Glenn, I raised the alarm because my fear was that UCNeighbors was formed to disparage and discredit the purple listserv because the people who started it disagreed with some of the positions expressed here and they had the backing of UPenn to lend legitimacy to their clarion call for people to abandon this listserv.
As long as people do not seek to disparage those of us who still post here instead of UCNeighbors I say fine. On 4/13/10 3:51 PM, "Glenn" <glen...@earthlink.net> wrote: > "Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved > all emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term > "campus inn" produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until > June 8, 2009. All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of > the 400 emails had "UCNeighbors" in the "from" heading." > > > Good analysis! Record abstraction was a very good way to look at this data. > Your report of your methods is also perfect. > > My interpretation of your data suggests that we should consider the chilling > effect of censorship at the neighborhood level. I've seen increasing reports > about "moderation" and how it discourages anything approaching discourse. It > is a tool for exclusive clubs or deceptive spin. > > > As soon as Penn drops UC Neighbors without continuing any links, I could also > wish their club well! Cassidy and Tony can moderate a club on google or many > other places. > > But using the massive Penn network to set up censorship of controversial UC > neighborhood topics was very problematic. It was hard to believe that any > university would promote a closed censored list as a public list, for such a > long time. The implications of censorship over the adjacent neighborhood, at > the time the university was ostensibly "partnering" with the neighborhood, are > extraordinary. > > Wilma raised that alarm as soon as Cassidy/Melani made the announcement. Penn > employees need to be trained on the open expression policies that most > responsible universities put in place! > > Good analysis, > Glenn > > On 4/13/2010 2:49 PM, Karen Allen wrote: >> Since we're discussing the relative merits of the two primary neighborhood >> listservs, I'd like to make one observation: >> >> The actual reason UC Neighbors doesn't have rancor or hostility on its list >> is basically because they rarely talk about anything controversial there that >> would arouse rancor or hostility. They created that list with that in mind, >> and serves a defined audience. >> >> None or very few of the controversial issues that burned hot on UC List were >> even mentioned on UC Neighbors. I observed that once in a while someone would >> cross-post a response to a UC discussion to UCNeighbors, but usually no >> further discussion took place there. >> >> I remember that UCNeighbors was spawned by Kyle Cassidy in (I think) 2006 >> because there had been some really nasty exchanges going back and forth on >> UC list over UCD's BID proposal. UCNeighbors was definitely around during the >> Campus Inn fight (that controversy first arose when an article appeared in >> the October 12, 2007 edition of UCReview, and was finally resolved in early >> June, 2009). >> >> I did a search of my undeleted email with the term "ucneighbors", and found >> 12 pages (over 400 emails) of UC Neighbors posts dating back to August 2007. >> Overall the consistent topics were: missing pets, recycling, home repair and >> contractor recommendations, meet-ups, clean-ups, crime alerts, schools, >> cultural events and general announcements; basically the same things that >> appear on the UC list. There were no posts mentioning "Campus Inn". The only >> somewhat controversial discussion there had to do with the closing of the >> Kingsessing branch library. >> >> Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved >> all emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term >> "campus inn" produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until >> June 8, 2009. All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of >> the 400 emails had "UCNeighbors" in the "from" heading. >> >> By contrast, UC Listserv talks about controversial issues, which in turn have >> aroused passionate, angry, hostile, exchanges from the people, on either >> side, who care about an issue. I regret having lost friendships over some of >> the things that have been fought out on this listserv. But the reason that >> there is no homeless shelter, UCD tax, or ten-story hotel in this >> neighborhood is due in large measure to the existance of this list. >> >> I don't intend this to be an attack on the UCNeighbors listserv, because they >> serve an audience. I'm merely pointing out that UC Neighbors and UC Listserv >> have different audiences and fill different niches. Neither one is better >> than the other, and neither one is a substitute for the other. >> >> >> >> From Franklyn Haiman The American Prospect | June 23, 1991: >> "As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v. >> California opinion in 1927, "If there be time to expose through discussion >> the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, >> the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> >> Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2808 - Release Date: 04/13/10 >> 02:32:00 >> >> >
