarily, and if desired, filter
		your reading accordingly.
	c) I am tired of the endless discussion of xxx in group yyy.
		- Arrange for the classification menu for the group to
		include xxx -- filter out these postings.
	d) I want to see only discussion of xxx in group yyy
		- Arrange for the classification menu for the group to
		include xxx -- filter out the rest.
	e) I like group y, but there are too many flame wars.
		- Have the flamers classify their articles as flames. Many
		  will comply.  If some don't, filter them out.  They want
		  an audience, they don't want to be filtered -- you would be
		  surprised how quickly they comply.
	f) Moderated groups slow things down or suppress information.
		- That an article is moderated is just a form of classification
		  in some cases, unless the moderated group takes publication
		  form.  You could have a group where you have 10 moderators,
		  or even a group where only approved posters can post, or
		  moderators (who deal with other's postings)  Post responsibly
		  and you get on the good list, so there are no delays.
	g) I hate Templeton
		- Filter me out.  Please.

The fact is we don't care about what people post, by and large, we care about
what we read.  (Phone bills are another question.)  If the postings are
classified enough, then it's up to us, and nobody else, what we read.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473