[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Changing Practices at XMCA
I strongly support these two. Current use makes even lurking a hard task. If one wants personal exchanges better go off list. Just a thought.
Enviado desde mi iPhone
> El 12-12-2014, a las 18:49, Helena Worthen <email@example.com> escribió:
> I have two suggestions for changing practices, along with subject lines that accurately track a thread.
> 1. Messages no more than two screens long. One is preferred.
> 2. No more individually addressed messages. As in, "Tom, you said X" or "Melissa, you have misunderstood my point." Refer to an individual by quoting or citing, but speak to the list.
> Both of these may not qualify as "modest." I can defend each one, but will first wait for the *&^&*storm, if one is coming.
> Thanks --
> Helena Worthen
>> On Dec 12, 2014, at 11:43 AM, mike cole wrote:
>> Dear xmca0philes
>> My most recent note, regarding discussion of sociocritical theory via
>> Kris's RRQ paper, indicates part of my effort to implement modest changes
>> in the organization of xmca discourse aimed at improving its usefulness and
>> attractiveness to people (the two being mixed).
>> At the most minimum level, we can reduce some sources of misunderstanding
>> and discoordination by declaring a distinct header for any topic anyone
>> wants to discuss concerning culture and development in their broadest
>> contexts. No guarantee ever that anyone will respond, let alone set off a
>> stream of responses. But at least we can keep sequence in the threads
>> consistent, and they will be easy to retrieve as a set from the archiving
>> web page should one want to.
>> There are no policepersons in this process. (But so far as I can tell, no
>> harm in nagging).
>> Other modifications in the structure of the discourse are possible. It
>> would be nice to know, for example, how many people actually read xmca from
>> time to time in some form, and how many of our 800+ subscribers have xmca
>> in their span filters. About 200 people people have posted in the past
>> year. Bruce and I are working on a non-obtrusive way of checking to see how
>> many silent folks are lurking out of interest and how many are zombies.
>> Early on Annalisa suggested a sort of "Beginner's Manual" which seemed like
>> a good idea, but it requires some coordinated person power. A group to
>> create such a facility is in the process of formation, and I figure there
>> should be more about that appearing.
>> A year or more ago Andy and Huw put together a wiki that I think of
>> (perhaps inappropriately) as a kind of "key word wiki" for CHAT.
>> It exists, although it is in quarantine at present to insure that it will
>> never carry any viruses into the UCSD campus. This seems like
>> a natural part of the xmca pool of resources, and may be useful to the
>> newbiies' materials.
>> We have looked into forums and other media for xmca, but so far as I can
>> tell, there is no general purpose utility that would not require the
>> involvement of significantly more coordinated person power, and probably
>> customizing, et that LCHC can manage. Perhaps I am wrong about this and the
>> new, great, effortless substitute is at your nearest supermarket. However,
>> for the moment, we will continue working within the fungible, but perhaps
>> not entirely elastic, structure of xmca.
>> Now, back to the thread I want to address,
>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.