Re: Interested in a moderated theory forum?

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne_at_acm.org>
Date: 20 Jan 2004 03:36:15 GMT
Message-ID: <bui7ne$hqd0t$1_at_ID-125932.news.uni-berlin.de>

In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> transmitted:

> "Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message
> news:buh7h2$rsm$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com...

>> "Costin Cozianu" <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:bubqf5$g41vu$1_at_ID-152540.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> > Marshall Spight wrote:
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > I have in the past had excellent experiences with moderated forums.
>> [snip]
>> > If you'd like to discuss theory in a moderated forum, you might
>> > > want to check out:
>> > >
>> > > http://www.galahtech.com/forums/index.php?showforum=97
>> [snip]
>> > Email forums are bad. Collaborative forums are better, for
>> > obvious reasons. Ward Cunningham wiki, has had its ups and downs,
>> > but still is not beyond redeemable.

>>

>> Agreed.

>>


>> > It's widely known, it has a dedicated community that has dealt


>> > with many abusers (by simply deleting the abuse), and it already

>> > has a base of contributions.

>> >

>> > So http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki

>> >

>> > Costin

>> >
>> > P.S. That forum you mention already kind of sucks.

>>

>> Agreed

>>


>> > Make sure you calibrate your expectations, no forum is gonna have


>> > the desired qualities to give you more than a social club, and

>> > eventually a few hints and points to alternative views. Real

>> > knowledge is only produced in academic (peer reviewed) settings,
>> > in having to deliver software, etc.

>>

>> Ohh, go on, what's the full list?

>>

>> Would you say that say this "social club" never produced any knowledge
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0374528888/
>> ?

>
> Peer review can have even greater damage by demanding even greater
> orthodoxy. Does anyone really want Won Kim deciding what is novel or
> good in data management?

Troublesome, indeed.

The "tenure" of Won Kim with ACM SIGMOD has pretty much coincided with its spin into irrelevance. I understand he was fairly "ultraorthodox" in terms of the academic doctrines required of would-be authors.

For there to be progress, there needs to be a certain balance of orthodoxy and unorthodoxy.

People that do not understand what already is, that don't understand the "orthodox" position, only have a vanishingly minscule chance of discovering something 'new' without having it fall prey to heading down futile paths because they do not have any framework of understanding to avoid disasters.

It seems to me that this nicely characterizes the whole using-XML-for-everything movement; people promote it as a buzzword.

• Marketers with nary a technical thought to work with have no capability to know what is good or bad about it.
• "Immature" technical folk that never got around to absorbing much of an education have nothing to compare it to. (I was a technical reviewer for a book on Web Services that, throughout most of the book, tried to promote its "advantages" absent of there being anything else mentioned for it to be "better than." Absolute idiots. The book was panned in the marketplace...)
• Then there are those that _should_ know better, but that know that they ought to keep their mouths shut because it might spoil the value of their stock options...

This is not to say that XML is utterly useless; it's just that its design was for expressing _documents_, and as you get distant from that purpose, it doesn't "work so well."

But absent of the background of having some perspective and understanding of (for instance) historically popular database models such as network, hierarchical, and relational, it is unlikely that someone can truly offer something "new" that is of merit.

If we step back to the famous scientists of yesteryear, a common feature is that they were generally aware of what came before them. Einstein came up with new ideas not out of ignoring the previous developments in physics, but rather by knowing it very well.

Long and short is that there needs to be a strong basis in "orthodoxy" in order for any sort of moderation to work. comp.databases.theory suffers from there being only two extremes present, one involving fairly doctrinaire orthodoxy, and the other the period visits by people that tend to have _no_ idea of existing database theory.

About the only less meaningful possible combinations are newsgroups grappling with ridiculously controversial topics such as abortion or gun control, or newsgroups that attract conspiracy-theory-minded people, such as ones discussing taxation.

-- 
"aa454","_at_","freenet.carleton.ca"
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/rdbms.html
In a world without fences, who needs Gates?

Received on Tue Jan 20 2004 - 04:36:15 CET