[Asterisk-Users] Netiquette, newbies, politeness and such (was G.729 . . . I SMELL SMOKE!)

[Jim Van Meggelen]

asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-10-23 at 01:06 -0400, Jim Van Meggelen wrote:
>> Few will disagree that the careful application of netiquette will be
>> a benefit to any newsgroup/mailing list/board; and top posting is
>> something that should be used sparingly. Nevertheless, top posting is
>> not the horrid crime some might have us believe. When used
>> appropriately, it serves very well, and only causes offense to the
>> ideologues. "Me too"-type top posing is usually of no benefit, but
>> when someone is commenting on a tangled and involved thread, it can
>> make sense to frame the entirety of the thread in a thoughtful top
>> post.
> 
> Don't forget the same people who refuse to trim the bottom of
> the post and we end up with 20(your case only 1) copy of the mailing
> list footer. 

Sure, but then do we want to start picking on grammar and spelling as
well? That's something that drives me nuts, yet I realize that many
people consider it to be unimportant. It was a hotly debated topic in
Usenet for some years, until it was realized that the community was not
served by all of this endless bickering about grammar and punctunation.
Many people fear, however, that eventually we wi11 |\|0+ b3 4b13 +0
u|\|d3r5+4|\|d 34(|-| 0+|-|3r 4|\|ym0r3 (thanks to
http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/l/leetspea.htm for the translation to
leetspeak/133+5p34k).

I also consider long, fancy signatures to be needless, but I respect
people's right to have them. I see no value in making an issue out of
it.

>> Then we get to the most dangerous beast, the abusive, expert troll.
>> This is someone who clearly is very intelligent and articulate, and
>> could argue their value due to a) their willingness to contribute, b)
>> their level of knowledge and c) their fantastic writing skills.
>> Unfortunately, these folks reduce their value to almost nothing by
>> virtue of their pathetic lack of any manners whatsoever. They will
>> drive away more people than they help -- and that doesn't bother them
>> in the slightest. What a waste of talent.
> 
> As I am sure to be painted by the above brush, let me offer
> just a small point here. I have had just a bit of time to
> think this over after politely listenening to the same
> argument from another person this weekend.
> 
> You seem to not realize that those who are knowlegable are
> only so due to the vast amount of time we put into learning.

Not at all. I respect that truth. On the other hand, I also know that
some people are able to attain knowledge easier than others -- their
minds simply absorb knowledge more efficiently. People who are less
capable in this regard know this, and may prefer to obtain their answers
from someone they consider an expert -- rather than do reserch on their
own. Is this an offense; or is it a compliment?

> I'm sure there are many people who are like me and are trying
> to spend a lot of time learning several projects that have no
> overlap. While we seek all this knowlege, I hope the others
> like me actually try and do things outside of the computer world as
> well. 

LOL! Well said!

> Now I want you to realize that many of the really newbie or
> lazy (these are NOT equal in the level I detest) questions
> that are answerable with a quick browse of the wiki or a
> simple google search end up being equivalent to SPAM in my
> mailbox as I try and search for information that furthers my
> knowlege. Understand that I learn from looking at what others
> are doing, and answers to others questions.

Here is a quote that appeared on the mailing list today. It is a
profound testament to the newbie's angst:
"... it's not that I have not been reading (ask my wife how many nights
I have slept in the last week), and it's not that there is not a huge
amount of info out there. The problem I am having is finding the info I
need in any sort of organized way."

Many newbies share this poster's misery, though few may be able to
articulate it as well. Should they be flamed for that? I say no.

When it comes to problems of *any* sort, people seem to approach them
with one of these two (very different) mindsets:
The first type try to find someone, anyone, to take their problems away
(or at least to blame). The second, however, take ownership of the
problem(s), and accept the responsibility for solving same.

When people from the first group post messages, you are quite correct if
you assume that your efforts on their behalf will be of little benefit -
these folks are generally looking to take, not give. But they don't
really matter; it's the people from the second group who we need to be
aware of, because when you answer their questions, not only will your
answers be used to fullest effect, but it is also quite likely that they
will in turn pass that knowledge on in kind. You will have sown a seed.
Who can say what it will grow into?

