RFD: New Group chi.npo.general
Jude Crouch
unmoderated group chi.npo.general
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the
creation of an unmoderated newsgroup chi.npo.general.
ONE-LINE DESCRIPTION:
Discussion of issues important to nonprofit
organizations in Chicagoland.
PROPOSED BY:
Jude Crouch <jcr...@uic.edu> <jcr...@mcs.com>
RATIONALE:
1. There are over six thousand secular nonprofit
organizations in the greater Chicago area. Chicago
is also the home to many foundations.
2. Several Chicagoland telecommunications projects are
ongoing aimed at getting nonprofit organizations
online including the Chicago Community Networks,
NPO-NET and the Neighborhoods and Nonprofit
Network. Several universities have major programs
serving their local nonprofit community.
3. Nonprofit organizations will benefit from
discussion among themselves, with technical
assistance providers (nonprofits that serve other
nonprofits), and with consultants.
4. Through an advisory council process, several
leaders in the nonprofit, foundation, and business
community have already agreed to stimulate
discussion within such a newsgroup.
5. While some national newsgroups exist
(soc.org.nonprofit, soc.org.service-clubs.misc), a
chi-dot group will promote local collaboration
among nonprofit organizations.
CHARTER:
chi.npo.general is intended to be an unmoderated forum
for discussion on issues relevant to nonprofit
organization, fundraising, volunteers, event planning,
grants, research, technology and other issues vital to
the nonprofit community.
END CHARTER
NOTE:
Due to the size of the nonprofit community in
Chicagoland, it is expected that other chi.npo.- groups
will form in the future, warranting the .general
classification at this time.
--
Jude Crouch
jcr...@uic.edu
Information Technology Resource Center
312-372-ITRC
Harold A. Driscoll
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group chi.npo.general
> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the
> creation of an unmoderated newsgroup chi.npo.general.
> ONE-LINE DESCRIPTION:
> Discussion of issues important to nonprofit
> organizations in Chicagoland.
Jude, you make a very good case for the importance of not-for-profit
organizations. Nor do I think many would disagree, short of some
politicians who may fear things like public-information activities.
From a logistical point of view, however, I'm doubtful that we have the
message traffic to support such a newsgroup at this time. In the case of
newsgroups, "if you build it they will come" rarely works, rather "the
bad drives out the good" or "the noise is louder than the signal" unless
there is a "critical mass" of message traffic.
Existing news groups, particularly chi.general, are available for the
topic areas you mention. On the other hand, if you are interested in a
particularly focused discussion area, I'd suggest that you'd do much
better with a list server. The combination of the two should work out
quite well. If and when the list server load becomes quite large, you'll
certainly have the "critical mass" to make a newsgroup successful.
As far at the name goes, chi.npo.general is not clear by itself. Further,
many folks refer to them as "not-for profit" organizations. Since
newsgroup names are typically selected from a list, rather than typed in,
and particularly since you are targeting a less techno-jargon audience,
I'd suggest going with the phrase spelled-out.
An inactive newsgroup, and even worse one which attracts a lot of noise,
tends to frustrate rather than serve its readers. Note the discussions of
this in the recently-formed chi.internet newsgroup. And while personally
I feel the key problem is the limited number of threads of substance,
the amount of noise is of convern and annoyance to many folks.
Being actively involved with a not-for-profit myself, I share your
interest in such dialog.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Harold A. Driscoll email: <har...@driscoll.chi.il.us>
#include <std/disclaimer> http://www.interaccess.com/users/driscoll/
Jude Crouch
Harold,
I appreciate your comments on the formation of
chi.npo.general.
I understand your comments about critical mass, as I worked
for the Learning Link (now part of PBS) for seven years,
serving schools in 15 states. We found that facilitators
were essential in stimulating discussion, which is why we
have pounded the pavement to get people from each area of
the nonprofit arena. Of course, there will be some hand-
holding and some prodding to get them to participate, but
this is expected. A local newsgroup targeting the nonprofit
community will make it all worthwhile.
The term nonprofit vs. not-for-profit is not straight
forward, but here's as close as I can get. "Not-for-profit"
is a legal term, generally for tax purposes. Most nonprofit
organizations prefer the term "nonprofit" because it is less
negative and sheds the legal definition. Even without an IRS
certificate, nonprofit organizations exist to serve their
community. Block clubs, social clubs, sports leagues, and
hobby clubs often have no income so don't necessarily have a
tax status. The nonprofit community still considers them
nonprofit organizations. But because there is confusion, I
have resisted using either term. I used NPO because it
applies to nonprofit organizations or not-for-profit
organizations. I am willing to change the name to
chi.nonprofit.general if that is the consensus that is
reached.
