On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 00:07:09 -0700
Roger B A Klorese <Roger> wrote:
> J C Lawrence wrote:
>> One of the things I see few lists do is to define the purpose of the
>> list, along with at least some sense of the indicators of success or
>> failure in achieving that purpose. If you're going to run a list it
>> seems reasonable that you should know why, and that you should then
>> be able to know whether or not you're accomplishing that purpose.
> In the broadest sense, I agree.
<nod>
> In the narrow sense, where "purpose" is defined as what the list is
> there to discuss, I disagree. For technical subjects, topic-defined
> lists generally work well. For social and support lists, lists whose
> purpose is to discuss XYZ are generally not places people want to be,
> but lists whose purpose is for people interested in XYZ to discuss XYZ
> and other things are far more successful in building community. It's
> all about what you think lists are for in general.
You're confusing behavior with purpose. The purpose of a support list,
for instance, is generally to educate its members on the subject, to
assist its members with the subject area thru education and
coordination, and to be causitive in improving conditions regarding the
subject.
Purposes are inherently functional in their definition. They state
conditions and desired changes. They define goals. Talking about FOO
is not a purpose any more than mental masturbation (which too many lists
descend into) is an effective agent for change. Yes, discussion of FOO
would occur on a FOO support list (with the above purpose), but that's a
side-effect of accomplishing the purpose, not the purpose itself.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
References:
|
|
