Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: RN is at fault for all this included text
Message-ID: <1973@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 22:52:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1973
Posted: Thu Oct 24 22:52:16 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 05:34:01 EDT
References: <445@looking.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 58

In article <445@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:

>It's been suggested that if RN didn't have an "F" command, people would
>just use editors.  This is not the case.  There was a massive increase
>in the amount of included text on the net with the introduction of RN.

The second sentence does not follow from the third.  A number of people who
habitually include all of a referenced article without bothering to edit it
down any are on sites which apparently do not have rn (or at least, they
appear not to use it).  Rn probably has increased the amount of referencing,
but the problem (unfortunately) lies in the people who post the articles.
Those who are determined to reference are not going to be defeated by the
trivial annoyance of having to explicitly include the reference.

>Remember the rule for USENET software design:  Articles are posted once, but
>read a thousand times.  Anything that makes it 1% easier for a reader and
>500% harder for the poster is worth it.

Unfortunately, one of the drivers of inclusion is the readers.  It is often
forgotten that news propagation is not instantaneous, and is indeed often
quite slow around the edges of the net.  I find it annoying (and this is a
common occurance in groups like SF-lovers which have lots of novice users)
to receive articles which refer to previous articles with giving me a clue
as to what they said.  Certainly inclusions should be the minimum possible;
but  it seems to me that they are necessary.

I generally have some inclusion in most of my postings.  I always attempt to
cut out as much as possible (even to the point of trimming not only
paragraphs but sentences within paragraphs).  Rather than include a long
series of replies, I attempt to summarize.  If you read the nettiquette
article, all these practices are recommended.

Let me say a few words about some of the mentality behind some bad
inclusions.  First, the famous point-by-point rebuttal.  Some people seem to
feel it is necessary to put a paragraph of their own after every paragraph
in the original, as if this were some sort of a argument in the street.  To
my mind it is much better to perhaps put in a short inclusion to set the
tone, make a general reply, and then, if there are any specific points to
reply to, brief inclusions for them.  On second thought, cut out the first
inclusion.

There seems to be a growing disregard for nettiquette.  Someone mistakenly
referred to James Tiptree as being male in SF-lovers.  So far I think
there's been about 15 articles correcting this, with more sure to follow.
About ten people identified the girl in the train in Superman.  Newsgroup
boundaries are being routinely ignored.  Everyone has their theories about
why this is, (and mine probably won't go over too well with most people on
the net) but the facts are that the current structure of the net, and its
philosophy of operation, encourage this sort of behavior, simply because
there is no way to control anything, and because any attempt by anyone to
control anything is met with a tremendous hue and cry.  Personally, I
sympathize with Gene.  The backbone sites are simply going to have to act
autocratically on these matters, and if the leaves don't like it, fine.
They can go form their own net.

Charley Wingate

"I say this because I want to be prime minister of Canada someday." - M. Fox