Steve Eskow wrote: >Steve Eskow wrote: > > >>>The "listserv" is a mode of dialog that fits the genius of the online >>>environment, and thus there are thousands of them, and they will continue >>> >>> >to > > >>>flourish and multiply.>> >>> >>> > >and Taran Rampersad replied: > > >>> >>> >>Listservs are self limiting because in propagation, they split the >>attention of people. If all listservs are equal - and they are not, >>because our judgement brings weight which makes them unequal - and a >>person subscribes to one listserv, then they spend their time 'there'. >>Introduce another listserv, the attention would be split 2 ways. 3 >>listservs, 3 ways. And so on.>> >> >> > > >theregy illustrating the genius of the listserv and its natural fit with >this online medium:: the easy, unforced flow of dialog over time, with folks >like me choosing to enter into a discussion, or not, and folks like Taran >choosing to engage with me, or not. > >I hope, Taran, we can avoid talking past each other. > > :-)
>I was not comparing listservs to other forms of communication that emerge >from the grain of this online medium, like content management systems or >Wikis. I could as well have used these last two to make my point, which was >and is that all three are designed to fit this medium, while the >"conference" is an import from the face-to-face world, an alien format that >is uncomfortable online, no matter how it is tweaked. > >Taran, you talk of "self limiting." All form are self-limiting. When I spend >my time traveling to a conference, and attending that conference, travel and >attendance limit me to that one event. More than that: if there are ten >break-out sessions scheduled from 9am, to 11, I am self-limited to one >session and missing nine: no, the time-space structure of the "conference" >limits me to one of ten sessions. Why imitate that form online, and repeat >that same limitation, when online all ten sessions can be so organized that >I can attend all of them?. > > Exactly. But you see, people are slow to adopt things. This is why we're using listservs for most of the communication here on the DDN, because many are simply not comfortable unless they can use Microsoft Outlook to inform us when they are out of town (perhaps so that someone can burglarize them and they can make insurance claims? I do not know). Perhaps on a busy day, such as when you sent this, I would not respond because I'm up to my neck in other listservs. There are forms which are not as self limiting. As you say, all forms are self limiting - but the degree to which they are self limiting varies. For broad communication with large groups, websites are less self limiting - and are decreasing even further over time. Email hasn't really changed in the last 10 years that much... however, website technology has changed quite a bit, and has shown itself to be more adaptive to the demands we place on this medium. It even uses email as a tool at times. >The online medium needs designs that don't begin by limiting themselves to >mimicking a face-to-face form. A face to face form like the "conference." > > I don't necessarily agree with this. We must not forget our roots either. Man is a social creature, and as such the senses play an important part. Face to face conferences are social gatherings - maybe some things are discussed, maybe not. But they are social gatherings, in the hopes of attaining some purpose that the attendees wish to achieve. How odd for me to defend face to face conferences - and yet, if web conferences incorporate audio and video, what is missing from the conference? Proximity? The ability to have dinner or drinks with each other? I do not ask that to be flippant, and it is not rhetoric - I don't think anyone knows the answer, and in a way we're being forced to answer that very question. Oddly enough, both the Cathedral and Bazaar deal a lot with social gathering. Bonfires or grand events about Linux... even voting. I wonder how much voting would change if candidates took part in web conferences instead of broadcasting and only answering questions that the speechwriters and strategists want answered. As a sidenote, here's an interesting thing to look at for US politics and bandwidth: http://www.longdarkteatime.com/2005/01/broadband-democracy.html In the end, we have to do things which increase participation on the internet - which means that we have to adapt our use of it to this purpose. And that means that we need to adapt things which are less self limiting and more inclusive. Take for example this Yale conference - the discussion has been neglected by the organizers. This tells me that they aren't too serious about the Global Flow of Information, and it sends me a signal that there will be little discussion - instead, there will probably be the same dull monologues that we can get from anywhere. Therefore, I have come to take this conference as an aberration; they are not practicing what they preach. Drive by postings to mailing lists in the hope of advertising an event is exactly what SPAM is - there's no discussion. They haven't taken our discussion into account as far as I can tell... we are people that they wish to broadcast to. The unnamed masses. If I wanted to be treated like an idiot, I probably wouldn't be on this mailing list. :-) -- Taran Rampersad [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxgazette.com http://www.a42.com http://www.worldchanging.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.easylum.net "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
