| |
OMDE601
Discussion thread | | |
13.16.1 :-) Anthony
1. WebTycho is not supporting full threading. You, as a class, have practically opted against my
propositions to include the thread number of the target message in
the header (see WebTycho Main topic 'Some conventions') because it is too cumbersome. Many of you
have furthermore abandoned to include the name of the
author of the message you want to address. This means I am completely lost who speaks to whom. May
be all just shout out of the window.
Yes, the same technology limitations have perplex me as well. It doesn't appear that the system developers
of WebTycho paid much attention to the conventions
already in place in other online discussion systems when they designed our little e-board. Most
others I have encountered tree responses and even go as far as to
provide a date/time to further clarify. But to get back to the debate, this is an easily fixed shortcoming
of the system and not an argument against the system. While
we didn't pay attention or get onboard with adding some additional clarifying marks ourselves, this
problem is solvable and not necessarily inheret to the process.
2. There is one reason which made me thought that this form of communication has an advantage: it
is well documented and thus facilitates reflection. But as we
observe here most shout out of the window saying what they want to say without being much concerned
what was already said in the discussion. But let us
consider the case they do relate to another message it is the message just open before pressing
the respond button. What does that mean? It means that on online
discussion is a process without memory (my mathematical metaphor for that is that online discussions
have a Markov chain property). While in traditional debates
the whole line of argument impinges on what you want to say, here it is (at best) only the last
message which you will relate to in your answer.
Stephen Covey mentions in his book, Seven Habits for Highly Effective People, that communication
is a matter of listening, but a matter of understanding. That
most receivers are drafting their responses as they receive the message vice paying attention to
the message and trying to understand what the communicator is
meaning by what they are saying vice what the message means within the receivers context/perception.
Maybe not possible. I think you go to far to say that it has
no memory. People have memories. Whether or not they choose to actually act upon those is another
thing. Also, the limitation of the system as postulated in
your first premise is more likely to reflect the actually issue. Not knowing who is responding to
who and not wanting to simply state "I agree" (most likely for fear of
grading reprecussions) in my opinion is the primary factor here. I've had classes where the professor
directed that no one could repeat what someone else had
said and in the end what it did was limit the conversation. But I can see where this easily can
become a damnned if you do, damned if you don't. In response to that
professor's rules everyone strived to be the first to post and thus get their input in without having
to work hard to come up with something unique. There isn't
necessarily going to be something unique to say. An i is dotted and a t is crossed. End of discussion.
There's a motto I've seen kicked around in the military lately,
rigid flexibility, which may provide a clue as to a solution. Rules for creating clarity such as
yours of including names and a sequence number (I missed that
myself and shifted back to my Internet experience where you don't respond to an individual in a
public forum, you email them directly ... only posts for the group go
into the group cacophony.). What I see here is mainly a critique of the technology ... failures
on its part to provide the clarity that it should when it comes to
responses and communication. In order support your lack of memory hypothesis I think we'd have to
have the technology in place first that made a clear path from
one post to another. Then if the same results occured there may be a problem.
|