Re: Operational definitions versus anecdotal

[Kromkowski@aol.com]

>I would just like to draw your attention to the comments that Dirk van
>Putten made on the thread 'Re: The value of the DEN' where he points out
>some of WED's  quotes including:
>"There is no such thing as fact."
>"The most important figures for management of any organization are unknown
>and unknowable."
>Maybe it is for the DEN's customers to determine the value or otherwise of
>the network (and this could be measured, if we have to justify it) on the
>basis of subscribers. Remembering always that the Law of Two Feet applies,
>if subscribers are not not learning OR contributing they will go elsewhere

1. No such thing as "fact" (although Deming I think wrote "true value" not 
"facts") and "the most important figures": these can easily become slogans 
and used for purpose of defending the "status quo", which I think is a misuse 
of what Deming was getting at.

2.  "if subscribers are not learning (I presume the double negative was 
unintentional) or contributing they will go elsewhere)": well, this just 
doesn't necessarily follow -- what if people stay and learn the wrong stuff 
and are as content as pigs in slop, would that be evidence of meeting the aim 
of the DEN?  Not saying this is the case, but what is the method of 
discernment.  The number of subscribers or the number of posts can't be a 
measure of the success in meeting the stated aims of the DEN.  Of course, 
those figures might get at something helpful to the running of the DEN.

3.  And as a last point, Jim directed us to the web based archive as "proof" 
of good threading --  

First, if the "web-based" archive allowed one to post right there (at the 
bottom of a message) and it was real time as opposed to being delay while the 
email is inspected by the editor, then we would have what I was suggesting in 
the first place (a web-base forum).  This is an incremental improvement as 
opposed to some radical change that detractors of the idea have repeatedly 
suggested and would mean less work for Jim.

Second, the threading is done after the fact, not on the fly by the writers 
-- there are also plenty of examples in the archives where the thread of the 
post is all over the place because of changed subject titles.  The archive 
also has many duplicate messages and blank messages.  Moreover, a well 
threaded archive which is retrospective isn't of much help to those receiving 
email (i.e., everyone subscribed) since they won't be able to see or really 
know the origin and history without actually going to the web based archive 
which of course begs the question (why didn't they just start there (at the 
web site) in the first place.)

John David Kromkowski