sci.physics.research: Are there important unresolved issues?
Leigh Palmer
ma...@physics2.berkeley.edu writes:
>The purpose of this article is exactly what the subject line says: I'm
>trying to find out if there are any issues that haven't been resolved
>yet that people think are important. (I think it's best that we do
>this before the vote, not after...)
OK, folks. I've kept out of this up to now, so I think I'm owed my two
cents worth. I saw a comment from a contributor whose name I have
fopgotten which, I believe, was meant to demonstrate what a fine
scholarly connoiseur he or she was. This person proudly disclosed the
contents of his or her killfile, revealing clearly to me that he or she
is an ignorant bigot. (No, my name was not listed as being in that
particular killfile, but I would have considered it not dishonorable to
have been in it, given at least one of the names that was.)
I have said nothing about the credentials of the gentlemen who have
volunteered to moderate the proposed group; indeed I approve of them all
(from what I know) and I suppose any one of them will be a possible route
into the group. I did notice that only one of the four has an advanced
degree in physics, an oddity which, I suspect, is unparalleled on
editorial boards of the print medium. I think that is an admirable
departure from tradition, given the publication "clubs" which we all know
exist in rags like PRL.
I'd like to see one more credential, however, before I lend my
unquestioning support to these estimable gentlemen. I'd like each to
publish his killfile (if he has one). While I will not volunteer to
moderate (I'm an immoderate type by nature), I will tell you that I do
not have a killfile, but I read selectively, choosing articles from a
menu like a table of contents, in a newsreader which runs on a Macintosh.
I feel that revelation of these killfiles cannot diminish my respect for
any of the gentlemen proposed (why are there no ladies?) and that
self-examination of them may help at least some among them to become
better moderators.
Collegially,
Leigh
(I just figured out why there are no ladies. Ladies are too smart to mess
in here. I note that, with one ephemeral exception, ladies don't play ice
hockey, either. If the metaphor fits,...)
Cameron Randale Bass
>
>I'd like to see one more credential, however, before I lend my
>unquestioning support to these estimable gentlemen. I'd like each to
>publish his killfile (if he has one). While I will not volunteer to
>moderate (I'm an immoderate type by nature), I will tell you that I do
>not have a killfile, but I read selectively, choosing articles from a
>menu like a table of contents, in a newsreader which runs on a Macintosh.
>
>I feel that revelation of these killfiles cannot diminish my respect for
>any of the gentlemen proposed (why are there no ladies?) and that
>self-examination of them may help at least some among them to become
>better moderators.
Unquestioned support is an amazing degree of support. For that,
maybe we *should* publish our killfiles. Unfortunately, I have none.
Self-imposed exile never seemed to me to be the way to nirvana;
it's too easy to scan and discard, or to pick through threads
for the interesting/entertaining things.
And now that I've reached 14.4K on the phone line, the space bar
actually seems to work faster than the kill mechanism.
dale bass
--
C. R. Bass cr...@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical,
Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia (804) 924-7926
Lee Sawyer
You asked two questions : What are the moderators own killfiles, and why are
there no women on the "board".
1) I usually don't use killfiles - actually, if you recall a series of posts
before Christmas, I have trouble getting them tuned correctly for VNEWS.
The only entry in my sci.physics killfile is for the TIME HAS INERTIA thread.
2) In answer to both your second question, and the question of why no materials
physicists, I asked Matt to contact at least one solid state physicist, who
would also have met the gender requirement. She declined to be a comoderator.
You said only one moderator had an advanced degree in physics. I have a PhD in
physics, I believe Bill Johnson's PhD is in Physics, Baez has a PhD in math
I believe but does theoretical physics research. Only Dale is lacking a PhD
at the moment.
Lastly, I have mostly skipped the haranguing over the panel. I was asked to do
this and agreed, because I feel a moderated group will draw more researchers
into the discussions, and hopefully expand the use of the net as a scientific
tool. I have neither the time nor inclination to play net.god, nor to justify
my research credentials by creating an elitist newsgroup where only the elect
few can join the discussion. We are moderators, not redactors.
================
Lee Sawyer
Dept of Physics
Univ. of Texas
at Arlington
Michael Weiss
ma...@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
One specific question: I, personally, don't have any very strong
preference for either sci.physics.research or sci.physics.moderated.
I believe that both of these names are adequate to the task: that is,
someone who's glancing at a list of newsgroups will probably be able
to tell from the name whether or not they would be interested in
reading the group, and someone who's looking for the group will be
able to find it. There's been a bit of discussion about the name,
though, so if other people do feel strongly about it, it's not too
late for it to be changed.
Does anybody out there feel strongly about the name one way or the
other? If not, I'll keep it as is.
I vote for sci.physics.moderated. (Why is it necessary to feel "strongly"
about this? Is there some difficulty with changing the name at this
point?)
Sean Merritt
> The purpose of this article is exactly what the subject line says: I'm
> trying to find out if there are any issues that haven't been resolved
> yet that people think are important. (I think it's best that we do
> this before the vote, not after...)
>
> I don't claim that the current proposal is perfect, only that it is
> (in my opinion) good enough, and that I couldn't think offhand of a
> way to make it substantially better. The question, then: do you
> people agree with me about that, or do you think that there is
> anything about it that's so bad that it absolutely has to be fixed
> before they would be willing to support it?
>
> To be more specific, I'm interesting in hearing from you if
> (a) There is something in the proposal as it stands that's so
> bad that you would consider voting against it;
As I stated before I object to one memeber of the panel. Now I find that
after the discussion I also don't have much confidence in Baez to
perform as a "filter" if articles in sum are to be considered as
ensembles of indistinguishable particles. Nevertheless I feel that he
and Dale may have some "constructive ineterference" efffect and
all my objections may be for nought.(see below)
> (b) You have a specific suggestion in mind for fixing it (I'd be
> especially happy if you could tell me exactly how you would
> like the wording in the charter to be changed); and
I think the specific guidelines of how an article get's posted or
rejected needs to be finalized before we vote. I don't think "Who"
is moderating is as important as to "How" they go about the task.
