[Winona Online Democracy] To Winona Online Democracy:
Well, I�ve read �em all, or at least the vast majority. It�s a lot to respond to; I�ll address what I consider the key points. They fall into three main areas: I. Mr. Voegeli�s remarks II. Insider/outsider, negative/positive III. Making my research project known I. MR. VOEGELI�S REMARKS Let me begin with these lines from Mr. Voegeli�s May 23 posting: �Lastly, and with all due respect . . . Steve, get a life.� He apparently had second thoughts about that remark, for a day later he admitted �that my last post was not exactly the paragon of constructive feedback.� I�m confident he�s being far kinder in characterizing his own remarks than he would have been if someone else had written about him that way. Mr. Voegeli�s language clearly violates the spirit of Winona Online Democracy�s (WOD) no-personal-attacks rule. It also seems to go against that part of WOD rules that says, �Attempts to �win� an online discussion are discouraged.� And it certainly makes clear that, contrary to what at least one poster wrote, not all WOD postings are �more of a search for understanding� than an adversarial statement of opinion. I don�t see any search for understanding in the remark I quoted from Mr. Voegeli. On a related note, I wonder if Mr. Voegeli got a message from the listmasters asking him to tone it down. Or maybe there�s one set of rules for some people and another set for another set of people. More about that later in the �insider/outsider� section. I find Mr. Voegeli�s criticism of my research confusing and contradictory. On the one hand, he jumps me for allegedly jumping to conclusions based on biases rather than facts. At the same time, he trivializes and apparently mocks (�It took you almost three years . . . ?�) the time spent in completing the statistical analysis that bears out the fact that the list is dominated by a small number of people. I don�t see how he can have it both ways. If he doesn�t want conclusions based on biases, surely he shouldn�t begrudge the time I spent making sure the study was based on facts. By the way, I�m far from alone in saying that the list isn�t representative of the community at large. A number of other posters have said the same thing, including Steve Kranz, who wrote during this current round of postings that WOD had tried (unsuccessfully) to secure funding �to improve and expand (WOD) participation so that it more accurately reflects the demographics of Winona.� Mr. Voegeli himself, in his May 24 posting, writes, �it�s very easy to see that WOD is not as diverse as it could be and that it needs to be more representative.� If I�m not the only one saying it, why am I the only one criticized for saying it? Throughout his May 23 posting, Mr. Voegeli criticizes me for words I never used. Two examples: --He says my conclusions �call into question the intentions and character of the founders and main participants of WOD.� I did no such thing. I counted (the number of messages, for example, and who wrote them), I categorized (was a particular message long or short, about a local or national issue?), and, perhaps most important, I quoted from WOD postings. I merely relayed what members of the list were saying online. --He says I present the fact that �WOD is not as diverse as it could be� as �evidence of some mean-spirited conspiracy.� I said nothing of the kind. --In his May 24 posting, he cites a dictionary definition of �oligarchy� and then adds that �most people assume� that the few who are in control in an oligarchy have �mean, self-serving, or dasterdly (sic) reasons.� Mr. Voegeli even wants to control the meaning of words. When such a small percentage of WOD participants (about 7 percent in the first nine months and 11 percent in the six months I studied) writes more than half the messages, that does indeed constitute an oligarchy of opinion. You can read into it whatever you want to, but the word means what the word means. I don�t mind if you disagree with me, Mr. Voegeli, or even, for that matter, if you get angry with me. I would prefer, however, if you wouldn�t get angry at me for things I didn�t say. When you ask, for example, if your �8% of talking (deterred) others from talking,� you�re asking me about a statement I didn�t make. Whether you like seeing it stated publicly or not, you did singlehandedly write 7.9% of the messages during WOD�s first nine months of operation, according to figures from Mr. Schenkat and Mr. Kranz. Don�t blame me if you don�t like that fact. I will close the Voegeli section of this response by responding directly to three questions he asked of me: 1. What are my opinions and conscious biases about WOD? My research bore out what I believed to be true, and what I am even more confident of now: During the periods I studied, the list was dominated by a small group of participants. 