Saturday, December 19, 2009

Re: The weaknesses of email discussion lists

Some blog followers may be interested in a recent discussion-list post of the above title [Hake (2009a)]. The abstract reads:

ABSTRACT: In response to my previous post "Re: The value of discussion lists" a subscriber wrote to me privately, complaining that his discussion list was "dead as a doornail . . . having everything to do with its being 'open' -- in effect anyone who posts to the list doesn't really know who is being addressed or who gets copies of the postings. . .[so that] . . . the issues discussed are unlikely to be settled on their own merits. . . [but are]. . . instead subject to unpredictable interventions and manipulations of every imaginable sort."

Here I (a) point to two high-traffic lists, POD and Phys-L, as counter examples where at least a few of the issues discussed appear to be settled on their own merits, and (b) enumerate what I consider to be some weaknesses of email discussion lists as given in my listing of "Over Two-Hundred Education & Science Blogs" [Hake (2009b)].

To access the complete 14 kB post please click on

REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy]

Hake, R.R. 2009a. “Re: The weaknesses of email discussion lists,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at Post of 25 Nov 2009 20:22:25-0800 to AERA-L, JOURNET, & Net-Gold.

Hake, R.R. 2009b. "Over Two-Hundred Education & Science Blogs," 30 March; online at (2.6 MB). The abstract is online with a provision for comments at Please ignore the 67 SPAM comments (as of 19 Dec 2009) - a disadvantage of the Blogosphere.

No comments: