Re: WIT

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
• Next message: Nick Arnett: "Re: WIT"
• Previous message: John C. Mallery: "Re: WIT"
• Maybe in reply to: John C. Mallery: "Re: WIT"
• Reply: Nick Arnett: "Re: WIT"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 23:25:56 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Message-id: <9406102122.AA01685@mobius.geom.umn.edu>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: burchard@geom.umn.edu
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: burchard@geom.umn.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: WIT
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

I agree that a structured discussion forum could be helpful, but only  
if it has the right structure.  In particular, I don't think that the  
fixed-depth "agree/disagree" structure that WIT currently tries to  
impose is conducive to constructive collaboration.  The  
aritrary-depth branched "threading" structure that has evolved for  
netnews seems more natural.

For example, was what I just said an "agree" or a "disagree"?  It was  
neither, of course, and so are most messages.  I just don't think  
this is a helpful distinction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Burchard	<burchard@geom.umn.edu>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''
--------------------------------------------------------------------