Netizens-Digest Saturday, April 5 2003 Volume 01 : Number 462 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] Editorial in the Times of India about Netizens Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: [netz] Editorial in the Times of India about Netizens Re: [netz] XML and mining ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 13:47:27 -0500 (EST) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [netz] Editorial in the Times of India about Netizens On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > At 12:05 PM -0500 4/5/03, Ronda Hauben wrote: > >Following is the editorial that appeared in the Times of India on > >March 4, 2003 about the then threatened war against Iraq. I propose > >it is of interest to look at how they viewed the nature of netizens. > >There was for more than a month a long discussion about the editorial > >which I found of even more interest. > > > Rhonda, what is relevant to this list is the information below, Howard, I propose that the content of the editorial was also relevant to the list as it was content the Times of India considered as relevant to the concept of netizen. And this was a substantial application of the concept of netizen. It was proposing that the concept of netizen had to do with not only online participation with regard to the activities of ones country, but also with regard to considering the needs and concerns of people around the world. > not the content of the editorial. You identify an existing forum for > voicing views; why do they have to be repeated on Netizens? > I didn't repeat the forum on the netizens list. Unfortunately with the hostile discussion earlier on this list about the clarifying how the concept of netizen and the discussion of the war are related, there was no support for looking earlier at this forum and learning from it. There still seems little support, as indicated by your comment Howare. But in any case the forum is not available via the url given any longer and I thought that was worthy of being commented on on the netizens list. See what one gets after typing in the url below. > > (To voice your views log on to no-war.indiatimes.com) > > > > ================================================================ > > > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/ > > articleshow?artid=39162787 (Following is what one gets as a response to the above url. This does relate to the question of what kind of online forums are needed to discuss questions, and what happens when such forums are under the control of an entity that may take them offline after a short period of time.) Page not found The page you have requested might no longer exist, has had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. If you typed the page address/URL, make sure it is spelt correctly. Open the Indiatimes.com homepage or sitemap and look for links to the information you want. Use the "Back" button on your browser to return to the previous page. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 14:20:19 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) At 1:38 PM -0500 4/5/03, Ronda Hauben wrote: >On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >> >On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >(...) > >> > >> Let me draw an analogy to standard practice in aviation. Civilian >> aircraft and air traffic control MUST monitor 121.5 MHz, the "guard" >> channel. Planes in distress make their MAYDAY calls here, but are >> often directed to another, idle frequency for the specific rescue >> effort. There are equivalent "guard" or "call setup" channels in >> commercial shipping/coast guard and in military operations. >> >> I can see the role of Netizens as a guard channel, where someone can >> ask "is there an established channel for discussing XXX." If there is >> no such channel, it is an appropriate place to announce the creation >> of an ongoing discussion venue, which is quite distinct from citing >> specific articles on the issues that do not have a particular Netizen >> bias. > > >Howard, perhaps that is the way you see the Netizens list and I am >glad you post how you see it. > >But I feel that considerably narrows down the role of the netizens >list. > > >> >> > >> >There was a very interesting discussion on the website of the Times >> >of India which started with an editorial they had called "Netizens >> >Unite" on March 4, 2003. > > >The Times of India called their editorial "Netizens Unite". > >This is a major newspaper, actually I am told it is the major >newspaper in India. > >If it has an editorial "Netizens Unite" it is a sign of the importance >of the concept of netizens and is, I suggest of interest, to the >netizens list to see how the concept is being used and why. > >The editorial didn't say that netizens are a channel to elsewhere. > >The editorial pointed out the broader view the netizen has and >the fact that there is a worldwide effort of people to be able to >challenge what their governments are doing. > >And that there were certain misrepresentations and presssure used >by the U.S. government in the effort to get the UN security council >to approve the U.S. attack on Iraq. > >These didn't succeed in pressuring the UN security council to give >the ok to the US and Britain to invade Iraq. > > >> >> That well may be. Would it not have been more useful to give the URL >> rather than editorialize? > > >I thought it was of relevance to this list to look at the editorial. Again, I don't. Or would you appreciate equal time for pro-war sentiment? I resent very much what comes across as an implication that to be a Netizen, one essentially must be in agreement with a certain set of political assumptions. I hate labels, but I'd tend to call them left-radical-activist, with a presumption that the US is a bully unless it can prove otherwise. If you insist on including political content, as the owner, may I suggest a little less of the diatribe if you want people of other views to feel comfortable -- even if they are quite willing to dissent? > >And when I last looked, the editorial was *no* longer accessible online >at the Times of India, though I don't know whether that was temporary >or permanent. There is a practical reality that various media cannot economically keep everything online in an archive. What would strike me as a legitimate Netizen issue -- again dealing with how to make network-enabled political participation work with ANY issue. The long-term availability of archives