Once you identify someone from the first group, you may want to gently
probe and determine if this condition is cureable or not. If not, then
save bandwidth and ignore them. Do not flame them, nag them, bully them,
deliver nuggets of wisdom to them, entreat them to mend their selfish
ways, or attempt to provide them the therapy they so clearly need;
IGNORE THEM. Bandwidth saved; politeness preserved (OK OK; strictly
speaking, ignoring someone isn't polite, but we can always pretend that
we never got the email and face is saved all around). I have seen it
happen on many occasions that a person will make the philosophical leap
from the first group to the second group completely due to the healing
benefits of being ignored. It forces one to ask oneself "what did I do
wrong?", which opens the door to all kinds of introspection.

But folks from the second group are as precious as gold, because we
cannot assure the success of Asterisk unless we enthusiastically embrace
the newbies. The danger is that for every one undesireable newbie we
flame into oblivion, we scare away ten precious newbies of the kind we
need so much; for it is they who will ultimately determine the success
of this phenomenon called Asterisk.

There are more than 5000 people subscribed to this list. The diversity
represented by this crowd is something few of us would find in our
communities. In fact, it is possible that the only thing we can be sure
we have in common is an interest in Asterisk. Whenever we post, we might
do well to have a picture in mind of such a crowd standing before us. 

If we really want to contribute to the success of Asterisk, we need to
treat our newbies well.

> So when you try and run off those who know a fair amount but
> don't meet your manners requirement, I want you to think
> about why you feel newbie or lazy users should be of higher
> value than those with the knowlege? Why do you wish to
> preserve their participation at the detriment to those who
> have more answers than questions?

Those are leading questions you are asking; my motives are not what you
are claiming they are.

You seem to be of the mind that this has to do with The Newbies vs. The
Royals (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html); I contend that it
does not. These lists should be about community-building, not weeding
out those who do not meet certain criteria.

Politeness is not some old-fashined concept that has no place in our
sophisticated world. To the contrary, in our global communities we must
be extra careful to avoid giving (and taking) offence. It happens at
least once a day that I read something on this list that -- at first
glance -- seems very rude. Upon further reading, it becomes obvious that
the poster is simply not a native English speaker, and that the meaning
is probably something other than what I am reading. Should I then take
offence and flame said miscreant out of "my" mailing list?

The issue here is not with newbies, it is with bullies. When someone
acts like a bully, their motives are irrelevant; the behaviour is
contrary to the good of the community. In any social system, it is
generally agreed that, when identified, bullies must immediately be
dealt with. This is not because of a need to impose a "requirement" on
anyone; it is to protect the community from tyrants. It is ALWAYS
possible to debate without becoming hostile, and people who attack those
they do not agree with ALWAYS do more harm than good. 

So let's talk about why (as you say) I ". . . feel newbie or lazy users
should be of higher value than those with the knowlege". Well, firstly,
I do NOT lump newbies and lazy users together. As I stated before, I see
two kinds of newbies: those who demand that their problems be solved,
and those who ask for help. The first group can be ignored, but it is
the second group that the bullies seem quite happy to drive away. 

You feel that your position as one of the more knowledgeable members of
this list should give you primacy of place over the newbies. I say it
places an enormous responsibility on you.

Remember that no one is obligated to help. If you have the knowledge,
and you want to share it, the community will benefit from your
experience. But if a question is beneath you, and you just don't want to
answer yet another newbie message: don't. If you feel you must say
something, say it with a mind toward building something, not destroying
something. That's how we can build this community; how we can contribute
to Asterisk's success. 

> Hoping that the person I talked to this weekend is actually
> reading. I don't consider myself any more important than
> anyone else in this list, but rather I like others, wish to
> defend this channel of information
> from descending below useful signal to noise ratio.

That is a worthy goal, and one which most would support. The problem is:
one person's signal is another's noise. How to we separate them? I would
argue that the answer is: "very carefully." 

Perhaps we need a few new lists:
Asterisk-Newbies
Asterisk-Clubhouse (no newbies allowed)
Asterisk-Flame-Me-Spank-Me
Asterisk-Manadarin, Spanish, English, Bengali, Hindi, Portuguese,
Russian, Japanese, German, Wu (the ten most widely-spoken languages,
according to Ethnologue http://www.ethnologue.com/info.asp). I am
certain that the top nine are all well-represented in these lists,
although I'll admit that before today, I'd never heard of Wu. Let's not
forget French, Cantonese, Italian, Arabic, Dutch (somebody stop me!) . .
. 

Can any one of us possibly appreciate the magnitude of what we have
here? 

All that aside, as far as I can tell, this list is Asterisk-USERS. So,
anyone who uses Asterisk should be welcome here, regardless of their
qualifications. The least we can do is be polite.