Re: [seul-edu] Summing up our discussion so far

[Roger Dingledine <arma@mit.edu>]

Ok, I'll take the bait. I agree with your conclusion, but I disagree
with everything leading up to it. ;)

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 07:23:51AM -0700, Prevett, Larry wrote:
> I was thinking about this, too, but I finally came to the conclusion
> that redundancy is a good thing. It's not a bad thing. It's a good thing.
> I realize this runs counter to everyone else's thinking, so I'd like to 
> explain, and see what people think.

When two sites do the same thing well, I think that's great. I can send
people to either of them and they will get a good answer. But if one
site does it well and one site does it poorly, then I will want to send
people to the one that does it well. In this sense, redundancy is bad --
I want to emphasize the one that does it well and deemphasize the other.

If the good one isn't well-known, and people only know bad ones, people
will unnecessarily start new projects to make a good one. Their efforts
might be better spent elsewhere.

Redundancy can sometimes be a good thing, but we need to find at least one
good site in each category and publicize it so people know "the current
best solution". They can then choose to make a better one --- that's fine
too. Having all the information and choosing to be redundant anyway is
great; being redundant because you don't even realize it is bad.

> When people see something repeated over and over again it's more
> likely to stick in their minds as something important.

Very true. But if they go to a site that claims to have the answer to
their question and it gives the wrong one, and they go away thinking
they've got the answer, that's really no good. Perhaps more commonly,
a site that purports to be "The Linux in Education site" but doesn't
answer that question might lead the reader to believe that nobody in
the community has addressed his question yet.

Or from another angle, if people see conflicting answers everywhere they
look, they may quickly get frustrated and want to drop the whole thing.

> I don't think it's a problem that there is duplication in some tasks.
> Besides, as others have mentioned, the effort put into a task is
> always of more benefit to the one that does the job. People,
> especially younger folks, need to be encouraged to get involved and
> _do_ things, not just talk about them. I think an environment with  
> a healthy dose of redundancy is more likely to allow someone to find
> a niche and get involved.

I think this is a fine idea in principle. But the problem with the Linux
in education world right now is that there are many completely unsolved
and unaddressed problems, yet new volunteers show up, don't see *any*
solved problems, and start solving the ones that we've already got a
good start on.

> The whole technology of the internet was built around the idea of
> redundancy - different routes to the same location. So if one site
> goes down, or one 'flavor' of a thing doesn't really grab you then
> you try something else instead of just giving up.

I don't buy this comparison. They only implemented one IP protocol,
one TCP protocol, etc. The Internet design has builtin redundancy at
a higher level. There were competing ideas, sure, but that's different
from building eighteen different Internets at once, or starting your own
internet protocols from scratch in 1988 because you hadn't heard of the
"other" Internet.

> I also expect there would be a lot of cross-pollination between
> sites. It's a good way to interact with your own material.
> For example, we started stuffing software into the wiki, then
> Les did a great job of rendering list in a better environment (at
> least I think that's what happened. Les?) That's not a conflict  
> in my mind, that's an example of something working.

Agreed. I think we've been learning how to 'get it right' lately. But
the "cross-pollination" between the wiki and Les's app index was all
within seul/edu. What about the application lists sitting in Freeduc,
on linuxforkids, in Debian Jr? For all I know, k12os has one too -- I
mean, they have a distribution, right?

We're starting to communicate with other projects, but there's a lot of
cross-pollination still needed.

> So, finally, I think the extent of the organization of SchoolForge
> should be something similar to what Roger summarized: a well-planned
> collection of existing links and needed resources that people can   
> access and get involved with. The nature of the links should be  
> clearly (but briefly!) stated so that people know what to expect from
> that link. That will give everyone breathing room to continue to
> explore, develop, and get involved.

Yes. I think one of the roles of Schoolforge is to emphasize the good
sites in each niche. Giving people this information will limit redundancy
in each niche.

I'm pretty sure that means I'm agreeing with you. :)

--Roger