Let me boil down my position to the following:
1. we should set up a system to allow anyone to submit hypertext
documents just like we do for FAQs. Ideally this would be an extension
of rtfm.mit.edu-- but as JIK attests, this site is burdened.
2. this system should be distributed in the sense that the documents
can be spread out over different servers (with different `sponsors'
perhaps matched up with various FAQs) but centralized in the sense that
a good searching system based on keywords and accesses is possible, and
a basic universal `point of entry' for submitters (at least for *this* system).
3. The current methods of traversing the *existing* FAQs-- FTP cd
commands, browsing by Internet Group hierarchies-- are *tedious* and
not adequate for the future.
4. So, let's experiment with different ratings systems, accesses
foremost among them. I am SO TIRED of people pointing out the obvious
niggling flaws and glitches in various systems, blowing them out of
proportion, and refusing to admit that they have any redeeming
qualities. We are *not* looking for *perfection*, we are looking for *evolution*.
5. I think the above will ultimately become more important to
cybercitizens than FAQs in their current form. these are all going to
happen whether FAQ authors contribute or not. but FAQ authors are in an
extremely ideal position to be the leaders in these areas. Please help!
Remember how much trouble it was to just get the current FAQ system
running? Can you help be `part of the solution' in getting a new
infrastructure running?
I will try to help realize the above vision. To this extent I'd
appreciate it if anyone who can contribute space on a hypertext server
for `public pointer pages' could let me know.
I think that we are going to witness a whole new evolution of the
`pointer page' that will ultimately swallow up the FAQ inside it. But
what are we doing for authors to help this? When can we have a Public
Hypertext Server? T.Fine's comes close but it is still based on the
same submission process as FAQs. Let's get a submission process for
Pointer Pages! A public server that is *hypertext* at the core! The
central idea is really identical to that of a FAQ server, without the
`periodic posting' aspect.
* * *
Now I am going to respond to some of multitudinous flames nipping at my
undershorts. First, people, realize that I play the devil's advocate
frequently and please learn to separate my flames over an *idea* vs.
those over a *person*. Sometimes I will flame a person for having an
idea, but it is really only for the idea and nothing personal.
First, Mr. Breebaart appears to object to me calling him Breebaart. I
apologize. I accidentally ommitted the Mr. I refer to people by Mr.
and Ms. as a sign of respect.
>> The point is that Gopher coupled with FAQs and hypertext is a
>> fantastic resource that is evolving as we speak. let's commit to it!
>> let's be a part of it!
>
>
>No kidding, Sherlock. Why did you think I became a *.answers moderator
>in the first place?
Mr. Breebaart, would you care to explain how, in particular, the
rtfm.mit.edu archive supports WWW or Wais technologies? or what the
future plans are to do so? My impression is that there is hostility to
providing support for hypertext at this site. There is nothing wrong
with this-- it is ambitious and requires a huge amount of overhead. But
let's get it straight, what rtfm.mit.edu is or is not going to do for
the future hypertext explosion! I think you will be quite stunned at
how many FAQ accesses are now going through T.Fine's Ohio State site
merely because of some fairly straightforward support for hypertext!
> Just because not everybody wants to do it *your*
>way... Sheesh.
There is no `my way'. I am simply advocating some new ideas. Do you
think I care, or care if you care, or care if you don't care, if Serder
Argic posts them, or me? why is it that suddenly we have an automatic
anti L.D. clique of postings for everything I write? it is all nothing
but ideas, and my own background is only relevant to the extent of
ensuring I know what I am talking about.
