Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!crtntx1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news-feeds.jump.net!uunet!dfw.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!buzzard
From: buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: [OT] An apology, and an end to it
Message-ID: <GE9EA3.2Eo@world.std.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:10:49 GMT
References: <3B1754F0@MailAndNews.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 65
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:87868

In article <9f6b11$lqd$1@news.lth.se>, Magnus Olsson <mol@df.lth.se> wrote:
>Asking questions is not a privilege, it's a right (free speech).

Posting to Usenet is a privilege, not a right. It is a privilege
that can be taken away from you if you abuse the medium, depending
on the whim of your ISP. In the good old days, it would be taken
away from you just for repeatedly violating netiquette.

Kathleen M. Fischer <greenGargoyle@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>However, if Andrew didn't ask such a question, then I still
>feel ignoring is better, as it really does seem like there is at
>least one soul around either friendly enough or bored enough to
>answer questions, even of the most basic sort (this isn't exactly
>a high volume group).

I don't think ignoring is "better". It certainly isn't true of Usenet
at large. Consider a slightly different case where this is false:
asking and answering questions that are FAQs.  Despite the netiquette
rule that people should read for a while (long enough they'd see
the FAQ come through) before posting, if someone asks a question
that is a FAQ it is often politely answered in detail, with a
comment to see the FAQ before asking similar questions.

Now, if we imagine the scenario where such a poster *continues* to
ask FAQs, and various posters continue to reply with detailed answers,
one has to wonder what the point of the FAQ-answering-document is.
The intent, traditionally, of the FAQ is to answer all of the really
(simple or complex) frequently-asked questions so the newsgroup will be
spared having to see them over and over again--hence the focus on
"frequently asked" not "important".

Saying "there are some people who do not mind seeing them over and
over again" is a bit off the point, since there are some who it does
bother, and we've all agreed to participate in a medium ruled by
the one true netiquette that rules them all.

Now, the DM4 is not the FAQ, but you can see the same thing going
on in this case--someone asking others to do the work he or she
could just as easily be doing him- or herself.

Being silent is not a good solution, because the newsgroup continues
to fill up with naive questions, and answers to those naive questions;
and the only people who are benefitting are those newbies who are
being given fish instead of being taught how to fish.

Personally I think the right response isn't silence (which just gives
someone else the opportunity to provide a fish) nor is it giving an
answer and suggesting looking it up in the DM (which is both giving
a fish and instructions on fishing); once the questioner reveals the
pattern of always fishing on the newsgroup, I'd recommend answerers
verify that the information is easily found in the DM and then simply
post "You can find this easily in the DM," with no literal fish
included.

>It just seems a tad odd to me for someone(s) to come out in a
>newsgroup - even someone(s) as polite and respected as Emily -
>and say "Thou hast asked to much of us"

Welcome to the net. Since there is no cabal, individuals have to
take it upon themselves to speak for the entity as a whole. And I
say "have to" in the strongest sense; if nobody did, anarchy descends,
and lots of good contributors swim off to find clearer waters, and
I think I'm drowning my metaphor here.

SeanB
