[Datenschleuder] [63]    That's all, folks

That's all, folks From: spaf@cs.purdue.edu - ein Stück (Use-)Net(z)geschichte Gene Spafford war der Vorgänger von Tale (David Lawrence). Diesen Artikel schrieb er kurz vor seiner Amtsübergabe an Tale und seinem eigenen Rückzug aus dem Usenet. (Dank für die Weiterleitungen an Hinrich Schramm und Gert Döring) Date: 29 Apr 1993 19:01:12 -0500 There is a Zen adage about how anything one cannot bear to give up is not owned, but is in fact the owner. What follows relates how I am owned by one less thing.... About a dozen years ago, when I was still a grad student at Georgia Tech, we got our first Usenet connection (to allegra, then being run by Peter Honeyman, I believe). I'd been using a few dial-in BBS systems for a while, so it wasn't a huge transition for me. I quickly got "hooked": I can claim to be someone who once read every newsgroup on Usenet for weeks at a time! After several months, I realized that it was difficult for a newcomer to tell what newsgroups were available and what they covered. I made a pass at putting together some information, combined it with a similar list compiled by another netter, and began posting it for others to use. Eventually, the list was joined by other documents describing net history and information. In April of 1982 (I believe it was -- I saved no record of the year, but I know it was April), I began posting those lists regularly, sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly; the longest break was for 4 months a few years ago when I was recovering from pneumonia and poor personal time management. (Tellingly, only a few people noticed the lack of postings, and almost all the mail was "When will they come out?" rather than "Did something happen?") As time went on, people began to attach far more significance to the posts than I really intended. It was flattering for a very short time, and a burden for most of the rest; there is no telling how much time I have devoted over the last decade to answering questions, editing the postings, and debating the role of newsgroup naming, to cite a few topics. I really tired of being a "semi-definitive" voice. Starting several years ago, at about the time people started pushing for group names designed to offend or annoy others, or with a lack of concern about the possible effects it might have on the net as a whole (e.g., rec.drugs and comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac) I began to question why I was doing the postings. I have had a growing sense of futility: people on the net can't possibly find the postings useful, because most of the advice in them is completely ignored. People don't seem to think before posting, they are purposely rude, they blatantly violate copyrights, they crosspost everywhere, use 20 line signature files, and do basically every other thing the postings (and common sense and common courtesy) advise not to. Regularly, there are postings of questions that can be answered by the newusers articles, clearly indicating that they aren't being read. "Sendsys" bombs and forgeries abound. People rail about their "rights" without understanding that every right carries responsibilities that need to be observed too, not least of which is to respect others' rights as you would have them respect your own. Reason, etiquette, accountability, and compromise are strangers in far too many newsgroups these days. I have finally concluded that my view of how things should be is too far out-of-step with the users of the Usenet, and that my efforts are not valued by enough people for me to invest any more of my energy in the process. I am tired of the effort involved, and the meager -- nay, nonexistent -- return on my volunteer efforts. This hasn't happened all at once, but it has happened. Rather than bemoan it, I am acting on it: the set of "periodic postings" posted earlier this week was my last. After 11 years, I'm hanging it up. David Lawrence and Mark Moraes have generously (naively?) agreed to take over the postings, for whatever good they may still do. David will do the checkgroups, and lists of newsgroups and moderators (news.lists), and Mark will handle the other informational postings (news.announce.newusers). I'm not predicting the death of the Usenet -- it will continue without me, with nary a hiccup, and six months from now most users will have forgotten that I did the postings...those few who even know now, that is. That is as it should be, I suspect. Nor am I leaving the Usenet entirely. There are still a half-dozen groups that I read sometimes (a few moderated and comp.* groups), and I will continue to read them. That's about it, though. I've gone from reading all the groups to reading less than ten. Funny, though, the total volume of what I read has stayed almost constant over the years. :-) My sincere thanks to everyone who has ever said a "thank you" or contributed a suggestion for the postings. You few kept me going at this longer than most sane people would consider wise. Please lend your support to Mark and David if you believe their efforts are valuable. Eventually they too will burn out, just as the Usenet has consumed nearly everyone who has made significant contributions to its history, but you can help make their burden seem worthwhile in between. In closing, I'd like to repost my 3 axioms of Usenet. I originally posted these in 1987 and 1988. In my opinion as a semi-pro curmudgeon, I think they've aged well: Axiom #1: "The Usenet is not the real world. The Usenet usually does not even resemble the real world." Corollary #1: "Attempts to change the real world by altering the structure of the Usenet is an attempt to work sympathetic magic -- electronic voodoo." Corollary #2: "Arguing about the significance of newsgroup names and their relation to the way people really think is equivalent to arguingwhether it is better to read tea leaves or chicken entrails to divine the future." Axiom #2: "Ability to type on a computer terminal is no guarantee of sanity, intelligence, or common sense." Corollary #3: "An infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards could produce something like Usenet." Corollary #4: "They could do a better job of it." Axiom #3: "Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) applies to Usenet." Corollary #5: "In an unmoderated newsgroup, no one can agree on what constitutes the 10%." Corollary #6: "Nothing guarantees that the 10% isn't crap, too." Which of course ties in to the recent: "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --spaf (1992) "Don't sweat it -- it's not real life. It's only ones and zeroes." -- spaf (1988?)

[Datenschleuder] [63]    That's all, folks