COLLECTED BY
Organization:
Alexa Crawls
Starting in 1996,
Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the
Wayback Machine after an embargo period.
Crawl DH from Alexa Internet. This data is currently not publicly accessible.
The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20011031145428/http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de:80/~axel/BL/netmyths.html
Myths About Usenet
by Guy Berliner <berliner@netcom.com>
1/1/95
Definitions
Myth #1: Usenet, Internet, it's all the same.
Myth #2: Free speech rights entitle me to use Usenet however I like.
Myth #3: You can say anything anywhere, if it's not too long.
Myth #4: People who use .sigs are hypocrites.
Myth #5: I can get around any strictures by dumping stuff in my .sig.
Myth #6: I can just "tailor" the message a bit for each group instead of crossposting.
Myth #7: People objecting to commercial or off topic posts are just nasty socialists trying to prevent any commercial use of the 'net.
Myth #8: Anything goes in any alt group.
Myth #9: "Netiquette" is pointless because it can't be enforced.
Myth #10: Boy, isn't the 'net getting nasty because of all these petty rules and flaming.
Final note
Bibliography
Addendum: Death of Usenet?
Spamming: Making multiple posts to many newsgroups with
substantially identical contents instead of crossposting
a single article, thereby unnecessarily using up undue
bandwidth and disk space
Excessive crossposting: Including too many inappropriate
newsgroups in the newsgroup line of a post
Off topic: Not relevant to the topic of a particular
newsgroup, as set forth in the charter and/or FAQ of that
newsgroup
Commercial posts: Posts whose purpose is to promote a
commercial product or service (not including posts in appropriate
newsgroups recommending a particular product or service in which you
have no financial interest)
MYTHS
Usenet and Internet are the same thing. Either ads
are ok on the Internet, and also on Usenet, or ads aren't ok
on either.
Wrong. Usenet and the Internet are two quite distinct
entities. The Internet is just the sum total of machines
that use the TCP/IP networking "protocol suite," and can
thus communicate with each other irrespective of the
operating systems in use on individual machines. Usenet, on
the other hand, is a collection of sites that allow users to
"post articles" for other users to read at the same site or
other sites, sometimes around the world. Articles are
segregated into categories called "newsgroups," each with
it's own rules. Some newsgroups are even free-for-alls with
no rules. But most have a charter setting forth what topics
are relevant for discussion in the newsgroup in question.
Newsgroup articles are "propagated" from one site to
another. Not all newsgroups are received by all sites, and
not all newsgroups at a given site are propagated to other
sites. Ads are not "ok" on most newsgroups because most
newsgroups limit topics of discussion to informational
postings, and most ads cannot fit in this category.
Additionally, many sites are educational or governmental,
and are not permitted by law to provide free advertising to
commercial businesses, as this would constitute an illegal
subsidy to private businesses at taxpayer expense. That is
one of the reasons that articles are segregated by category,
so that sites can choose which articles they wish to receive
and which not. Finally, the Internet is just one among
several means of transmission for Usenet news (although
currently the biggest).
My free speech rights require that Usenet system
administrators allow me to say whatever I want in any newsgroup
I care to say it in.
Wrong. Although the principle of free speech is highly
prized on Usenet generally, there are certain restrictions
imposed for practical reasons. Mostly, you are asked to
voluntarily abide these restrictions. There is no certain
way of forcing you to always abide by them. But they are
there for everyone's benefit. For instance, you should not
post huge volumes of stuff to Usenet newsgroups frivolously.
What are huge volumes? Anything exceeding one hundred lines
is starting to get on the long side, and may warrant your
considering ways to shorten it. Anything in the multiple
hundreds of lines requires you, on most newsgroups, to
honestly ask yourself if it wouldn't be more practical to
give people a pointer on where to get the thing you are
posting themselves, if it is likely to be of continuing
interest. You are also asked to refrain from off topic
posts, spamming, and, in most newsgroups,
commercial posts
It's ok to post whatever you like anywhere you
like, just don't make it too long.
Wrong. Length is an important consideration, because, as
mentioned, frivolously posting huge volumes of stuff puts
undue strain on the system. But it is also bad to post
things in places where they don't belong. When many people
start doing this, it is as bad or worse than fewer people
posting excessively long things. Reasons to keep posts on
topic for a newsgroup:
a.)
People who read in that newsgroup don't want to read stuff
that they and other readers have agreed does not fall within
the set of relevant topics for that newsgroup. Choose a
newsgroup where your post is relevant. Simple consideration
for others requires it. Also, people won't like you very
much if you flout this rule, and it's a good way of
unnecessarily making enemies quickly.
b.) Many times people post stuff where it doesn't belong out
of ignorance. If only they knew there were a better place to
post, they'd get more useful and positive feedback from the
readers in that more appropriate place, and no negative
feedback from people annoyed at them for making off topic
posts.
c.) As mentioned, commercial posts cannot be carried on some
sites because it would constitute an illegal free subsidy to
businesses at taxpayers' expense. Keep them limited to newsgroups
where they are deemed appropriate.