Two things that you mention are unworkable. Expecting
nonprofit organizations to use chi.general simply will not
fly. A system that throws all things into one bucket is no
system at all. Where would we be if Usenet could not have
separate groups? Chaos. A mail reflector could be a
possibility, but it misses something important - the public.
As an _unmoderated_ group we anticipate that some people
will ask how to create a nonprofit, some will ask which
nonprofit can help them, and some will participate with us
to determine priorities for our community. Yes, there will
be some noise at times, that is unavoidable. And while a
mail reflector can be an important adjunct to the
chi.npo.general newsgroup, it cannot replace it.
Thank you again for participating in this discussion and I
hope that you find chi.npo.general a worthwhile place to
visit.
Jude
<jcr...@uic.edu> <jcr...@mcs.com>
Harold A. Driscoll (dris...@thymaster.interaccess.com) wrote:
: Jude Crouch wrote on 29 Aug 1995 12:07:35 GMT:
: > ONE-LINE DESCRIPTION:
--
--
Jude Crouch
jcr...@uic.edu
Abby Franquemont-Guillory
Jude Crouch <jcr...@tigger.cc.uic.edu> wrote:
>[ original post at bottom ]
>
>Harold,
>
>I appreciate your comments on the formation of
>chi.npo.general.
Incidentally, "npo" is not an intuitive term which most people readily
understand. Being vague, it's not a good idea to put into a newsgroup
name -- it's bound to elicit tons of posts along the lines of "What is
this newsgroup for?" While that may sound allright initially, after a
relatively short while, most people get sick of answering the question,
let alone seeing it be asked again and again and again.
>I understand your comments about critical mass, as I worked
>for the Learning Link (now part of PBS) for seven years,
>serving schools in 15 states. We found that facilitators
>were essential in stimulating discussion, which is why we
>have pounded the pavement to get people from each area of
>the nonprofit arena. Of course, there will be some hand-
>holding and some prodding to get them to participate, but
>this is expected. A local newsgroup targeting the nonprofit
>community will make it all worthwhile.
<alt.config mode ON>
What you're saying in the above paragraph is commonly known as the
"If you newgroup it, they will come" theory. It's not a good way to
start a newsgroup rolling. A far better idea is to start a mailing list,
make it available to the public, and then, if and when traffic becomes
significant enough to make a mailing list unwieldy, it's time to think
about a newsgroup. And at that point, you've got significant evidence
to show that you've got the traffic and interested peple, etc, to warrant
a newsgroup.
<alt.config mode OFF>
[snip]
>Two things that you mention are unworkable. Expecting
>nonprofit organizations to use chi.general simply will not
>fly. A system that throws all things into one bucket is no
>system at all. Where would we be if Usenet could not have
>separate groups? Chaos. A mail reflector could be a
>possibility, but it misses something important - the public.
Not if it's publicly available, and you announce its existence,
and allow the interested parties to subscribe.
No one is suggesting USENET not have separate groups, only that it's
important to create groups well, groups which have demonstrable need,
existing traffic, and wide enough interest so that they can thrive.
>As an _unmoderated_ group we anticipate that some people
>will ask how to create a nonprofit, some will ask which
>nonprofit can help them, and some will participate with us
>to determine priorities for our community. Yes, there will
>be some noise at times, that is unavoidable. And while a
>mail reflector can be an important adjunct to the
>chi.npo.general newsgroup, it cannot replace it.
Again, the name is terrible. And, were you to create it, from
a hierarchy standpoint, it's problematic too -- problems with
the name stem not just from the fact that "npo" is vague and
mysterious, but from other realities of how news works.
However, I would like to thank you for your considered request for
discussion, and let you know thhat it is evident you've put some good
thought and effort into this pursuit. I hope this helps.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Abby Franquemont-Guillory | Infamous Devil's Advocate
abb...@tezcat.com | "En ingles, como se dice la palabra brown?"
ne...@tezcat.com | Tezcat -- su internet mas emocionante.
__________________Administrative Staff, Tezcatlipoca Inc._____________________
John B. Hines
>organizations. I am willing to change the name to
>chi.nonprofit.general if that is the consensus that is
>reached.
