[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Blinders and Balkanization (net evidence)
>An e-mail message sent to an individual or a listserv or Usenet is just a
>1995 version of a letter.
and
>...When someone posts their musings on a
>web homepage, or a listserv, or a usenet group, it is not subjected to
>review and it also does not present itself to a large-scale audience for
>possible refutation.
One mistake that I think we can make when trying to figure out how to deal
with net evidence is to classify it in old ways. While such
classifications help us relate to new media, they do us a disservice in
ultimately mis-representing those media.
A personal email message sent to a prof is indeed very similar to a letter
sent through campus mail. (It may even be more likely to get a response.)
And, an email message sent to a listserv can be something done in a moment
of "under the influence" induced thoughtlessness.
BUT, there are also very serious, and very good discussions that occur over
electronic venues. Venues where, because their peers are actively
involved, experts are just as careful about what they say. Venues which
also have a number of benefits, including that they are much more timely
and much more likely to generate the criticism (positive or negative) from
other experts which Earl Croasmun values.
The comparison shouldn't be between the ideal paper sources "we wish
debaters would use" and the worst of computer mediated communication. The
worst of both is bad enough that I wish debaters wouldn't bother to use it.
The best of both is probably the same, and better than the average used in
debate.
The reality is that debate needs to adapt to the use of computer mediated
sources. So far no one has suggested a classification of electronic
sources which allows us to exclude the bad and keep the good. Remember, a
"list" run by a "listserv" is just a way of dissemenating infromation: it
can be unmoderated (CEDA-L) or moderated by a panel of experts; it can be
immediatedly dissemenated, or it can be published periodically (like a
number of virtual journals published using listserv software); it can be
populated by a random bunch of net-surfing work avoiders
(alt.barney.die.die.die), or the best minds on the subject. Furthermore as
the technology evolves the classifications that we use now will become
obsolete or intertwined. We can't make rules about what is and isn't
acceptable. We need to find ways for debaters to use and debate the new
sources.
Earl is right. The new sources can be horrible abused. But so couldn't
the old ones. We need a culture which doesn't tolerate abuse. Not one
that rejects reality.
--Jamey Dumas
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page