[Winona Online Democracy] Mr. Kranz,
Since you're not trying to put words in my mouth, you should be very careful not to lead anyone to believe that I stated or implied that WOD should shut down, because I never did. To repeat: I never said or wrote anything remotely resembling that WOD should shut down. There's an ocean of difference between my concluding, on the basis of research I've done, that WOD falls far short of perfect and that it should shut down. All I've said is that until WOD reaches and successfully solicits participation from a broader group than it currently does, it will be very hard to convincingly argue that WOD has met its goal of creating a community-wide discussion. And I've had a devil of a time getting WOD leadership to acknowledge that very reasonable point. Along those lines, by the way, I can't help but notice two things absent from your message. First, you make no reference at all to my refutation of your point that only one writer dealt with me uncivilly in May. Second, you say nothing to acknowledge that my research has merit, or that its conclusions are similar to those cited by Larry Jacobs, the U of M political scientists whose remarks prompted me to begin this thread. By making it sound as if I'm suggesting that WOD should shut down, your message might divert attention away from the perfectly reasonable--and verifiable--points I'm raising. You mention the upcoming Wal-Mart forum; I'll leave it to individual citizens to decide how worthwhile they find it. Based on what I've read, it will be significantly different from WOD's discussion because it will have three Wal-Mart supporters and three Wal-Mart opponents. In short, it will be balanced. Though I haven't done a count yet, I'm confident that the majority of WOD writers and messages on that subject have been anti-Wal-Mart. Two other recent cases in point have great relevance to this discussion. Recently, Mr. Kranz, you asked WOD's 225 to 250 members for their opinions on televising school-board study sessions (large portions of which, by the way, remain inaudible to the TV audience) and on school governance by site-based teams. I didn't see you put the same invitation in the Daily News or the Post, which have respective circulations of approximately 12,000 and 23,000. If you had done that, you would have increased by 48 to 100 times the number of people you might have reached. By soliciting opinions from WOD but not from the readership of the two newspapers, you effectively gave WOD's small membership an influence even disproportionately larger than it already has. You've often said that WOD is one source of information among many; then why don't you, as school-board chair, seek information about those same topics from sources other than WOD? In conclusion, I never stated or implied that WOD should shut down. I've merely tried to get WOD leadership to acknowledge that it reaches only a tiny segment of the community, and that that undeniable fact has or should have great significance for the way WOD is regarded by its members and the community at large, and for the way it is regarded as a possible remedy to some of the woes facing the democratic process today. steve schild On Sunday, November 09, 2003 10:35 AM, Steve Kranz wrote: > >Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:35:59 -0600 >From: Steve Kranz >To: "Online Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR > >[Winona Online Democracy] > >Disclaimer: >Since nonverbal communication (the tone of my voice, my body language, etc.) >is not possible online, I'd just like to state up front that my comments >below are not meant to be accusatory or critical. I am earnestly trying to >introduce some concepts for discussion in response to Steve Schild's >finding. Please read the tone of my voice as being earnest and in the >spirit of inquiry . >----------------------------- > >I would hope that your findings could help improve Winona Online Democracy. >I was under the impression that was why you wanted WOD to acknowledge and >discuss them in the first place. I don't mean to put words in you mouth (so >please correct me if I'm off-base), but is it that you feel since, according >to your findings, WOD is not fully achieving its mission, it should close >its doors and not operate anymore? (Personally (and I mean no offense by >this) I would find that notion a bit akin to asking Habitat for Humanity to >stop operating because they have not fully achieved their mission of >"eliminating poverty housing in the world" and admonishing them for trying >to accomplish such a lofty goal in the first place) . > >Aside from that, though, I think it might help to turn the finding into a >question, such as "what does WOD need to do in order to engender >conversations that include diverse viewpoints and a broadly inclusive >discussion." That might be a good question for a bit of brainstorming by >the list. > >Another aspect of this occurred to me, as well. Since we started WOD, I >find myself constantly on the look out for analogies that are similar to >WOD, but take place in the "real world". I think looking for these "more >familiar" discussion formats, often helps shed some light on issues related >to online dialogue. One that has recently come up is the "educational >forum" on Wal-Mart that is being sponsored by the League of Women Voters & >Winona Online Democracy. Here's how the analogy works for me: > >1. The purpose of the forum is to engender a community dialogue and increase >understanding of an issue that impacts the quality of life in our >community. > >2. The discussion is available to the whole community, but only a very very >small percentage of the population will view or participate. > >3. The discussion will be dominated by very few people (six panelists, I >believe) who represented very limited ideological viewpoints (two opposing >viewpoints, I believe). > >4. The broad portion of public participation will be in the form of >"lurkers" . . . people who view the discussion but do not actively >participate in any way. > >5. Simple (at home) access to the discussion requires a $15/month >technological service (in this case, it requires access to at least basic >cable television). > >6. There will be a small number of people who participate in a very small >way in the discussion (by asking questions). > >7. Some aspects of the discussion will likely be picked up by the media and >reported. > >8. Elected officials and other community leaders may or may not be paying >attention to the discussion and the public will probably never know whether >or not the discussion influenced policy-making. > >I think all these are items that also apply to WOD and a number of them are >items that, when applied to WOD, cause it to be criticized by some people. > >So the question I would ask is "what is it about the forum that makes it >different than WOD". If there is no fundamental difference between the >forum and WOD, then is the forum of little value to the community or is it >even possible that the forum may cause more harm than good? If there are >differences that make the forum of more value than WOD, what are they and >what can we learn from these differences that would help us improve WOD? > >To flip it around, as well . . . If the analogy is a valid one, then what >value do both the forum and WOD provide to the community and does that value >outweigh the shortcomings of the formats? > >-Steve Kranz > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Schild Winona Online Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Kathy Seifert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: "Online Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 10:48 PM >Subject: cc: Re: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR > > >> [Winona Online Democracy] >> >> Kathy Seifert has asked me to "refresh us as to some of the findings that >will help us to improve WOD." Though I don't know that my findings will >help improve WOD, I consider the most important one to be this: >> >> During the periods I've studied, WOD has been dominated by a small group >of ideologically like-minded people who write a disproportionately large >percentage of the total volume of traffic. >> >> steve schild >> >> On Saturday, November 08, 2003 5:03 PM, Kathy Seifert wrote: >> > >> >Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 17:03:31 -0600 >> >From: Kathy Seifert >> >To: "Online Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Subject: Re: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR >> > >> >[Winona Online Democracy] >> > >> >Steve: >> > >> >Can you refresh us as to the findings that will help us to improve WOD? >I >> >think that there were some valid points that got lost in the strong >feelings >> >associated with some inflammatory language being thrown back and forth at >> >that time. I am particularly interested in any recommendations that came >> >out of your research that would lead us to better fulfill our mission. >> > >> >What do others want to know? >> > >> >Kathy Seifert >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Steve Schild Winona Online Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >To: "Steve Kranz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 12:52 PM >> >Subject: cc: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR >> > >> > >> >[Winona Online Democracy] >> > >> >Two points of clarification about what you call my "generalizing about >how >> >WOD reponded to my article:" >> > >> >1. You wrote that the "angry" comments were made "primarily" by one >person. >> >I re-read the posts, too, and was reminded that >> > >> >-- I was accused of being deceitful and unethical. >> >-- I was accused of trying to crucify WOD. >> >-- And (my personal favorite) I was called a skunk, albeit a skunk >pulling a >> >pretty wagon of flowers. >> > >> >Those three comments came from three separate postings from three >separate >> >people. Whether they're "angry" comments or not is matter of >interpretation >> >for individual readers; it's clear, though, that none of the three is >> >pleasant, and that the unpleasant comments were not confined to one >person >> >or one posting. >> > >> >The first statement, about alleged deceit and ethical lapses in my >methods, >> >was taken to task by two Ph.D.s with extensive experience as researchers. >> >They concluded that my study was well-constructed, ethical and valuable. >The >> >second and third statements have nothing to do with the substance of my >> >research; as such they constitute ad hominem attacks. >> > >> >2. I didn't state or imply that Jacobs had done any analysis of WOD. >> >Instead, I pointed out that my research about WOD bears out many of the >> >attributes and shortcomings that other researchers have found when >studying >> >online discussion groups. In short, I just wanted to remind WOD readers >that >> >my research might have some merit regardless of what some WOD members >wrote >> >about it. >> > >> >steve schild >> > >> > >> > >> >On Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:58 