That is meaningful to me, where NPO is not. Since (I assume)
you want people to know what it is, the more descriptive
the name, the better. NPO is just another acronym which is
meaningless, unless you are involved in the business.
>Two things that you mention are unworkable. Expecting
>nonprofit organizations to use chi.general simply will not
>fly.
Why not? Are the people involved in NPO that stuck up
that can not associate with the rest of us?
>A system that throws all things into one bucket is no
>system at all. Where would we be if Usenet could not have
>separate groups? Chaos.
I thought Chaos was the alt. hierarchy, where people can and do
create groups for every trivial subject. Too many groups is as bad
as not enough.
Requiring that there be some message traffic, before creating a group
is (IMHO) a good thing. Otherwise, as I've seen many times before, the
group gets created - and there still is no message traffic.
So if you want a NPO group, start with generating some traffic in the
existing groups.
-John
Munn Heydorn
A couple of people have posted comments with regard to the above and, never
one to shut up, I'd like to kick in my 2 cents worth (with inflation
$5,956,450).
As to the name, I think that a more descriptive name known and recognized by a
wider variety of people would be helpful. I vote for chi.nonprofit(s) or
chi.general.nonprofit(s) or something similar. I believe that would be widely
recognized. In context npo is usually recognized by those in related fields;
standing alone in a group title, it's problematic. There is a
national/international group that is called soc.org.nonprofit, incidently, so
there is some commonality there and some name precedent. Sorry if that was
mentioned before.
As to doing a group for this topic at all; I vote "yes." There were a number
of people involved in the group discussing the possibility and, hopefully,
they will participate in the discussions along with the growing number of
e-connected nonprofits/not-for-profits/npos in the Chicago area. Do we
have sufficient mass in the Chicago area? I don't know; does anyone?
Having said all that, I would lean more to a list than to a newsgroup simply
because, once having subscribed, you WILL receive the postings as opposed to
having to actively check the group. However, a group is better than nothing.
It is a start.
Regards,
Munn
Munn Heydorn (The words are mine, not necessarily the bank's)
The First National Bank of Chicago
Voice: 1-708-221-4452 Fax: 1-708-260-4683
mu...@interaccess.com (Preferred) OR com...@aol.com
Compiler of Internet Resources for Not-for-Profits in
Housing, Health and Human Services - email me for a copy
DebITRC
use "nonprofit" as more descriptive than "NPO." However, there is quite a
body of staff and volunteers at the several thousand nonprofit
organizations in the Chicago area who would use a targeted group and
would want to see some focus in a newsgroup--one that is, at the same
time, open to the general public.
Deborah Strauss
Information Technology Resource Center
6 N. Michigan
chicago, IL 60602
312-372-4872
Abby Franquemont-Guillory
Please, please, please start with the following things:
1) A thread or two in chi.general. If no one posts
to the thread, what makes you think anyone would
post to a newsgroup?
2) Suggest a mailing list, and see how many people
respond with interest. That helps give people
a real sense of how much traffic there might be
for such a newsgroup.
3) Actually start a mailing list, and see how it does.
If it really takes off, come back and try the
newsgroup idea again, with verifiable proof (!)
that you've got the traffic to support a newsgroup.
And lastly, please do remember that when you ask for a newsgroup
to be created, you're asking people with servers all over the place to
dedicate part of their resources to your group. You are asking a favour.
Surely you'd want to show them that it's a good idea, with tangible
information such as statistics showing heavy usage of a mailing list,
or the fact that there have been an overwhelming number of threads in
an existing newsgroup discussing the subject matter of the proposed group.
Hope this helps,
Abby "Save the inodes!" F-G
Philippa Gamse
>
>Having said all that, I would lean more to a list than to a newsgroup simply
>because, once having subscribed, you WILL receive the postings as opposed to
>having to actively check the group. However, a group is better than nothing.
>It is a start.
One thing about a newsgroup is that new subscribers to the 'Net who are
browsing the .chi newsgroups will find chi.nonprofits.general, whereas they
may not come across a mailing list unless someone tells them about it.
The soc.org.nonprofit newsgroup has (in theory, it's down at the moment) a
bidirectional gateway to the usnonprofit mailing list. This combination
seems to work for everyone.
I am the project coordinator for a Federally funded program looking at how
technology can help to improve the status of low-income communities. We
work with many non-profit and community-based agencies. I am also an
independent consultant, specialising in helping these groups understand how
the use of online services can be of benefit to them in all aspects of their
work.
