THIS NOTE IS ABOUT NETWORK ACCESS;
AFTER YOU HAVE ACCESS TO A NETWORK
(This note sent intentionally at non-peak period)
ACCESS *ON* NETWORKS AFTER ACCESS *TO* THE NETWORKS
This is the November 15, 1992 edition of Newsletter2
It is actually being posted on November 25 at 6:00AM
(There was no October 15, 1992 edition, honoring the
newly founded "Lurkers Week" when time was set aside
to encourage those who usually speak to set aside an
annual week for the usually silent to speak; and due
to research on this edition. To those who like much
of what I have written, my apologies. . .I have done
a lot of toning down, editing and inserted suggested
comments from my advisory board. Therefore, this is
not written in the usual manner and may appear some-
what less cohesive and longer than usual.
However, the content is well worth your considerated
effort to read, even if form is less than usual.)
====================================================
Trends are beginning to limit access on the networks.
I would like to see these trends reversed.
When the systems are optimized for the experts, what
happens to the optimization for the novices?
Which will yield more results, optimization for past
masters of the systems, or optimization for the 99%,
who are not going to master driving on the internet,
any more than the average driver masters driving the
cars on race tracks?
Help yourselves optimize the systems for yourself.
We should encourage readers to use the delete key,
rather than discourage persons from posting notes.
Limiting size and number of postings because some of
the people don't want to have to delete them is like
limiting what books go into a library because people
have said they don't want to have to walk past books
they don't want to read to get to ones they do read.
[Yes, there are applicable limits: see below]
[For those who want to limit notes to Sound-Bytes...
the above was what you would get. What you get from
me is NOT Sound-Bytes. However, I will assist those
who don't want to see my messages so they can delete
them as follows:
msh 9 R Access ON Networks is the subject line of this message:
indicating the following: Who From, Number of Pages, Subject.
Only 5 characters identifies this note as FROM ME, 9 PAGES and
it is a REPLY about Access ON Networks [not Access TO Networks])
WARNING: this message is NOT stated in the typical short
"Sound-Byte" manner unofficially approved of by several of the
lists I am posting it on. For those who don't like messages
longer than Sound-Bytes, press the delete key now.
[The official limits on the size of email are set by various
mailer programs, and are usually 100,000 to 250,000 characters.
However, certain social pressures are trying to limit messages
to around 1,000 to 2,500 characters (social limits here are 99
time more powerful than the technological limits). They also
want to limit the number of messages a person may send by
various pressures described below. The methods are contradictory
. . .some people have stated they don't want to spend the time to
read messages longer than a Sound-Byte, but have also stated that
they don't want to receive very many messages in total.
Given the fact that network traffic is tripling every year,
these people are applying social pressures to limit technological
capabilities, trying to limit access to network conversations.
If they are going to succeed in this effort, they will have to
be three times as powerful in their efforts in 1993 as they were
in 1992. . .hopefully these efforts will become more obvious due
this required intensification, and thus will be dropped.
These pressures are couched in buzzword terms, such as
"bandwidth" to make people think they are trying to save
the resources of the networks, but the truth of the matter
is that they are trying to reduce network traffic to their
own "personal bandwidth levels" where they are comfortable
with the number of messages, the length of messages, and
the subjects of those messages. When someone posts notes
they don't agree with, they respond with comments about
everything BUT the substantive content of the messages.
They talk about the length, the style, the semantics and
ad hominem comments about the author but not the content.
If their memories were longer, they would remind us that
using the networks is like "drinking from a firehose," an
analogy that get just about as much mileage as wanting a
library to only contain the books you want to read. No one
has the nerve to suggest that even the most specialized of
Public Libraries or Special Libraries should contain ONLY
books of interest to them as individuals, or that books one
person requests are not valid when the subject is libraries
and their usage.
The fact is that these discussions should also be tripling
in their traffic, along with the rest of the Networld.
These people would rather distract you with discussions
on the "meaning" of "lurker," "wallflower" or "kibitzer"
than discuss the substantive real issue to discourage or
encourage others to join the discussion.
They would also prefer to ridicule the exchange of notes
on topics they would prefer not to see discussed via the
methods of saying "If you can discuss topics I don't see
as what I want, then I will post notes in response I can
be sure will be ones everyone else will not want to see,
with the obvious result that ALL our notes will become a
source of irritation and will either not be read or will
not get posted at all." Immature, but often effective.
