W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 1999

RE: WAI IG Netiquette

From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:27:41 -0500
Message-ID: <01BF2AE8.7F5ACE60.bbailey@clark.net>
To: "'Waddell, Cynthia'" <cynthia.waddell@ci.sj.ca.us>
Cc: "'Web Accessibility Initiative'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Right, that's kind of the case I am trying to make.

YOU know Ms. Feingold, but I don't.  'Course, I know you well enough, so, 
in this example, that is good enough for me.  But what if this was 
something I wanted to pass on to some one else?  ("Well, Bruce knows his 
stuff, and he endorses this Cynthia Waddell, and she vouches for Ms. 
Feingold, so I guess this is legitimate...")  What if THAT persons wants to 
pass it on?  You see where I am going with this!

Is it fair to request that the original author (Ms. Feingold in this case) 
to make the post?  (BTW, What are we to think of a law practice that does 
not have a web site?  In this case, should we not wait for the press 
release to be picked up by an established news source?)


On Tuesday, November 09, 1999 7:16 PM, Waddell, Cynthia 
[SMTP:cynthia.waddell@ci.sj.ca.us] wrote:
> Mr. Bailey,
> I personally know Ms. Feingold and forwarded her press release because 
there
> is no url.
>
> Cynthia D. Wadell
[snip]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Bailey [mailto:bbailey@clark.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 3:44 PM
> To: 'Waddell, Cynthia'; 'W3C interest group'
> Subject: WAI IG Netiquette (Was: Citibank installs talking ATMs )
>
>
> Cynthia's reputation is such that I don't think she will be hurt if I use 
> her as an example.
>
> What is this groups "rules" for longish re-posts of email?
>
> Personally, I would much rather get a one or two sentence description 
with
> a URL.
>
> I am very skeptical of email that does not come from the original source. 
>  There is no "face validity" to this kind of forwarded message.  Aside 
from
> the fact that Cynthia is well established here, how does the rest of the
> list (or someone new to the list, or someone not on the list that I would 
> like to share this information with) not know that Cynthia has been duped 
> by someone calling himself "Lainey Feingold".  Without a reply from Mr.
> Feingold (who might be quite busy -- and does not know me from Adam) what 
> could I do to confirm this story or look into more deeply?
>
> Feel free to flame me (off the list please) if I am full of it, but I
> respectfully request that everybody here try to include a URL with ALL
> longish messages -- even if that means fewer posts!
>
> Granted, I understand that many press releases DON'T have URLs, and many
> LISTSERVs are NOT publicly archived, but fortunately, those are the
> exception.  The real problem is people who send YOU good -- but
> non-referenced -- stuff that you feel obligated to share.  Fight this bad 
> habit as close to the source as you can!  Get THEM to send you the source 
> BEFORE passing the info on to someone else.  Remember -- this IS how 
email
> hoaxes and chain letters get their start!
>
> With the example below, the Trace uaccess-l is archived at URL:
> http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/uaccess-l/listproc/ but *I* can't get in 
further
> since I am not subscribed.
>
> But in less than five minutes with AltaVista I found this:
> http://www.ilusa.com/News/63099talking_atm.htm
>
> Not to sound like a REAL jerk, but is five minutes of Cynthia's time (or
> whoever would post long -- non-original -- stuff like this) really THAT
> much more valuable than (5 min * X number of people who are interested) 
of
> everyone else's time?  (I realize that five minutes of Cynthia time *is*
> MUCH more valuable than five minutes of my time, but that is not really 
my
> point!)
>
> Thank you!
>
> -- Bruce Bailey
[snip]
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 1999 19:28:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:45 GMT