Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

Re(3): don't be nervous about OT

by ybiC (Prior)
on Nov 09, 2003 at 19:17 UTC ( #305707=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: don't be nervous about OT
in thread don't be nervous about OT

I agree wholeheartedly with Abigail-II on this.   Speaking out against OT posts is the best way I know of to address a strongly potential problem *before* it becomes an actual and substantial problem.

I don't dislike OT posts out of arbitrariety, rather because they invite a trend toward slashdot-ness.   One of the things I really like about the Monastery is that interaction here is mostly reasoned, civil, and mature, which contrasts tremendously with anything-goes sites.   S/Nr++

I believe that the Monastery's fairly narrow focus plays a primary role in keeping this community a positive and enjoyable place to frequent.   Personally, I have no end of (SQL|*nix|bash|win32|hygeine)-ish questions that I'd *love* to be able to post here.   But I recognize that it would be detrimental to the community to do so.   Hence, I bite my tongue, and spit dat chat in de CB.

For any who advocate a more laissez-faire approach, I'd encourage reading through some of Clay Shirky’s Writings About the Internet.   I don't agree with everything he writes, but his commentaries on 'net communities and scaling make a lot of sense.   Here's a couple notables, there are more.

To summarize, I submit that it's better for the Monastery as a community if off topic posts are gently, firmly, persistantly, and consistantly discouraged, and done so *before* adverse affects manifest.   The CB provides a great facility for non-perlish discussions, with few-to-none adverse affects on the site.

  cheers,
  ybiC

  striving toward Perl Adept
  (it's pronounced "why-bick")


Comment on Re(3): don't be nervous about OT
Re^4: don't be nervous about OT
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Nov 09, 2003 at 22:49 UTC

    It might be worth remembering that Perl's strength is amalgamating foreign cultures.

    The distinction is not always clear either. If someone has a problem with their mod_perl stuff, they may not even be able to tell whether it's on the Apache end or the Perl side. Likewise someone's trouble with a database - and if it turns out to be something like a bug in a DBD it might even be arguable that it belongs to both sides of the fence.

    Now don't think I'm advocating OT posts and broadening the focus - far from it. I'm firmly in favour of clearly labelling OT stuff as OT as a way of reinforcing the focus. But attempts to actively control OT stuff tend to drive down the very SNR you're concerned about as people start debating the merit of posts and the meta-ness of threads increases.

    I've led a community before and learned a number of lessons in this area. The most important one is that rules cannot be enforced; they can only be suggested. Improving the quality of contributions does not happen by forbidding undesired content; it can only be brought about by making the community reinforce itself in encouraging desired content. This is a very indirect process that works ever better the fewer direct interventions happen. The articles you cite are a good place to start if you're interested in understanding these kinds of mechanics. :)

    So all I'm saying is to remember that while Perl's the site's focus, that means there are other things on the blurry fringes of the picture. So long as people are reminded that these areas are off-focus, they will not divert their sight.

    Makeshifts last the longest.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://305707]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (5)
As of 2014-08-31 03:46 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The best computer themed movie is:











    Results (294 votes), past polls