On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 15:17:40 -0000 (UTC),
pschleck@panix.com (Paul W. Schleck) wrote:
It seems that some people prefer to define Usenet by what it isn't (or
at least what they feel it should not be), rather than what it should
be. They also seem to lack self-awareness about this, resulting in a >low-quality information product akin to a written "Fight Club." >https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/1elh0fb/trying_to_define_usenet_by_what_it_isnt_or_should/
(using Tor Browser 13.5.2)
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/1elh0fb/trying_to_define_usenet_by_what_it_isnt_or_should/
5 days ago
Parker51MKII
MOD
Trying to define Usenet by what it isn't (or should not be)
THEORY
It seems that some people prefer to define Usenet by what it isn't (or at >least what they feel it should not be), rather than what it should be.
They also seem to lack self-awareness about this, resulting in a low-
quality information product akin to a written "Fight Club."
Reaction to posting a list of active and on-topic Usenet newsgroups:
"We're not interested in your favorite newsgroups. Readers can go find >newsgroups that interest them themselves."
Such a list is not intended as personal favorites that others won't like. >Late-stage Usenet is a vast wasteland of empty newsgroups, or newsgroups >filled to the brim with SPAM. Just finding a newsgroup with a topic name
of interest doesn't necessarily mean that it will have current on-topic >content, or even that posts to it won't drop into a black hole without
reply. The list is intended as a starting point to save someone new to
Usenet a high research burden just to find content and individuals to >interact with.
Reaction to posting a Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) list:
"Readers don't need an FAQ list, and it's annoying to experienced readers >like us, anyway. They can just find out the answers themselves, or just
ask the newsgroup, which is certain to get an accurate and useful answer."
It is unsustainable to answer every question over and over, and
exhaustively. Sometimes common "wrong" answers are repeated that require >effort to rebut. Those who try rapidly lose interest, even start to
become jaded and rude towards newcomers, sometimes even give
disinformation to others as trolling for their amusement.
Reaction to posting a link to an article from a source outside of Usenet: >"That's not Usenet. If people want to find out things from outside
sources, they can follow those outside sources themselves. We're not >interested in giving context to our arguments and opinions, anyway."
Context and primary sources can be useful even for Usenet arguments. The >point of information aggregation is that it provides a useful product
that would require a lot of labor for readers to go out and find
themselves, and might not even be found. Without context, arguments and >opinions tend to go off the rails or become unrealistic "pie in the sky." >That's one reason why civilization has libraries and librarians.
Reaction to reposting even a Usenet article from 10, 20, or 30 years ago: >"That's old news, not relevant to us, and we don't want to read it
anyway. All that matters is articles from today."
As with pointers to outside sources, context even from 10, 20, or 30
years ago can be useful to inform present knowledge and debate. They
might even offer insight to a time when Usenet was much more useful
because it was more on-topic and less abusive."
What should Usenet be, then?
"Just freewheeling argument, which is of course protected by freedom of >speech."
But freedom of speech is about prohibition of prior restraint
(censorship) by the government, not about using someone else's
proverbial "printing press" or otherwise compelled audience. Creating a >"Tragedy of the Commons" where everything is pulled down to the lowest
common denominator of argument, bullying, disinformation, prejudice,
and libel is not in everyone's best long-term interest. Those actually
paying for Usenet (both providers and subscribers) will rapidly lose
interest and the whole thing will break down. Some say that it already
has.
[end quote]
"Monsieur l' abbe, je deteste ce que vous ecrivez, mais je donnerai
My sire of the abbey, I detest that which you write, but I would donate
ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer a ecrire."
my life for that you have the puissance to continue to write.
--from a quotation by Norbert Guterman, editor of 'A Book of French
Quotations', alleged to be from an original Voltaire letter dated
6 Feurier 1771 to M. le Riche (possibly apocryphal, non sequitur).
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)