Archive-name: what-is-usenet/part1ãOriginal from: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)ãLast-change: 19 July 1992 by spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford)ãããThe first thing to understand about Usenet is that it is widelyãmisunderstood.  Every day on Usenet, the "blind men and the elephant"ãphenomenon is evident, in spades.  In my opinion, more flame warsãarise because of a lack of understanding of the nature of Usenet thanãfrom any other source.  And consider that such flame wars arise, ofãnecessity, among people who are on Usenet.  Imagine, then, how poorlyãunderstood Usenet must be by those outside!ããAny essay on the nature of Usenet cannot ignore the erroneousãimpressions held by many Usenet users.  Therefore, this article willãtreat falsehoods first.  Keep reading for truth.  (Beauty, alas, isãnot relevant to Usenet.)ããWHAT USENET IS NOTã------------------ã 1. Usenet is not an organization.ãã    No person or group has authority over Usenet as a whole.  No oneã    controls who gets a news feed, which articles are propagatedã    where, who can post articles, or anything else.  There is noã    "Usenet Incorporated," nor is there a "Usenet User's Group."ã    You're on your own.ãã    Granted, there are various activities organized by means of Usenetã    newsgroups.  The newsgroup creation process is one suchã    activity.  But it would be a mistake to equate Usenet with theã    organized activities it makes possible.  If they were to stopã    tomorrow, Usenet would go on without them.ãã 2. Usenet is not a democracy.ãã    Since there is no person or group in charge of Usenet as a wholeã    -- i.e. there is no Usenet "government" -- it follows that Usenetã    cannot be a democracy, autocracy, or any other kind of "-acy."ã    (But see "The Camel's Nose?" below.)ãã 3. Usenet is not fair.ãã    After all, who shall decide what's fair?  For that matter, ifã    someone is behaving unfairly, who's going to stop him?  Neitherã    you nor I, that's certain.ãã 4. Usenet is not a right.ãã    Some people misunderstand their local right of "freedom of speech"ã    to mean that they have a legal right to use others' computers toã    say what they wish in whatever way they wish, and the owners ofã    said computers have no right to stop them.ãã    Those people are wrong.  Freedom of speech also means freedom notã    to speak.  If I choose not to use my computer to aid your speech,ã    that is my right.  Freedom of the press belongs to those who ownã    one.ãã 5. Usenet is not a public utility.ãã    Some Usenet sites are publicly funded or subsidized.  Most ofã    them, by plain count, are not.  There is no government monopolyã    on Usenet, and little or no government control.ãã 6. Usenet is not an academic network.ãã    It is no surprise that many Usenet sites are universities,ã    research labs or other academic institutions.  Usenet originatedã    with a link between two universities, and the exchange of ideasã    and information is what such institutions are all about.  But theã    passage of years has changed Usenet's character.  Today, by plainã    count, most Usenet sites are commercial entities.ãã 7. Usenet is not an advertising medium.ãã    Because of Usenet's roots in academia, and because Usenet dependsã    so heavily on cooperation (sometimes among competitors), customã    dictates that advertising be kept to a minimum.  It is toleratedã    if it is infrequent, informative, and low-hype.ãã    The "comp.newprod" newsgroup is NOT an exception to this rule:ã    product announcements are screened by a moderator in an attempt toã    keep the hype-to-information ratio in check.ãã    If you must engage in flackery for your company, use the "biz"ã    hierarchy, which is explicitly "advertising-allowed", and whichã    (like all of Usenet) is carried only by those sites that want it.ãã 8. Usenet is not the Internet.ãã    The Internet is a wide-ranging network, parts of which areã    subsidized by various governments.  It carries many kinds ofã    traffic, of which Usenet is only one.  And the Internet is onlyã    one of the various networks carrying Usenet traffic.ãã 9. Usenet is not a UUCP network.ãã    UUCP is a protocol (actually a "protocol suite," but that's aã    technical quibble) for sending data over point-to-pointã    connections, typically using dialup modems.  Sites use UUCP toã    carry many kinds of traffic, of which Usenet is only one.  Andã    UUCP is only one of the various transports carrying Usenetã    traffic.ãã10. Usenet is not a United States network.ãã    It is true that Usenet originated in the United States, and theã    fastest growth in Usenet sites has been there.  Nowadays, however,ã    Usenet extends worldwide.ãã    The heaviest concentrations of Usenet sites outside the U.S. seemã    to be in Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan.ãã    Keep Usenet's worldwide nature in mind when you post articles.ã    Even those who can read your language may have a culture wildlyã    different from yours.  When your words are read, they might notã    mean what you think they mean.ãã11. Usenet is not a UNIX network.ãã    Don't assume that everyone is using "rn" on a UNIX machine.  Amongã    the systems used to read and post to Usenet are Vaxen running VMS,ã    IBM mainframes, Amigas, and MS-DOS PCs.