I note your comments John, and your perceived causes of "efflux" from the
list. I can certainly understand your suggested numbers 1 and 3. But by
non-medical, do you mean medical politics? I thought however that the
political threads attracted the most debate, and clearly many list members
enjoy these discussions the most, especially these days. In fact didn't we
have discussion about this very issue a few years ago and many list members
voiced considerable interest in keeping such matters within the list. And
only last month many people wrote in support of Danny McGeehan staying on
the list (and his contributions are invariably strongly political).
However I cannot tell if these same debates are also driving away large
numbers of lurkers in the background. And even if they are, should that
alone justify the proscription of such debates? I used to be able to carry
out a "head count" before we moved to jiscmail, but I can no longer do this,
so it is hard to know what's going on in the background, including for
example, how many people return after a list holiday!
And how do you know strong opinion "scares people off"? Oh, I imagine it
might scare some off, but equally it will also interest and engage many
others, who find such opinion stimulating. Perhaps you could consider if
it's possible to somehow capture or analyse why people leave, if this is
genuinely of concern, rather than just presuming why they leave, which
surely must be prone to misinterpretation? And why the need for supportive
evidence in all debates? There are many aspects of medical practice that do
not, and probably cannot, have an "evidence" base, particularly matters
related to ethics and politics, the very subjects that also provoke strong
opinions.
But if you genuinely feel that the list should be purely academic, then I
suggest that our specialty really needs to have a non-academic or political
list also. The genuine interest in such subjects is clearly out there. Are
you really suggesting we should somehow try to avoid these contentious
areas? Perhaps I've over-interpreted, or misinterpreted, your letter John,
in which case I apologise. However I could not let this, even coming from
the list "owner", go unchallenged!
Regards
Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ryan" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> I must say that over the years the list has had a significant efflux of
> members when certain types of threads are discussed. These include:
> 1) spats between list members (rare enough these days thankfully. Used
> to occur when I was on annual leave and with no internet access)
> 2) when non medical threads proliferate
> 3) when threads with a very narrow field of interest attract a high
volume
> of traffic
> 4) copycatting (which is what I suspect has happened today)
>
> However it is a timely reminder for what the list is about. We should try
> and discuss issues of relevance to emergency medicine of an academic
nature.
> Of course that is a very loose definition of what we are about but I am
> happy to keep it that way. Bringing some helpful evidence and persuasive
> arguments about service delivery is fine and fits well under that
umbrella.
> Strong opinions without background supportive evidence scares people off.
>
> John Ryan
> (list owner acad-ae-med)
|