🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MATT.92Dec15140220@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <MERRITT.92Dec15162606@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>
>> Your problem is you don't use a UNIX machine with a real
>> newsreader like rn or gnus.
>> 
>> I'll sensor whom *I* choose. My kill files work fine.
>> 
>> No good can come from censorship of this newsgroup. Information
>> both bogus and correct is here. Intelligent individuals must
>> make their own rational decision and sift for themselves.

[...]

>Sophisticated newsreading software and killfiles do help the situation
>somewhat---I use them---but ultimately they are rather crude tools.
>That, after all, is why we don't just put everything in one big
>newsgroup.

I agree that just replacing sci.physics with a moderated newsgroup (in
other words, censoring it) would be a bad idea.

However, I also think kill files and better newsreaders (however
intelligent) can only improve the situation partially, at best. The
reason lies in the rather special readership structure and "culture"
of sci.physics (which it shares with certain other sci groups).

A rather simple-minded example:

Suppose J. Random Student is studying special relativity on his own
(his relativity course isn't until next semester), and gets stuck on the
"twin paradox". He thinks, and thinks, and then posts a message saying
something like:

"Subject: Relativity question
I can't understand why the situation in the twin paradox isn't
symmetric: if the twin on earth finds the other twin is younger when
he returns, shouldn't the returning twin find that the twin on earth
is older? Or was Einstein wrong? :-)"

Now, in my professional opinion, such a question is perfectly OK, and
fits the charter of sci.physics perfectly. However, to continue this
Gedankenexperiment a bit further, what will happen will probably be
this: 

1) 69 people, who don't know very much about relativity themselves,
post attempts at solutions, all of which are wrong, and follow-up
questions, like "I don't understand that either, but the following
problem is even stranger..."

2) 37 people flame J.R.S. for not reading the FAQ before posting.

3) 13 cranks (and sci.physics is _full_ of cranks who find sci.physics
an easy way of getting an attentive audience) post "Yes, you're right,
relativity _is_ wrong; I discovered that last year, and here's my
alternative theory..."

4) 3 people post lengthy, informative postings explaining exactly
_why_ the twin paradox isn't a paradox after all.

5) All these people start flaming each other.


Now, J.R.S. will probably have the stamina to read all the postings.
But what should the other readers of sci.physics, who may be just as
eager as J.R.S. to learn more about the twin paradox, but not at all
interested in all the flamage, do? Use a kill file? No, because
killing the subject "Relativity question" will kill _all_ of the
discussion, even the interesting parts. 

Writing a newsreader that can kill postings based on factual contents
is an AI-comlete problem that is left as an exercise for the
enterprising reader, but until such a newsreader has been written, my
opinion is that we _do_ need a moderated complement to sci.physics.


Some random notes:

1) I think the creation of sci.math.research (moderated) was quite a
success, though IMHO the charter might be a bit too restrictive.

2) There was an attempt to create sci.physics.research (moderated) a
year or so ago, but it just died away. One person volunteered to
moderate the group, but he was (IMAO) clearly overly ambitious and
didn't really understand how a moderated Usenet group works; in fact,
he was proposing to run the newsgroup as a scientific journal, with
articles being accepted only if classified (by the author) according
to some very complicated scheme. 



IMHO, what is needed is a moderated group with a charter that allows
postings on all topics relevant to physics, as long as they are kept
to factual discussion, and disallows only pure flamage, "me too"
questions, and students asking for help with their homework. Even
"cranky" postings with more or less outrageous claims should be
accepted, as long as they're kept factual, both in the interest of
free speech and simply because it would be beyond any single moderator
to decide for himself what really is valid physics and what isn't. If
somebody wants to claim that Einstein was wrong and gravity really is
the pressure of the ether, they should be countered by factual
arguments and not censored. Of course, if somebody wants to claim that
Einstein was an idiot and there's a world-wide conspiracy of
physicists who see their jobs threatened by unorthodox thinkers, they
should be told by the moderator to calm down a bit, or to post to
sci.physics instead...  :-)


And, no, I have absolutely _no_ time to spare for moderating a group
like this. Alas.


              Magnus Olsson                | \e+      /_
    Department of Theoretical Physics      |  \  Z   / q
        University of Lund, Sweden         |   >----<           
 magnus@thep.lu.se, thepmo@seldc52.bitnet  |  /      \===== g
PGP key available via finger or on request | /e-      \q