I have a very simple suggestion. If a moderator thinks an article
should be posted, it gets posted, with his last name in the subject
line. It's simple, it's not a lot of extra work for the moderators
and it allows for accountability.
> (c) You would support the creation of the group if these changes
> were made.
Under the above conditions I would change my vote(which if the present
form is maintained or no rules are posted shall be NO.).
> One specific question: I, personally, don't have any very strong
> preference for either sci.physics.research or sci.physics.moderated.
I think sci.physics.moderated is more accurate and it allows for
a wider defintion of content.
-sjm
--
Sean J. Merritt | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence
Dept of Physics Boston University| and an appeal to the essence of being."
mer...@macro.bu.edu | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Chris Goedde
>The purpose of this article is exactly what the subject line says: I'm
>trying to find out if there are any issues that haven't been resolved
>yet that people think are important. (I think it's best that we do
>this before the vote, not after...)
Maybe you could repost the charter, Matt? I can't seem to find a
copy.
In any case, I have a couple technical questions and comments.
Will crossposting to sci.physics be allowed or disallowed?
Personally, I don't see any reason for any articles to be crossposted
between these two groups---do the moderators agree?
On the other hand, I can see myself wanting to crosspost between
sci.physics.{research,moderated} and sci.math.research. I assume that
this will be possible and the moderators will know how to deal with
it?
Regarding the name, I think that sci.physics.research is a little less
obscure to people who are new to the net, so I have a slight
preference for that name. I don't really think that the name is very
important, though.
Ken Forward
Ditto.
--
Ken Forward, Dept of Physics, Memorial University of Newfoundland
<kfor...@crosby.physics.mun.ca> | <kfor...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>
"...don't plant your bad days, they grow into weeks..." -Tom Waits-
kEvin
>To be more specific, I'm interesting in hearing from you if
> (b) You have a specific suggestion in mind for fixing it (I'd be
> especially happy if you could tell me exactly how you would
> like the wording in the charter to be changed); and
I don't like the wording of the selection criteria. Instead, I would
suggest:
The moderators will ensure that all articles relate to
physics, and that discussions do not repeat themselves.
And just that; nothing else is really needed.
This gets around the problem of crackpot posting, since they usually just
repeat themselves, and will present a much broader range of acceptable
material. (In keeping with the proposed moderators' intentions, I believe.)
Also, I really favor sci.physics.moderated over sci.physics.research,
since the topics will not be restricted to research, and that name
might come in handy if people wish to form a very selective group
restricted to research.
kEvin
William Johnson
>volunteered to moderate the proposed group; indeed I approve of them all
>(from what I know) and I suppose any one of them will be a possible route
>into the group. I did notice that only one of the four has an advanced
>degree in physics, an oddity which, I suspect, is unparalleled on
>editorial boards of the print medium. I think that is an admirable
>departure from tradition, given the publication "clubs" which we all know
>exist in rags like PRL.
Shouldn't you have prefaced that last sentence with a sarcasm alert? Leigh
is right; my Ph.D. is in nuclear *chemistry*, not physics, not that there's much
difference. (When I was doing publishable stuff rather than the arms-control
bureaucracy I do now :-|, it was normally published in PhysRevC, etc., rather
than in chemistry journals.)
>I'd like to see one more credential, however, before I lend my
>unquestioning support to these estimable gentlemen. I'd like each to
>publish his killfile (if he has one).
Well, I will describe it -- names of two individuals that I won't specify,
subjects QM and religion with various wildcards, "Time Has Inertia" -- but
I fail to see the value in this exercise. A killfile exists to help the
user wade through stuff that isn't interesting to him/her, not as a judgement
of what is worth putting in a newsgroup. For example, my avoidance of QM stems
from the dual recognition that most QM discussions don't contribute anything
useful to me (since they're rather far from what I do for a living) and that I
generally wouldn't contribute anything useful to them (since I'm not a
particular expert and there are some actual experts around). Yet there are
undoubtedly postings on quantum mechanics that *would* meet the criteria for
inclusion in sci.physics.research, as John Baez has pointed out, although I
suspect that those would be in a minority of the current QM postings.
Leigh, what did you have in mind with this request?
--
Bill Johnson | My suggestion for an Official
Los Alamos National Laboratory | Usenet Motto: "If you have nothing
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA | to say, then come on in, this is the
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (m...@lanl.gov) | place for you, tell us all about it!"
John C. Baez
>I'd like to see one more credential, however, before I lend my
>unquestioning support to these estimable gentlemen. I'd like each to
>publish his killfile (if he has one). While I will not volunteer to
>moderate (I'm an immoderate type by nature), I will tell you that I do
>not have a killfile, but I read selectively, choosing articles from a
>menu like a table of contents, in a newsreader which runs on a
>Macintosh.
Here is my killfile:
(That is, I don't have one. I don't read every article; I skim lots,
and when I get seriously bored or annoyed I hit "k" to wipe out a day's
worth of a particular thread, but I find killfiles to be too crude a filter.)
Richard M. Mathews
>I have a very simple suggestion. If a moderator thinks an article
>should be posted, it gets posted, with his last name in the subject
>line. It's simple, it's not a lot of extra work for the moderators
>and it allows for accountability.
I would rather not see the moderator's name cluttering the subject line.
Accountability comes from the "Approved: <name>" line which the news
software requires in any article posted by a moderator.
>> One specific question: I, personally, don't have any very strong
>> preference for either sci.physics.research or sci.physics.moderated.
>I think sci.physics.moderated is more accurate and it allows for
>a wider defintion of content.
Add my vote for s.p.moderated.
Richard M. Mathews Lietuva laisva = Free Lithuania
Brivu Latviju = Free Latvia
Richard...@West.Sun.COM Eesti vabaks = Free Estonia
WE DID IT!!!
Steve Leffler
>I have a very simple suggestion. If a moderator thinks an article
>should be posted, it gets posted, with his last name in the subject
>line. It's simple, it's not a lot of extra work for the moderators
>and it allows for accountability.
I agree with you that it might be useful if the name of the moderator who
approved an article appeared in it somewhere. The subject line is not the
place for this, however. With many newsreaders, the subject line is the only
thing one sees before choosing whether or not to read an article. As such,
space in that line is too precious to waste on the moderator's name. Perhaps
some other header line or an initial line in the body of the article would be
more appropriate.