I have been involved in the discussions leading to the proposal for this
newsgroup, and would support its formation. I am particularly interested in
an online dialog around the use of the 'Net and other services, and would
be happy to facilitate that piece. I think that it could be very useful for
local agencies to be able to share experiences and build knowledge in ways
that could be augmented by phone calls or occasional meetings.
Philippa Gamse
************************************
Philippa Gamse
Total 'Net Value, Inc.
Internet & Online Service Consulting
(708) 323-8429
************************************
Jeff Stenger
I regularly read soc.org.nonprofit and I will read every article that
is posted to the chicago nonprofit newsgroup. Let's give it a shot!
Jeff Stenger
MIS Coordinator
Lawrence Hall Youth Services
Chicago, Illinois
st...@interaccess.com
Abby Franquemont-Guillory
Jeff Stenger <st...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>I support the idea of a chi.general.nonprofit (or some similar name).
>I regularly read soc.org.nonprofit and I will read every article that
>is posted to the chicago nonprofit newsgroup. Let's give it a shot!
I reiterate: though we have seen reasonable discussion, and it would
seem that there is some interest, we have not seen that there is enough
interest to warrant a newsgroup. Please try a mailing list first, and then,
if and when that generates sufficient traffic, that is the time to think
about a newsgroup.
You have to remember that you're asking people to do you a favour by
carrying the group, and that being the case, you should be willing to show
it's worth it, wanted, and will have the traffic to support it.
Harold A. Driscoll
> abb...@tezcat.com (Abby Franquemont-Guillory) wrote:
> >I reiterate: though we have seen reasonable discussion, and it would
> >seem that there is some interest, we have not seen that there is enough
> >interest to warrant a newsgroup. Please try a mailing list first, and then,
> >if and when that generates sufficient traffic, that is the time to think
> >about a newsgroup.
> But mailing lists are aweful!
While I'd likely describe them as "awesome" rather than "aweful," I
certainly agree that mailing lists can be very powerful tools. They do
have both advantages and disadvantages when compared with newsgroups.
Particularly for modest-sized lists, mailing lists have many advantages.
Jeff Stenger
>In article <42hoeq$o...@nntp.interaccess.com>,
>Jeff Stenger <st...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>>I support the idea of a chi.general.nonprofit (or some similar name).
>>I regularly read soc.org.nonprofit and I will read every article that
>>is posted to the chicago nonprofit newsgroup. Let's give it a shot!
>I reiterate: though we have seen reasonable discussion, and it would
>seem that there is some interest, we have not seen that there is enough
>interest to warrant a newsgroup. Please try a mailing list first, and then,
>if and when that generates sufficient traffic, that is the time to think
>about a newsgroup.
But mailing lists are aweful!
Jeff Stenger
Daniel A. Hartung
>I support the idea of a chi.general.nonprofit (or some similar name).
>I regularly read soc.org.nonprofit and I will read every article that
>is posted to the chicago nonprofit newsgroup. Let's give it a shot!
I don't see a need; soc.org.nonprofit is NOT an extremely busy
newsgroup.
I believe the suggestion of a mailing list is appropriate, if
this is a resource that you truly feel is needed for a niche
market.
--
Daniel A. Hartung * "What took you so long?"
dhar...@mcs.com * "An angry mob led by murderous guys
www.mcs.net/~dhartung/ * with torches...."
* "Don't let it happen again! -- Legend
ITRC Staff
>Path: news.cc.uic.edu!newsfeed.acns.nwu.edu!movietone.ils.nwu.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!ixc.ixc.net!news.sprintlink.net!in1.uu.net!news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!a2i!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!dhartung
>From: dhar...@MCS.COM (Daniel A. Hartung)
>Newsgroups: chi.general,chi.internet
>Subject: Re: RFD: New Group chi.npo.general
>Date: Sat, 16 Sep 95 05:06:52 GMT
>Organization: Evanston Rotaract Club
>Lines: 17
>Message-ID: <43dm1c$nf0...@pr.mcs.net>
>References: <41uvu7$2k...@tigger.cc.uic.edu> <42hoeq$o...@nntp.interaccess.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: dhartung.pr.mcs.net
>X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4
>Xref: news.cc.uic.edu chi.general:29984 chi.internet:10181
Hi, Dan,
You are right that soc.org.nonprofit is not one of the busiest newsgroup on
the 'net, but this week it got over 75 messages, so it is fulfilling its
function.
