Re: Interested in a moderated theory forum?
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:17:22 -0500
Message-ID: <Et-dnWPT67ZgNpHdRVn-uQ_at_golden.net>
"Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne_at_acm.org> wrote in message
news: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.
Sadly, few get much of an education to absorb in the first place--even the ones who try to get one. Received on Tue Jan 20 2004 - 05:17:22 CET