(I want to commend JIK on so expertly transferring FAQ duties that he
has even transmitted the official L.D. Hate Campaign to the new
moderators. Congratulations! Indeed, a smooth and seamless transition
<g>. This L.D.Hate Virus seems to be awfully contagious lately <g>)
Next, many people are yelling at me over my flames at Mrs. Snakes of
Medusa, mathew@mantis.co.uk. Well, I have two things to say. First, it
appears that Snakes of Medusa is hiding his affiliation with Xanadu,
promoting that while criticizing Web because it is essentially a
`competitor'. I object to people not being honest about their
backgrounds and affiliations when they make any kind of statement like
that. (The issue is deeper, because the alias is a pseudonym for
`someone' in the U.S., but nevermind) Secondly, he explicitly advocated
`stockpiling' multiple accounts to manipulate voting schemes on the
internet. I find this utterly dishonest and I told him so publicly. I
will not apologize for either of these positions. And I resent people
for flaming me over a moral stand, quoting me out of context, while not
making any of their own, saying, essentially, `don't ever criticize
anyone publicly'. This is a recipe for anarchy and lawlessness, IMHO,
and the noise of cowards, which I will continue to flame as long as I live.
* * *
The most important positions I am flaming, I suppose, have been
rerepresented by many here, and all annoy me. The basic lines go:
- `you shouldn't try that rating approach, because it is flawed from
obvious exceptions'.
Sorry, you lose. These systems are not required to be perfect from the
start, or even *ever*-- they are evolving systems. If you constantly
come up with excuses for `why we don't need to change anything', and
don't help put *new* systems together, someone else will invent it and
get the glory. In particular, many people whine about the most
`popular' services not being the ones they like. But this is
ridiculous. `popularity' is *obviously* not a infallible gauge of
*your* interests. But by measuring different kinds of `popularity', we
can get an *approximation* that *you* will find useful! I am so annoyed
with people who loudly complain about `signal to noise' on the net but
at the same time gleefully dismiss the most important ideas for
eradicating problems with it! And everyone rattling about `intelligent
agents' being the Salvation of Cyberspace -- wouldn't it help if those
agents had more *criteria* on which to base their explorations? in
fact, wouldn't it be pretty trivial to write intelligent agents if
there was an abundance, instead of a lack, of `meta-information' and
ratings about information?
- `faqs are difficult to write and maintain right.'
Well, OBVIOUSLY. I keep hearing this over and over, but what does it
mean? what are you saying? that we should restrict who gets to write
them? that we should have approval processes that reject some? what is
the point?! My point is that we should encourage everyone who wants to
write a FAQ to write one, and many others! Unless your belief, `faqs
are difficult to write and maintain right', leads to some kind of
conclusion, like `therefore we should limit who can write them' (the
typical subtly-egotistical `ulterior motive' I have been reading into
this quote) it is just meaningless blather. But so far, everyone says,
`faqs are difficult to write and maintain' but `I wouldn't want to stop
anyone from trying'. But this just boils down to, `people should be
encouraged to write good FAQs.'
- `there is a big difference between `transclusion' (pointer pages,
just making pointers to other documents) and `inclusion' (rewriting and
summarizing resources, answers to questions, etc.).
Sorry, I don't buy it. the distinction between organizing a set of
pointers *well* and writing a FAQ is virtually nonexistent. I'm talking
about *well done* pointer pages, which *themselves* have summaries
around all the pointers, and organize the pointers, etc. I think a lot
of people are imagining that when I say `pointer pages' I mean a bare
list of pointers with nothing but a few word titles, completely
disorganized and haphazard, like the way a Veronica search returns, or
maybe like a bibliography. NOT! Imagine the Mosaic Home Page or the
What's New pages as my models of the best `Pointer Pages'. (BTW --
these two Pointer Pages have probably been accessed more than all FAQs
combined ever, I wouldn't be surprised, at least that the accesses are
staggering. the point is-- this is how the net should be traversed!) A
good pointer page is like the very best text document you can imagine,
except that it has buttons all over it to press!
There just really is *no difference* between a well-done FAQ and a
well-done Pointer Page. Everyone attempting to say that there is falls
back on straw-men `pointer page' conceptions that are really quite
feeble and impoverished at heart. Actually the pointer page is superior
to a ASCII FAQ because it consumes the former. Why have flat text when
you can have buttons everywhere to press and fly all over cyberspace?
This concludes the latest passionate, raving L.D. bulletin. We now
return you to your regular stifling conservatism, directionless
pontificating, mundanity, and boredom.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved