With regard to Gordon Simons' comment that rebuttal standards for scientists I cited were, in his opinion, "excessive, inappropriate, and ill-advised in the context of a discussion forum," I respectfully reply:
I certainly am not promoting the adoption of any formal standards for this list. That task is for the list owners and moderators. However, because the participant population size is significantly smaller than that of a peer-reviewed journals -- and because there is a wide diversity of participant backgrounds and resources that often impacts the ability of participants to check citations or critically evaluate those citations -- I respectfully suggest the perhaps the observation of such standards in this forum would be of great value to civilized discourse.
Regardless, anything that is less adversarial -- except on issues of merit -- usually fosters the productive exchange of ideas.
Before the Internet became available to the general public, I synthesized (i.e., stole from others) a standard for email lists that is still used by many scholarly discussion lists. Herein, I reprint those standards. Again, I am not suggesting the need to formally adopt any position or standard, that is up to the individual list owner and/or moderator. The "rules" postscripted are offered only for thought.
Thank you for your comments.
Best Regards,
K. Lee Lerner
Science Policy Institute
_________________________________________________________________________
COMMUNITY RULES FOR SCHOLARLY EMAIL LISTS
For a virtual community of scholars engaged in on-line discussion.
RULES
1. Keep to the focus. Occasional excursions into closely related areas are acceptable to the extent that
they shed light on our subject mater. Personal religious experiences, modern sectarian or political agendas, personal messages, and commercial advertisements are completely inappropriate.
2. Observe common courtesy, scholarly collegiality, and list netiquette at all times, even in the heat of argument. Stick to the issues and to arguments that contribute to the discussion. All comments that reflect negatively on other groups or individuals (including references to another's competence) are forbidden.
3. In general, to preserve threads, retain subject headings, changing them only when attempting to establish a new thread.
4. Messages should be considered and concise. Including quotations, each message should not exceed 100 lines. In rare circumstances, carefully written prose may extend to 150 lines. Do not post essays or messages with enclosures. Instead, post short notices offering to send longer materials to parties who request them. Or, arrange to submit an article.
5. Be careful with quotations. However, when you respond to a posting, quote only enough to make your point; do not repost the whole message.Do not quote long passages from a previous post (worse yet, the entire post unless it is very brief), particularly if your contribution is going to be relatively brief. Assume the listmembers have fairly good memories and ask yourself whether a quote is needed at all. If a quote is needed, quote only the portions relevant to your contribution.
6. Do not post more than two messages in a day unless very special circumstances warrant your overparticipation. Your restraint will result in more precise and considered responses
7. Do not repost another's private mail without the explicit permission of the writer. Do not post copyrighted materials beyond fair use without permission of the copyright owners. If you use material from our discussion elsewhere, give credit to the author.
8. Show consideration for your readers by observing ordinary conventions of spelling, capitalization, sentence construction, paragraphing, and transliteration. Understand and allow for errors in the posts of others. Never make spelling or grammar an issue.
9. End every posting to the list with your full name, institutional affiliation. Pseudonyms are not acceptable. Please limit "signatures" to identifying information. The repeated observation of the same quotes and phrases, no matter how profound, becomes trite and boring. If you have something to say -- say it in your post.
10. Know the difference between a scholarly post and a polemical post. Send the former. Eschew the latter.
11. Know the difference between scholarly and pious posts. Send the former. Eschew the latter.
12. Avoid ad hominem attacks. Encourage rigorous scholarly debate. Not only can that be done without personal attack, it can be done better.
13. Avoid "Amen!" posts--i.e. posts which only contain a brief affirmation of what has already been said. Do not post unless what you have to say can clarify, expand, challenge, or forward the argument, or answer a question put to the list. Affirmations are best sent to the poster, not to the list.
14. Avoid "Huh?" posts--i.e. posts which only contain a brief expression of confusion, but does nothing to indicate the sort of clarification sought.
15. And last -- but absolutely not least: While the discussion of eccentric ideas is not forbidden, participants expounding such ideas should recognize that the burden of proof is their responsibility. Not all ideas are equal.
VIOLATIONS OF THESE RULES
All participants are subject to these rules. Violators of these rules will be advised (usually privately) to mend their behavior. Repeated or egregious violation will result in removal from the list.