AM, Steve Kranz wrote: >> >> >> >>Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:58:59 -0600 >> >>From: Steve Kranz >> >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>Subject: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR >> >> >> >>[Winona Online Democracy] >> >> >> >>Steve S., >> >> >> >>I think you are doing a bit of generalizing of how WOD responded to your >> >>article. I just finished going through and reading all the posts >related >> >to >> >>it. My sense is that the "angry" comments were made primarily by one >> >person >> >>(that included the "get a life" comment) and later on in the discussion >he >> >>apologized to you for it. The rest of the dialogue, I thought, was >fairly >> >>thoughtful -- perhaps a bit heated at times, but I don't think that is >> >very >> >>unusual for the list -- and the discussion included people advocating >on >> >>both sides of many of the issues presented. >> >> >> >>I don't think there was ever any attempt by W.O.D. to deny that it could >be >> >>improved by more diverse participation. There were a few people that >> >>acknowledged this in their posts and I even posted a message detailing >how >> >>we had previously recognized the value of making Winona Online Democracy >> >>more representative of the community and had tried (unsuccessfully) to >> >>secure funding to accomplish that. >> >> >> >>The discussion ended with a request by a list member that you provide a >> >copy >> >>of your study in order that people could get the whole picture, rather >than >> >>just the snapshot provided in the newspaper. You indicated >> >>that you were unable to provide it due to a possible publishing >conflict. >> >> >> >>My reading of Jacobs' comments in the MPR story is that he was making >> >>general statements about online civic discussion groups. That is not to >> >say >> >>that these comments may not apply to WOD, but I do not believe that Dr. >> >>Jacobs has done any analysis of WOD in order to draw hard conclusions or >> >>criticisms that apply directly to the list (nor do I think he was >trying >> >to >> >>imply that in his statements). >> >> >> >>-Steve Kranz >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >> >>From: "Steve Schild Winona Online Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 9:08 PM >> >>Subject: [Winona] WOD on MPR >> >> >> >> >> >>> [Winona Online Democracy] >> >>> >> >>> I wonder if Winona Online Democracy (WOD) members will be as angry at >> >>Larry Jacobs as they were at me a few months back. I wonder if they'll >> >write >> >>the same kind of things about him as they wrote about me. I wonder if >> >>they'll urge him to "get a life." >> >>> >> >>> Jacobs is the University of Minnesota political scientist quoted in >MPR's >> >>recent story about WOD. Here are some excerpts from statements Jacobs >> >made >> >>in that story: >> >>> >> >>> --Jacobs says there was hope the Internet could help people reengage >in >> >>the political process. But he says so far that hasn't happened. >> >>> >> >>> --"So what it looks like is the Internet is becoming another mechanism >> >>where we amplify the voice of one part of the electorate at the expense >of >> >>another," says Jacobs. >> >>> >> >>> --Jacobs says research shows a correlation between education and >Internet >> >>use. Just as education seems to increase a person's Internet use, it >also >> >>increases the likelihood of a higher salary, an inclination to vote, and >to >> >>contact elected officials. >> >>> >> >>> --Jacobs says instead of evening things out, the Internet has given a >> >>powerful segment of society one more tool for communication. >> >>> >> >>> --"The Internet has not proven itself to be this new populist vehicle >for >> >>bringing in truckloads of alienated, disadvantaged, disenchanted voters >who >> >>are outside the universe of our politics," he explains. "So these new >forms >> >>of the Internet are great and they are bringing people out, but I'm >afraid >> >>for the most part it appears to be the same crowd." >> >>> >> >>> All of those remarks sound familiar to me. Why? Because I said and >wrote >> >>very similar things based on my analysis of the membership and content >of >> >>WOD. In other words, the findings from my studies of WOD reflect what at >> >>least some other researchers have found. >> >>> >> >>> Is it a good thing that WOD has been featured in such a prominent news >> >>outlet? It's good for WOD, sure. But it would be a better thing if WOD >> >would >> >>overcome its acknowledged failure to attract participation from a >bigger, >> >>more diverse group, such as the "alienated, disadvantaged, disenchanted >> >>voters." And it would have been better communication if the WOD notice >> >>touting the MPR story had told readers that the story discusses WOD's >> >>shortcomings as well as its successes. >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> 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 >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >>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 >> > >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >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 >> >_______________________________________________ >> >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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >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 _______________________________________________ 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
