[13193] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: Bright spots from the old PACS-L?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sloan, Bernie)
Mon Mar 20 20:29:49 2000
Content-Return: allowed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:42:21 -0600
From: "Sloan, Bernie" <bernies@UILLINOIS.EDU>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
Message-Id: <E5D27D04B963D211A82600A024DF2EC50198C79B@oscar.pb.uiuc.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Walt,
I agree with you that the relatively tight moderation contributed to the
slowdown in PACS-L activity. Not only did those editorial policies help "to
turn PACS-L from a lively forum into a bulletin board," they also turned
PACS-L into a bulletin board that largely just posted announcements that
people had seen earlier on other (unmoderated) lists.
But the reasons for the decline in PACS-L activity/vitality can't be blamed
entirely on editorial policies. When PACS-L began in 1989, it was pretty
much the only game in town if you wanted to discuss computers/libraries/etc.
It was partially a "lively forum" because it was just about the only such
forum. At some point in the lifecycle of PACS-L, other library-related lists
began popping up like mushrooms. Some were fairly narrow in subject matter.
But others (e.g., Web4Lib) were broadly-based and unmoderated. In short,
other lists began to draw away some of the traffic that had "traditionally"
gone to PACS-L.
I think the core reasons for the decline of PACS-L were:
1. The appearance of many other library-related lists (drawing away PACS-L
traffic).
2. The retention of fairly tight editorial policies that may have worked
well when PACS-L was the only game in town, but didn't work quite so well
given the availability of other (unmoderated) lists.
Bernie Sloan
-----Original Message-----
From: Walt Crawford [mailto:Walt_Crawford@NOTES.RLG.ORG]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 9:18 AM
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Subject: Re: Bright spots from the old PACS-L?
Bill,
Thanks for the response (which I may use), but I'd like to clarify one
sentence:
>Some things clearly
>did belong on PACS-L such as the FINS stuff but other items and threads
^^^^^^^
>should have been allowed.
Should there be a "not" between "did" and "belong"? Otherwise, the rest of
the
sentence doesn't quite sound right...and I'm sort of hoping that you're not
actually saying that Vigdor's socialist tantrums were central to PACS-L.
(Oops: I'm showing an opinion there...)
In fact, as I start to integrate comments from moderators & participants
into my
original rough draft article, I'm wondering how I'll wind up moderating my
original commentary about, well, the moderation. (I feel that the tendency
to
cut off discussions, to insist that responses go only to the questioner, and
to
group messages together for posting helped to turn PACS-L from a lively
forum
into a bulletin board. I'll probably soften that message long before
submitting
something to American Libraries...)
Anyway: your call. If there's a missing "not," just let me know.
-walt crawford-