---Steven Leffler
lef...@physics.ubc.ca
John C. Baez
Sean Merritt writes:
>As I stated before I object to one memeber of the panel. Now I find that
>after the discussion I also don't have much confidence in Baez to
>perform as a "filter" if articles in sum are to be considered as
>ensembles of indistinguishable particles. Nevertheless I feel that he
>and Dale may have some "constructive ineterference" efffect and
>all my objections may be for nought.(see below)
Could you provide a more specific and less metaphorical explanation of
why you no longer have confidence in my abilities as a filter?
Certainly if a majority of people think I'm being unduly harsh on
articles about interpretation of QM, I will gladly recant (as I mentioned).
Bill Riemers
One thing I should point out, is that much of this discussion
has taken place while people were away for the holidays. When
I left, the idea was just first proposed, now I see that some
figure everything is worked out... I for one would like to
know what exactly has been worked out! For one thing, I
gather that someone asked someone else to decide who to
recuite as moderators and he did just that. From what I
seen posted, these people are well qualified and willing
should make good moderators. However, before I left I
remember several other people expressing an interest. I
don't want to be hard to get along with, but shouldn't
we follow a democratic procedure? Right now, I think
the list we have is adiquate to go ahead and create
the news group. However, we need to decide on rules as
to how moderators will be determined and who will replace
who.
One idea that I think will work is:
1. Post a list of candidates and qualifications.
2. Each person votes for thier four favorite
candidates.
3. The four candidates with the most votes are
the moderators.
4. When one of the moderators leave, repeat steps 1-3.
In this synopsis a candidate is anyone who accepts a
nomination, or volunteers.
Maybe the net already has rules to cover this? I just
feel like I we having something pushed that few of the
readers of this group actually understand.
Bill
--
"Yeti! Saw them in the London Underground twenty years ago. Ghosts!
A headless woman used to walk through my bedroom at midnight. Mermaids?
Grandpa was rescued from the Marie Celeste by one. Vampires? I always
wondered where my dad went to at night. Telepathy? Right now you're
thinking that I'm talking crap. So what can you tell me that I won't
believe in?" - Andrew Hunt, "CAT'S CRADLE: WITCH MARK"
Daniel Seeman
This is an illustration of the problems to come. "You" (the moderator) will
recieve a number of objections concerning a refusal to post something. Or
rather "you" may get mail detailing why your QM interpretations are too harsh
and "you" will be forced to "...gladly recant..."
Well in the time it takes to convince "you" that "I" do not agree and that you
should recant, a number of things have happended. First, probably the arguement
concerning why "you" are too harsh is a good one to post publicly. Second
during the "convincing time" other articles may have been left unposted. In
deed, "you" may actually see the logical error and have mis-givings about all
the articles that were not posted in the past. Remember all is 20/20
in hind-sight.
dks.
Cameron Randale Bass
>
>In any case, I have a couple technical questions and comments.
>
>Will crossposting to sci.physics be allowed or disallowed?
>Personally, I don't see any reason for any articles to be crossposted
>between these two groups---do the moderators agree?
>
>On the other hand, I can see myself wanting to crosspost between
>sci.physics.{research,moderated} and sci.math.research. I assume that
>this will be possible and the moderators will know how to deal with
>it?
I think crossposting to sci.physics mostly unnecessary (things like
'What's New' seem okay). However, I think other crossposting
should be strongly discouraged. As far as crossposting between
sci.math.research and sci.physics.research, I suppose there could
be conditions under which that would be appropriate. I hope those
conditions do not occur often. Besides, who wants to deal with two
moderators for the same post?
Lars M. Johansen
>Leigh Palmer <pal...@sfu.ca> writes:
>>I'd like each to publish his killfile (if he has one).
>Well, I will describe it -- names of two individuals that I won't specify,
>subjects QM and religion with various wildcards, "Time Has Inertia" -- but
>I fail to see the value in this exercise.
A physics moderator who has a kill file on *quantum mechanics* is to me a bit
disturbing, particularly if submitted postings will be randomly distributed
to the various moderators.
>Yet there are undoubtedly postings on quantum mechanics that *would* meet
>out, although I suspect that those would be in a minority of the current
>QM postings.
I can see your point about much unserious stuff being posted today in sci.
physics on quantum mechanics, but I hope this doesn't mean that quantum
mechanics postings will be largely ignored by you! Quantum mechanics, in
all it's aspects, is surely *the* most important branch of physics today,
and will be for a long time to come!
Lars M. Johansen
Dep. of Physics & Mathematics
Kongsberg College of Engineering
Norway
Tao R or Stephen L
I would be interested to know if any of the following topics are "not
even wrong", based on content as described:
1) A theoretical claim that time will run backward near the end of the
life of the universe.
2) The initial 'cold fusion' announcement.
3) A claim that 'red shift' appears to be quantized, and that this calls
into question the prominent theories about the age of the universe.
4) A claim that the energy of a vacuum should be presumed to be zero
unless proven otherwise.
- Stephen Linhart
The Technicolour Throw-up
> Does anybody out there feel strongly about the name one way or the
> other? If not, I'll keep it as is.
I have no real objection to the name sci.physics.research. I do, however,
have mild objections to retaining sci.physics as is. How about renaming
sci.physics to sci.physics.misc at the same time? This would give you
sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.misc
sci.physics.research
all at the same level in the hierarchy.
--
Just my two rubber ningis worth.
Name: Michael Chisnall (chis...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz)
I'm not a .signature virus and nor do I play one on tv.
Sean Merritt
Sean Merritt writes:
>As I stated before I object to one memeber of the panel. Now I find that
>after the discussion I also don't have much confidence in Baez to
>perform as a "filter" if articles in sum are to be considered as
>ensembles of indistinguishable particles. Nevertheless I feel that he
>and Dale may have some "constructive ineterference" efffect and
>all my objections may be for nought.(see below)
# Could you provide a more specific and less metaphorical explanation of
# why you no longer have confidence in my abilities as a filter?
# Certainly if a majority of people think I'm being unduly harsh on
# articles about interpretation of QM, I will gladly recant (as I mentioned).
Your analogy, and I must paraphrase, was that you would bow out if there
was a dispute over an article, then you proceded to to say something
about electrons and indistiguishable particles. If you can't differentiate
you will not be a good filter. As I said above though it is much more
important that the criteria(for acceptance/rejection of articles)
are posted here before we vote.
