Subject: policies

moderators ' message a very happy 1995 to all our subscribers ! as you can see , linguist is back on line - - on the 8th , not the 5th as we had hoped , but we are now up and running at our new address . remember : those of you who post to linguist @ tamvm1 . tamu . edu can continue to use that address . but those of you who used to post to linguist @ tamsun . tamu . edu must change either to the . . . tamvm1 address or to linguist @ tam2000 . tamu . edu the latter is our new editorial address . the . . . tamsun address is now worse than useless : the machine itself has been taken off line by texas a&m , so any messages sent there will simply disappear into an internet black hole . they will not be forwarded to us . the new year 's issues start with this issue : 6 . 1 . however , the listserv swallowed some of the issues we posted on dec . 20 and is just now sending them out . so you probably received some issues of volume 5 ( 1994 ) only today . this is not what we intended - - indeed , we worked hard to clear the mailer and post all the messages we had received before we shut down on dec 21 . we realize that some of them had deadlines . however , listserv malfunctions are simply not within our control . the texas a&m sysop took a long ( well-deserved ) ( and , we hope , energizing ) christmas vacation . and , until his return , the listserv would not free the issues we had posted . and that , by a lightening transition , brings us to a few remarks on maintaining free discussion on linguist . as linguist grows , it becomes potentially more powerful - - some might say " threatening " - - by virtue of its role as an information source . it 's natural that controversial policies and postings should generate concern ; and last year we received a number of complaints , protests , and editorial suggestions . we tried to respond to every message individually ; but we 'd also like to publicly explain our policies and our current thinking about some of the issues that arose . if any of you care to respond , we can continue this discusson on linguist . * we received several requests that we check the accuracy of controversial claims and allegations before we post them . however reasonable this sounds , unfortunately it simply is n't possible . linguist processes 50-70 messages a day ; last year we assembled and posted 1600 issues ( as those of you with overfull mailboxes know ! ) ; and we get over 1000 database requests a week , about 1 / 4 of which require some kind of administrative interchange . we ask our 3 student editors to check messages for civility ( more on this below ) ; but they do n't have time to check anything which is not immediately before them on the screen . so there is no way that we can strive for the standards of accuracy of paper journals . and , of course , we aren ' t a journal ; we ' re a discussion list . the only effective check on the accuracy of any posting is the discussion itself . so the moral is : - - read with a little scepticism - - and , if you see an inaccuracy , post a correction * the preceding applies , of course , to _ professional _ content in postings ; we can't be responsible for the accuracy of anyone 's claims about the number of words for " snow . " nor - - and this is the problematic area - - can we check claims about anyone 's or any institution 's decisions , opinions , or conduct . we will make every effort to ensure that any such posting has professional relevance , is temperate in phrasing , and ( if at all possible ) does not mention names . we also try not to publicize controversies having only personal relevance , since we do n't want linguist to become simply a forum for private grievances . but more than that we can't do . * about more widespread grievances : we have gotten many protests about cutting off discussions that criticize specific schools of linguistics . our problem with some of these has been that the criticisms were anecdotal , ( sometimes ) devoid of academic content , and sounded personally aggrieved ( see above ) . also , adherents of the schools under attack were telling us they no longer felt welcome on the list . so - - not wanting linguist to become a grievance forum or a cause of unnecessary divisiveness in the discipline - - we cut off the discussions . but we admit that there are good arguments on the side of free speech . so we have decided at least not to cut off discussions abruptly . instead , we will warn " next - to-last posting on x " before we send out a " last posting " message . and we will post any responses on x received in the interim . also , we 'd like to reiterate that any discussion that could compare schools or theories and stick to the academic issues would be very welcome . we are not committed to protecting any school from _ scholarly _ criticism ; and , in fact , we would tell any protestors that this is a discussion list , and if they feel attacked they must defend themselves through discussion . * about civility : we never intended to become a kind of electronic miss manners , and , frankly , it often feels like a very strange role for your uncouth moderators . however , we ' re committed to keeping postings civil in tone because ( 1 ) more than one academic list has ( literally ) gone down in flames - - i . e . , the list has disbanded because the discussions got too personal and heated ; and ( 2 ) , as much as possible , we 'd like everyone - - not just the brave or foolhardy - - to feel comfortable entering a linguist discussion . so we do occasionally return postings with a request that the writer revise toward a less-inflammatory tone . ( we realize , of course , that what is / is not inflammatory is a judgment call ; and our judgment may be wrong . ) however , we have returned very few postings ; and - - interestingly - - we have never received anything but cooperation from the writers . * * * * * * so - - as we ' ve said before - - we think linguist subscribers , all 5700 of you , are a remarkably reasonable , tolerant , and generous set of people . if you have comments or suggestions about the editorial policies we ' ve sketched out above , we would like to hear them . have a very happy new year ! - helen & anthony
