Hi all
Phillip Capper brings up something that relates closely to my interest in
the intriguing dynamics of mailinglists. In one way this is something that
was noted already by the organizational psychologists who studied computer
mediated communication in its beginnings: this medium works excellently for
brainstorming, but rather badly for decisionmaking (which apparently is a
social activity that is dependent on an activity present at hand, or on the
formal trappings (genre tools) of board meeetings, deadlines and suchlike).
Thence, actually, the development of software facilities like the one
Eugene has been using :-)
With the multilogical (in a broad sense) nature of the flow of mailinglist
discussion _it is just not the case_ that the path a discussion takes can
in any way be taken as some sort of expression of general consensus on the
list.
I have looked at at the month-by-month statistics of messages distributed
over contributors for 1999, and placed it in relation to an assumed number
of 300 subscribers (there were 302 unique names on the only sample of the
roster for 1999 that I have, and it agrees with figures I have for 1998).
On the average there were 242 messages posted by 53 different contributors
per month. On an average 6 contributors produced 50% of the postings. So
18% of the subscribers ever post anything in a month. And 12% of those who
DO post, produce 50% of the mailflow. This means that 2% of the subscribers
produce 50% of the mailflow. Who is IN those "sets" will of course vary.
But my conclusion is that what is posted should in no way be taken as "the
will of the List". And I would also dare to say that threads do not usually
end in consensus, but rather by fatigue and the emergence of new topics.
Nevertheless, it is very much a part of human psychology to READ it as
consensus and as "the will of the List". I guess that we are by evolution
prone to transfer our modes of perception from activities in a
same-place&same-time context. The "we" includes myself: to me as
participant my research findings are counter-intuitive.
About Phillip's and Yrjö's takes on Eugene's voting procedure. One thing I
have learned on the Xlists -- from Eugene, Matvey and others -- is how
multilayered Russian irony is, especially when spiked with Jewish humour. I
do not always understand it (perhaps I do not even always notice it :-) but
most of the time I enjoy it even without understanding ;-) Considering that
Eugene has raised his voice AGAINST rules, and that he also has placed THAT
proposal as the first and thus most accessible item on the long list. As
Mike noted, and anyone who actually visits the Voting Booth can see, the
vote for "no rules" IS pretty overwhelming.
Anyway, all in all, I take Eugene's implementation as a sendup of American
legalism, rather than as an endorsement -- I may, naturally be totally
wrong. But it IS a bit of a funny reversal to frame our Russian Mafioso #1
= Eugene as a representative of American cultural Imperialism. Who knows,
if it had been possible for him to get a professorate in Educational
psychology in the USSR in the 80s he might also have been living with one
foot on each side of the Atlantic today.
Eva
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:20:31 PDT