Text 44184, 140 rader
Skriven 2006-12-18 20:47:23 av Jeff Smith (1:14/0)
  Kommentar till text 44164 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Your Fidonews Website
=============================
Hello Michiel.

18 Dec 06 13:16, you wrote to me:

 MV> Hello Jeff!

 MV> On Sunday December 17 2006 16:16, you wrote to me:

 MV>>> FYI, the current FidoNews editor never stated that he no longer
 MV>>> cares. What he stated was that he has given up on attempts to
 MV>>> moderate the Fidonews echo.

 MV> Which I should narrow down to "giving up on attempting to moderate
 MV> those who refuse to be moderated". He has not giving up all together,
 MV> he is still moderating.


     Several of those same people have stated that they would accept being
moderated by someone that they respect.


 MV>>> Giving up <> not caring any more.

 JS>>      Giving up BECAUSE of not caring anymore.

 MV> No, you are putting words into his mouth. My interpretation of his
 MV> words is that he gave up on the impossible.


     Semantics Michiel. The end result is the same.


 MV>>> FidoNews echo <> FidoNews megazine.

 JS>>      Bjorn is the link here. He is responsible for both.

 MV> Point is that he has not given up on the FidoNews magazine, as your
 MV> words suggested.


     Then maybe the situation is even worse than was thought.


 MV>>> You made a link from the website to the current editor. Thereby
 MV>>> suggesting cause and effect and thereby suggesting
 MV>>> responsibility.

 JS>>      Although Jim controls the domain both Jim and Bjorn are
 JS>> listed as contacts on the website.

 MV> Yes, there is that. To me that was just contact info for the FidoNews
 MV> magazine, not for the web site. I can see how the confusion arises,
 MV> especially since there is an email address for editor at fidonews.org.
 MV> That address appears to be non functional btw.

 JS>> There was no specification made on the webpage that Bjorn had no
 JS>> control or input regarding it's contents.

 MV> An omission that goes on the tab of Jim Barchuk. *He* is the one that
 MV> maintained the website.


     Considering the "Current" information available from that website is
from 2003. I think "MaintainED" is indeed the operative term.


 MV> I see that fidonews.info is still free. I could register that - like
 MV> you registered fidonews.net - and put up a web site where I say that
 MV> you, Jeff Smith, are a contact for that web site. Does that make you
 MV> responsible for its content?


     I would be responsilble for straightening you out and having you remove
my name. It would make me responsible at least in the eyes of those that
visited the website and had little or no prior knowledge of the reality of
the situation.


 MV>>> relation to that website? You wrote you could understand why
 MV>>> that website was no longer maintained *since* the current
 MV>>> editor, etc, etc. If you feel BF is not responsible for that,
 MV>>> why did you write that sentence containing the "since"? To me
 MV>>> that sounds like you put at least some of the blame on BF.

 JS>>      Maybe a short statement on the website would have helped.
 JS>>  The same could be said for Shannon's Fidonews website or any
 JS>> related website that I might ever put up. A little info can often
 JS>> times avoid erroneous conclusions.

 MV> Ah, so you *were* under the impression that Björn was somehow part
 MV> responsible for the web site no longer being updated.

 MV> Yes, a short statement on the web site would help, but the problem is
 MV> that it is not under anyone's control but the owner of the web site.

     Then the problem befalls the owner of that website. If Bjorn has no
connection to that website other than Jim displaying out of date Fidonews
information I would not expect Bjorn to be responsible.

 MV> People apparently still have not learned to not take everything they
 MV> find on the web as gospel. What happened to fidonews.org is -
 MV> unfortunately - rather typical.


     Typical but also preventable. While I don't think there was any intent
to mislead. I do think that Jim could have avoided or prevented
misunderstandings with a few words.

 MV> FidoNet or Fidonews is not a legal
 MV> body end therefore can not register domain names. So what happens is
 MV> that members of FidoNet register them in a private capacity. Sometimes
 MV> as "trustee" sometimes as a dissident to provide an alternate
 MV> platform. Mostly with the best of intentions, but as we all know, best
 MV> intentions sometimes turn sour and then there is no mechanism to
 MV> rectify the situation. There a over a dozen web sites relating to
 MV> Fido, FidoNet or FidoNews, many of them dead or in coma. The owner
 MV> lost interest, often has left FidoNet and neglected or simply refused
 MV> to hand over the domain, so it just sits there. And no one can do
 MV> anything about it.

 MV> It is a reality of life that we just shall have to accept.

 MV> I wish you luck with fidonews.net. I hope it will not be a rehash of
 MV> fidonews.org.


     Thanks Michiel. If it comes to be. One thing that it will not be is a
forum for me to editorialize or express my personal opinions. That would be
what my personal website would be for.


 MV> Cheers, Michiel

 MV> --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 MV>  * Origin: http://www.van.der.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Jeff

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin: Twin_Cities_Metronet - MN USA (1:14/0)