I see lots of people including references to
commercial, personal, or off topic stuff in their .sigs.
Either these people are hypocrites when they criticize me
for making off topic posts, or it's ok to make posts on any
subject wherever I like, or both.
Wrong. Including personal stuff of interest to you, but not
necessarily relevant to the newsgroup you are posting in, in
a brief .sig, usually not much over 4 lines, is considered
ok and just happens to be a nearly universal practice. Even
including stuff in a .sig that may be of a commercial nature
is winked at. Why? It is partly a small concession to people
to express whatever is on their mind or makes them unique,
without respect to a particular subject. So that means just
about anything. It therefore also acts as a way to let
people "plug" things in places that would otherwise be
inappropriate. It is intended to give people an outlet, and
thereby stem abuse rather than increasing it.
If I can include commercial stuff in a .sig, then
that gives me an easy way around all these lame restrictions
you're trying to force on me. I'll just put all my
advertising in a .sig appended to an otherwise irrelevant
post. It would be more honest to just post an ad with a
subject line making it clear to everyone.
Ahh. See, there's the rub. The whole point of a .sig is that
it gets tacked on to every post, and it is expected that you
will only post to groups where you actually have something
relevant to say, and generally also groups that you yourself
regularly read. You are right that it would be truly abusive
to post something just for the sake of attracting attention
to your .sig. That is why the principle exists that you
should generally post only to newgroups you intend to read
(with a few minor exceptions). And you should certainly not
post just for the sake of sneaking a commercial .sig in.
Obviously that really would be just a way of committing the
same abuse in an underhanded way. The whole point is that
most newsgroups do not exist for the purpose of giving you a
place to broadcast commercial messages, in your .sig or
anyplace else, capisc'? So please don't make posts principally for
the purpose of using them in that way. Find a newsgroup where such
posts are welcomed.
If excessive crossposting and posting to newsgroups
not relevant to the topics of my posts is bad, then I'll
just create a standardized "boilerplate," and look for every
opportunity to "worm" my "boilerplate" (with the figleaf of
slight customizations to fit the particular newsgroup) into
any thread on any newsgroup that strikes my fancy. That
should be ok, right? Then I can get around all these
restrictions.
WRONG! That is called spamming. And if there is anything
liable to get your posts routinely canceled by system
administrators and "robocancellers," that is it. Spamming
is considered a gross abuse of system resources. Making off
topic posts is bad enough. Making multiple off topic posts
to newsgroups separately, rather than crossposting the same
article to all the newsgroups at once is even worse. Why?
Because then your post takes up many times more resources in
disk space and bandwidth than it would have otherwise. Even
on topic posts should be crossposted to all the relevant
newsgroups, and not posted separately, for the same reason.
But spamming off topic posts is adding insult to injury.
Just creating some fake "personalized touches," to make your
post look like it fits into a particular thread on a
particular newsgroup solely with the ulterior motive of
hyping your own little unrelated agenda does not help
matters. Please don't do it!
All these people who object to "Usenet abuse" are
just a bunch of wacko socialists and busybodies trying to
get in the way of our free enterprise system and stop all
use of the Internet for commerce.
Wrong. First of all, Usenet and Internet are two quite
distinct things. See Myth #1 above. Second no one objects to
"advertising" on the Internet. No one even objects to "all
advertising on Usenet." What people object to is the use of
common resources that are freely provided for purposes that
fall outside the compact you agree to when using them.
Whether you realize it or not, you tacitly agree to a
compact when you use Usenet, quite unlike when you create
your own Web site, or your own FTP site, or your own
voluntary mailing list. In exchange for more or less zero
editorial control over your posts (at least in unmoderated
newsgroups) you agree to seek out newsgroups that are
appropriate for your posts, not to frivolously post large
volumes, and not to spam. And you must assume, among other
things, that ads are off topic in any given newsgroup unless
explicitly informed otherwise by a reliable source. You
are in no way entitled to use Usenet any way you please. You
do not own this resource, and you are not paying for the
vast majority of the disk space and bandwidth you are using.
But in exchange for agreeing to abide by a small number of
very simple rules, you are given these services freely.
Whether someone abuses these resources for commercial or
noncommercial ends is beside the point. There are
appropriate places for commercial posts, but you must put
forward the effort to find them. There are appropriate
places for discussions of just about any topic, but you must
put forward the effort to find them. If you have looked and
are convinced that no relevant newsgroup exists, you always
have the recourse of trying to form your own newsgroup. What
you don't have the right to do is abuse and degrade the
resource for everyone.
The alt hierarchy is not really a part of Usenet.
It's a total free-for-all, and you can post anything you
want in any alt newsgroup. Anything goes.
