[13200] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: Bright spots from the old PACS-L?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Susan K. Martin)
Wed Mar 22 20:28:51 2000
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 18:40:25 -0500
From: "Susan K. Martin" <martinsk@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
Message-Id: <38D80869.DF2513C6@gusun.georgetown.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Other reasons for the slowdown:
1. People became busier.
2. Turnover in positions meant that fewer people knew each other (maybe
that one isn't real. But the busy-ness is something that has struck me
as going insane in recent years.)
Sue Martin
"Sloan, Bernie" wrote:
>
> 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-