I have looked at "moderated groups" and they are mostly moderated by
a single person. My software doesn't show a "Approved by:" line.
It should be included somehow. This will allow the reader to
"track" the performance of each moderator. If a single moderator
posts artciles that are of a low quality (in the opinion of
the reader) than she may place that moderator in a kill file.
Instead of undiscriminated signal like we have in sci.physics,
we will have 4 distinct signals with different thresholds.
If one channel becomes too noisy the reader has the option of
turning it off.
I would even say we let the moderators "filter" themselves,
rather than have another moderator "approve" thier articles.
That way the moderator's own posts will either increase or
decrease the S/N ratio of that channel.
Matt Austern
> I have no real objection to the name sci.physics.research. I do, however,
> have mild objections to retaining sci.physics as is. How about renaming
> sci.physics to sci.physics.misc at the same time?
In principle, if I were allowed unlimited powers of social
engineering, I think sci.physics.misc would be a good name for the
moderated physics newsgroup, with sci.physics.misc.d (for example) for
the unmoderated group that is now called sci.physics.
In practice, I think that there are a fair number of people who like
sci.physics as it is, and who don't want it to be altered in any way.
I think we should respect their wishes, and that we ought to just
create a new group, and not change sci.physics at all.
Some day, it will probably be necessary (due to increased traffic) to
do a complete reorganization of the physics newsgroups; when that day
comes, then maybe it will be time to talk about a new name for the
unmoderated discussion group.
--
Matthew Austern Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618 crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
aus...@lbl.bitnet faction, an army! If you don't have any
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu solutions, become a part of the problem!
Matt Austern
I can't speak for the moderators, but I would think that all of these
topics would probably be acceptable.
#2 certainly isn't "not even wrong": it was wrong, plain and simple!
Similarly, #3 is an experimental observation that is either right or
wrong (I don't know which, and I doubt if anyone really knows for
certain), but certainly is interesting, and worthy of discussion.
#1 is a bit speculative for my tastes, but real physicists do work on
that subject, and there are some reasonable mathematical discussions
of the subject. If I were moderating, I'd be careful of articles on
this subject, and I wouldn't accept them unless there were genuine
physical arguments, but I would accept well-written articles making
this claim.
Similarly, #4 would be fine if there were real arguments given for
that claim. (e.g., experimental bounds on the cosmological constant.)
Again, this is an area of active research.
The intent of the "not even wrong" phrase is not to cut off
discussions on any subject that is an area of active physics research;
rather, the intent is that to filter out articles that just consist of
a string of jargon, without really discussing science. Dale's example
("muons decay because of their desire to be free") is the perfect
example of the sort of post that will not be accepted.
This wording isn't perfect, but neither I nor the moderators could
think of anything better, and I think it's probably good enough.
Cameron Randale Bass
All of these are (or were at one time) active areas of
theoretical/experimental research. So, if appropriate articles
are submitted, I see no reason a priori that they shouldn't be acceptable.
I hope, though, we can keep the content somewhat above the simple
statements above. More meat on the bone is to be urged.
In this vein, I don't necessarily think postings like 'I hear time runs
backward at the end of the universe; Wadda y'all think?' are
to be encouraged. More definition, more thought, more cogent
observations, more theory, more meat.
However, if one claims that some universal red shift is
caused by the vibes of one's cat 'Ralph' then ...
Steinn Sigurdsson
In article <C0p77...@news.ucs.mun.ca> kfor...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Ken Forward) writes:
In article <MERRITT.93...@macro.bu.edu> mer...@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>In article <MATT.93Ja...@physics2.berkeley.edu> ma...@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
>> One specific question: I, personally, don't have any very strong
>> preference for either sci.physics.research or sci.physics.moderated.
>I think sci.physics.moderated is more accurate and it allows for
I rather strongly prefer sci.physics.research - it parallels
sci.math.research and will hopefully describe the group better...
but then I'm a namespace freak ;-)
* Steinn Sigurdsson Lick Observatory *
* ste...@lick.ucsc.edu "standard disclaimer" *
* The laws of gravity are very,very strict *
* And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*
Cameron Randale Bass
> the reader) than she may place that moderator in a kill file.
> Instead of undiscriminated signal like we have in sci.physics,
> we will have 4 distinct signals with different thresholds.
> If one channel becomes too noisy the reader has the option of
> turning it off.
>
> I would even say we let the moderators "filter" themselves,
> rather than have another moderator "approve" thier articles.
> That way the moderator's own posts will either increase or
> decrease the S/N ratio of that channel.
First, if a 'channel' becomes noisy, then someone is not
doing their job properly, and I hope someone would point that out.
Second, I think it a matter of courtesy to the other posters
that moderators submit to the same moderation procedure as
everyone else. Third, I thought your basic objection was to
too stringent moderation, not too lax.
John C. Baez
> Sean Merritt writes:
> >As I stated before I object to one memeber of the panel. Now I find that
> >after the discussion I also don't have much confidence in Baez to
> >perform as a "filter" if articles in sum are to be considered as
> >ensembles of indistinguishable particles. Nevertheless I feel that he
> >and Dale may have some "constructive ineterference" efffect and
> >all my objections may be for nought.(see below)
>
> # Could you provide a more specific and less metaphorical explanation of
> # why you no longer have confidence in my abilities as a filter?
> # Certainly if a majority of people think I'm being unduly harsh on
> # articles about interpretation of QM, I will gladly recant (as I mentioned).
> Your analogy, and I must paraphrase, was that you would bow out if there
> was a dispute over an article, then you proceded to to say something
> about electrons and indistiguishable particles.
Since neither of us seems to recall exactly what I said about electrons
and indistinguishable (p)articles I think I'll drop the analogy with QM.
