[NLA] Democracy on Internet Literacy Lists

Mon Jan 7 10:01:49 EST 2002

I have been giving a lot of thought to Tom's research note regarding the democratic voices on NIFL listservs and I have two responses:
1. The implication is that the major focus of NIFL listservs is to promote discussions. This may/may not be the case. Although that is something that I strive for, all listservs also strive to be a resource on that particular area. When I say resource, I mean an area where people know they can find information on pertinent materials, conferences, etc. Perhaps this is important and should be valued as highly as active discussions.
2. In terms of democratic voices-I have a strong bias here. Your research note takes for granted the assumption that we have true democracy in our country-that everyone can and does speak freely about issues that concern them most. I can tell you that I know from some of my listserv subscribers that this is not everyone's opinion or experience. Some members' voices are stifled by their partners, other members' voices are stifled by their jobs. This stifling is most apparent when issues such as domestic violence, or 9/11 are discussed and I get personal emails, faxes, and letters from subscribers asking me to post things for them without naming the contributor, or writing to tell me what they think and asking that their thoughts NOT be posted. Perhaps the numbers of these communications are insignificant, and therefore, I am not implying that the numbers that you report would change all that much. However, I think that it is important to question the democracy of free speech that you allude to in your note.
Daphne Greenberg
Facilitator of Women and Literacy Listserv

>>> tsticht at aznet.net 01/01/02 12:00PM >>> 
Research Note January 1, 2002 
Tom Sticht 

Democracy at work on internet lists archived 
by the National Institute for Literacy 

Internet lists like the National Literacy Advocacy (NLA) list provide a 
communication medium offering a forum for list members to participate in 
the democratic activity of expressing their views and engaging with 
others in discussions and debates about important issues confronting the 
field of adult education and literacy development. To learn more about 
the extent to which several different lists that deal with adult 
literacy education actually stimulate wide participation in this 
democratic process, I have examined eleven of the electronic lists that 
are archived by the National Institute for Literacy ( NIFL) to find out 
which lists post the most or the least messages and how much diversity 
of message posting there is. 

Following are my findings that include (1) the list name, (2) total 
messages posted from January 1to Dec 26, 2001, (3) the percentages of 
messages posted by the list moderator (LM), (4) by the top 3 posters, 
including the LM, and (5) the top six posters , including the LM. As a 
frame of reference, consider that a list that posts one message a day 
will post 365 messages in a year. 

12345 
ESL 1418 messages LM-05%, Top 3-15%, Top 6-22% 
NLA 1230 messages LM-11%, Top 3-22%, Top 6-36% 
Family 901 messages LM-23%, Top-3-31%, Top 6-39% 
Women 733 messages LM-35%, Top 3-52%, Top 6-65% 
Tech. 687 messages LM-12%, Top 3-27%, Top 6-33% 
EFF 520 messages LM-26%, Top 3-31%, Top 6-39% 
LD 503 messages LM-04%, Top 3-17%, Top 6-31% 
Work 366 messages LM-41%, Top 3-49%, Top 6-60% 
Povrace 358 messages LM-43%, Top 3-53%, Top 6-59% 
FOB 147 messages LM 29%, Top 3-47%, Top 6-61% 
Homeless 62 messages LM 60%, Top 3-66%, Top 6-75% 
Total messages-6925 

In 2001, the top three lists in terms of number of messages posted were 
the ESL, NLA and Family literacy lists, which together accounted for 
over half (51%) of the total messages in these 11 lists. The Women and 
Technology lists accounted for about 21% of the total messages, 
Equipped for the Future (EFF) and Learning Disabilities (LD) lists seem 
to group together and make up about 15% of the total messages. Workplace 
literacy and Poverty -Race literacy, appear to group together and 
account for about 10% of messages, while the combined Focus on Basics 
(FOB) and Homeless literacy lists are clearly the weakest lincs in 
terms of total messages, accounting for only 1% of messages. 
(rounding makes the total less than 100%). 

Though in some cases it was not too clear just who the list moderator 
(LM) was, based on what I could determine, there are major differences 
among the lists in the percentage of messages posted by the LM. The 
Learning Disabilities, ESL, NLA and Technology lists had the lowest 
percentages of messages posted by the LM, while the Women, Workplace, 
Povrace, and Homeless lists had the largest percentages of LM messages. 
The Family, EFF, and FOB lists were in the middle range of messages 
posted by the LM. In general, the greater the percentage of messages 
posted by the LM, the less the democratic process is being stimulated by 
the list. 

Illustrating how a few list members can influence the number of messages 
posted on a given list, when the LM and next two highest posters of 
messages are grouped into the top 3 message posters, we see that some 
two-thirds of the Homeless list messages are accounted for by three 
people. This means that only one-third of messages are being posted by 
others who are members of the list. The FOB, Povrace, Workplace, and 
Womens lists have about half their messages posted by three people. The 
Technology, Family and EFF lists have about 30% of their messages posted 
by three people, while the ESL, LD, and NLA lists have fewer than 
one-fifth of the list messages posted by three people. 

When three more top message posters are added to the first three, we 
find that the top 6 message posters accounted for only 22% of messages 
posted to the ESL list, meaning that 78 % of postings were by others 
than the top 6. I take this as an indicator of a higher degree of 
democratic participation by members of the ESL list. The NLA, Family, 
Technology, EFF, and LD lists show that the top 6 posters account for 31 
to 39% of postings, while the Workplace, Povrace, Women, and FOB lists 
show the top 6 posters accounting for about 60% of postings, and the 
Homeless list with the least diversity, and hence the lowest democratic 
participation, with the top 6 posters accounting for 75% of postings on 
the list (there were only 16 different authors for the Homeless list 
altogether). 

As a general trend, using the methodology given above, there appears to 
be a positive relationship between the number of postings and the 
diversity of postings, with the lists with the most postings having 
greater diversity than those with the least postings (setting aside the 
Womens list which goes against this trend). 

Using the lack of diversity of message posters as indicated by the 
percentage of messages posted by the top 6 posters as the indicator of 
the lincs strength in stimulating the democratic process, the Women, 
Workplace, Povrace, FOB and Homeless lists are the weakest lincs in the 
democratic process for 2001. 

NOTE: Dont hold me too closely for absolute accuracy of counts given 
above* looking at electronic lists fatigues my eyes rather quickly*but 
the numbers are probably pretty close. Also, I am aware of limitations 
in the methodology for indicating diversity/democracy used. But to a 
first approximation, I think the method used provides some interesting 
information. The lists are all archived at www.nifl.gov so others can 
make up their own methodology for diversity/ democracy if they so 
choose. 
_______________________________________________ 
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org 
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla 
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy 
http://literacytent.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020107/5ffe8d39/attachment.htm