COMMENSAL ISSUE 92

Hi Theo,

Thanks for the latest; will mine now be the first reply ?

I'd just like to make a few observations on 'Commensal on the Web' (C91/5). One of the first SIGs to explore this back in the days when I was SIGs Officer was Sensitive SIG. I'd like to summarise some of the points I made to them and others at the time for you to choose whichever you think fit our own situation.

The nature of a SIG newsletter, in many cases, is like a private conversation between friends. Sometimes trusted friends. In the case of Sensitive SIG and a few others, many contributions are made by people who are writing about deeply private and personal matters and sharing them in a closed group. Abuses they have suffered by parents or partners, for example. They would be aghast at the idea that their innermost thoughts could be published on the World Wide Web for the whole world to read. Even putting certain newsletters on open display at AGMs was taboo and I'd keep such 'under the counter' for members who were genuine enquirers about the SIG.

Many members of Mensa are anxious not to reveal the fact of their membership, and that concern should be considered too.

Some feel intimidated about writing to their SIG newsletter because they are nervous about their views and opinions being scrutinised and commented upon by others and then being made to look foolish. (I must say it hasn't put me off!) They might be doubly concerned, then, to think that their writings will be published to the world.

Others may feel quite strongly that the views of some of their fellow members should on no account be published to the world on account of them potentially bringing Mensa into ridicule or disrepute. (Well, that could open up a whole can of worms!)

Some people, as you have observed, strongly object on principle.

There are practical considerations too, about people contributing through one medium and not the other and the long-term risk of the SIG splitting into a newsletter-based SIG and a web-based SIG.

There are a number of work-rounds for each of the above, such as not including names, addresses or any identification with the contributions, although that then makes a mockery of any disclaimer that the views expressed are those on the contributor and not Mensa.

You could also have a password-protected site that only members of the SIG are allowed to access.

But I think the bottom line is why have the newsletter on the web? If it is to promote the SIG, fine, create some material specifically to promote the SIG. It may indeed make a better newsletter in that all references could be hot-linked - but who is going to do all that work? And if you don't make use of the features of html, why have two versions?

So I think those are some of the questions that ought to be answered before getting too carried away. To what extent do any contributors to this SIG feel that their contributions are private and should not be made public? Will anyone be deterred from contributing in future? Who is actually going to do the necessary work?

I hope that is a helpful overview. I dare say there are other points I have forgotten in my haste to be first in :-)

Mark Griffin

Mark : Well - yes, you're the first in this time ! The advantage of email !

You do, of course, make a lot of valid points, though I think you only give half the story, the down-side. Whether there is an up-side is, I suppose, up to me and anyone else who thinks there is one to demonstrate.

I'll respond more fully over the weekend, but my first thoughts are that your objections are very much more cogent with respect to Sensitive SIG than to PDG. It seems a really bizarre idea to put their newsletter on the Web (not that I know anything about the SIG, but it sounds as though it deals with highly personal matters).

PDG is about as impersonal as a SIG can be. OK there is an element of camaraderie & banter, but the intention of philosophy is that arguments are impersonal. It doesn't matter who makes them. People do like to know who said what, because it provides the background that might make obscure passages clearer - ie. if it's known what other views a person holds, it's easier to interpret ambiguous passages. However, we shouldn't agree with or disagree with a position purely on the basis of who argues the case, except in so far as they argue cogently or otherwise.

In ISPE, one ISPEnet contributor does so under a "handle" - I think this is quite commonplace on the Web. This doesn't worry me - over time a picture is built up & it doesn't matter who the person "really" is.

SO, we would have identifiers against people - they could be their own names, or otherwise noms de plume; but, no addresses, mine excepted (as in Commensal). I'll make the possibility of noms de plume a suggestion for Commensal even for the paper edition.

You concentrated a lot on the timid types. Clearly they have to be respected. I would allow an opt-out clause. Most of the people who do contribute, though, don't appear to be that shy & would probably be delighted at the thought of extra publicity.

I'd like to think that our discussions have some value - not, as I've said, in advancing the frontiers of philosophy, but to those who take part in them. Putting them on the Web would advertise this to more people (of the sort who might want to take part). Sure, to do so they'd have to join Mensa & the SIG.

As for who'd do the work - well, I would ! I've already done C89, 90 & part of 91, inclusive of HTML links. True, it's a bit of a slog, but worth it I think.

Mark Griffin to Theo Todman (20th March 1998) : <re half the story>. True enough. On the plus side of having the SIG on the web, as distinct from having the newsletter on the web, is that we could use 'newsgroups' as a medium which would be far superior to the newsletter format. Discussions would be automatically threaded, you can chose which threads to follow or give up on, you can see at a glance who is contributing, you can snip your responses and make them absolutely specific, you can take a thread off at a tangent without irritating others who want to keep on with that thread because you simply modify the subject header. Eee, there's lots that can be said for having the SIG on the web. There is less for having the newsletter on the web, however. But either way, it is inevitable that the SIG will effectively split in two. You and I can have an interactive discussion on a topic that the rest of the SIG is only going to see once a quarter. Not very interactive for them, is it?

<re Sensitive SIG on the Web>. Well quite. Very often something is done because someone thinks it is a good idea and doesn't stop to think of the consequences. They get carried away with enthusiasm to use new technology just for the sake of it.

<re timid types>. Well even with the newsgroups, the overwhelming majority of people reading them are 'lurkers' who never contribute. That's a pattern that I saw reflected in SIGs too. What percentage of your members do you think contribute to Commensal? 5 to 10 percent would be a very high proportion by SIG standards in my experience.

<contributors like publicity>. And that, as I was intimating, might alarm some people!

Mark Griffin

Mark : Well, I’m the editor, so I can have the last word !

I have my misgivings about newsgroups. They are excellent for brainstorming and for having one’s say. They are, though, bad for philosophy. So are face-to-face discussions; maybe even worse ! Philosophy requires care, reflection and a degree of rigour. All these things are absent from newsgroups. Long posts are frowned upon, because who has the time to read dozens of these a day, so shallowness is encouraged. This ties in with the frequency of newsletter issue - the more frequent the newsletter, the less time there is to think about what you’re going to say (not, in practise, that this makes any difference - many PDGers respond within days, in any case). So, maybe newsgroups are good for fertilising new ideas, but bad for following them up. Still, as a supplement, they may be a good thing. I certainly thoroughly enjoy the one in ISPE, and have made a good few friends that way.

With respect to "lurkers" - we do seem to have a highly active membership. Almost 30% of PDG members have had something appearing in Commensal at one time or another. We still want to hear from the other 70%, of course ! While we’re discussing statistics, I’ve also just written to my 100^th correspondent on PDG matters. Sadly, not all of these have joined (though 60% of enquirers have) !

Theo