2. What are my unconscious biases? I�m not aware of any. 3. To what extent did any biases I have drive my choice of numbers and how might those biases influence conclusions? As I�ve said, watching the list and occasionally posting to it provided me with the hypothesis that the list was dominated by a small number of people. As far as the numbers I chose, I chose to count the number of messages that had been written, and I logged who wrote them. On issues where posters had an opportunity to �vote,� if you will, such as with the Boy Scout issue and the school-funding referendum, I tallied the responses to see which side had more support in a given medium. The numbers, the raw data, drove the conclusions. Something that hasn�t been reported, by the way, but that constitutes up a big part of my Historical Society presentation and my research paper, is the discussion among WOD participants about how posters should treat one another. It was participants, not me, who raised the question about whether hostile responses to minority positions might prevent people from participating at all or participating more. I think the biggest and potentially most valuable thing to be studied about groups like WOD is the extent, if any, to which online civility or the lack thereof affects participation. That is the crucial question for a forum such as WOD, which has as one of its stated goals to �awaken a spirit of more active participation in civic life. II. INSIDER/OUTSIDER, POSITIVE/NEGATIVE I think Kathy Seifert hit it right on the head when she wrote that there is a �double standard--an effect of the �in-group� vs. the �out-group.�� It is indeed a double standard. How am I an outsider? I subscribed to the list when I was invited to do so. I have occasionally posted to the list. Yet Mr. Voegeli tells me to �get a life,� apparently because I�m spending too much time paying attention to the list. (It strikes me as odd to criticize someone for paying too much attention to something that he�s studying.) If I should �get a life,� are lurkers open to the same snide remarks? Keep in mind, by the way, that I never criticized anyone for �lurking,� nor did I coin the term. I think people should be able to use the list in any way they want. A related point regards the positive/negative, constructive/destructive dichotomy that a number of my critics have brought up. If WOD is indeed eager to make itself better, then why isn�t my research helpful? As far as I know, it takes the largest-scale look that�s been taken at WOD. It seems, though, that some people on the list are all too willing to brand as �negative� things they don�t want to hear about something they hold dear. Yes, as Ms. Seifert astutely pointed out, it is a very human phenomenon. It�s also very close to groupthink, to the dark, clannish side of groupness. Near the beginning of this post, I said I wonder if Mr. Voegeli got a note from the listmasters chastising him for the tone of his remarks. I can�t say for sure, but I�d be very surprised if he did. III. MAKING MY RESEARCH PROJECT KNOWN I disagree with Ruth Charles� statement that �for critical ACADEMIC research you must inform people that you are going to use the information.� As a historian told me this morning, historians regularly write about people without telling them they�re going to. Furthermore, the postings on WOD are a public forum, very similar to letters to the editor. I also understand, though, that this is not an issue that can be settled here, nor an issue that could ever be agreed upon by all. So let me tell you what I have done to make clear to people on the list that I have been studying the list and that I planned to write about it. First, as I mentioned in a previous post, I made clear to Randy Schenkat and Steve Kranz more than two years ago that I was researching WOD. I also, in the summer of 2001, posted a survey to WOD asking members for information about demographics and their use of the list. When I solicited responses to my survey, I said that respondents would not be identified by name or in any other way. I have been true to my word; in the paper I wrote, I distinguished between information gathered through the survey--to which I provided no identifying information--and information gathered from the postings themselves, which are in my estimation public. I also said, when I posted the survey to WOD, that I would post my findings to the list. In late June or early July of last year, I tried to do that--I sent a copy of a paper I�d written to Mr. Kranz. I told him I knew it was long, and I invited him to look it over so we could discuss ways to shorten it or in some other way make it appropriate for posting to WOD. Though I cannot at this moment find the e-mail reply I got from him, my recollection is that Mr. Kranz later wrote that he simply never had time to get around to dealing with the paper. I have no reason not to believe him. (If I�ve misstated anything in this paragraph, Mr. Kranz, please feel free to correct me. I am, as I said, operating from memory of events more than a year old.) That paper contained a fair amount of the information that�s in the completed paper that I summarized at my Historical Society presentation. So, I have not done my work in secret. And I think my paper has potentially far greater value locally than in any distant academic journal. If you�re still here, you�ve been very patient. Let me conclude by saying that I apologize for the confusion and bad feelings caused by �the quote.� While I do think that that quote is an important part of the WOD story, I clearly should have presented it differently, and I regret not doing so. It came up at the end of my presentation and was not discussed in the detail it deserves. I regret it not only because it�s been the cause of considerable consternation, but more so because it may have deflected attention from the information at the heart of my study. Sincerely, Steve Schild _______________________________________________ This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