could be an important resource for network-enabled participation. > > >> > >> >The way netizens can unite is to have discussion of their views >> >and to hear each other on a topic that is of importance to > > >citizenship and netizenship. And who selects those topics? > > >> >> >> > >> >And the question of whether or not the people of the world, of >> >any country in the world, support a war against another people, >> >is a primary question of citizenship. >> >> I do not consider it a primary part of netizenship. Netizenship >> activity has succeeded when it helps establish discussion venues for > > whatever positions that various citizens want to take. The specific >> discussions of illegality, morality, justification, etc., of wars >> belong on the specific operational channels, not on "Guard". >> >> "Guard", or the Netizens list, is probably the appropriate place for >> discussing Internet structural issues that may help or hurt the >> creation of venues for specific political information exchange. >> Anonymity versus accountability, intellectual property protection >> that interferes with communications that don't involve copyright, > > Internet stability and scalability, encryption and restrictions on >> its use, authentication of statements, collaborative technology, all >> are examplesx of such issues. >> > >Your definition is interesting and helpful. > >But that was *not* Michael's definition when he studied how people >were treating the Internet and the ways they felt about the role of >the online user. Well, Ronda, a bit of history. I joined this list at your invitation to deal with a current issue concerning ICANN. I don't agree with Michael's definition, so please tell me if that definition is the basic ground rule of this list. > >Michael saw the participation of people in extending access to those >for whom such access was difficult, and the active participation of >people in the issues of developing the Internet as part of being >a netizen. > >He also wrote about the hope that the Internet would make it possible >for people to be able to participate in and have power over the >affairs that affected their lives because of the Internet. > >This is somehow a more proactive participation than telling people >of some channels for discussion. > >The war in Iraq not only affects the people in Iraq as a life and >death question. It is the excuse given by some governments to take >away the citizenship rights of people in their own countries. > >This results in less power for people over their own lives. > >This is the kind of times we are living in. > >What are the ways to taking up these problems? > >At the very least it is crucial to discuss them and not ignore them >and say they are irrelevant to the Netizens lsit. It's important to discuss them. It is a complete misunderstanding of the medium and the technology to say they all must be discussed in the same place. > > >If the online discussion forum can not continue to exist if >there is a certain discussion, then it is of concern to netizens I don't understand that point. > >What kind of online forums are needed to support the broad ranging >discussion is of concern. > >It is interesting that in NYC at least, and in general as far as >I see in the US, there are very few online discussion forums that >support broad ranging discussion on the build up to the war and the >war itself. There are a few, but there is also fear I have seen >expressed of people feeling they can express their true feelings >online given the repression that is carried out against others >by the governments in question. I have fear that any position contrary to your preconceived ideas will result in repression of discussion by activists who automatically distrust government. Mind you, I am not afraid of such activists....if anything, I pity them, since they seem unable to do more than complain as opposed to coming up with effective solutions. > > > > >No the slogan "We demand the right to criticize our government" is >far from something "cheap." > >This is put forward as a goal of some of the change people were fighting >for in Eastern Europe. Fine. Then give me proposals for mechanisms, not just keep quoting the slogans. > >To then claim that the US government can take away this right from >the people in the US Tell me where I have been prevented from criticizing my government. I do so frequently and in public forums. It appears that since my criticisms do not agree with yours, they must be irrelevant. > >> > >> >This is at the essence of citizenship. >> > >> >I am proposing that this is also related to the essence of netizenship. >> >> >> I disagree most emphatically. Trying to do both on the same list >> causes a loss of focus. The same goal can be achieved with multiple > > lists/websites/etc., with a central venue for notification of new >> venues rather than discussion of their content. >> > >Interesting. I thought you felt that there were other lists that were >too technically oriented. That's an incorrect thought. The technical lists are at an entirely appropriate level for their intent. What is missing is a somewhat less technical, more policy-focused within technical constraints, list for discussing new solutions. > >Also you do have the politech list and other lists that take on >the technical activities and questions of the technical community. Politech is not really a discussion list, but an excellent news resource. What I'd like to see is a non-ideological discussion of how the technology can help meet the needs of political expression of any flavor. > >The netizens list is something different. > >How do you see it as different? > >I wondered if you have had a chance to look at some of what Michael >had written from his research that led him to the conception of >Netizens. It wasn't that he concocted the concept. He developed >the concept to describe the responses of people online to his >questions. Yes, Ronda, I have. But I am much more focused on the Net as it is today and what can be done with it today, as opposed to what Michael theorized ten years ago. > >At the time, 10 years ago, 1992-3, there was the plan to privatize >the US portion of the Internet. A number of those who wrote Michael >opposed the US government privatizing the NSF net. Let me get this straight. It's apparently bad to privatize NSFNet, which was never intended as a forum for political discussion -- it was specifically for science and engineering. So if it's not privatized, then the government runs it. The same government you claim suppresses expression. Are you suggesting that the government should fund infinite net resources so it can be used for whatever anyone wants? > >There are other chapters in Netizens about the role of the Net in >influencing how the press functions, the role of the Net in >influencing how government makes policy. > >These are part of the concept that was being developed. > >I think this is a broader focus than the one you propose. > >Do you agree or not? No. From thirty years of experience in lists/online forums, it's too broad a subject for meaningful discussion on a single list. > >I will be glad to list the relevant chapters of Netizens to elaborate >on these ideas if there is any way that would be helpful/ I'd rather have a clear statement from you that the Netizens manuscript forms the ground rules for this list. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 14:22:16 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Editorial in the Times of India about Netizens >On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >> At 12:05 PM -0500 4/5/03, Ronda Hauben wrote: >> >Following is the editorial that appeared in the Times of India on >> >March 4, 2003 about the then threatened war against Iraq. I propose >> >it is of interest to look at how they viewed the nature of netizens. >> >There was for more than a month a long discussion about the editorial >> >which I found of even more interest. >> > >> Rhonda, what is relevant to this list is the information below, > >Howard, I propose that the content of the editorial was also relevant >to the list as it was content the Times of India considered as relevant >to the concept of netizen. And this was a substantial application >of the concept of netizen. It was proposing that the concept of netizen >had to do with not only online participation with regard to the activities >of ones country, but also with regard to considering the needs and >concerns of people around the world. > >> not the content of the editorial. You identify an existing forum for >> voicing views; why do they have to be repeated on Netizens? >> >I didn't repeat the forum on the netizens list. > >Unfortunately with the hostile discussion earlier on this list about >the clarifying how the concept of netizen and the discussion of the >war are related, there was no support for looking earlier at this >forum and learning from it. > >There still seems little support, as indicated by your comment Howare. > >But in any case the forum is not available via the url given any >longer and I thought that was worthy of being commented on on the >netizens list. As I posted previously, its lack of accessibility may be a simple matter of how much disk space the Times of India can afford, and the Netizens focus might be how alternative archives might be created and funded. > >See what one gets after typing in the url below. > >> > (To voice your views log on to no-war.indiatimes.com) >> > >> > ================================================================ >> > >> > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/ >> > articleshow?artid=39162787 > >(Following is what one gets as a response to the above url. This does >relate to the question of what kind of online forums are needed to >discuss questions, and what happens when such forums are under the >control of an entity that may take them offline after a short period >of time.) > >Page not found > > > The page you have requested might no longer exist, has had its >name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. > > If you typed the page address/URL, make sure it is spelt correctly. > > Open the Indiatimes.com homepage or sitemap and look for links to the >information you want. > > Use the "Back" button on your browser to return to the previous page. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 15:05:37 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] XML and mining - --part1_1d8.6d7f072.2bc09111_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/5/03 10:50:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, dusoft@staznosti.sk writes: > HCB> I'd argue that XML is that which puts the ore in economically > HCB> accessible deposits, but the discipline of mining it is quite another > HCB> matter. > D>You are right, but with XML-based deposits and regular > D>expressions-based mining mechanisms everything is possible. > > D>I just had an experience with mining from XML document. I created small > D>mining engine to update exchange rates daily for one site. It needed > D>to recount Slovak crowns in other currency, so it seemed a good way > D>how to do it. And actually it works as intended, so I am very > D>satisfied. Daily currency exchange rates are being listed by National > D>Bank in XML format, too and that makes it easy to get the rate for > D>every country required. > > D>dan > I am a neophyte with respect to "intelligent agents" and mining employment. Nevertheless, it looks like the beginning of a solution to the education of the public to issues prior to voting since access to the Internet in countries like the US is practically ubiquitous. Larry - --part1_1d8.6d7f072.2bc09111_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/5/03 10:50:15 AM Eastern Standard= Time, dusoft@staznosti.sk writes:

HCB> I'd argue that XML is t= hat which puts the ore in economically
HCB> accessible deposits, but the discipline of mining it is quite anothe= r
HCB> matter.
D>You are right, but with XML-based deposits and regular
D>expressions-based mining mechanisms everything is possible.

D>I just had an experience with mining from XML document. I created small=
D>mining engine to update exchange rates daily for one site. It needed D>to recount Slovak crowns in other currency, so it seemed a good way
D>how to do it. And actually it works as intended, so I am very
D>satisfied. Daily currency exchange rates are being listed by National D>Bank in XML format, too and that makes it easy to get the rate for
D>every country required.

D>dan


I am a neophyte with respect to "intelligent agents" and mining employment.&= nbsp; Nevertheless, it looks like the beginning of a solution to the educati= on of the public to issues prior to voting since access to the Internet in c= ountries like the US is practically ubiquitous.

Larry - --part1_1d8.6d7f072.2bc09111_boundary-- ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #462 ******************************