*I agree with you Katie, it is a shame that more women do not contribute and
that some of the banter is both in-house and perhaps intimidating to
newcomers. (I myself enjoy a bit of verbal rough house.) But I have been
saddened that the trivial has sometimes had more legs than the serious and
that the gap between the IT cogniscenti and the rest of us seems to yawn.
Katie Law wrote:
> Ian Trimble <[log in to unmask]> writes
>
> >DECEMBER REVIEW OF THE GP-UK LIST (01/12/98)
> >** A POLITE REQUEST **
>
> >List traffic has tailed off a little this month
>
> "tailed off" ?
>
> By your own statistics it has almost halved (2050 to 1196)
>
> So fewer messages means improved quality?
> (aha, I see - like PACT data?)
>
> May I make a couple of contentious comments?
>
> 1. * GP-UK encourages a (male) chauvenistic bias *
>
> In the last 2 weeks there have been 56 male contributors to 5 female.
> Only one of those women has made more than one posting.
> Female GPs account for 30% of all doctors in UK general practice.
> GP-UK is not therefore representative (by it's postings) of UK general
> practice.
> Since it is an open list it has the potential for both attracting and
> keeping a membership that is representative of general practice.
>
> Whilst I accept that membership is not reflected in postings, I propose
> that *active membership* is a useful measure.
>
> 2. * this disequilibrium is maintained in part by the parochial slant of
> the topics towards computing *
>
> In the last 2 weeks the subject headings may be grouped:
> computing - 29
> PCG - 12
> Clinical - 14
> Practice management - 4
> Non-medical - 2
>
> By any standards this constitutes an insular bias.
>
> I enjoy computers as much as the rest of you, but new members might be
> forgiven for thinking they had stumbled upon PC-UK rather than a
> "Membership (which) includes academics, educational tutors,
> ordinary general practitioners, practice nurses, pharmacists, GP
> computer suppliers and NHS managers."
>
> >GP-UK facilitates discussion on new ideas
>
> Ah, yes, but retains a donnish character to deter the visionary?
>
> Which leads to my third contentious point (good things always come in
> threes):
>
> 3. *GP-UK is unfriendly to newcomers*
>
> In the year that I have been around there are few new active
> contributors.
> We forget that it is sometimes difficult to join in a pre-existing
> conversation, and to use the post-grad centre or pub analogy, I don't
> see many of us moving our chairs to allow more to squeeze into the
> circle.
> So some new members have jumped in with what we the provincial, have
> deemed unworthy comments. Ok, so one does not go into a group chatting
> and immediately critisize ... or does one?
> If you think to many real situations "where two or three are gathered
> together" then is that not exactly what a newcomer has to do to be
> heard? Does not the challenge provide a valid viewpoint from which to
> progress?
>
> And, being the devil's advocate myself, I leave these thoughts with you
> while I go and paint my nails (what the male fraternity believe is what
> female GPs do) ....
>
> --
> Katie
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|