I think it was probably an attempt at humor in the first place.
I said I would bow out if there was a 2-2 irreconcilable split over a
given article. The chances of this occuring are minimal; all of us
moderators are far too busy to wrestle seriously over a single article.
Indeed, this is certain to be true of anyone competent to moderate the
group.
>If you can't differentiate you will not be a good filter.
I never meant to say I could not or would not differentiate between
articles. I certainly would. I have posted some remarks on how I might
do so, in order to see whether people think I am too tough, not tough
enough, etc..
> As I said above though it is much more
> important that the criteria(for acceptance/rejection of articles)
> are posted here before we vote.
Here I agree. In particular, the "lightly moderated" idea seems to
conflict with the idea held by some moderators that 20 posts per day is
about right. A somewhat more precise charter of the newsgroup might be
in order.
Sean Merritt
In article <MERRITT.93...@macro.bu.edu> mer...@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
> the reader) than she may place that moderator in a kill file.
> Instead of undiscriminated signal like we have in sci.physics,
> we will have 4 distinct signals with different thresholds.
> If one channel becomes too noisy the reader has the option of
> turning it off.
>
> I would even say we let the moderators "filter" themselves,
> rather than have another moderator "approve" thier articles.
> That way the moderator's own posts will either increase or
> decrease the S/N ratio of that channel.
# First, if a 'channel' becomes noisy, then someone is not
# doing their job properly, and I hope someone would point that out.
Since there is no definitive defintion this(the "job") is left to the reader.
"One man's noise is another's signal"
# Second, I think it a matter of courtesy to the other posters
# that moderators submit to the same moderation procedure as
# everyone else.
On the face of it that does seem fair. Intellectually honest people
tend to be harder on themselves then they would on others. If they
are not, as I said, one can just "turn off the noisy channel".
I think it is far more useful to rate each moderator by what they
are offering as acceptable, including their own posts.
The positive side of this is that there will be an opportunity
to "lead by example".
#Third, I thought your basic objection was to too stringent moderation,
#not too lax.
NO, not all. I already moderate this group for myself and I would
guess that it is more stringent than the moderators will be.
My basic objection is that I am not moderating(filtering) for myself.
By givivng the moderators "enough rope" I can continue to do so
on a , hopefully higher intensity signal. The idea that there may
be quality contributors who will participate in sci.physics.research
(who don't now)
is the only reason I am even considering a "yes" vote.
Steve Leffler
>I rather strongly prefer sci.physics.research - it parallels
>sci.math.research and will hopefully describe the group better...
> but then I'm a namespace freak ;-)
Not to mention, that "sci.physics.research" might be better at attracting
working physicists to the group than "sci.physics.moderated", which may
discourage those who are new to the net and do not understand what a moderated
group is and how it works.
---Steven Leffler
lef...@physics.ubc.ca
Cameron Randale Bass
>In article <1993Jan12.2...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> cr...@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
># First, if a 'channel' becomes noisy, then someone is not
># doing their job properly, and I hope someone would point that out.
>
>Since there is no definitive defintion this(the "job") is left to the reader.
>
>"One man's noise is another's signal"
The whole point of the group is to *not* leave the 'job' to the
reader. I don't know about you, but collectively we have generated
nearly half a meg (including thousands of prospective moderator's words)
delineating the 'job' as we now see it. I had nearly
a thousand lines of correspondence with you personally (just before
Matt posted the charter) in an attempt to assuage fears and present
a coherent philosophy. If it is not at least generally understood
by now, I know no way to do so.
As far as the quotation goes, I hope all the moderators agree
on what constitutes noise and what constitutes signal. As far as
humanly possible, I think we do.
Matt Austern
> Here I agree. In particular, the "lightly moderated" idea seems to
> conflict with the idea held by some moderators that 20 posts per day is
> about right. A somewhat more precise charter of the newsgroup might be
> in order.
In the future, these two ideas might conflict; today, though, I regard
this as a nonissue. I just don't forsee more than 20 posts per day
being submitted to sci.physics.research.
Some day in the future, when traffic grows by another order of
magnitude, we'll have to do something about it. I don't know whether
that will mean tightening the standards for submission, or splitting
the group, or adding more moderators and just accepting a
higher-volume group, or something else. I am sure, though, that I
don't want to solve the Usenet problems of 1995; we can solve them
when the time comes.
For now, I don't think we need to worry very much about this. I think
it's about time for me to post the CFV, actually... By now, I think
that most everybody has a good idea of what kind of group is being
proposed, and has had time to decide whether or not they want such a
group.
Cameron Randale Bass
>
>I seem to be almost alone, but I'm very dissatisfied with the current
>proposal - enough so that I'll vote against it.
>
>From the start I understood the overt charter of sci.physics.research to
>be the elimination of undeniably trashy topics. Things like guessing how
>much energy the space potato in the center of the universe looses as it
>pushes a reluctant mass of time forward into the future. Or things like
>arguing about whether God's existence is proved or disproved by physics.
>
>But based on examples of unacceptable topics given by moderators, I see
>a very different agenda. First interpretations of quantum mechanics
>was deemed a "trash topic", although John later said he may have gone
>overboard on this. Then yesterday I learned that Mach's principle is
>now "a hoary old chestnut". How so? Since when are the ideas of Hugh
>Everett and Mach on a par with those of Aban? What is next? How about
>eliminating discussion of Bell's inequality? Or debate over whether GR
>actually forces you to accept the existence of gravitational radiation?
>
>I'll vote against this group because there is nothing in the proposed
>charter that justifies eliminating discussion of QM interpretations or
>Mach's principle.
I have to admit that I cannot see, in all of the voluminous discussion,
where any of us have said that QM interpretations or Mach's principle
are not suitable subjects a priori. John seemed to focus on the
rehashing process, and I certainly focused on the rehashing process.
Indeed, a grep of my archive file of this discussion for 'trash' comes up
empty.
Feel free to vote against it, but I have a hard time seeing where
anyone claimed Everett or Mach are/were less-than-adequate physicists,
and that discussions of their musings should be banned.
Nor do I see where discussions of QM interpretation are
to be eliminated. I *do* recall suggesting that discussions of
any type take place on a well-formulated, well-considered level.
