Mr. Bishop,
The problems you raise are not insurmountable problems, not by a long
stretch.
One solution is to ensure newcomers receive a message containing the rules,
automatically, by the mail system, when their subscription is finalized.
Given the nature of this list, we can assume that all subscribers will have
the skillset necessary to read and understand some simple rules.
Of course, there will be occasional mistakes, which will likely be more
common among the newcomers. Simply pointing it out to them will be enough.
Perhaps a "reminder" message can be sent out - say, annually - to reinforce
the rules. In the same way that people will take it upon themselves to
remind people to "trim the tails" of their messages, so too can people just
remind others of any other rules we all agree to follow.
This works well on other lists, and such tasks as reminder emails can be
automated.
There are other possible solutions if - as some have suggested - the list
migrates to something like Google Groups at some point in the future,
because of extra functionality in those systems.
But some things can be done within JISCmail too. For instance, there is a
file repository area for phd-design; it seems to have been used between
1998 and 2000, but not since. Perhaps we should revive it, and put a
README or RULEZ file in there that can be just linked into posts, and can
contain whatever rules and advice for posters we think is necessary. We
could even add a link to that document in the automatic footer of all
posts, to make sure everyone has it regularly in their "field of view."
You suggested this yourself, and it's trivial to do in JISCmail. The
question isn't adding the link; it's formulating the "rules" so that they
are appropriate, flexible, and realistic.
JISCmail also supports sub-lists (or super-lists, depending I guess on
one's point of view). Perhaps we should consider having sublists for
specific purposes.
The 2-posts rule is not well-known because it has, AFAIK, (a) not been
accepted universally by the membership, and (b) not formalized as a rule
anywhere. The rule is currently being implemented on a voluntary basis by
individuals, so naturally not everyone is following it. It is therefore
specious for you to use this rule in support of your claims.
The situation you suggest of flame-wars resulting from long-time members
responding to newcomers who violate rules is hypothetical at best. I'm not
aware of any flame-wars between newcomers and long-time members. What's
more, even with only the rules of "normal (n)etiquette", there is evidence
on this list of some members believing they were chastised by long-time
members. (I note that this is NOT a case of a flame-war.) That what you
claim would happen with more rules is happening anyways deflates the
argument that more rules are somehow necessarily bad.
As for your example of a long-standing member "questioning the newbie's
credentials," the question has been dealt with already and several
proposals have been made to address this. It's only a question of whether
the membership decides to move ahead with any of them.
The wikipedia rule of "assume good faith" is just the philosophical
principle of charity that I've brought up several times; nothing new there,
and it's something that - based on the responses that have been posted in
the various threads about "respect" - pretty much all of us buy into. This
could well be a "rule" we could build into a document for the list, but
only if everyone agrees to it.
Most importantly, such a rule would have to extend uniformly to every case,
including those cases where one member might be seen as taking another to
task unnecessarily. In such a case, charity would require to BOTH defend
the newcomer, but also presume that a good reason for that taking-to-task
exists, and not jump to any conclusions but rather professionally ask for
an explanation from both sides. Sidebar: this kind of charity would also
go far to prevent your "flame wars."
Finally, not everyone will be happy, no matter what. Someone will always
find whatever rules exist or may exist in the future too weak, or too
rigid, or whatever. We might over time iterate and reach a state where we
believe we have the ideal set of rules, but people aren't ideal (think:
"bounded rationality"), so even then not everyone will be content. It's
good to try to encourage lurkers to contribute, but in the end we can't
*make* them contribute and their decision to lurk is ultimately their own.
\V/_ /fas
*Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.*
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
On 15 June 2015 at 05:38, Jonathan Bishop <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Liliana,
>
> As an online community expert I disagree.
>
> What you are proposing does not work in e-mail list based communities.
>
> What would happen is that the current members might adopt a given rule and
> follow it, but then new members start coming in who no way of knowing it.
> For instance, very few new people who joined the list would have known of
> the two-posts-per-thread rule that the founding members knew of, but new
> members are unlikely to know or care for it. Many people now have Gmail
> accounts which sort posts into whether they are from social media or
> forums, or regular mail, meaning that rule is redundant. Gmail also groups
> posts into threaded emails so they are all in the same place and easy to
> follow. Microsoft Outlook now does the same.
>
> Having rules beyond normal (n)etiquette in email lists can cause
> flame-wars. For instance, if there is an influx of new members who don't
> know or care for a given rule, the long-established members can have their
> sense of security threatended and will start "trolling the newbies". Such
> long-standing members are called "Elders"
>
> For instance, if a newbie were to post something dissenting in that Elder's
> mind, that Elder might start questioning the newbie's credentials, which
> might lead to them relurking.
>
> Wikipedia have the rule "don't bite the newbies." Another Wikipedia policy
> is "assume good faith." I think this list could go a long way if these
> became unwritten rules embodied in the culture without needing to be
> known in the way more technical rules need to be. Unless there is a link to
> a code of conduct at the bottom of each message, having technical rules in
> email lists will not work. Trying to enforce them only leads to more
> lurking by the person and others "not liking the group", which is in Blair
> Nonnecke and Jenny Preece's top 5 reasons for lurking.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
