[tlug] Setting List Standards (was: characterset in gnus)

[Charles Muller <acmuller@example.com>]

Stephen wrote:

> > Constructively, there may be better venues for questions when you
> > don't have the background that is expected on TLUG. [etc...]

When I made my first appearance on TLUG, six or so months ago, I was
similarly admonished, and also took umbrage to this kind of
advice.

But the fact was, as I found out, there *were* many lists out
there that were much better suited for answering the kinds of
questions I had. In my case, the best was the Mandrake Newbies list, which
is populated by *lots* of very sharp, kind and helpful people (including a
couple of the Mandrake support people) who patiently answered every
naive question I had.

But after a few months there, I found the questions to be repetitive
(it is, after all for Newbies) and that most people there had little
interest in using Emacs, CJK issues, and so forth. So I left that list
and quietly returned here, and was glad to be on a list that had so
many deeply experienced and knowledgable participants.

I do believe that the people who put any list together have every
right to set the standard for the level of the discourse. It does not
have to be the case that every Linux list caters to every level of
user.

But the heart of the matter often lies (as Stephen has pointed out
elsewhere) not in the technical level of the problem, but the degree
to which the questioner has demonstrated a willingness and effort to
solve the problem him/herself before simply throwing it out on the
list and expecting ready-made answers. I am amazed again
and again to see people who profess to be learning Linux, but who
can't unsubscribe themselves from a listserv. This is not a matter of
ability--it's simple laziness.

I have extensive experience of running lists that deal with my own
field, Buddhist Studies. My first two attempts at list management
failed,  because the level of chatter got so high, and the
level of expertise got so low, that all the experts left. A good
friend of mine named Stephen Suloway  made a perspicacious comment
that I have never forgotten:

"E-mail lists naturally tend toward the least common denominator of
sophistication."

 On my third try, I made a simple, strict rule: no one could subscribe unless they
either: (1) had an advanced degree in the field, (2) were enrolled in an accredited graduate
program in the field, or (3) had a significant scholarly publication record in the
field. I now manage a list to which over 500 of the top scholars in the
field are subscribed, and which is considered by many in the
humanities field to be a model academic mail list. I am often criticized for being
an "elitist." But what the hell, I am the one who has done all of the
work in setting up and maintaining the list, so I will do as I see
fit.

For a technical list like this, it is of course difficult to set
similar requirements. But the people who established the list and
comprise its core certainly have the right to choose the level of
discourse they want.


Chuck

---------------------------
Charles Muller  <acmuller@example.com>
Faculty of Humanities,  Toyo Gakuen University
Digital Dictionary of Buddhism and CJKV-English Dictionary 
[http://www.acmuller.net]
Mobile Phone: 090-9310-1787