>Creating a new group with a completely different character than sci.physics
>would be fine. Creating a new group with the same character as sci.physics
>but a reduction in noise would be fine too. What isn't fine and calls for
>a "no" vote is having a charter that calls for simple noise reduction minus
>any major character change, coupled with an undocumented agenda to go ahead
>and craft a new character for sci.physics.research without having to answer
>to an objective guideline.
It is difficult to put more than a general guideline of principle in
the charter. I'd hope that the discussion that we've all had here
clarified some details of that 'agenda', and to a certain extent
documented it.
>Oh well, a voice in the wilderness ...
Don't go to the wilderness. I suspect that your objections can
be alleviated since they don't exactly seem to correspond
to our stated positions.
John C. Baez
>I'll vote against this group because there is nothing in the proposed
>charter that justifies eliminating discussion of QM interpretations or
>Mach's principle.
Does that mean that you'll vote for it if we put something in the
charter that justifies eliminating discussion of QM interpretations or
Mach's principle? (I don't think so...) Or are you - as I am - a bit
worried about the divergence between the charter and the moderator's
public statements about what they might accept or reject? The charter
is still just a *proposed* charter and we are debating it. I strongly
believe that the newsgroup should be run along the lines stated in the
charter that people vote on when a vote is finally taken. I would
LIKE to reject boringly re-hashed arguments about Mach's principle and
QM interpretations, or at least have them suitably marked so people can
easily eliminate them via killfiles. But the former, at least, is
something I could only feel decent about doing if it is in the charter
that people have voted for! You are gright that if the charter
says "lightly moderated," I damn well better moderate lightly.
Similarly, some moderators (including me) have expressed a desire for
about 20 posts a day to be accepted. But if this isn't in the charter
(or at least something like "the number of posts accepted will be kept
to a reasonable level, with the most interesting posts being accepted) I
don't see how I can rightly do this.
So - fellow proposed moderators, sci.physics fans, and countryfolk, let
us debate things, perhaps modify the proposed charter, vote on the
charter, and if it passes, do what the charter says.
Leigh Palmer
Richard...@West.Sun.COM writes:
>I would rather not see the moderator's name cluttering the subject line.
>Accountability comes from the "Approved: <name>" line which the news
>software requires in any article posted by a moderator.
I feel that publication of names of accepting referees of articles in the
traditional journals would go a long way toward solving the problems I
perceive exist there. I would like to see the reviewer's name on each
article accepted.
I might also suggest that the moderators consider some referal procedure
when they recognize that a submission is outside their area of competence
while still within physics. If this is to be a truly high level research
discussion group that will happen quite often.
Leigh
Sean Merritt
In article <MERRITT.93...@macro.bu.edu> mer...@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.2...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> cr...@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
># First, if a 'channel' becomes noisy, then someone is not
># doing their job properly, and I hope someone would point that out.
>
>Since there is no definitive defintion this(the "job") is left to the reader.
>
>"One man's noise is another's signal"
# The whole point of the group is to *not* leave the 'job' to the
# reader. I don't know about you, but collectively we have generated
# nearly half a meg (including thousands of prospective moderator's words)
People will read what they want to read. The "job" is still with the
individual. Everyone will still be "moderating" on his own for himself.
If you see the creation of the new group as an attempt to do away
with need to do so, you are overly optimistic.
# delineating the 'job' as we now see it. I had nearly
# a thousand lines of correspondence with you personally (just before
# Matt posted the charter) in an attempt to assuage fears and present
# a coherent philosophy. If it is not at least generally understood
# by now, I know no way to do so.
Well at least Baez feels it should be formalized, written up, and posted.
I agree.
# As far as the quotation goes, I hope all the moderators agree
# on what constitutes noise and what constitutes signal. As far as
# humanly possible, I think we do.
The catch-all "as humanly possible" leaves a large area for difference
of opinion. If you are all bound to approve the samethings why do
we need 4 people. We could have a single person as do most moderated
groups? If your answer to this is division of labor, then I submit
everyone will do the job differently, and rightly so.
Cameron Randale Bass
>
>The catch-all "as humanly possible" leaves a large area for difference
>of opinion. If you are all bound to approve the samethings why do
>we need 4 people. We could have a single person as do most moderated
>groups? If your answer to this is division of labor, then I submit
>everyone will do the job differently, and rightly so.
I too would support a single moderator, had anyone offered to
be one. Since no one did, we're left with what we have.
Daryl McCullough
>Sean Merritt writes:
>
>>As I stated before I object to one memeber of the panel. Now I find that
>>after the discussion I also don't have much confidence in Baez to
>>perform as a "filter" if articles in sum are to be considered as
>>ensembles of indistinguishable particles. Nevertheless I feel that he
>>and Dale may have some "constructive ineterference" efffect and
>>all my objections may be for nought.(see below)
>
>Could you provide a more specific and less metaphorical explanation of
>why you no longer have confidence in my abilities as a filter?
>Certainly if a majority of people think I'm being unduly harsh on
>articles about interpretation of QM, I will gladly recant (as I
>mentioned).
I am skeptical about having discussions about the interpretation of QM
on sci.physics.research. My reasons are:
1. I definitely do *not* trust the panel of experts to know what is
worthwhile and what is worthless (or rehash) in this area. If you read
enough writings by the great physicists in this area (Von Neumann,
Einstein, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynmann, Bell, etc.) you will find that
their opinions are wildly in conflict. There is nothing like a
physics community consensus in such matters.
2. I would like it if sci.physics.research were restricted by subject
matter, rather than simply by the quality of articles. If every decent
article that is relevant to physics gets put into
sci.physics.research, then that would leave sci.physics for the pure,
unadulterated junk. What is the point of having a newsgroup with only
crap in it?
What I would prefer is a split between technical discussions of new
physics, and more free-wheeling philosophical discussions of the
meaning of physical theories. There is plenty of interesting stuff in
the latter category, including interpretations of quantum mechanics,
statistical mechanics, special and general relativity, etc.
