ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Tighter control of ontolog forum? v.2010

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:12:21 -0500
Message-id: <4B61EFA5.60108@xxxxxxxx>
Alas, poor Forum!  The diagnosis has become part of the disease.  And 
the cure may be even worse.    (01)

-Ed    (02)

-- 
Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263                FAX: +1 301-975-4694    (03)

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, 
 and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."    (04)


Paola Di Maio wrote:
> Avri
> being a strong supporter (and where necessary enforcer) of democratic 
>institutions (as in: defense of democtratic institutions)
> I would be keen to see a voting system,
>
> a couple of caveats: it generaly takes a referendum to establish a democracy 
>(ie, it takes a vote)
>
> there are some biases/conflicting views around the validity of the statistics 
>of democratic polls (majority vs relative majorit etc)
> therefore it is important to establish a sence of 'civic duty' within a 
>voting community
>
> For many of us already absorbed in advancing the progress of science, against 
>all odds, voting may represent a painful
> overhead in addition to our already challenging knowledge  pursuits
>
> I would agree that it make a FUN experiment though, if it can be set up and 
>run with minimal effort,
> and with the certainty that at least the majority of active forum 
>participants will indeed accept
> their responsibility to vote either way
>
>
>
> PDM
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Avril Styrman 
><Avril.Styrman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Avril.Styrman@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> an on-line voting system would at least partly solve this issue, as well as 
>many other issues.
>
> If the list moderator thinks that some topic has gone too far, or is suspect 
>in any way, the moderator could set up a vote: "should this thread be 
>off-lined?".
>
> All the list members could log in with their passwords, and give one vote. 
>There could be three options: yes, no, null. Or, we could be progressive and 
>give the answer in percents; the default for an individual voter could be 
>50-50, and the voter could give any percentage.
>
> All list members could suggest votes to the moderator, and the moderator 
>could decide if he puts on the vote. Many sorts of polls could be made. The 
>ontology of the voting system should or course be fixed beforehand. With each 
>vote, it has to be specified that is a simple majority like 50.01% enough, or 
>does some decision require e.g. 60% of the votes.
>
> How about it?
>
> -Avril
>
>
>
> Lainaus "Paola Di Maio" 
><paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx>>:
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> I ll be happy to take any further discussion offlist, provided comments are
> also offered offlist
>
> I don think you have ever addressed offlist any comment in relation to the
> snippets you quoted in your first post under this thread
>
>
>
> PY>>>Thank you for the longish reply,
>
> your post was 900+ words, mine 600+ words if I count correctly...
> sorry I top posted
>
> PY >>>Youshould not have had to be defensive, though, as I specifically said
>
> that I was 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 were just inappropriate for this forum
> (however, if you still want to know why, you can still write me
> offline to find out.)
>
>
>
>
> I suggested that snippets you selected were not a good example
>  as they had been taken out of context  of otherwise appropriate posts (ie,
> post
> relating to this forum as per the charter) , and that such examples were not
> indicating the  inappropriateness of my posts, rather the inability to grasp
> the context
> (while agreeing that they were conversational in nature).
> I also realise that the mistake is common practice in ontological circles
> (ie do not understand context and relevance in full
> even when its dead obvious) and therefore the reply/discussion pertains to
> the online forum as well,
>
>
>  The nature of inquiry (and non monotonic reasoning) is rooted in natural
> curiousity and personal impulses to know stuff -
>
> instead, I invited you to consider the snippets as part of discourse as a
> whole, in particular in the context
> of the interesting topics they touched upon, although briefly and partially
> inarticulately because of the
> conversational nature of the dialog in this forum
>
> That said, I agree it would be nice to be able to structure discourse on
> this forum more form, its hard to follow even the good stuff-
>
>
>
> PDM
>
>
>
>
> PY That said, I wasn't expecting your response on the list ... (nor the
> others that responded to yours). You surprised me!
>
>
> I was not expecting you to flag snippets of discourse as 'you cant say that
> here', despite the obvious
> conformance to the charter, or at least, a different interpretation of it? -
> also, you seem to apply
> selectively - ie  you take my posts as example, and not the others - if you
> want to point finger, then please
> do sistematically
>
>
>
> PY On the subject of "Tighter control of ontolog forum" ...  I was only
> imploring everyone to exercise tighter control and self-regulate
> themselves to make sure postings are relevant to our charter, focused,
> and of high professional quality ... evidently I didn't get too far,
> with such a complex message, because even the simple message of
> "please email me offline ... let's not burden the rest of the
> community" was not properly understood.
>
>
>
> that was probably because instructions are best listed at the top of the
> message (I never got to point 7 cause
> I had read enough to warrant an online reply by point 6. ) Also, I dont
> think its fair to offer
> a (malicious?) mischaracterization of my  posts (due to a of choice of not
> reading them in the context of the whole post, )
> to the list, and request that I defend it offline. unfair play.
>
>
>
>
> PY You surprised me again, when you said that people who wanted to
> follow-up with you wanted to do it off this list, and you concurred
> that this is not the right place for it (although for a reason that
> totally differs from mine.)
>
>
> People do contact me offline from time to time  suggesting that there is
> 'thought control' and censoring of good ideas
> happening in this forum
> Certain parts of discourse are systematically eradicated/ignored with silly
> suggestions that they are not appropriate,
> while there is wide consensus that they they are in fact central (despite
> some discrepancies on form perhaps).
>
>
>
>
>
> PDM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards.  =ppy
> --
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Paola Di Maio 
><paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx>>
> wrote:
>   
>> 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<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<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<mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> **************************************************
> “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
> Albert Einstein
> **************************************************
>
>
>
>
> --
> Always forward towards the supreme maxim of scientific philosophizing
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> **************************************************
> “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
> Albert Einstein
> **************************************************
>
>
>       (05)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (06)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>