What I really can't understand is why there is so much resistance to the
formation of this group (mostly by the same two people who seem to reject
the formation of any new newsgroup in the chi. hierarchy). We have had a
focus group on getting Chicagoland nonprofit organizations involved in the
Internet, but unless they can FIND relevant information, they will probably
not use newsgroups.
Newsgroups do not involve a lot of resources. If there are no messages in a
newsgroup, the newsgroup takes up two inodes - (directories) - one line in the
active newsgroups file and a description. Maybe 256 bytes on any system that
would carry it. An administrator must decide once whether to carry the group
or not, a decision they could reverse easily. Not rocket science. Once the
newsgroup is populated, messages are retired after a time period decided by
the system administrator. If they are short of disk space, this time period
will be short.
And yes, newsgroups that are not well used are often retired.
Jude Crouch
Information Technology Resource Center
jcr...@uic.edu
--
ITRC Staff
University of Illinois at Chicago
E-Mail: u38...@uic.edu
Faust Gertz
any of the people reading chi.general and who are against the creation
of the newsgroup really want to read chi.npo.general traffic? If it
was not for the name, I would vote for it just so I never had to see
chi.npo.general discussions. This is not to say that chi.npo.general
discussions are not interesting, just that I am not interested in them
and am always happy when a new group is created which takes unwanted
traffic out of a group I do read.
If you are looking for a clear vote, I vote no, because of the name
and lack of current traffic.
Faust Gertz
Doug Blair
Jeff Stenger <st...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>I support the idea of a chi.general.nonprofit (or some similar name).
>I regularly read soc.org.nonprofit and I will read every article that
>is posted to the chicago nonprofit newsgroup. Let's give it a shot!
>
I respectfully suggest, at the risk of sounding like a stuck CD (notice
that I didn't say "broken record"), that you and others interested
in the activities of non-profit organizations post your messages to
chi.general. When and if these messages become sufficiently numerous
or annoying to the general population then we should consider creating
a group to carry that traffic. In the meantime, the non profit
organizations will enjoy the benfits of increased publicity and the
visibility of chi.general. The community at large will know more
about the organizations (publicity is usually a goal among NPO's,
particularly free publicity) and the issues that affect their operations.
Let's give that a shot instead....
--
Doug _ _ _ _ Doug Blair
| || |_ ___ _| ||_| ___ __ _| |_ bl...@obdient.chi.il.us
| | || .\/ ._\/. || |/ ._\| \|_ _| 200 East Fifth Avenue #352
|___||___/\___/\___||_|\___/|_|_| |_| Naperville, Illinois 60563
Jeff Stenger
>One of the realities of newsgroups is that low-activity groups are much
>more vulnerable to being overun by such things. Likewise, regulars of a
>newsgroup are more able to ignore/disregard it than newcomers. (very much
>the same as a loud drunk on the subway, ignored by the regulars, found
>very offenisve by tourists)
>People tend to check only those newsgroups where they expect to find
>interesting (to them) message traffic. And to stop checking when they are
>disappointed often enough. When all they find is annoying postings or
>dribble, such tends to speed up the process of disinterest. Conversely,
>when a newsgroup is "healthy" with an active flow of on-topic
>discussions, these same people are encouraged to check more often, and
>participate in the discussions. When the "signal-to-noise ratio" is good,
>the annoying stuff is more often ignored. (and like the two-year-olds
>whose behavior they resemble in many ways, being ignored is often most
>effective)
What kind of psychobabble is that? Let's get on with the newsgroup.
Jude Crouch
: > In article <DFCq2...@obdient.chi.il.us>,
: > bl...@obdient.chi.il.us (Doug Blair) wrote:
: > >In article <42hoeq$o...@nntp.interaccess.com>,
: > >Jeff Stenger <st...@interaccess.com> wrote:
[snip]
: > We will not, however, withdraw our request at this time, nor will we
: > suggest to the nonprofit community that the chi.general be regularly
: > used for these discussions. (the RFD will be back a second time, with
: > some modifications, especially the name to chi.nonprofit.general)
:
: > Just one particular example of why we will not encourage the use of
: > chi.general is a thread called 'LOVE F***'. Since nonprofit
: > organizations use volunteers, some of them underage, I do not see
: > chi.general as realistic alternative to having a newsgroup specifically
: > aimed at nonprofit organizations. I support the right of a person to
: > start a thread "LOVE F***", but it is not appropriate for a segment of
: > our audience.
: At the risk of being the bearer of bad news, a chi.nonprofit newsgroup
: will be just as likely to get such postings as chi.general. If anything,
: it risks being even more attractive to those who choose to post to annoy.