In other words, I would rather have either one group that includes the
good, bad, and ugly, (sci.physics as it currently is), or else two
groups that have each have something to offer. I don't see the point
of having a "good" newsgroup and a "junk" newsgroup.
Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY
Joseph O'Rourke
>I just don't forsee more than 20 posts per day
>being submitted to sci.physics.research.
The experience of sci.math and sci.math.research may be some guide:
sci.math is about as active as sci.physics, but sci.math.research posts
only 2 or 3 articles per day.
Mark Corscadden
misgiving is with how the moderators plan to deal with threads that
seem to be "dragging on", as people have been saying. John sounds
fervently committed to living within the final charter whatever it
is - three cheers for that! - but I think he would like more changes
to go into the charter before it's finalized.
As far as I know, this is the currently proposed charter:
> Sci.physics.research is to be a newsgroup for discussions related to
> current physics research.
>
> This newsgroup is to be "lightly" moderated---that is, the moderators
> will only reject clearly inappropriate postings, and will accept any
> that has serious physics content or that is likely to be of interest
> to an audience of professional physicists. Clearly inappropriate
> postings include:
> (1) Personal attacks;
> (2) Discussion that isn't about or related to physics;
> (3) Multiple responses that all say the same things; and
> (4) Crackpot postings that are "not even wrong."
I take (3) to mean multiple responses that all actually say the same
thing, like ten answers to a common question. Somehow this seems to
have been translated to read "eliminate threads that are dragging on",
with an unspoken and maybe even unconscious additional qualification:
"especially if the subject of said thread is something I'm getting
tired of".
This is too subjective to go into the charter. Now, one who complains
ought to offer some alternatives, so here is my attempt to "put up or
shut up" for whatever it's worth:
If an article seems repetitious then offer a new FAQ entry. It
doesn't make any difference if something that comes up all the time
seems like it could be in the FAQ; if it isn't actually in the
FAQ then the article should not be rejected. True repetition should
be dealt with by the FAQ, if it can't be covered in the FAQ, that
suggests that further discussion should be allowed.
Proper use of the FAQ should eliminate all genuine repetition, which
still leaves threads that "drag on" for other reasons. If the people
involved are trying to hash out their differences on a difficult topic,
then my proposal is simply to let them go at it until they are done.
WARNING imminent 180 degree about-face WARNING
Having taken 22 line's worth of the readers time trying to stay within
the bounds of the proposal that is currently being kicked around, now
I'll say what I'd really like to see done with sci.physics.research,
although this means stepping outside the existing proposal.
First, give up the idea of creating a moderated version of sci.physics
that has the same spirit and character as the parent, with nothing but
a little noise reduction thrown in. Both sci.physics and sci.math have
a tradition of being interesting, vibrant, and open. That means some
flames and noise too - and there's nothing you can do about it. Actually
there is: you can learn to take personal responsibility for sitting on
your own hands and not replying when someone like bian drops in, and
you can try to help others learn to do likewise. It's harder and less
satisfying than setting up an environment where bian can be censored
with a satisfying REJECTED attached to his articles, but living with
some noise (and doing your part to reduce it!) is really the only right
thing to do, and it's the only way to achieve the kind of freedom that
exists in sci.physics.
So, let sci.physics.research be a wholy new group with a new purpose.
Here's my proposed charter:
Sci.physics.research is to be a newsgroup devoted to promoting and
facilitating ongoing research in physics. It is intended primarily
for professionals who are currently doing research in physics and
those who are knowledgeable about topics related to current research,
in both theoretical and experimental physics.
Topics for discussion include descriptions of ongoing research or
research that is in the planning stage, tools that are needed for
current research, information on current techniques, new research
results, ongoing theoretical work, obstacles that need to be overcome,
etc. Some topics that are not appropriate are:
1) Questions which can be answered within the curriculum commonly
taught in universities, unless specifically related to ongoing
or planned research. See sci.physics for help.
2) Casual speculation, or theorizing that falls well outside the
limits of accepted theory. See alt.sci.physics.new-theories if
your site carries it, or sci.physics.
3) Discussion of philosophical issues in physics such as the
interpretation of quantum mechanics, except in relation to
actual research or experimental results.
4) Personal attacks, flames, etc.
That's the alternative proposed charter.
I know this is more restrictive than what most people seem to have in
mind, but I think this would be a far more valuable addition to the net
than a more-or-less lame attempt to duplicate sci.physics with some of
the noise expunged.
I have a strong feeling that a moderated group as proposed above would
end up with a whole lot more traffic than sci.math.research, but I admit
there's no way to really know. Wouldn't it be nice if a bunch of people
who were actually involved in research were drawn onto the net by such
a group? Who knows, they might then be drawn into sci.physics so that
people who aren't professionals (like me!) can accost them with bizarre
questions galore. One can hope ...
Mark Corscadden
ma...@smsc.sony.com
work: (408)944-4086
Paul Budnik
[...]
I like your charter and think it is *closer* to what most people have in mind.
I think the first proposed charter is `sci.physics' with the worst abuses
edited out and I think most people want a more restrictive group.
I largely agree with what you say about repetition but I think it makes
sense to not allow the same discussion that has just been thoughly
aired to be repeated unless a reasonable time period (say two months)
has elapsed. Let me offer a modified version of your charter that I think
has the advantage of being easier on both moderators and potential
contributors. I think it can be difficult to tell what is a research
level topic and I think limiting discussion to that makes interdisciplinary
discussion problematic. I think such discussions are among the most
valuable potential results from news groups.
`sci.physics.research' is a group to foster research level discussions
between physicists and to foster research level interdisciplinary discussions
involving physics. Such postings are encouraged. To keep the discussion
focused at this level the following types of postings will not be acceptable:
1. Postings on issues that are ordinarily dealt with
in an undergraduate physics curriculum unless they are
directly relevant to an ongoing discussion that itself
meets the criteria for posting in this group. This will
allow discussions that are not a subject of current research.
This is necessary both to keep the criteria for acceptance
simple and to foster high level interdisciplinary discussion.
2. Postings that are in obvious conflict with well understood
physical principles unless the posting includes an at least
remotely plausible explanation of why that principle should
be questioned. Simply having done a calculation that is in
conflict with such principles is merely evidence of human
fallibility. The scientific evidence in support of human
fallibility is fully dealt with in any good undergraduate
physics curriculum. :-)
3. Postings that are primarily philosophical in nature or
which are so speculative that there is no way even in principle
to see how they can be verified experimentally.
4. Postings whose primary subject is not physics, that include
personal attacks, that are dealt with in the FAQ or that have
become excessively repetitive. It might be said that repetition
is the essence of news groups so the latter rule will be limited
to discussions that have been thoroughly aired in the last two
months. If a topic that meets this criteria still seems excessively
repetitive it should be dealt with by being added to the FAQ.
Paul Budnik
Blair P. Houghton
> Not to mention, that "sci.physics.research" might be better at attracting
>working physicists to the group than "sci.physics.moderated", which may
>discourage those who are new to the net and do not understand what a moderated
>group is and how it works.
Didn't Wile E. Coyote typically lay out a pan of buckshot
labeled "Free Birdseed" and wait behind a rock with a
large magnet?
--Blair
"BeeBeep!"
SCOTT I CHASE
>>
>> I know this is more restrictive than what most people seem to have in
>> mind, but I think this would be a far more valuable addition to the net
>> than a more-or-less lame attempt to duplicate sci.physics with some of
>> the noise expunged.
>
>I like your charter and think it is *closer* to what most people have in mind.
>I think the first proposed charter is `sci.physics' with the worst abuses
>edited out and I think most people want a more restrictive group.
Au contraire. We have consistently been talking about "light moderation."
I have gotten the distinct impression that the motivation for the new group,
as well as it's function, we be to create a new group without all the
abuses of sci.physics, but which still allow much of the same subject matter,
etc., without all the bovine fecal matter, repetition, etc.
-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase "It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SIC...@CSA2.LBL.GOV although I have no right to say so, having
been a single cell so long ago myself that I
have no memory at all of that stage of my
life." - Lewis Thomas
har...@indyvax.iupui.edu
> misgiving is with how the moderators plan to deal with threads that
> seem to be "dragging on", as people have been saying. John sounds
> fervently committed to living within the final charter whatever it
> is - three cheers for that! - but I think he would like more changes
> to go into the charter before it's finalized.
Er, didn't anyone notice that the CFV's already been issued?
--
James Harvey
har...@iupui.edu
Dale Atems
>In article <4...@mtnmath.UUCP>, pa...@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes...
>>>
>>> I know this is more restrictive than what most people seem to have in
>>> mind, but I think this would be a far more valuable addition to the net
>>> than a more-or-less lame attempt to duplicate sci.physics with some of
>>> the noise expunged.
>>
>>I like your charter and think it is *closer* to what most people have in mind.
>>I think the first proposed charter is `sci.physics' with the worst abuses
>>edited out and I think most people want a more restrictive group.
>
>Au contraire. We have consistently been talking about "light moderation."
>I have gotten the distinct impression that the motivation for the new group,
>as well as it's function, we be to create a new group without all the
>abuses of sci.physics, but which still allow much of the same subject matter,
>etc., without all the bovine fecal matter, repetition, etc.
Then let me add a vote in favor of the alternative charter. Although I am
voting for the existing proposal, I'm inclined to agree that the wording
-- especially the "crackpot" line -- lacks a certain politesse and that
it will force the moderators to word rejections very carefully to
avoid unpleasant and burdensome exchanges with offended authors.
I also suspect that to avoid this problem, the moderators will gradually
become more lenient and eventually lose their effectiveness as filters.
I would also like to see a real research-level newsgroup that would
focus on topics of serious research only, leaving the more "recreational"
subjects for the unmoderated group. I believe more stringent moderation
is likelier to attract the number and caliber of research physicists
needed to turn the new group into a useful research tool, but I'm also
resigned to the fact that this is probably impractical at present due to
the demands it would place on the moderators. At the moment I think we
should try the current proposal, keeping open the option to alter the
charter if the new group reverts to being "more of the same", or proves
politically unworkable.
------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
at...@igor.physics.wayne.edu
Mark Corscadden
>Er, didn't anyone notice that the CFV's already been issued?
Yes, James - we noticed. I posted the article which you're replying to
the evening before the CFV arrived at this site. In fact, the CFV was
one of the last articles to arrive the following day.
To terminate any lingering doubt, I'm explicitly stating that as of the
CFV I have withdrawn from all discussion concerning changes to the
charter which is now being voted upon.
People, especially net.newbies, listen up. When you compare dates in
article headers, always add several days of uncertainty. Don't even
ask why - you don't want to know why - just do it. The last thing
I needed to see this morning was letters in my mailbox pointing out
to me that the CFV has gone out. 'Nuff said.
Blair P. Houghton
>Er, didn't anyone notice that the CFV's already been issued?
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the votes had already
been tallied and the commissioner of elections found
bound and gagged in the hall closet at the polls.
--Blair
"Ignorance is not bliss,
ignorance is poverty."
Steve Leffler
>In article <1993Jan15....@indyvax.iupui.edu> har...@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
>>Er, didn't anyone notice that the CFV's already been issued?
>I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the votes had already
>been tallied and the commissioner of elections found
>bound and gagged in the hall closet at the polls.
You sound awfully paranoid here. Ironically, considering your signoff
(below), you seem to be ignorant of the fact that the rules require all
votes to be posted at the end of the referendum, so that people can verify
that their votes were correctly tallied.
> --Blair
> "Ignorance is not bliss,
> ignorance is poverty."
---Steven Leffler
lef...@physics.ubc.ca
Blair P. Houghton
>bhou...@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>>I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the votes had already
>>been tallied and the commissioner of elections found
>>bound and gagged in the hall closet at the polls.
>
> You sound awfully paranoid here.
The word is "cynical." And don't follow me home.
>you seem to be ignorant of the fact that the rules require all
>votes to be posted at the end of the referendum, so that people can verify
>that their votes were correctly tallied.
I can remember fighting for that feature of the procedure.
It's not the most foolproof method, but whatever keeps the
Sandinistas in power...
--Blair
"George Bush is the Education
President if an only if the
Student is Saddam Hussein..."