[Air-l] life cycle of online discussions: references? (was: SW tostore webpages)

Rowin Young rowin.young at strath.ac.uk
Mon Jun 6 03:21:28 PDT 2005


If anyone does know this reference (or other similar ones) please could
they post replies on list, or copy me into them if you'd rather reply
offlist - I'd be fascinated to see them.

Thanks,
Rowin
 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: air-l-aoir.org-bounces at listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-aoir.org-
> bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of M.B.Gaved
> Sent: 06 June 2005 11:07
> To: air-l
> Subject: [Air-l] life cycle of online discussions: references? (was:
SW
> tostore webpages)
> 
> hi all
> 
> I'm wondering if anybody can help me with a reference, this current
> discussion has got me thinking about the 'lifecycle' that mailing list
> debates generally seem to go through.
> 
> After a particularly fiery college mailing list debate, a colleague
> mentioned he'd come across a paper somebody had written on the
lifecycle
> of mailing list discussions - it might have been specifically
flamewars,
> or perhaps just mailing list debates in general. It might have come
from
> IBM research labs?
> 
> Can anybody point me at this or any other papers on the subject?
> 
> all the best
> 
> Mark
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> Mark Gaved
> KMi, Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA
> +44 (0) 1908 6 54513
> m.b.gaved at open.ac.uk
> http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/mark/
> --------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: air-l-aoir.org-bounces at listserv.aoir.org
> [mailto:air-l-aoir.org-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
> Koenig
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 4:34 AM
> To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
> Subject: Re: [Air-l] SW to store webpages
> 
> 
> Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
> 
> > you might doubt it, but it is a fact of the interface and its
> > limitations. you could disagree there, but then you would be sorely
> > pressed when faced with the full powers of the unix command-line.
> 
> 1) Are you aware that HTTrack also offers a command line interface for
> Unix?
> 2) I am a social scientist, as I (maybe wrongly) thought were most of
> the people on this list. I am familiar with UNIX, which already seems
to
> 
> be kind of a rarity among social scientists. Most of us aren't and, I
> might add, shouldn't. For most purposes WebCopier seems an entirely
> sufficient tool. Why shouldn't it? Give me examples, where its
> limitations pose a problem.
> 
> > which is also one of the reasons a unix user can do more with wget
> > than httrack can do, but there is plenty of evidence in that arena
> > already.
> 
> 
> If there is, why don't you refer to that evidence? I gave already
> several sources, including the article by Kellogg, which concludes:
> 
> "With little coding, HTTrack can be extended to meet immediate
mirroring
> 
> needs."
> 
> > as for the explanation marks, it was turning very clearly into a
troll
> 
> > war.
> 
> Now, who's the other troll besides myself? I really don't appreciate
> this "dissent" equals "trolling" allegations. And I do think that the
> metaphor of a troll has become overused in CMC.
> 
> > little escalations such as the exclamation mark will be interpreted
in
> 
> > many ways, and i don't know your intent, but I do know that at least
> > one person saw it as a slight.
> 
> Well: If an exclamation mark is considered to be "an escalation",
what's
> 
> next? Banning of question marks?
> 
> An exclamation mark might be ambiguous, although, I think, I clarified
> now at length what I wanted to say. In contrast:
> 
> "kindly leave your exclamation marks at home."
> 
> is much less ambiguous in my view. It is clearly an imperative, which
I
> happen to disagree with.
> 
> > let's not go there.
> 
> Why not? Obviously, there is disagreement on this list about it, so
the
> only way to solve this disagreement seems to me to voice one's
opinions.
> 
> I, for one, think, that the approach to try not to offend anyone no
> matter what, is a bad one, because it stifles discussions. That does
not
> 
> mean that one should not try to be courteous, one clearly should, but
> academic deliberations live from dissent, which is bound to offend
> those, whose primary goal is harmony. I personally am not willing to
> phrase my postings in a way, so that I make sure that nobody gets
> offended. I try to follow the rules offered by Joshua Cohen:
> 
> > 1. Deliberations take place in an argumentative fashion, through the
> > ordered exchange of reasons
> > and information among counterparts that make proposals and submitt
> > them to criticism.
> > 2. Deliberations are inclusive and public, and all the potentially
> > affected by their decisions must
> > have equal oppportunities to paticipate and to decide in them.
> > 3. Deliberations are free of inner coercions able to undermine the
> > equal position of participants, and
> > everyone must have the opportunity to be heard, to introduce new
> > issues, to make proposals and to criticize
> > them. The coercion without coercions of the best argument is the
only
> > rule for accepting or refusing an
> > argument.
> > 4. Deliberations are generally oriented to reach a rationally
grounded
> 
> > agreement, and can in
> > principle be continued or resumed in any given moment, yet the need
> > for decision demands them to have an
> > agreed final point.
> > 5. Political deliberations reaches all those issues that can be
> > regulated on behalf of the public
> > interest, but that is not to say that issues traditionally judged as
> > 'private' must forcefuly remain out of
> > discussion.
> > 6. Political deliberations are also extended to the interpretation
of
> > needs and to changes in prepolitical
> > attitudes and preferences.
> 
> (Cohen, Joshua (1996), "Procedure and Substance in Deliberative
> Democracy", in S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and
> Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton:
> Princeton University Press, pp. 95-119.) Habermas, in "Between Facts
and
> 
> Norms" (Faktizitaet und Geltung), quotes BTW the same rules.
> 
> These rules were initially intended for political decision making, but
> also seem appropriate for academic deliberations.. I don't see, that I
> violated any of theses rules.
> 
> Frankly, I even guess you and I would agree on most of these points
and
> on many other points. So, it's even more interesting to see, where we
> disagree.
> 
> Thomas, preffering Unix over Windows, but acknowledging that the
latter
> is the the OS of this decade.
> 
> (BTW: I also switched from HighCom to Dolby for the same reasons)
> 
> --
> thomas koenig, ph.d.
> http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/staff/thomas/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The Air-l-aoir.org at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> 
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/
> _______________________________________________
> The Air-l-aoir.org at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> 
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/



More information about the Air-l mailing list