ãã12. Usenet is not an ASCII network.ãã    The A in ASCII stands for "American".  Sites in other countriesã    often use character sets better suited to their language(s) ofã    choice; such are typically, though not always, supersets of ASCII.ã    Even in the United States, ASCII is not universally used: IBMã    mainframes use (shudder) EBCDIC.  Ignore non-ASCII sites if youã    like, but they exist.ãã13. Usenet is not software.ãã    There are dozens of software packages used at various sites toã    transport and read Usenet articles.  So no one program or packageã    can be called "the Usenet software."ãã    Software designed to support Usenet traffic can be (and is) usedã    for other kinds of communication, usually without risk of mixingã    the two.  Such private communication networks are typically keptã    distinct from Usenet by the invention of newsgroup names differentã    from the universally-recognized ones.ããWell, enough negativity.ããWHAT USENET ISã--------------ãUsenet is the set of people who exchange articles tagged with one orãmore universally-recognized labels, called "newsgroups" (or "groups"ãfor short).ãã(Note that the term "newsgroup" is correct, while "area," "base,"ã"board," "bboard," "conference," "round table," "SIG," etc.  areãincorrect.  If you want to be understood, be accurate.)ããDIVERSITYã---------ãIf the above definition of Usenet sounds vague, that's because it is.ããIt is almost impossible to generalize over all Usenet sites in anyãnon-trivial way.  Usenet encompasses government agencies, largeãuniversities, high schools, businesses of all sizes, home computers ofãall descriptions, etc, etc.ãã(In response to the above paragraphs, it has been written that thereãis nothing vague about a network that carries megabytes of traffic perãday.  I agree.  But at the fringes of Usenet, traffic is not so heavy.ãIn the shadowy world of news-mail gateways and mailing lists, the lineãbetween Usenet and not-Usenet becomes very hard to draw.)ããCONTROLã-------ãEvery administrator controls his own site.  No one has any realãcontrol over any site but his own.ããThe administrator gets her power from the owner of the system sheãadministers.  As long as her job performance pleases the owner, sheãcan do whatever she pleases, up to and including cutting off Usenetãentirely.  Them's the breaks.ããSites are not entirely without influence on their neighbors, however.ãThere is a vague notion of "upstream" and "downstream" related to theãdirection of high-volume news flow.  To the extent that "upstream"ãsites decide what traffic they will carry for their "downstream"ãneighbors, those "upstream" sites have some influence on theirãneighbors' participation in Usenet.  But such influence is usuallyãeasy to circumvent; and heavy-handed manipulation typically results inãa backlash of resentment.ããPERIODIC POSTINGSã-----------------ãTo help hold Usenet together, various articles (including this one)ãare periodically posted in newsgroups in the "news" hierarchy.  Theseãarticles are provided as a public service by various volunteers.ãThey are few but valuable.  Learn them well.ããAmong the periodic postings are lists of active newsgroups, bothã"standard" (for lack of a better term) and "alternative."  Theseãlists, maintained by Gene Spafford, reflect his personal view ofãUsenet, and as such are not "official" in any sense of the word.ãHowever, if you're looking for a description of subjects discussed onãUsenet, or if you're starting up a new Usenet site, Gene's lists areãan eminently reasonable place to start.ããPROPAGATIONã-----------ãIn the old days, when UUCP over long-distance dialup lines was theãdominant means of article transmission, a few well-connected sites hadãreal influence in determining which newsgroups would be carried where.ãThose sites called themselves "the backbone."ããBut things have changed.  Nowadays, even the smallest Internet siteãhas connectivity the likes of which the backbone admin of yesteryearãcould only dream.  In addition, in the U.S., the advent of cheaperãlong-distance calls and high-speed modems has made long-distanceãUsenet feeds thinkable for smaller companies.ããThere is only one pre-eminent site for UUCP transport of Usenet in theãU.S., namely UUNET.  But UUNET isn't a player in the propagation wars,ãbecause it never refuses any traffic.  UUNET charges by the minute,ãafter all; and besides, to refuse based on content might jeopardizeãits legal status as an enhanced service provider.ããAll of the above applies to the U.S.  In Europe, different costãstructures favored the creation of strictly controlled hierarchicalãorganizations with central registries.  This is all very unlike theãtraditional mode of U.S. sites (pick a name, get the software, get aãfeed, you're on).  Europe's "benign monopolies," long uncontested, nowãface competition from looser organizations patterned after the U.S.ãmodel.ããNEWSGROUP CREATIONã------------------ãThe document that describes the current procedure for creating a newãnewsgroup is entitled "How To Create A New Newsgroup."  Its commonãname, however, is "the guidelines."ããIf you follow the guidelines, it is probable that your group will beãcreated and will be widely propagated.