Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/02/12/19:21:17
Winter wrote:
>
> Sorry to quote so much, but is seemed to cover the right topics. As a
> lnguistics major, I get to review many things relating to language. A
> fairly hot topic is the use of the internet as a communication device.
> (primarily the web, then usenet) Papers I have read present the theory
> that there is a high intimidation value to enter conversation for a newbie.
> Why? Because usenet (to the newbie) appears to be full of self rghteous
> bastards who enjoy answering people, but in a way that is rather rude.
> Though this may not be the fact, it is the perception. And before you
> defend your particular newsgroup, realize that that is irrelevant. Usenet
> is viewed as one big body.
As with many things on the Net, the "intimidation factor" is both real
and exaggerated. The biggest obstacle to a new person in any subject is
his or her lack of knowledge of the fundamentals of that subject. To
somebody who knows nothing about Usenet, getting involved can be a major
step.
But - and this is a big but, IMHO - getting involved in Usenet postings
is not very different from getting involved in any other activity. I
don't have the first clue how to skate on ice. If I stumbled out into a
rink and started pestering the other skaters to help me, chances are
good that most of them would tell me to go take a class. Some might
even get rude about it. If I walked into the cockpit of an airliner and
asked the pilots to teach me how to fly, they would probably ask me to
go take flying lessons. Some might even offer lessons without benefit
of an airplane. :-) If I stood up in a conference of mathematicians
and asked how to do linear algebra, I would probably be told to go read
a math book and leave them alone.
It's the same with Usenet. Some _minimal_ level of effort is expected
of new participants before they are welcomed into the group. When I
start reading a new newsgroup, or subscribe to a new mailing list, I
_always_ read at least a day's worth of messages, looking particularly
for the following things:
- Commonly asked questions (so I don't ask them).
- Pointers to resources, such as written FAQs (so I can learn more
about the group without pestering the people on it).
- Pet peeves of the group participants (again, so as not to offend
people unnecessarily).
- Which persons seem to be the local gurus (so I don't start
contradicting them and look like a fool).
These seem to me to be general rules of etiquette that should be applied
_anywhere_, not just on the Net! If a newbie shows up and asks a
question that plainly shows that he has not even tried to do any of
those things, I get annoyed. Usually, I answer politely (and so does
everyone else), but even I have a certain threshold of tolerance that
gets strained by too many dumb questions in too short a time. It can
also get strained by events in my personal life: if I'm tired, or I had
a bad day at work, or I'm feeling ill, I can lose patience quickly.
While it's certainly my responsibility to control my emotions as much as
possible (there is no excuse for flaming people who just want
information), it's also very easy to demand that all Usenet participants
act obsequiously nice to newbies. That may make the "political
correctness" weenies happy, but it also makes it easier for newbies to
get away with not taking any initiative for themselves.
Remember that Usenet discussion groups don't exist solely for the
benefit of newbies, but also as a forum for people already in the group
to exchange ideas and information. As important as new ideas are to the
health of any group, each newsgroup has its own little community, with
rules and standards like any other. Not taking the time to learn those
rules is the worst sort of offense.
> as far as the comment that I assume that answering newbie questions annoys
> you, well, the comment that started some of this was someone commenting
> that they were getting sick of the nature of some of the questions.
Everybody starts out a newbie. One's subsequent status is determined by
one's ability to _stop_ being a newbie; i.e., to learn. Those who do
learn become useful "Netizens" - exchangers of ideas and providers of
information - and with a lot of hard work may eventually be promoted to
the status of "guru." Those who do not, quickly stop being "newbies"
and get demoted to the status of "luser," or, even worse, "lamer," and
become targets of ridicule and flamage. As much as politeness and
respect should be demanded of the Usenet gurus, an equivalent level of
respect should be demanded of the newbies. This satisfies the Universal
laws of balance, yin-yang, karma, et. al., and generally makes
everybody happier.
> Now, I'm wondering if I should even post this, 'cuz its likely a topic
> thats been beaten to death. Oh well :)
On the contrary, self-analysis like this is the only way to keep the
Usenet healthy. If we hide behind our individual principles, then we'll
become what the ignoramuses want us to be.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| John M. Aldrich, aka Fighteer I | mailto:fighteer AT cs DOT com |
| "Starting flamewars since 1993" | http://www.cs.com/fighteer/ |
| *** NOTICE *** This .signature | ICQ UIN#: 7406319 |
| is generated randomly. If you don't like it, sue my computer. |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- Raw text -