: Unlike a list server, there is no control over who/what gets
: posted/distributed. This is just one of the realities, a now classic
: example is the experiences of the rec.cats newsgroup a while back, when
: trouble-makers started picking arguments, and generally getting things
: into quite an uproar for a while.
: One of the realities of newsgroups is that low-activity groups are much
: more vulnerable to being overun by such things. Likewise, regulars of a
: newsgroup are more able to ignore/disregard it than newcomers. (very much
: the same as a loud drunk on the subway, ignored by the regulars, found
: very offenisve by tourists)
: People tend to check only those newsgroups where they expect to find
: interesting (to them) message traffic. And to stop checking when they are
: disappointed often enough. When all they find is annoying postings or
: dribble, such tends to speed up the process of disinterest. Conversely,
: when a newsgroup is "healthy" with an active flow of on-topic
: discussions, these same people are encouraged to check more often, and
: participate in the discussions. When the "signal-to-noise ratio" is good,
: the annoying stuff is more often ignored. (and like the two-year-olds
: whose behavior they resemble in many ways, being ignored is often most
: effective)
:
Perhaps I did not make my point clearly enough. "Love F***" may have
been appropriate for chi.general; there is no chi.prose. But I have not
seen this type of message in chi.places, a group which has fewer messages
than we anticipate.
It does bring up an important point, however: Should the chi.nonprofit.general
newsgroup be moderated? I originally dismissed this out-of-hand to allow the
maximum flow of information. I would entertain comments on the following:
If a newsgroup called chi.nonprofit.general is formed, should it be moderated?
(lest there be some confusion, I am speaking of a person or persons who
decide that a particular message is appropriate for the newsgroup, not
a facilitator (moderator) who helps the conversation move along. This
person would receive all messages and approve or deny messages.)
Jude
--
Now wearing two hats:
Crouch Enterprises Telecommunications Project Coordinator
Telecom, Internet & Unix Consulting Information Technology Resource Center
Oak Park, IL 708-848-0145 ITRC, 6 N. Michigan, Chgo 312-372-ITRC
Jude Crouch (jcr...@mcs.com) - Computing since 1967!
URL: http://www.mcs.net/~jcrouch/
Munn Heydorn
(in part):
>It does bring up an important point, however: Should the chi.nonprofit.general
>newsgroup be moderated? I originally dismissed this out-of-hand to allow the
>maximum flow of information. I would entertain comments on the following:
>If a newsgroup called chi.nonprofit.general is formed, should it be moderated?
>(lest there be some confusion, I am speaking of a person or persons who
>decide that a particular message is appropriate for the newsgroup, not
>a facilitator (moderator) who helps the conversation move along. This
>person would receive all messages and approve or deny messages.)
Whether we use a list or newsgroup, I would hope that a moderator/censor will
not be necessary at the start. One could be added at a later date, I assume,
if the spam, advertising, purposely obnoxious posts, etc became intolerable.
It does seem like the quantity of undesireable posts - in my opinion - has
increased somewhat over the last couple of years and perhaps just about all
public lists and newsgroups will end up moderated in the future.
Peter Zelchenko
Doug Blair <bl...@obdient.chi.il.us> wrote:
>In article <42hoeq$o...@nntp.interaccess.com>,
>Jeff Stenger <st...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>>I regularly read soc.org.nonprofit and I will read every article that
>>is posted to the chicago nonprofit newsgroup. Let's give it a shot!
>
>I respectfully suggest, at the risk of sounding like a stuck CD (notice
>that I didn't say "broken record"), that you and others interested
>in the activities of non-profit organizations post your messages to
>chi.general. When and if these messages become sufficiently numerous
>or annoying to the general population then we should consider creating
>a group to carry that traffic. In the meantime, the non profit
>organizations will enjoy the benfits of increased publicity and the
>visibility of chi.general. The community at large will know more
>about the organizations (publicity is usually a goal among NPO's,
>particularly free publicity) and the issues that affect their operations.
I've always agreed with Doug on this. Newsgroup creation should be
determined by traffic, not simply for the sake of creating a new group.
Some groups have been created and have subsequently died because their
meager traffic has made people forget about them completely, resulting
in what some people call a "ghost town" effect.