ããHOWEVER: Because of the nature of Usenet, there is no way for any userãto enforce the results of a newsgroup vote (or any other decision, forãthat matter).  Therefore, for your new newsgroup to be propagatedãwidely, you must not only follow the letter of the guidelines; youãmust also follow its spirit.  And you must not allow even a whiff ofãshady dealings or dirty tricks to mar the vote.  In other words, don'tãtick off system administrators; they will get their revenge.ããSo, you may ask: How is a new user supposed to know anything about theã"spirit" of the guidelines?  Obviously, he can't.  This fact leadsãinexorably to the following recommendation:ãã >> If you are a new user, don't try to create a new newsgroup. <<ããIf you have a good newsgroup idea, then read the "news.groups"ãnewsgroup for a while (six months, at least) to find out how thingsãwork.  If you're too impatient to wait six months, then you reallyãneed to learn; read "news.groups" for a year instead.  If you justãcan't wait, find a Usenet old hand to run the vote for you.ããReaders may think this advice unnecessarily strict.  Ignore it at yourãperil.  It is embarrassing to speak before learning.  It is foolish toãjump into a society you don't understand with your mouth open.  And itãis futile to try to force your will on people who can tune you outãwith the press of a key.ããTHE CAMEL'S NOSE?ã-----------------ãAs was observed above in "What Usenet Is Not," Usenet as a whole isãnot a democracy.  However, there is exactly one feature of Usenet thatãhas a form of democracy: newsgroup creation.ããA new newsgroup is unlikely to be widely propagated unless its sponsorãfollows the newsgroup creation guidelines; and the current guidelinesãrequire a new newsgroup to pass an open vote.ããThere are those who consider the newsgroup creation process to be aãremarkably powerful form of democracy, since without any coercion, itsãdecisions are almost always carried out.  In their view, theãdemocratic aspect of newsgroup creation is the precursor to anãorganized and democratic Usenet Of The Future.ããOn the other hand, some consider the democratic aspect of theãnewsgroup creation process a sham and a fraud, since there is no powerãof enforcement behind its decisions, and since there appears littleãlikelihood that any such power of enforcement will ever be given it.ãFor them, the appearance of democracy is only a tool used to keepãproponents of flawed newsgroup proposals from complaining about theirãlosses.ããSo, is Usenet on its way to full democracy?  Or will property rightsãand mistrust of central authority win the day?  Beats me.ããIF YOU ARE UNHAPPY...ã---------------------ãProperty rights being what they are, there is no higher authority onãUsenet than the people who own the machines on which Usenet traffic isãcarried.  If the owner of the machine you use says, "We will not carryãalt.sex on this machine," and you are not happy with that order, youãhave no Usenet recourse.  What can we outsiders do, after all?ããThat doesn't mean you are without options.  Depending on the nature ofãyour site, you may have some internal political recourse.  Or youãmight find external pressure helpful.  Or, with a minimal investment,ãyou can get a feed of your own from somewhere else. Computers capableãof taking Usenet feeds are down in the $500 range now, andãUNIX-capable boxes are going for under $2000, and there are at leastãtwo UNIX lookalikes in the $100 price range.ããNo matter what, though, appealing to "Usenet" won't help.  Even ifãthose who read such an appeal are sympathetic to your cause, they willãalmost certainly have even less influence at your site than you do.ããBy the same token, if you don't like what some user at another site isãdoing, only the administrator and owner of that site have anyãauthority to do anything about it.  Persuade them that the user inãquestion is a problem for them, and they might do something -- if theyãfeel like it, that is.ããIf the user in question is the administrator or owner of the site fromãwhich she posts, forget it; you can't win.  If you can, arrange forãyour newsreading software to ignore articles from her; and chalk oneãup to experience.ããWORDS TO LIVE BY #1:ã USENET AS SOCIETYã--------------------ã  Those who have never tried electronic communication may not be awareã  of what a "social skill" really is.  One social skill that must beã  learned, is that other people have points of view that are not onlyã  different, but *threatening*, to your own.  In turn, your opinions mayã  be threatening to others.  There is nothing wrong with this.  Yourã  beliefs need not be hidden behind a facade, as happens withã  face-to-face conversation.  Not everybody in the world is a bosomã  buddy, but you can still have a meaningful conversation with them.ã  The person who cannot do this lacks in social skills.ãã                                     -- Nick SzaboããWORDS TO LIVE BY #2:ã USENET AS ANARCHY  ã--------------------ã  Anarchy means having to put up with things that really piss you off.ãã                                     -- Unknownã-- ãGene SpaffordãSoftware Engineering Research Center & Dept. of Computer SciencesãPurdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-1398ãInternet:  spaf@cs.purdue.edu phone:  (317) 494-7825ã