[CAUT] Forum format (wasRe: Requirementsforcontributing/posting; RPT status

[David Skolnik]

At 07:38 AM 7/18/2008, you wrote:
>Fred-
>Sounds good to me.
>Ed

Not sure it does to me.  As I tried to suggest before, (Thu, 17 Jul 
2008 05:23:55 -0400 ) the various mechanical problems associated with 
searching the list data is separate from editorially distilling the 
various discussions, a la Wiki, etc.  Take one topic, subject, 
thread, whatever, and try it.  You, we should probably first agree on 
a format, so that information is easily exchanged and edited.  I 
don't know what that would be.  If one of the complaints is the 
fluff, or excess repetitive quoting, maybe you, we need to come up 
with something like a style book that makes clear the protocols we 
desire, and yet, stylistically, what might be most appropriate for 
archiving, or wiki'ing, might not be best for the real time 
conversation we value.



David Skolnik
Hastings on Hudson, NY



>----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Sturm" <fssturm at unm.edu>
>To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
>Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:41 AM
>Subject: Re: [CAUT] Forum format (wasRe: 
>Requirementsforcontributing/posting; RPT status
>
>
>>On Jul 17, 2008, at 8:31 AM, Ed Sutton wrote:
>>
>>>Piano technology doesn't always converge to the one-and-only 
>>>best  way to do something. I would hope that any compilation of 
>>>list  material would preserve and express the divergence of 
>>>opinion in a  fair manner. The Wiki process tends to move all 
>>>material toward a  consensus, and will be dominated by those who 
>>>spend the most time  working the process. I don't know if this 
>>>will produce a good result  in our field. Sometimes divergence is 
>>>much more interesting.
>>
>>
>>Hi Ed,
>>I certainly agree with these sentiments. I don't think we want 
>>to  take Wikipedia as a model for our "final product." There are 
>>certainly  a lot of issues to be resolved to create a format which 
>>retains the  diversity of opinion rather than pre-digesting it into 
>>some bland,  uncontroversial "common dogma."  I'm certainly no 
>>expert in it, but I  do believe that the wiki design has a lot to 
>>recommend it. There is  the underlying organizational scheme, with 
>>hierarchies of subject and  topic. There are embedded key words and 
>>phrases which serve to cross  reference from one article to others. 
>>And there is the ability to  harness the independent work of a 
>>large number of people, each  contributing as time and inspiration allow.
>>I think it is time to take some action and see where it leads 
>>us.  With the full understanding that there are plenty of pitfalls, 
>>that  nobody (including ourselves) will be entirely satisfied with 
>>the  results, but confident that the process will be a rewarding one.
>>It seems clear that there is a desire for easier access to 
>>material,  and that there is a lot of material in these lists that 
>>more or less languishes in obscurity. Mining for nuggets seems like 
>>a good way to start, especially if we can take advantage of the 
>>work a number of  people have already done in compiling their own 
>>personal archives.
>>If there are enough people interested in plunging in, I am happy to 
>>contribute as I can. If not, I have plenty of other projects calling me.
>>Regards,
>>Fred Sturm
>>University of New Mexico
>>fssturm at unm.edu
>>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.1/1559 - 
>Release Date: 7/17/2008 6:08 PM