Wrong. The alt hierarchy is part of the same Usenet system
as the other hierarchies. The only difference is that
creating new newsgroups in alt is easier and less formal
than in the "big seven" hierarchies of comp, sci, etc. Alt
is conceived of as a sort of "grabbag," an "alternative"
hierarchy for groups that don't easily fit in the other
hierarchies, or for people who are in a hurry to create a
new newsgroup and don't want to go through as much formal
process as in the other hierarchies. But, once created, an
alt newsgroup may have the same sorts of rules and etiquette
as apply to newsgroups in the other hierarchies, including a
charter, a FAQ or FAQs delineating the scope of the
newsgroup and appropriate questions for the newsgroup, etc.
An alt newsgroup may even be moderated.
There's no point to all this "netiquette" stuff,
because there's no central authority to enforce it. So why
should anyone pay any attention to netiquette? If it's not a
formal rule with a formal means of enforcing it, then
there's no reason for me to pay any attention to it at all.
Wrong. There is no formal law forbidding you from cussing
out your boss, but do you make a habit of that? There's no
formal law against you randomly insulting people on the
street, but do you do that? As it turns out, although there
is not an official mechanism for making you comply with
principles of "netiquette," there are still ways that your
life may be made difficult if you wantonly and repeatedly
flout them. Some systems may reserve the right to pull your
account for it. Usually, sysadmins cooperate to handle real
troublemakers. Other users will likely "flame" you. Some
particularly unscrupulous individuals may even "take the law
into their own hands," and sabotage your account, "mailbomb"
you, or otherwise try to make your life miserable. The
bottom line is, there is rarely a good reason to invite
these sorts of problems, which can generally be wholly
avoided by showing respect for others and observing basic
etiquette and common sense.
Boy, the Internet and Usenet sure are mean, nasty
places, with all this flaming, all these rules, all these
petty "netiquette" restrictions.
Usenet is just what we all make of it. The same goes for the
Internet. Someone who violates netiquette by mistake or out
of ignorance or misunderstanding is not an irretrievably
lost villain destined to perish in eternal flames. Most
people are more than willing to give others the benefit of
the doubt. If you make a mistake but you learn from it and
try not to repeat it, most people will be more than happy to
accept you as a good citizen of the networked community. On
the other hand, just like any other place, there are some
people who are meanspirited and enjoy making others suffer
needlessly. And just like any other place, there are some
people who are so selfish they don't mind abusing common
resources for their own ends, even in the face of repeated
complaints, warnings, and flames from others. Just try not
to be like either of these sorts of people and both Usenet
and the Internet will be better places for everyone.
Both Usenet and the Internet are not just places
that exist for your own selfish use and pleasure. They have
been created through the cooperation of many people who
freely donate tremendous resources of time and effort to
make these computer networks into such tremendously useful
and fun resources for everyone. If you want these networks
to continue to be such wonderful places for everyone, you
need to ask not merely "what can the Internet do for me?"
but also "what can I do for the Internet?" Try to freely
contribute something positive to others who use these
networks, instead of only thinking about how you yourself
can profit from and/or enjoy them.
This is a brief collection of references for further reading, in
no particular order, to help you learn more about Usenet and the
Internet.
List of Usenet FAQs: All the FAQs fit to print. If you are in doubt
about the purpose of a newsgroup, or have general questions that you
suspect are frequently asked, try checking here before
posting to the newsgroup.
What is Usenet?: A general, sometimes pithy description
of what Usenet is and what it is not.
Zen and the Art of the Internet: Brendan Kehoe's famous starting point
for folks trying to get their feet wet in the wonderful world of
global computer networks. Also available in printed form at finer bookstores near you.
Web Search Engines: Good starting points for finding lots of specific
"stuff." Seek and ye shall find. Always try to find answers yourself
before begging others to do the looking for you. So many people waste
five or ten minutes making posts to random newsgroups asking simple
questions when they could have spent 2 or 3 minutes looking in places
like this and finding the answer for themselves.
Blacklist
of Internet Advertisers: Usenet and Internet troublemakers and what you can do about them.
News.groups archives: Too many various and sundry interesting, curious,
and weird things about Usenet to even classify. A must see.
Everything from etiquette, to how to form a new group, to "bogus
groups." Hang out here if you want to learn things even the
experts don't know.
The
Bible of Usenet: This is apparently a very ambitious project that
is still in progress. Check it out. When complete, it will include for
every newsgroup all of the following, according to the author:
>-A Short Description of the group.
>-A Long Description of the group
>-Any FAQ's that go with the group
>-The Moderators name and e-mail address if moderated
>-Where and how the group is archived, if at all.
>-Its average volume
>-Its average number of readers
>-Any mailing lists it is gatewayed to (added 12/10/94)
>I would also like to include in the future.
>-The estimated Noise ratio. (High, Medium, Low, None, etc.)
(from Kevin Atkinson; Finger usenet-b@clark.net for info on The
Bible of Usenet.)
Back to Contents
