The Decline and Fall of the Windows Newsgroup

So what's the key difference between these groups now and a few years ago?

For me it's simply the fact that the academic level has markedly dropped.

This group as a place for the intelligent exchange of ideas has become

essentially worthless.

I first encountered the Internet / Usenet in the mid 1990s during

postgraduate studies at University. The general calibre of person

encountered online was generally university educated, and

computer-proficient.

Nowadays returning to this group is like returning to a once Oxbridge or Ivy

League lecture room, only to discover that it's now a playground for mental

delinquents to fight in.

Note this is NOT a criticism of those genuinely seeking help with technical

issues. It's a criticism of the level of response that you're likely to

receive.

MSFT employees deserted this place a long time ago. The MVPs dutifully

followed more recently.

Yes, you had your obnoxious characters in years gone by.

Yes, you had those whose intellectual contribution never progressed beyond

trite, banal one-line copycat platitudes.

Yes, you still had nasty people you wished simply did't exist, or hoped

would simply go away BUT .....

..... the principal difference imho was that however much you may have

despised a particular person's outlook, they were at least educated,

appreciating the value of learning + books and generally had informative

things to say.

Ok, so how did this happen? How did we arrive at this state of affairs?

Computers became cheaper and hence more readily available, the riff-raff

were let in to the party, bringing with them their bottles of uneducated

thuggishness (again no criticism of those seeking help).

Instead of a graduate level gathering, as the doors were opened to

all-comers, the festive gatherings descended into a yobbish free-for-all,

where all the educated people could do was to scratch their heads in a

bemused manner.

The MVP system didn't help, since it gradually degenerated to a situation

where the most prolific posters became the most esteemed, regardless of the

lack of any inherent quality in their contributions.

Ok, so what's the solution?

MS's current solution is a censored forum where all can join and the

riff-raff are theoretically excluded; making it a lot easier to exclude

particular individuals or particular lines of thinking. This will inevitably

result in an environment where anything remotely contrary to Microsoft's

business aspirations will eventually be excluded. Intelligent criticism of

the big boys will be stifled, as will particularly 'annoying' individuals

will, regardless of the long-term value of what they may have to say.

Is that REALLY the only way forward?

I'd suggest an alternative merit-based approach, censored only on computing

ability for responders.

Create an online entrance test for those wishing to respond to posts eg a

quickfire 'Computer apptitude' / IQ-style test that sifts the computing men

+ women from the boys + girls. A test based purely on assessing computing

ability + raw brainpower on not on political outlook.

Those who 'pass' would earn the right to be 'responders', while all could

still post enquiries, so that those needing help would still get it (which

of course should be open to all). A system based on merit, so that everyone

would know that they were at least getting a response from an intelligent

person (at least with respect to computing ability), rather than a suitably

brainwashed Microsoft sycophant. The quality of the discussion would rise,

and this place could once again return to being a forum for intelligent

discussion that it once was.

Or perhaps some revision of this system, whereby a distinction could be made

between responses intended to help and solve an issue and general comments

(that are presumably targeted at the 'metaproblem').

Ok, some people would find ingenious ways of cheating the test, but even

this would demonstrate some computing ability.

Thoughts?

--

Jon

"Jon" <Email_Address@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote:

>MSFT employees deserted this place a long time ago. The MVPs dutifully

>followed more recently.

No, these were always peer-to-peer groups, MS employees never posted

here much. A few were heard from once in a while, but that was the

exception. MVPs were and are here - most of us in those days got our

MVP designation from the contributions we made to these groups. (I am

no longer an MVP.)

--

Tim Slattery

Slattery_T@bls.gov

http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

"Tim Slattery" <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote in message

news:c94a069mgqv1b7j3p5g2t77cebjtni8lho@4ax.com...

> No, these were always peer-to-peer groups, MS employees never posted

> here much. A few were heard from once in a while, but that was the

> exception. MVPs were and are here - most of us in those days got our

> MVP designation from the contributions we made to these groups. (I am

> no longer an MVP.)

>

Thanks for the comment. At least someone read (at least a portion of) it.

I saw the MSFT posts more as a 'regular trickle' than as an 'exception', but

either way they would now appear to have dried up. A few MVPs still post

here, agreed, but I'd suggest that they are now the exception(s) rather than

the rule.