THIS IS A MESSAGE ABOUT MESSAGES
Now, I am not saying that all messages are suitable for all
discussions, but a message concerning how the discussions
are carried on is always valid, and messages inviting those
who usually don't contribute to have a say are also valid.
Granted that there are groups devoted to specific subjects,
and there should be, but the issues of group access and of
fields related to the main field are valid for discussion.
ACCESS *TO* THE NETWORKS VERSUS ACCESS *ON* THE NETWORKS
It is sad enough that most of the people never post notes,
but it is unconscionable to discourage them from posting.
Messages encouraging and complimenting people for keeping
quiet are nothing more than thinly veiled attempts to be
one of the people who sit at the main podium with a gavel.
Since no one can actually interrupt anyone else on network
discussions, there is no way one person can "have the floor."
Any individual who doesn't want to hear. . .can simply wipe
out others remarks in one second by using the delete key,
they have an infinitely powerful gavel. . .FOR THEMSELVES;
they just don't get to bang it in everyone else's ears and
that bothers them. They would rather keep OTHERS from being
heard by OTHERS. . .RATHER THAN MERELY LEAVE THEMSELVES OUT.
However, to try to delete the remarks for every other person
who might be listening reeks of censorship in a place where
speech could/should be many times freer than "on the floor."
When suggestions appear that they simply delete messages they
don't want to read, the response has been that it takes too
long to open each message to make such a decision. If this
message were broken down into smaller segments, as some would
have it, that process would take even longer.
CONTENTS
The following is approximately 7 pages and addresses:
1. Elimination of access to Plain Vanilla ASCII files.
2. Pressure to speak in narrowly specified manners:
A. Pressure not to speak at all.
B. Pressure to speak in Sound-Bytes.
C. Pressure to speak in "journal articles"
E. Pressure not to address certain issues.
F. Pressure not to address a wide audience.
This note is being posted to a handful of lists, each of which
have had at least a 3 to 1 ratio of people who have sent notes
asking me to post there, as opposed to those who expressed the
opposing point of view. When that ratio drops to 50/50 I have
decided to throw the idea of posting to the moderators of that
list, rather than to continue posting directly. This invites,
if you will, the opposition to a "tyranny of the majority" but
at least might have a chance to eliminate an invisible attempt
to create a tyranny of a very small minority.
This article has been rewritten many times, something I do not
usually do even once. . .and some of my advisors have said the
original was better than some of the edited versions. However
the original was too negative for me and I wanted to provide a
more positive side of the coin to look at, so I have tried the
process of projecting more of the positive side, rather than a
more anti-negative approach. . .think about it. . .saying that
"people should have an ENABLING POWER offered to them," is not
equivalent to saying "people should NOT have a DISABLING POWER
applied to them." One extends a positive hand to everyone and
the other extends a negative hand to the negative influences--
I would prefer to be positive than anti-negative.
Reversing these trends is not something one person should even
try to do alone. So. . .if you leave me alone, I will go away
and not try this again for a long time.
*I am not trying to take on the powers-that-be in a cause one*
*person could not possibly hope to win, but I would regret it*
*if I did not make the opportunity to speak at this time when*
*the trends might be reversed so early in network life.*
The only purpose here is to make these trends evident,
the rest of you networkers will have to deal with them,
but will hopefully have a better chance to see them now.
Network trends are in motion that are withdrawing novice access
to greater distances than before. They are:
1. Increased distance between experts and novices.
Makes it harder for information to trickle down.
Create your own guru system, and when you find
out things from wizards and manuals, share them.
2. Storage of materials in compressed formats.
Makes is harder for novices to get information.
Teach each other how to uncompress files.
Encourage at least SOME posting of important
files in uncompressed formats. Remind them
NOT ALL COMPUTERS SUPPORT ALL COMPRESSIONS.
3. Encoding of materials in markup formats.
Makes it harder for people to read information.
Insist on clear dissemination of information,
in addition to the marked-up formats. Remind them
NOT ALL COMPUTERS SUPPORT ALL MARKUP FORMATS.
4. Pressure not to write to email discussion groups.
Makes it harder for people to share their thoughts.
Remind them: THEY WERE NOVICES ONCE, TOO.
5. A lack of advice on what to do when things go wrong.
(Start right now to solve this one. . .when you find
new information about the systems, share it with the
people you know. Often people think they don't know
enough to teach others but often the best teacher is
the person who just learned it. When no one knows a
thing we all have to work together to find and share
the information.) BE YOUR OWN GURUS WHEN YOU CAN!!!
DEFINITIONS, CAUSES, and SOLUTIONS (send me yours)
1. Increased distance between experts and novices.
The longer any system remains in place, the more potential for
distance to grow between those who have been in the system the
longest and the shortest. (True of all systems, social, too.)
Everyone enters the system as a novice, and then moves along a
growth path. When the system is new, everyone is a novice and
there is little or no chance for disparities. This is also in
effect when there are massive system changes, and suddenly all
are equal in terms of learning the newly changed elements. No
one knows anything at the beginning, so they all share, rather
than trying to prove they know something others don't.
New systems, by definition, are composed of equal members, the
exception, of course, being those who designed the system. As
time goes on, and more new people enter the system, a veteran,
expert or another class will appear, as distinct from a novice
class (is continually replaced by new system members). Novice
members need more sharing of information than veterans but are
less likely to. . .get your novices together to make what your
efforts turn up get more mileage. Share Information!
Without much in the way of intention of effort, a growing gulf
appears between the newest and oldest members of the systems.
Systems grow: "by extending the number of important operations
which we can perform without thinking about them." Whitehead
The wizards who perform actions without thinking about them at
all are not going to be the best teachers. . .those who know a
thing just well enough to remember how they learned it are, or
those who truly practice the arts and sciences of teaching.
[I think he also said something like "the only purpose schools
have is to unite the experiences and knowledge of the old with
the energy of the new."]
When the veterans of the system optimize the system for expert
skills they also make it optimized less and less for those who
do not have those expert skills, without thinking about it.
Of course, not all advancements require expert skills; example
efforts of those who provide Archie, Gopher and other powerful
but simple tools should be greatly appreciated.
An example of experts requiring more than novice skills is:
2. Storage of materials in compressed formats. [Example, now
it now takes more skill to find and read Alice in Wonderland--
than it did a year ago, or two years ago, or three years ago--
not a great trend in network access.]
A couple days ago I had a librarian come visit here to see the
demonstrations we do of various network and workstations tools
available. One of the demonstrations we do is to search for a
copy of Alice in Wonderland, one of the most widely ranging of
the electronic books on the networks. "archie -s alice" was a
normal choice for the first search, and we were stunned to see
dozens of compressed copies of Alice out there, but not one of
the uncompressed versions had apparently survived some massive
deletion during the past few months. We emailed our guru, and
reported this. It turns out that Archie normally does not get
results past 95 matches. While this was being discovered, the
searches we were doing finally found the one, single, solitary
copy of Alice29.txt. . .and we found it was on a system we had
already gotten results from in our first search. We were sure
we had found a major bug, since the file was there, but was no
hit on the first search, which reported several zipped copies,
on that very same site.
After much of a to do, it was determined that Archie does this
search in a non-linear manner, and doesn't find all the copies
in one system at a time, and when it reaches the 95 matches it
just stops in its tracks, thus leaving us with the impressions
of a complete search of whatever sites were listed. . .kind of
like a short person looking on library shelves and reporting--
quite accurately--that they had not found the book they should
have hoped to find, but that they found several others by that
author on the shelf.
Even with our new found power to modify Archie searches, these
searches only ever turned up one text copy of Alice, even with
multiple (sometimes five) compressed copies on one machine. A
set of probably unrelated events had resulted in the deletions
of all the text files of Alice except one, within the reach of
the Archie searches.
The point is that compressed files are so mandatory these days
that novices are not likely to find an uncompressed version of
one of the most widely distributed etexts on the networks, and
if they don't know how to uncompress it. . . .
It is kind of a Catch-22. . .the expert knows enough to find a
version of Alice29.txt, and they also know how to uncompress a
compressed version, should they tire of looking. . .the novice
doesn't know either way.
A few months ago this demonstration would locate text files on
many systems, because zip, tar and .Z files were not so much a
totally overwhelming majority of files everywhere. For people
who were not yet familiar with compressed files, trying a read
on these files gave them nothing but gobbledygook. . .but text
files were easily available, so it was no big deal.
Now the text file is all but extinct, while there are more and
more files available to the more educated, and fewer and fewer
to the novices, with so many more megabytes at cheaper prices,
why are the text files vanishing?
This is even [or should I say especially?] true of files of an
interest to the novice such as Zen and the Art of the Internet
and the NUSIRG guide, which are two of the most popular guides
to the networks. However, neither of them was etext available
in a text file format until independent parties did the effort
to convert them from "marked up" files to "Plain Vanilla ASCII
Text" files during the past few months. [Perhaps we should do
one historical note here. . .only a few years ago there was no
such thing as a .zip file. . .and they have already just about
driven the .txt files into extinction, and novice access along
with it. [3. Encoding of materials in markup formats.]
4. Pressure not to write to email discussion groups.
Another limitation facing the novices is lack of encouragement
to talk to those who are already veterans on the networks.
I feel they should be encouraged, not discouraged, as follows:
There are two ways in which one can show one's expertise:
one is to share that expertise with those who don't have it in
a manner to encourage them to move up from their present level
. . .the other is just the opposite, keeping them from rising.
Sometimes this is not as intentional as it might sound.
As the distance from the novice level rises, it is a difficult
thing to keep in touch with the novice, even if you try to. I
used to teach classes on computer-phobia, getting new users in
the stream of things, and I found that after more than a dozen
times I simply could not talk to them in the language required
as I had reached Whitehead's level, doing things automatically
so much that it was difficult to go out of automatic mode in a
decreasingly successful effort to communicate with novices. I
finally gave up teaching this course several years ago.
Therefore, I cast no aspersions at people who are in a similar
position. . .but, I encourage them to try, and understand that
this effort cannot continue forever, unless one happens to be
truly gifted in the proper manner.
At the same time, there ARE things we can do consciously to be
more inviting of novices to join the networks. . .after all it
is only one percent of the people who are already on the nets,
and thus, from the current perspective, nearly everyone on the
planet is yet to enter even the novice areas of networking.
One of the things we can and should do, is make communications
easier for the novices, to post materials in easily read files
in easy to get at places. It is totally astonishing how great
a number of supposedly important postings are made so that the
majority of the people are never going to read them. . .and it
seems too prevalent not to consider the possibility that it is
intentional by design. . .so that one may do a study or a poll
and get responses only from the audience that one wished to be
getting answer from. In such a manner one could elect a Dewey
when the majority preferred a Truman.
[In the 1948 US Presidential election, all the polls showed an
overwhelming majority for Dewey, even to the point at which an
enterprising major newspaper printed "DEWEY WINS!" as a banner
headline before the election returns were totally counted. As
it was the rural regions that carried the vote for Truman, the
early returns showed the overwhelming expected majority and it
was only when all the votes were counted that Truman won. The
polls were the first effort at telephone interviewing, and the
pollsters neglected those who didn't have telephones, thus the
Truman supporters never were reported in the polls, but were a
victorious majority at the other (real) polls.]
This is being done by posting RFC's [Requests for Comments] in
formats that limit the respondents to those who can read SGML,
NROFF, TROFF, PostScript, TEX, LATEX, in TAR, Z or ZIP format.
Only a small minority of the network users are easily familiar
with these formats in a sufficient manner to be comfortable in
FTPing such files, decoding them onto screen or paper and then
generating a sufficient response.
This effectively silences the average person from responding--
or even reading the questionnaire.
Some people would like us to think that a majority is using an
mark-up from the list above, but the truth is that not even an
example can be found of one of those markups being used in the
email traffic we see. . . . Why not? Because they know email
readers will not be able to easily read such messages. If .ps
(PostScript) files were truly a standard, then we would see an
entire fleet of messages sent in PostScript, same for the rest
of them. 90% of the readers are not proper recipients for any
marked-up kinds of files, hence they are not sent.
With only one percent of the people on the networks now, and a
very small minority (myself included, of course) speaking out,
the potential exists for this very, very, very small minority,
one percent of one percent, to establish trends which novices,
even experts, of the future will regard as written in stone.
I take this opportunity, which opportunity I hope will present
itself to all networkers of the future, to encourage the other
99% of the 1% and the other other 99% of the entire population
to be heard, and to be heard in the manner they desire.
