Dennis,
>In the 9 months in which I have been a member of this
>list, the 'banter/list split' debate has come to a head twice
>and has been alive and well and living under the surface
>the rest of the time.
Yes, it has been around for a while, and probably won't go away. I have a
message archived from 26 Sep 1995 about it, there are probably earlier ones.
>Each time the subject has surfaced it has become 'bigger
>than Ben Hur' (or as the subject is future directions should
>I say 'Quo Vadis') and generated more traffic than the 'banter'
>which generated it. Each time suggestions are made about
>splitting this list into 'interest groups'. The debate seems to
>ignore the following:
Yes, you would expect a community to spend some time every now and then to
spend some time talking about "where are we going". Although this time I
have offered to setup another list to carry the conversation about what we
should be talking about, but I'm not sure many people would want to join it
to thrash the issues out.
[I've taken the liberty of summarising your points below, to save space]
[I can give specific examples from other lists & forums illustrating my
points, but won't in this case to keep things brief]
>1. Topics are dynamic, they grow from one another.
> Within a year (at a guess) each of the 'one issue'
> lists will have diversified.
I would hope so. This is good, natural growth.
>2. The fact that topics are dynamic is a part of the
> strength of the list. One line in a posting can result
> in a whole new thread.
Yes. This is very true, and a vital part of how these groups work. But
rarely will things move from say "How much sinemet is too much" to "how is
New York doing with the Udall bill". The trick is to pick topics/categories
which are fairly distinct, easy to recognise, and have a fair degree of
seperation.
>3. It is imposible to find a universaly acceptable definition
> for the phrase "off-line topic".
Most forums manage this by:
- (initially) careful wording of the charter of the list
- (as time goes on) a general understanding of what is and is not OK
>4. Those people who feel strongly that alternate lists are
> viable and desirable are at liberty to set them up. They
> are also at liberty to either leave this list or remain on it.
> The choice is theirs.
I think this would be a mistake. Kind of like "I don't like this so I am
going to run off an setup a competing list".
I would very much like to keep the Parkinson's community intact - to do
otherwise would be to do everyone a great diservice. (People have
asked/suggested I setup lists on particular topics and I have declined
because I believe those topics were best served on the main PARKINSN list.)
I would hope to convince people on this list that there is a case for
creating sub-lists under PARKINSN to cover certain well defined subjects,
to reduce the volume on PARKINSN. If - and only if - "the general feeling"
is that we should give it a go, then let's try.
Perhaps we've gone wrong with the word "splitting", which implies one wants
to damage PARKINSN in some way. This is not the case - I want to give it
space to grow.
Currently, people who join PARKINSN, find it too heavy, and exercise their
right to be at "liberty to either leave this list or remain on it", just
disappear. There is no community they can join to participate in the
Parkinson's Internet world at their level. I think that's a pity.
Another thing to consider - if we do create sub-lists, and an individual
chooses to join them all - there will be *no* appreciable difference for
them when particiapting in those forums. They will still discuss the same
issues with the same people, in the same way. The only thing you will need
to do different is remember if you start a new thread about drugs, send it
to pddrugs, not pdudall, or whatever. But, if you are someone who needs to
cut down on the volume of stuff, you can join the bits you are particularly
interested in.
Don't you think it would be more reasonable to structure our community so
more people can participate in the way they need to - rather than have one
area where only the elite (who can handle loads of mail) will participate?
>5. Finally, as I see it, the real question in regard to the list
> is "do I belong to to it for what I can get out of it, or for
> what I can give to it?" For most of us the answer will
> be a balance of the two. We join for what help we can
> get. With time we find ourselves giving more and more.
> Hopefully a balance evolves. As for me, if the day ever
> comes when I feel that not only am I not getting anything
> from being here, but ALSO that I am not giving anything
> to the list, I shall fold my tents, say my goodbyes and
> leave. Why would I stay? Why would you want me to?
Precisely. So how about an expert in the affects of PD Drugs - would you
expect him to participate in the main PARKINSN list, wading through loads
of stuff he probably isn't interested in, so he can contribute once a week?
Don't think that's going to happen - there aren't all that many
"professionals" on this list (which may be a good or a bad thing, its an
opinion), and I would suggest they aren't on this list because they are too
busy.
How about the case where this expert can join a smaller list, with perhaps
50 messages a week (not a day!) which are all about drugs, and he can
contribute more frequently and usefully. I think you will get more takers
for that scenario - and perhaps the conversation on the specialist list
will get more detailed and expert - thereby genuinely creating and sharing
knowledge?
>Lets get real. If anyone is actually going to set up specialist lists let
>them do it.
I doubt people will "leave" to setup specialist lists. Some of us would
like to "move" bunches topics out of PARKINSN into specialist lists - but
that wouldn't be damaging PARKINSN in any way. We'll probably all remain
members of PARKINSN, which will continue to be the focus of the Parkinson's
community on the Internet.
>If anyone is planing on leaving because of percieved
>deficencies in the list, please do so, preferably without blaming me for
>their actions.
Well, it would be kind of nice to get a consensus about what we all thought
should be done - and this mail is part of that process (and thank you for
being part of that process).
My ideal situation would be a controlled, planned, agreed, move to more
than one list to discuss PD issues. Stomping off in a sulk really isn't
something I want to be part of - and would like to find a way of preventing
other people feeling they needed to act that way.
>To those of you still out there busy Udalling and bantering
>and even occasionly mentioning PD - Hi, I'm still here, 2 cents worth at
>the ready, glad of your support and offering mine.
Likewise. Community is a wonderful thing. Wouldn't it be nice to welcome
more people?
Regarding your "get real" emphasis:
- Do you think the PARKINSN list can grow significantly? (e.g. to
10,000 people)
- If so, what's going to make the volume issue easier to
handle?
- If so, who is going to host it? Can you imagine the traffic?
Do you have any idea how much you are asking of an
organisation to host such a list?
- If not, what's to happen to all those people who might want
to be part of the community but can't because PARKINSN has
no "space" (as it where)?
- The Internet is growing very very very quickly. What's going to
happen when there are 1 billion English-speaking people on the
Internet?
- Are we going to have lots of little splinter PD lists
which don't have much in common, no organisation, no
pattern?
- no community at all
- Are there going to be 10's of thousands of PD people who
are wandering aroung muttering "I tried PARKINSN, too
noisey"?
- that's a real pity
- where will these people go?
- or are we going to have a well defined set of interlinked,
co-operating lists, which people participate in as needed?
Every other Internet community I am a member of has taken the decision to
develop sub-groups when the amount of discussion became an impediment to
actually benefiting from membership of that community. I cannot see why the
Parkinson's community is any different.
Simon
--------- My opinions are my own, NIP's opinions are theirs ----------
Simon J. Coles Email: [log in to unmask]
New Information Paradigms Work Phone: +44 1344 778783
http://www.nipltd.com/ Work Fax: +44 1344 772510
=============== Life is too precious to take seriously ===============