--
Peter Zelchenko (pe...@chinet.com) | InfoComm Electronic Pre-Press
1757 W. Augusta Blvd. | 213 W. Institute Pl.
Chicago, Illinois 60622-3209 | Chicago, Illinois 60610-3125
Peter Zelchenko
Harold A. Driscoll <har...@driscoll.chi.il.us> wrote:
>Jude Crouch wrote on 25 Sep 1995 02:47:42 -0500:
>> computer geeks. Open your eyes and you will see a whole new world
>> unfold.
>
>I'm not sure what your point is. Since a geek is someone who has resisted
>the dumbing-down social trends, it is hardly an offensive term.
I think the real point to be made is that newcomers to the Internet
sometimes lack an acute sense of the appropriate time and scope in
which to create new newsgroups. Creating a new newsgroup involves
both creation and destruction: opening up a new organ implies removing
part of an existing one. Does it need to be removed? If you "build"
a new newsgroup, will it be easy for people to find, or will it become
so obscure, so rarely used, or used in a way that misinterprets the
charter, as to die off? I think that's what Doug is most concerned
about -- the unity of the Chicago Usenet hierarchy -- and not some
perceived, unaccountable "geek" factor that you have dreamed up.
I've been involved in hundreds of online communities, and every forum
on every system has been born and has had to develop a life of its own
or it begins to suffer from a kind of obscurity reminiscent of a dusty
room nobody wants to enter. Because of this, schismatizing isn't always
a healthy thing.
Anyway, I don't think there is anyone more qualified than Doug to
help make such a determination. You don't have to sneer at it:
he may simply have a better sense of it than you, having been around
much longer. Listen to his experience, not what you perceive as
his agenda.
Jude Crouch
: I think the real point to be made is that newcomers to the Internet
: sometimes lack an acute sense of the appropriate time and scope in
: which to create new newsgroups. Creating a new newsgroup involves
: both creation and destruction: opening up a new organ implies removing
: part of an existing one. Does it need to be removed? If you "build"
: a new newsgroup, will it be easy for people to find, or will it become
: so obscure, so rarely used, or used in a way that misinterprets the
: charter, as to die off? I think that's what Doug is most concerned
: about -- the unity of the Chicago Usenet hierarchy -- and not some
: perceived, unaccountable "geek" factor that you have dreamed up.
: I've been involved in hundreds of online communities, and every forum
: on every system has been born and has had to develop a life of its own
: or it begins to suffer from a kind of obscurity reminiscent of a dusty
: room nobody wants to enter. Because of this, schismatizing isn't always
: a healthy thing.
: Anyway, I don't think there is anyone more qualified than Doug to
: help make such a determination. You don't have to sneer at it:
: he may simply have a better sense of it than you, having been around
: much longer. Listen to his experience, not what you perceive as
: his agenda.
: --
: Peter Zelchenko (pe...@chinet.com) | InfoComm Electronic Pre-Press
: 1757 W. Augusta Blvd. | 213 W. Institute Pl.
: Chicago, Illinois 60622-3209 | Chicago, Illinois 60610-3125
Well, Peter, I think you are mistaken on several accounts. I am not a
newcomer to the Internet. I began in computer technology in 1967, working
on a mainframe. In the mid-70's I was using modems to facilitate transfer
of business information to far-off locations. In the 80's I was using the
Source and later Compuserve to educate myself about the latest innovations
in my field.
And in 1988, I began working for Learning Link National Consortium,
connecting teachers and students to each other via e-mail and
"discussion centers", the equivalent to Usenet newsgroups. We helped setup
local systems in 18 cities, from NY to Hawaii, interconnected by UUCP.
I worked there for seven years, until the Learning Link was purchased by
PBS. I learned a lot about group communications while I was there. We
found that a good mix of purchased or created content along with the
ability of persons to collaborate was successful. Without the interactive
feature, the content may as well be on paper.
I don't know Doug personally, and maybe he does have more experience than
me. Maybe he'll let us know what his experiences are.
Jude Crouch
:
: There IS a chi.events, which is far more appropriate for posting
: information for the general public about fund-raising EVENTS;
:
I admit an error here - there is no group called chi.events, it is
instead called chi.places. I thought chi.places was a group to discuss
apartments and homes, but I was mistaken:
chi.places This is a good place to announce meetings, Ham fests, concerts,
etc. Minutes or reviews might also be appropriate here.
My personal opinion is that this group was misnamed, leading to my
confusion.
Jude Crouch
: >Jude Crouch wrote on 25 Sep 1995 02:47:42 -0500:
: >> Doug, the day is gone when the Internet is the sole domain of the
: >> computer geeks. Open your eyes and you will see a whole new world
: >> unfold.
