In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Fri, 21 Apr 1995, Vigdor Schreibman - FINS wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 21 Apr 1995, Stan Jones wrote:
> 
> > >Seems to me that the prime advantage of online newspapers over their
> > >printed cousins (and tv too) is the ease of interaction with readers. I
> > >read an editorial and immediately register my opinion; I click on a
> > >reporters byline and offer my thoughts on a story, etc...
> > >
> > This is also potentially the prime disadvantage of online newspapers. If
> > very many readers (as seems highly likely) take advantage of the ease of
> > firing off their opinions, thoughts, etc, reporters and editors will
> > swiftly become unable to deal with the crush.
> > 
> > Then the publisher will have maybe four options:
> > 
> 
> > 4. Set up forums where the readers can talk to each other about what was in
> > the paper, with voluntary participation by reporters and editors, mostly on
> > their own time.
> > 
> > My hunch is that some combination of Options 3 and 4 will be the most popular.
> 
>   The writer's last hunch is correct, and points up the woeful lack of
> knowledge about "interactive management" that news people are presently
> burdened with.  The role of facilitator needs to be better understood.  It
There seems to be quite a bit of lack of knowledge about newsgroups as 
well.  Newsgroups, using NNTP can let a reader suck up several megabytes 
of opinion on an article that might have only been 500 words in print/web.

There's always lots of activity on nntp servers.  This is also the most 
reliable "audit" mechanism, since nntp news is distributed to several 
hundred servers behind the fire-wall and on pop links.

Mailing lists are good when you want to have an "exclusive club" of 
contributors.  alt.journalism is open to anyone, online-newspapers is 
open to publishers only.  Some newsgroups cull postings for contributors 
to think-tank groups with more exclusive access (here's my nntp-server 
get/mail here, or here's my mailing list.

Much of the internet administration and architecture was conducted under 
just such an invitation based list.  Often e-mail requests for info will 
guide me to a newsgroup or mailing list which is by invitation only.

> cannot be carried out merely by assigning a reporter to the job, since
> reports do not have, by training and experience as a reporter, the
> slightest notion about managing interpersonal action. It does not involve
> guiding or in any way commenting upon the substance of the dialogue; but
> on the contrary a competent facilitator must remain completely neutral on
Much the same way steve manages this net.  If something really bogus 
comes out, you can filter it, but most contributions are accepted.

> that score so as to best animate the free and fair participation of the
> readers.  The role of facilitator, properly understood, involves helping
> the participants engage in genuine dialogue through systematic management
> of the key aspects of decision making in an integrative way, with the use
> of a proper framework and systemic methodologies. 

Normally, one can post a bit of "fodder", contriversial postings or 
digests of other articles.  This works much the same way as talk show 
hosts putting out a topic.

>   If the dialogue is managed competently, the results are usually very
> satisfying and productive to the participants.  The contrary is also true. 

Even with NO moderation or management, the use of "Kill files" by the 
user can enable him to filter out fanatics and get some "meat".

	Rex


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Wed May  3 02:12:06 1995