[451] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Lists--Comments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Tue Jun 9 10:38:24 1992
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 09:27:36 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
2 Messages, 97 Lines
*-----
From: kendall <KSIMMONS@UKANVM>
Subject: Re: Lists--Comments
I have to admit that I agree with Bernie and Bill Drew (sans flames) and
disagree with Kerry. A woman responded to my comment about the ease of using
the delete key with descriptions of how lousy the systems she had had to deal
with were (see, my system isn't great - I'm writing this message and have
forgotten how to save the message so that I could go back into my files and
find out her name - but maybe it's not the system being lousy, just me).
I was ready to respond with a very nice "so your stuff doesn't work well,
that means I have to change, right?" But Bill flamed and said the same thing,
just more...whatever. But that's right. Your junk mail is someone else's
really interesting information. Our junk mail is someone's simple, honest
mistake. Posting to multiple lists that you may belong to doesn't mean
that I'm going to see those multiple listings, because I may only be on one
of the lists being posted to.
Kerry's argument about don't blame the junk mailers - buy a bigger mailbox -
makes no sense to me. But Kerry is in Australia and I have NO idea of how
things work there. But here you can send in to several "junk mail" addresses
and have your name removed from those lists. It works. It isn't 100%
effective, but it works. But the argument being made by so many of the people
on this list is "I've seen this on another list - so don't send it to me on
this list." What? Was Bill Drew supposed to be psychic? He - or any of us -
are supposed to know (or remember) everyone who is on the lists we belong to?
He was also supposed to know who would and wouldn't be interested in his
information? Sorry. I think those are totaly unreasonable expectations and
have nothing to do with "etiquette". Tell me something. Seriously. If you
had received this information on only one list, would you have considered it
"junk mail"? Information you had absolutely no interest in? Information you
deleted simply because you saw the subject line and didn't give two hoots?
Or read the message and didn't give two hoots? Are those "junk mail" too?
Or is junk mail determined by how many times *YOU* see it on *YOUR* lists,
regardless of how many times other people see it on their lists?
Which brings me back to agreeing with Bill in the first place. If your
e-mail system doesn't allow you to deal with what *YOU* consider junk mail
with ease, don't shoot the messenger. We're supposed to be information
specialists. Isn't that what a messenger is? And doesn't that mean we're
supposed to communicate information - like to the bozos responsible for a
lousy e-mail system? Yes, I realize there may be financial etc. constraints -
but maybe that means some tough, sad decisions may have to be made by some of
you in terms of what you can and can't do. But the decisions have to be
made by you. It cannot - CANNOT - be a situation of "I can't do this [e.g.
delete easily], so you [everyone else on the list] have to change." It
isn't going to happen. And, obviously, I don't think it should.
Kendall
P.S. I thought maybe I should turn a flame on at some point, but then
decided that I really wasn't flaming, but just being as straightforward as
I could be. For those of you who think I should have flamed on/off, please
place that flame whereever you want.
P.P.S. Why do we get so cranky on this list?
*-----
From: Liz.Lane@p938.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Liz Lane)
Subject: Lists--Comments
(With Bill's permission, I'm taking this back out of private e-mail and
into the conference, because I think there are some important issues here.)
Up> I still find myself unable to agree with you
Up> that it is appropriate to compare electronic resources with physical
Up> resources. My background before becoming a librarian was in wildlife
Up> biology and ecology. Physical resources are decreasing while
No, the analogy is not identical; metaphors and similes are never exact.
But I stand by the concept to some extent. We are beginning to face the
reality of "infoglut," and the increase in electronic resources can become,
in and of itself, the equivalent of electronic pollution. In a "new electronic
world," we need new models for resources.
Up> It is apporpriate to discuss the issues of access to electronic
Up> resources. There are ways and means for public librarians, K-12
Up> librairians and non-affiliated librairians to become "connected" to
Up> the networks.
Yes, there are more options available now than there were. But they're still
not widespread. There are currently only four operational FreeNets, and the
many others that are "under construction" are facing real difficulties in
terms of funding. With the high cost of connecting to the nets, and the
cuts in budgets that are facing libraries and academic institutions
everywhere, it's not just a question of information. Scarce resources are
a *real* constraint. (Having just finished the "getting access" chapter of a
book about the Internet, I'm painfully aware of the barriers to access in
the areas of both cost and ease of use. Technical wizards can usually find
an account somewhere. But the "neophytes" have far fewer realistic options
available to them.)
When every librarian *does* have an account, we'll really have an issue in
terms of "infoglut." All the more reason for us to begin to address the
topic now.
