My urging of greater participation by the 'silent majority' of the
various discussion lists--prompted by my conviction that they're going to be
the global 'bulletin boards' of the coming century, available in every
village square in the world's 200 countries--has been taken up by a most
articulate champion, Thomas Lunde (below).
Charles Mueller, Editor
ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller
******************
I have been challenged by the questions posed by Mr. Mueller. I am fairly
new at lists and don't belong to many but I have noticed that there are a
number of "types" who participate. For some, the list serves as a chat
line of sorts where conversations take place, friendly insults exchanged
and a form of polite one upmanship prevails. A second type holds a
particular viewpoint most strongly, i.e. conservative, left wing, etc. and
chooses to view every solution from that viewpoint and attacks all other
participants with their singular solution. Others seem to be information
sharers, who constantly try to enlarge the knowledge and background of
every subject discussed by bringing resources, book reviews, articles,
comments and other links. And then there are those who have a solution -
shorter work week, land reform, etc. and who tenaciously stay focused on
their particular solution. And finally, as Mr. Mueller has pointed out,
there is the majority who come and visit, read a little and move on with
nary a trace of their personality, viewpoint or interest left behind.
Our current historical position is analogous to that period of history when
Gutenburg invented the printing press and the world of knowledge moved from
those who copied and studied and memorized manuscripts to those who began
to read the many books that were becoming available. That led to coffee
houses, a new theory for University curriculums, the public school system,
authors and readers, the penny dreadnought, the great thinkers such as
Descartes and John Locke and Adam Smith who for the first time could write
in volume over several hundred pages on a topic. While those changes
happened over several hundred years, out current situation is vastly
swifter. And we have not yet invented the forms to take advantage of the
technolgy's we have discovered. The computer, the word processor, the
modem, the Internet, Web Pages and Lists are all new inventions that have
happened within a generation for most of us.
I would suggest that many people who are readers, have not yet learned how
to be writers. That our culture in literacy has been heavily weighted
towards developing the skill of reading or watching or listening as in TV
and radio and quite frankly, the art of expression has been lost. This is
even true of conversation and debate. Inside the heads of most people is
more knowledge than ever before and yet the desire and ability to express
that knowledge, for most, has atrophied.
These new technologies and the ones on the horizon that will turn our
humble computer into a video telephone or a voice to type dictation machine
or a combination of writing and graphic iconic description, are going to
require an education in taking what is inside our heads from our vast
absorption of knowledge through reading, watching and listening to
developing methodologies in which we all become as conversant at outputting
information as we have become absorbing information. This will be a
revolution similar to the one started by Gutenburg in the 15th century.
Not only do we as individuals have to change - usually a generational
thing, but we have to invent new forms to organize and display and store
all this new output. We few, fortunate enough to have a computer, an
Internet server, technical skills enough to master our word processor, our
browser and our mail program, our private data bases are on the forefront
of this wave. Lists such as FutureWork are pioneer efforts and from the
solving of the problems that Mr. Mueller is bringing into focus, we can and
will start to find answers.
At the moment we are at a very rudimentary stage. Membership is by
individual choice - maybe good - maybe bad, still to be decided. On FW, we
have attempted to solve that by two lists, one more private and
conversational, one more public and not limited by length or topic. The
development of the concept of "threads" where individual themes can exist
within the larger body works to some small degree but often peters out
through lack of participation and long term focus. The history of the list
is contained in "archives" which have no organization except linear
cataloging and which are cumbersome to read if one wants to research what
might have went on before. There are no summaries of issues that have been
discussed and conclusions arrived at, though there has been a small attempt
at position papers.
Then there is the concept of outcomes - what do we as participants want to
do? Are we frustrated publishers looking for readership? Evangelists
looking for converts? Social activists looking for a cause and like minded
participants? Inventors posting our new ideas? Educators looking for
students to teach?
These are questions not addressed or formalized. Partly because the medium
lacks commitment. There is no financial incentive as there is in a
business venture and though many smart people have tried to find ways to
make Lists commercial, no one has found that magic formula that I am aware
off. There is no fame to be garnered that you can add to your CV for all
the effort of writing out your thoughts or interacting in this way with
others. There is no authority such as project leaders, saying Thomas, "do
this as your part of the assignment." There is no outside authority
evaluating and marking our efforts to give personal or academic value to
our efforts. To date, the most we can hope for is a little peer group
recognition by those who choose to comment on our individual efforts.
We hold no official position within a hierarchy such as government,
business or university. We have not yet found a way to be effective in the
real world were legislation is discussed and passed or where products are
developed or sold or where institutions come forth and offer us speaking or
writing or workshop opportunities. We have a printing press, but we have
not developed a readership to support our output. Or is the new tool of
cyberspace ultimately uncommercial and that what we will see over time is
new values established that are not of a monetary nature? These, to me,
are some of the many unanswered questions. When the answers are finally
found, we will look back from the position of hindsight and wonder why it
was so difficult to see the way cyberspace can be used effectively, but
from our present vantage point the answer is not so apparent.
This is a very germane list to engage these questions on because this may
very well be the Future Work of millions of people. Participating through
cyberspace on the solving of problems, enlarging our personal knowledge,
developing skills to work in multi-disciplinary environments with people
that you have no common shared experiences with, who may come from
different culture, political viewpoints, education training and who may
join and leave at their discretion rather than being coerced by money or
contract, may require a social and economic revolution before it can be
incorporated into the mainstream of human society.
This thread should remain open and we should move from asking questions to
theorizing on answers to eventually attempting through experiment, some
real world activity to explore and learn. Failure is a successful learning
strategy. Not trying is not a successful learning strategy.
Thomas Lunde
------------------------------------
