Hi Peter
Thanks for the friendly reminder (I know some people would like to rescrict the conversation on this list to a single point of view)
Ontlogical freedom was indeed a discussion that is considered off topic in this mail,
and indeed discouraged by some, with all sorts of intimidations.
Some people write to me offlist indeed saying that they do want to follow up the topic some of my posts
but they prefer to do it offlist, since the list seems to obliterate systematically vital portions of the discourse
Plurality comes with the tradeoff that contributions come from different backgrounds, and in different languages
therefore I agree they may not conform to an anglosaxon matematicians view of what a post on ontlog should look like
they are still part of discourse
In global scientific communities we strive to practice tolerance to the views of others everyday, and when they are insufficinetly well formulated we ignore them/disregard them if we cant do anythign to improve them
Some people kindly reply to their post elevating the tone adding their tuppence and helpingto make
sure the post comes back in line with the main topic when it sometimes becomes off course, others simply complain about it.
Pretty much shows their attitude.
The post you mention, in their entirety, are perfectly in line with the forum guidelines, expect perhaps
for the few sentences you quoted, instead they should be read in the context of the thread, better still
in the context of other threads
But I am aware that context is indeed not within the scope of everybody's work
This is a terrible misrepresentation if you consider it in ontological terms
the 'rant on pseudoscience' is providing some context to some posts on new logic/chinese logic thread, and took off as
an extremely interesting and lenghty discussion on complexity, eetc, which in turn opened up a discussion on infinity etc
I know, and I agree, that my posts are not always well formed, thats probably cause I post to this list while reading and writing simoultaneously lots of others stuff, will make it a point for later to try to avoid short outbursts of backfound intellectual activity
(but at least, I am alive mate)
I understand that some people do not consider important philosophu of science underpinnings/digression as the focus of their work
Shouldnt the relevance of a post be considered based on its entirely and in relation to other posts, rather than in the introductory sentences alone:?
(But this is a typical example that also reflects directly in some of the shortcomings of the semantic web,)
My homework in certain subjects (phiosophy, mathematics) are only a background component to my current work
is indeed posting to the list
I have never seen one single post by Christ Welty on this forum on any topic whatsover
can you point me to his contribution to discourse here? I would love to read some of his thoughts
He probabbly does not like to find a full inbox when he gets back to his desk, and gets upset
as far as I can tell, he only read the first line of each - which is understandable
although
But I see no point in dealing complaints of people who hardly read
nor write anything ever at all,
Cheers
PDM
....
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Coming right up is the anniversary of ChrisWelty's message (below)
that actually served as a wake up call to me this time last year.
While Chris probably meant to be sterner, I will just interpret it as
a reminder that while we keep the [ontolog-forum] list open, we also
need to ensure that it stays relevant, focused and maintains its
quality.
1. I have, of late, received some complaints again, that the ontolog
forum has been overloaded with too many off-topic notes that
contribute very little to the subject of ontology and its
applications. Sadly, for the last month or two, we have been losing
more members than gaining new ones. Every time some irrelevant
conversation thread grows, I see people unsubscribing. As one of the
complaint messages read: " ... Interest in a list wanes quickly when
only one post in dozens is worth reading. Unfortunately, this seems
to be the norm ..."
2. We better do something, quick, before we lose the community as we knew it!
3. Since we would prefer to keep this an open forum without filtering
by moderators, I would like to, once again, ask members of the
community to self-regulate their posts to ensure that they:
(i) are relevant to the Ontolog Charter and consistent with the
Ontolog member contribution policies
(http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nidZBG) , and
(ii) are of the quality expected of real professionals in this field.
4. I will use a few recently posted examples to show what we need to
*avoid* ...
(A) "thanks to a link posted in another forum ... I know it may be
too far a philosophical push fror some on this list ... I am rushing
around and dont have much time to study/discuss in depth ... i hope it
is of interest, so posting ..."
[ppy] comment: shouldn't this poster pause, and think again (maybe do
some more homework) before making this post?
Please: make sure postings are relevant, focused and are of high
quality. If you don't think it belongs here, or if you haven't thought
the message through enough, please take your time.
(B) "... I found your paper on Infinity ... I dont have the capacity
to study in detail, wonder if you could provide a plain english
synopsis with your main conclusion for the layperson, and maybe one
straight answer from your pov"
[ppy] comment: this is a personal message, and should have been sent
to the author of the Infinity paper offline ... again, why would the
poster want to impose on hundreds of others who may or may not have
the same need?
Please: ensure that personal remarks and very detailed questions about
narrow topics should be discussed offline.
(C) "stop hiring and putting people who have very narrow views of the
world in charge of multibillion research programmes"
[ppy] comment: this looks more like something one would put on a
placard in a political demonstration. Since our general approach is
scientific and engineering (and not political), a conversation of this
sort is probably more relevant at a different forum.
Please: this forum is for discourse in science and engineering, not politics.
(D) "Concept of infinite and especially transfinite is only
comprehensible by mind consciousness which is of course all pervading
(manas+Buddhi+THAT=INFINITE) meaning that which is beyond but
inclusive of mind, intellect and THAT (implying beyond connotations)
...."
[ppy] comment: remembering that by Ontology we mean ontology for
information science, and not the branch of philosophy that is a part
of metaphysics, I have to say that this kind of discussion is just
*not* what the [ontolog-forum] is chartered to make.
Please: again, make sure postings are relevant, focused and are of high quality.
5. Kindly note that I am not making value judgments on whether or not
the above snippets or the posts they came from are true, correct, good
or otherwise ... but rather, they are just inappropriate for this
forum, and whoever posted them and sent them to the inboxes of the
seven hundred or so members of the [ontolog-forum] is somewhat
reckless, and not really helping with the open collaborative spirit
that the community has set out to build.
6. People who want to post those kind of messages (ones that are not
relevant to this forum) and to be heard can well do so through
blogging, tweeting, or posting them to other more appropriate forums
and venues. I am cordially requesting that you please take those
messages elsewhere. ... And, for those who don't care about the
community as we knew it, please start your own community (and build it
to whatever way you want it to be), just don't try to hijack ours!
7. Anyone who can't agree to "self-regulate" or who doesn't think the
examples I cited were inappropriate, please email me offline (I could
well be mistaken ... but let's not burden the rest of the community.)
Thank you for your attention.
Best regards. =ppy
Peter Yim
Co-convener, ONTOLOG
--
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Chris Welty <cawelty@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ... I think the [...] continuing nonsense in this forum - which make it the
> butt of many jokes and keeps a lot of otherwise serious ontology people away (I
> include myself in this category, you may argue with the "otherwise serious" bit)
> - are evidence that the open model doesn't work here.
>
> ...
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
Paola Di Maio
**************************************************
“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
Albert Einstein
**************************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|