Print

---

I don't see a great deal of benefit in public archives. What I value about a
list like this is its informality. I don't rewrite my postings over and over
before sending them, as I would if they were articles published in a
magazine - it's more like chatting with friends in the pub. When archives
are generally available, there is always a doubt as to whether this
informality may catch one out. We may, for example, express opinions about
the work of other poets which, while perfectly unmalicious and
intellectually defensible, might hurt their feelings if they had access to
them. There was the discussion a year or so back about Jo Shapcott, which it
eventually transpired she was reading and had been upset by. Public
criticism has an important place, but when you know it *is* public, you have
to think that much harder about how you phrase it to avoid giving
unnecessary offence, and some of the spontaneity is lost. If we want to make
public comments, there are plenty of magazines, both in print and on the
net, which we can submit them to. I can't see what benefits can be set
against that loss of spontaneity. There is no real need to submit our
proceedings to public scrutiny - we're not a business or a court of law that
we have to show everyone our incorruptibility. All we do is talk about
poetry, and those that don't like the company or the conversation have lots
of other places where they can talk about it.

Best wishes

Matthew
----- Original Message -----
From: "Candice Ward" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: archive


> Thanks, Jim, Henry, and Mark, for the feedback. Jim's and Henry's posts
> helpfully indicated some confusions between public and private discussion
> lists that may well be shared by other listees, for all I know.
>
> Jim's objection to making Poetryetc's archives private--that it "isolates
> the list"--goes to the heart of what "private" means. Any number of people
> from 2 to 200 who wish to converse privately on any topic whatsoever may
> take more or less careful steps to assure their privacy, and I doubt if
even
> the most ardent eavesdropper would claim a right or entitlement to listen
in
> on a private conversation (unless s/he worked for the FBI or some other
> public agency of governmentality). The fact is that most private lists--as
> both Poetryetc and Jim's own New-Poetry list are (i.e., subscription is by
> member request and owner approval)--have private archives, while public
> lists (which anyone can join merely by signing up) have public archives.
For
> public lists, there is an expectation, even an ethical mandate, to leave
> their archives open to public scrutiny, and it is a matter of policy for
> Jiscmail and many other servers that these public lists do so.
>
> With respect to the private lists they serve, Jiscmail leaves the option
of
> open or closed archives to the discretion of the respective listowners,
who
> typically make that choice when they start up a list (i.e., before there
is
> even any membership to be consulted about that). The original/founding
owner
> of Poetryetc, John Kinsella, made what private/public choices he did
partly
> as a function of the options offered him by the list's original (academic)
> server, since which time he has had to change servers twice--to elude a
> cyber-terrorist (Kru-Poet), who was eventually apprehended by the combined
> efforts of Scotland Yard and the FBI--and then again when Mailbase shifted
> all its academy-identified lists to Jiscmail. With every server shift
there
> were listowner options to do with the basic private/public distinction. At
> the same time, the risks of cyber-terrorism--personal and viral--have
> continued to grow for all electronic discussion groups such that privacy
has
> become identified with security to a greater extent than ever before.
During
> the same decade, a number of worldwide copyright accords and treaties
began
> to be negotiated and signed, all of which addressed to some degree
questions
> of digital publication relative to software liscensing and
> intellectual-property rights (personal and national), so this too has
> factored into the meaning of "private" in the online discussion-list
> context.
>
> The question of isolation raised by Jim cuts both ways, of course, and
> Jiscmail tells me that not only do most of their private lists keep their
> archives closed to the non-membership public, but many of them have asked
> not to be advertised by the server (a request Jiscmail readily grants). In
> their early days, all lists on any given topic must compete for members
and
> may wind up with a membership that more of less overlaps with that of one
or
> more other lists on its topic (as do the Brit-Po and Petc memberships,
> e.g.). If a list endures (and most do not, I gather), it eventually
reaches
> a point where it no longer needs to actively market itself, having a
> name-brand status that makes advertising less necessary for its growth,
> unless it defines itself in terms of an ever-changing membership (all new
> blood all the time). Established lists like Poetryetc and British-Poets
> would seem to have reached that point, while a relatively new list like
> Jim's (albeit one that inherited a portion of its membership from a prior
> established list, CAP-L, that could even be considered an earlier
> incarnation of New-Po) might still need or want to advertise itself via
its
> own archives. Potential listees do shop around and do sometimes choose
among
> the hundreds of lists on a topic such as poetry on the basis of the
ambiance
> conveyed by a list archive. So Poetryetc is now somewhat isolated from
> poetry-list consumers, but it is also somewhat more protected from the
> various forces of exploitation and destruction to which all such lists are
> vulnerable in this era.
>
> Henry's additional reason for believing that Poetryetc's archive should be
> open to the public--"so that people can draw their own conclusions about
the
> various flare-ups that have occurred"--seems to me to take the
> private/public question back to the desires (but not the rights or
> entitlements) of the eavesdropper. Why should an argument erupting in the
> course of a private conversation be considered the business of anyone but
> the conversants--and why should anyone else be interested in their
> arguments? I can't think of any legitimate reason for indulging
> eavesdroppers myself, but I'm open to the possibility and would be
> interested to hear what other listees think as well as your preference for
> open or closed archives.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Candice
>