There sometimes is a concerted effort to limit a participation
on various listservers, either to the short "Sound-Byte" notes
or to the longest variety of notes of the paper "Peer-Reviewed
Journal" variety.
. . .in either case the authors are limited to writing manners
or styles not terribly effective to a majority of the people.
"Sound Bytes" are cute, but don't really say enough to have an
effect. . ."journal articles" are so formal that only smallest
numbers of readers actually read. . .neither are effective for
changing things. Only when the message migrates to some media
that allow in-between efforts at communication, does effective
and influential communication occur.
What we need is the freedom to write short, medium or long; so
encouragement for in-between lengths and formalities should be
included rather than excluded. More alternatives, not less.
Now that the first of the electronic journals is being printed
by a major scholarly publisher, the schism between the "Sound-
Byte" notes and the "Peer-Reviewed Journal Article" notes is a
potential major factor in the future of list oriented email.
If we only allow "Sound-Bytes" or "Journal Articles" we are to
lose the entire range in between, and personally, I don't feel
either "Sound-Bytes" or "Journal Articles" are the major types
of notes that can have maximal effectiveness. . .and who wants
to read, or write, ineffective notes, or to be limited to long
and short, but see nothing of a more moderate length?
5. A lack of advice on what to do when things go wrong.
Wizards and gurus often have many accounts on many computers--
which yield a wider variety of alternatives. When efforts are
failing on one system, it is easy for them to switch over from
that system to other systems, something they do regularly, but
something those with less expertise, who have greater need for
alternatives, are never told.
Everyday usage of programs such as ZIP, FTP, TELNET, etc. have
various methods and rates of success on different computers, a
fact the experts know all too well, but which the novices have
no idea about. So many times when FTP or TELNET fails to make
a successful connection, the expert merely switches to another
computer account and tries it from there, as each FTP, TELNET,
or other program operates slightly differently in hardware and
software combinations which are slightly different. Ofttimes,
and more often then you might think, this effort is successful
in performing tasks easily on one computer that might not work
at all on another computer. Last night was a perfect example:
I got so much email that my mainframe disk was overloaded, and
I had to copy a bunch of it here to make room sooner than I am
usually prepared for. . .however, the transfers kept crashing.
The solution was to send my mail to another mainframe and then
to transfer them from there. Someone who is not fluent with a
variety of processes and accounts is not going to have this as
a viable alternative, and they are going to panic when message
after message appears telling them there was an error when the
logoff sequence they usually use fail due to disk overload.
The same is true for allowing access to various modem numbers,
connections methods, etc., which the experts know to use, when
things have failed on one connection, and alternatives are the
order of the day. All of you are probably already, or soon to
be, aware that your computers and connections are not totally,
completely reliable. . .often closer to 90% than to 100% . . .
however, alternative methods are not well publicized.
Please find and help others to find alternative methods.
SUMMARY
The networks are truly still in their infancy, but people feel
they are already cast in stone. This is an effort in avoiding
casting so many items in stone that the future of the networks
could be socially limited by the actions we are taking today--
even. . .or especially when the networks are more capable of a
support system for the average person. . .but when support may
be reserved for those with higher levels of expertise.
Will "Network Drivers' Licenses" be used to keep new users off
the nets, or could they be used to insure they have methods of
instruction provided to them? [Will the instruction be enough
to ENABLE them to really use the networks? Or might it be the
tool some people want to keep them out of their hair?]
The actions we take to today should be those of "ENABLING" the
new members of the network community, not those of "DISABLING"
them from various alternatives that might have been present in
the past, present or future.
Why is it harder to find a text file of Alice in Wonderland in
the present day networks, with the aid of Archie, than a while
back, without Archie?
The networks are capable of storing more, transferring it more
quickly, and making things easier all around. . .then why does
it seem more difficult?
If You Don't Defend the Networks, Who Will?
=====================================================
Thank you for your interest,
Michael S. Hart, Professor of Electronic Text
Executive Director of Project Gutenberg Etext
Illinois Benedictine College, Lisle, IL 60532
No official connection to U of Illinois--UIUC
hart @uiucvmd.bitnet or hart@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
COPYRIGHT 1992 PROF. MICHAEL S. HART, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT BE COPIED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION
PERMISSION EASILY AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST TO THIS ADDRESS.
If you liked this post, say thanks by sharing it.