: >
: >I'm not sure what your point is. Since a geek is someone who has resisted
: >the dumbing-down social trends, it is hardly an offensive term.
Something very interesting happened here. Some people thought I was issuing
a put-down, using the word geeks. Harold, as you see, did not feel it was
offensive. One regular visitor to chi.internet actually thought I was calling
HIM a geek! I didn't mean to put anyone down.
I could not find an "official" definition of geek and it is now clear to
me that the word means different things to different people. To me it
means those who are immersed in computer technology; those who engage
themselves in computers because of the technology, as opposed to computer
users who find computers simply a tool to do their work.
Personally, I consider myself a geek, having worked for many different
companies on their computer systems; having designed computer systems;
and now in this new age, helping non-technical persons develop their
computer systems to use telecommunications.
So to those who were offended, I am sorry. I will not use the word again.
To those that thought I was trying to put them down, you misunderstood me.
I am only trying to say that our world is expanding via the Internet
and we must make room for new communities.
movable articles
: : Harold A. Driscoll <har...@driscoll.chi.il.us> wrote:
: : >Jude Crouch wrote on 25 Sep 1995 02:47:42 -0500:
: : >> Doug, the day is gone when the Internet is the sole domain of the
: : >> computer geeks. Open your eyes and you will see a whole new world
: : >> unfold.
: : >
: : >I'm not sure what your point is. Since a geek is someone who has resisted
: : >the dumbing-down social trends, it is hardly an offensive term.
: I could not find an "official" definition of geek and it is now clear to
: me that the word means different things to different people. To me it
: means those who are immersed in computer technology; those who engage
: themselves in computers because of the technology, as opposed to computer
: users who find computers simply a tool to do their work.
The dictionary defines geek as slang term, meaning:
1. An odd or ridiculous person.
2. A carnival performer whose show consists of
bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a
live chicken.
There were no other definitions offered. Even though some may not find
the term offensive, others certainly will.
David
Peter Zelchenko
>Well, Peter, I think you are mistaken on several accounts. I am not a
>newcomer to the Internet. I began in computer technology in 1967, working
>on a mainframe. In the mid-70's I was using modems to facilitate transfer
>of business information to far-off locations. In the 80's I was using the
>Source and later Compuserve to educate myself about the latest innovations
>in my field.
>
>And in 1988, I began working for Learning Link National Consortium,
>connecting teachers and students to each other via e-mail and
>"discussion centers", the equivalent to Usenet newsgroups. We helped setup
>local systems in 18 cities, from NY to Hawaii, interconnected by UUCP.
>I worked there for seven years, until the Learning Link was purchased by
>PBS. I learned a lot about group communications while I was there. We
>found that a good mix of purchased or created content along with the
>ability of persons to collaborate was successful. Without the interactive
>feature, the content may as well be on paper.
Sorry for misjudging you. But then you must understand the pitfalls of
spinning off conferences.
Jude Crouch
: The dictionary defines geek as slang term, meaning:
: 1. An odd or ridiculous person.
: 2. A carnival performer whose show consists of
: bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a
: live chicken.
:
: There were no other definitions offered. Even though some may not find
: the term offensive, others certainly will.
: David
From the online Webster:
1876: see geck sb.[1].
1916 Wells Fargo Messenger Oct. 29/2 - A new Wells agent struck our town
the other week, and say-you never saw a more enthusiastic geek!
1954 Webster Add., - Geek, a carnival `wild man' whose act usually
includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake.
1961 Times Lit. Suppl. 27 Jan. 62/2 - He picks up waitress, a simple
girl, and enslaves a `geek', a dumb sideshow stooge whose daily routine
consists of being exhibited in a pit which he has to dig for himself.
Do you REALLY think that this is what geek means today?
DebITRC
it's important to understand that nonprofit organizations have very strong
reasons to be on-line with each other for some purposes and with the
general public for other purposes. Collaboration and management
assistance are gained from peers while volunteers, clients or audiences,
or donors are gained from the general public.
And since most organizations have very tight (or non-existent) technology
budgets, they tend to be behind the curve in getting on-line. But that
situation is changing as the benefits become apparent. So these people
are not usually geeks (in the positive sense) but they are appropriate
users and want to find something with the title "nonprofit" in it.
Deborah Strauss
Information Technology Resource Center
6 N. Michigan
Chicago, IL 60602
312-372-4872