But I'm not at all sure that web nodes are better in the heat of an
argument. The values of eamil are the same as its weaknesses: speed and
linearity. A series of replies with quotation CAN be a very effective way
to move an argument forward. But it can also move it around in circles, and
that's the frustration.
I'm convinced that this is not necessarily the fault of the MEDIUM or
TECHNOLOGY. Email is just a tool, which must be used well or poorly. The
key is DISCIPLINE and ATTITUDE: argue points through, keep a stack and make
sure it's clean, always move forward, remember where you've been, don't
take or give things personally, etc.
On the other hand, I think of PCP nodes like a blackboard: you put things
down there on a permanent or semi-permanent basis, as points of departure
for an argument.
Let me suggest that what's needed is a MODERATOR, to keep things fair, to
keep people on task, to point out inconsistencies and weaknesses on all
sides, to summarize points and constrast them, to remember the history, to
provide context, to move towards consensus (as possible). This goes on by
email, while the nodes are used as points of reference, updated by the
moderator to reflect the growing consensus (hopefully).
So the Moderator solicits a definition, say of complexity, say from Don
summarizing Rosen. It's posted as both a web page and on the list, and
people respond. As responses come the moderator never responds with his/her
OWN views, but always trying to hold people to task, to direct the dialog,
to clarify, restate, synthesize those going around him.
He must be very rigorous. His responsibility is to supervise the quality of
the argument, and to create web pages accurately reflecting it. Side
arguments may spin off, but he doesn't care: his responsibility is to the
main line. And ONLY this main line gets to the updated web pages. Thus his
job is both to create (suggest consensus and synthesis) and to destroy
(opint out inconsistencies, weaknesses, and conflict). And it's a serious
commitment: his interest and time must necessarily be as great or greater
than all of the others in the argument. He's always "on call".
Over time, either people grow together or stay apart. As he sees fit, the
moderator updates the web page to reflect the changing situation as he sees
it, or make new web pages linked together. Thus the original definition
might branch to other ones, similar or different.
The moderator himself can be criticized by others for the decsisions he
makes or the bad job he is doing, but understand that that would then be a
meta-level argument.
Clearly I feel strongly about this, and obviously feel that I'm the right
man for the job ;->. I just hate to commit to do something which might
require too much time right now (amazing how I can avoid my vaunted
Editorial responsibilities!).
How's about this: is this a good idea? If so, do we have a good topic? If
so, does anyone else volunteer? If not, I'll give it a shot.
O---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, NRC Research Associate, Cybernetician at Large
| Mail Code 522.3, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA
| joslyn@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/joslyn 301-286-5773
V All the world is biscuit-shaped. . .