[p2p-research] More efficient (P2P?) usage of email

[Samuel Rose]

I love this problem...

On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Christian Siefkes <christian at siefkes.net>wrote:

> M. Fioretti wrote:
> > - there are tons of reasons why, even these days, it is much more
> >   sensible and considerate (unless you know for sure both the habits,
> >   limits and economic conditions of EVERYBODY who will receive your
> >   email) to trim as much as possible before replying to an email and
> >   to always avoid HTML or kilometric signatures. I can post the long
> >   list of such reasons if asked, for the moment please take my word
> >   for it. First, turn off html, then trim as much as possible, then
> >   reply, thanks.
>
> I second that. This list is very interesting to read, but it would be far
> *far* FAR easier to follow if everybody would try to trim the noise.
>
> Stefan Meretz has written a nice little mail about how to do it right:
> http://www.oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04736.html .
>
> Best regards
>        Christian
>
>
>



Because I actually hate doing this stuff in email. I hate having text based
discussions in email.  Even when everyone perfectly trims their posts.

People had asynch text-based discussions in email this way 17 years ago
because it was the only way to do it. But, now there are much better ways.

Howard Rheingold makes a good case for why he thinks there are limits to
email, and how he has been able to solve these problems here
http://vlog.rheingold.com/index.php/site/video/social-media-classroom-why-use-forums/

Howard has presided over real living online discussions among thousands that
have been going on for over ten years, first on the Well, then moved to here
around 10 years ago http://brainstorms.rheingold.com <- the best online
discussions asynch text-based I have ever participated in since first
accessing he internet.

And, wikis have over a decade's worth of proof that more valuable shared
meaning can derive from pursing discussion in
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?MixedMode where affordances can allow
for discussion to happen in a threaded way, but then be refactored into a
document that captures the best insights from those involved. This is the
*best* way to come to a shared understanding with others, in asynchronous
text based discussion. To co-define what you mean about what you are talking
about. This is why email discussions always devolved into pissing contests
and eventually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law rears it's head. I
challenge  you to find examples of this happening in discussions that follow
"wiki way" principles http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiWay such as
Soft Security, etc.

>From my own perspective, I have seen better results towards seeing actual
results such as action beyond discussion, come out of the above, vs
discussion in email among groups of people.

So, trim your posts. But also maybe think about moving asynch text based
discussion out of email if you ever want to do anything beyond point/counter
point discussion (or in the case of forums software, if you at least want to
use something more efficient, and get a few hours back of your limited time
on the earth)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20081005/2cff4a56/attachment.html