Usenet sci.phys. - can intelligence be obscene?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Intelligence
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the Usenet sci.phys. community, particularly focusing on the behavior of its participants, the moderation of language, and the overall quality of discourse in comparison to other physics forums. It touches on themes of community standards, the representation of the physics community, and the challenges of finding valuable content within Usenet groups.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the quality of discourse in the Usenet sci.phys. groups, suggesting that they are filled with unproductive arguments and poor manners.
  • One participant highlights John Baez as a respected figure within the community, implying that his presence may lend some credibility to the discussions, despite the overall negative perception of the group.
  • Another participant mentions the moderation of specific groups within the sci.physics hierarchy, indicating that moderation is necessary to maintain a certain standard of discussion.
  • There is a suggestion that the lack of moderation in other Usenet groups leads to a chaotic environment, making it difficult to find valuable contributions.
  • A participant questions the authenticity of a familiar name, Ed Witten, appearing in the sci.physics.strings group, indicating interest in the credibility of contributors.
  • One participant shares their personal experience of avoiding the Usenet groups for an extended period, suggesting a preference for more moderated environments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the chaotic nature of the Usenet sci.phys. groups and the necessity of moderation, though there are differing opinions on the effectiveness of the moderation and the overall value of the discussions taking place there.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express frustration with the difficulty of finding worthwhile content in Usenet groups, indicating a potential limitation in the quality of discussions available. The discussion also reflects varying personal experiences with the community, which may influence perceptions of its value.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring online physics communities, those considering participation in Usenet groups, or anyone interested in the dynamics of moderation and discourse in academic forums.

Loren Booda
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
4
The Usenet sci.phys. (where people "use" each other). It is obvious these people know how to swear, but how well do they actually know their physics? I won't wade in their offal to find out. However, John Baez (the monitor?) seems intelligent and I've yet to see him use obscenities. Do they represent the physics community?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The only two groups of the sci.physics.* hierarchy that are moderated are sci.physics.research and sci.physics.strings, the two groups we carry here on physicsforums. The rest are basically chock-full of nuts and flame wars.

John Baez is a very accomplished professor at UCR -- you can definitely trust him.

- Warren
 
Cool, I just sit back and tune into PF!
 
The usenet groups are crap. To find anything worthwhile is quite an effort. Lots of idiots, lots of bad manners, not much else.
 
I just saw a familiar name. Is that really Ed Witten posting at sci.physics.strings?
 
If there is anyone here who thinks we shouldn't be moderating language or intervening as moderaters to keep people's attitudes in check needs only put on their highwaters and go wading over there to see why we do it.

I haven't even glanced at that place in over two years, and I don't miss it one bit.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
12K
Replies
20
Views
4K