--

Jon

"Jon" <Email_Address@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message

news:uelnJmUALHA.3840@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

>

> Thoughts?

>

>

Clearly not. Oh well.

--

Jon

Gedanken sind zollfrei. - "Thoughts pay no duty." (Martin Luther)

>I first encountered the Internet / Usenet in the mid 1990s during

>postgraduate studies at University. The general calibre of person

> encountered online was generally university educated, and

> computer-proficient.

========

John, you're stating facts already well known.

It's not even about Usenet at all.

It's about Internet in general.

It used to be ruled by Military, Government, Academia, Geeks/Nerds, etc.

Educated/smart people, or technical hobyists.

Now it's cr p in terms of intelligence level, BUT doesn't say anything bad

about Humankind or Country.

It just tells you - it becamse "popular".

You probably learned in History classes that culture is divided into Popular

and High. Internet used to NOT be a part of Popular cutlure, but now it is.

Here's the good news:

We're still alive, albeit in closed/registration-only Groups/Forums,

specialized sites, etc. We adjusted.

Similar to CableTV.

There you have MTV, E! Channel, HomeShopping, and other utter rubb sh

targeting people with IQ level below 60.

BUT there you also have Bravo!, IFC and sattelite links and undergroudn

College stations.

Don't be so apocalyptic, we're here except lurking deep under water.

The s h t as you know floats in water. Try it with your dog and see, it

floats on surface. P0rn is a major consumer of larger and harder hardrives

& display technology - we heard it from Dell CEO. But it used to be

Physics, Chemstry, Cybernetics, or

other Research the biggest consumer of better computers. So sad but it's

like Telephone. First for the Government &

rich, then for the masses. Since you're not represinting "masses" you feel

down, but please don't - it's been the same throughout centuries. As soon

as masses discover something, it transfers into 'Popular Culture" domain.

Abandon all hope of seeing only educated people there. Instead it makes

easy for Anonymous Cowards to post rude & ranting stuff unlike in real life.

It's easier to post it than tell someone in the face.

Internet allows anonyms & cowards do this.

Get accustomed. We have Bill Yanaire here - an expert on such.

=========================

Stan Starinski

Web: http://www.Interengineers.org http://www.Nanoinfocenter.com Currently OFF for

maintenance

Consulting Engineer (EE+ME, ECAD+MCAD [3D/2D]), R&D + Prototype,

Embedded/Firmware ["C" or ASM for Microcontrollers], computers).

"Stan Starinski" <China@stealsUSJobsPatentsSoftwareMusicVideo> wrote in

message news:%23bD%23OrrALHA.348@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> John, you're stating facts already well known.

> It's not even about Usenet at all.

> It's about Internet in general.

Thanks Stan. Good points.

I suppose it does really just describe the nature of the Internet at large.

As you say, more intelligent discussion takes place in the closed,

specialised forums.

I'm not really trying to advocate intellectual elitism, though. I do

actually think it's great that information is disseminated to as many as

want it, and are able to appreciate it. That after all is the basis of the

Internet. I suppose I just wish that someone would come up with a way in

which that could happen without the quality of the information declining in

the process.

Give someone a copy of a book, and both benefit. The book doesn't change. It

remains undiluted by the process.

Give someone an apple, and if it's eaten quickly then it's generally good

quality. Wait too long and it goes rotten.

Invite 2 or 3 to swim in your swimming pool and you all have a good time.

Invite the whole town and eventually someone with a disease will get in

which will spread to the rest.

Discuss, say, the process of cross-pollination between plants with a couple

of experts and you learn, and they get to share their insights with you and

other interested parties. Invite a couple of thugs into the original

conversation and the whole discussion is ruined.

But as I say, my purpose is not to set forward an overly negative view of

humanity, but just to suggest that there may be a 'third way' between the

elitism of closed door discussions, and the the fighting of thugs in the

playground.

--

Jon

"Stan Starinski" <China@stealsUSJobsPatentsSoftwareMusicVideo> wrote in

message news:#bD#OrrALHA.348@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>I first encountered the Internet / Usenet in the mid 1990s during

>>postgraduate studies at University. The general calibre of person

>> encountered online was generally university educated, and

>> computer-proficient.

> ========

With the exception of YOU.