***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/ *****
I can't resist this tangential observation: Sara Kiesler has been
researching email "flaming" behavior for years. One of her key
observations, in my opinion, is an interesting combination of two features
1) People tend to flame more on email than they would in person
communicating about the same issues/content.
2) People tend to read more flaming into an email message than was intended
by the sender.
These two characteristics of emails, of course, combine to increase the
probability of a positive feedback loop that results in a cycle of flames
reaching higher and higher.
Just a thought...
--On Friday, April 30, 2004 4:33 PM -0400 David Carpe
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> ***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/ *****
> my apologies to barry and others, as that post was not meant to be a
> flame, nor accusatory in any such manner. i'm just trying to make a point
> that there are experts and non-experts alike communicating via this
> group. if this list is open to a wide community, then such openness
> invites immense risk in areas like spam, bothersome questions (but not
> bothersome to the inquirers!) and anything else that begets free
> electronic resources (which includes not just message listservs, but also
> boards and other tools like im, or your conferences - open to anybody
> williing to pay and travel)
> as for rules versus prescribing behavior, i was referring specifically to
> a comment about the 'types of questions' or 'researching before asking'
> comment - that's a tough one - and it assumes a level of knowledge with
> the asking party (or to be more precise, these folks might not even know
> how to find such information or answers, hence the post to the list!). a
> rule might be "try to research your question before you ask it" versus
> "do not ask your question if you have not already conducted research on
> the question" - i see the latter as a bit alienating...
> and no, the rules are not overly rigid. and yes, even in my short time i
> have received immensely valuable insight and response from individuals on
> this list regarding numerous questions and topics, and am greatly
> appreciative of their time.
> valdis' point about nascent behavior and prescribed is a great point - as
> 'social networking' software and websites (regardless of whether or not
> folks on this list see it as real SNA or not) grow in commercial
> popularity, i can only imagine that many new folks will discover this
> list, including developers, consultants, money people (analysts,
> investors and spectators) and so on - all of whom will have a (hopefully)
> normal behavior profile, but all of whom might be asking oddball
> questions, promoting gatherings, services, or generally behaving
> differently given their needs or goals...
> from the outside, as a very new member of this list, i'm unclear about the
> size of this group though suspect that one resolve might be the formation
> (formal or informal) of lists for special interests (e.g. one for
> commercial/consulting and one for only academic and so on)...if this
> constituency is large enough to support such vehicles, than any individual
> might join one, some or all such lists and opt-in for exposure to all of
> the behavior. in this regard, one very easy solution is a closed list
> (which might leave me out, i have no idea) for academics only, those are
> easy and free with tools from sites like yahoogroups, easy to moderate
> entry, to moderate first postings (versus content, just the first posts to
> weed out machine subscriptions) - or the list program that is already
> being used, no idea how it's set up for administration (it should just be
> easy, that's the point) - of course that brings up the greatest issue for
> argument in any such structure - appointing the influencer(s) responsible
> for safeguarding the interests of members, knowing who to let in and who
> to keep out...
> now i'm just rambling. again barry, that post was not meant to offend.
> At 03:23 PM 4/30/2004, Valdis wrote:
>> ***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/ *****
>> I agree with Barry. The rules he offers make sense me -- they are not
>> overly rigid -- just guidelines.
>> The larger we become, the less free-form we can be. The trick is
>> finding the right balance between emergent and prescribed behavior.
> SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
> network researchers (http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/). To unsubscribe, send
> an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
> UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.
David Krackhardt, Professor of Organizations, Editor of JoSS
The Heinz School of Public Policy, and
The Tepper School of Business
Carnegie Mellon University
JoSS web: http://www2.heinz.cmu.edu/project/INSNA/joss/
(Erdos# = 2)
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.