RFD: sci.med.ob-gyn moderated 
Author Message
 RFD: sci.med.ob-gyn moderated

                          REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
                          ----------------------
This is a formal Request for Discussion. Please distribute it on all
platforms that might be interested. This is not a call for votes--do not
try to vote now. This RFD is being posted in compliance with the guidelines set
in the "How to create a new Usenet Newsgroup" FAQ regularly
posted to news.announce.newgroups.  Please refer to this article
if you have any questions about the Newsgroup creation.

You are strongly encouraged to participate in the *discussion* about the
possible creation of the newsgroup "sci.med.obgyn", in the
sole newsgroup intended especially for this purpose: news.groups. All
follow-ups have been directed to news.groups. Please stick to this Usenet
convention and post your contributions to our discussion in that newsgroup.
Please do not post or cross-post your discussion contributions to other
newsgroups.

Proposed Group:    sci.med.obgyn
Status:            moderated
Distribution:      world-wide


Proposed Newsgroup line:
sci.med.obgyn      Discussion of the practice of obstetrics and gynecology

CHARTER
-------
sci.med.obgyn will be a moderated discussion group on all
aspects of the practice of obstetrics and gyhecology. This can include,
but is not limited to case consultation, distribution of new information
in the specialty, and discussion of the practice environment.  This
newsgroup is NOT for patients seeking profesional advice.  There are
already other newsgroups for this type of discussion. (ie, sci.med and
misc.kids.pregnancy)

The intended audience for this proposed group would be the physician
who practices obstetrics and gynecology and the ancillary personnel who
provide health care for women.

RATIONALE
---------

The international ob-gyn community is now becoming more intersted in the use
of computers to advance their specialty.  The ob-gyn-l mailing list has
become very successful and the subscibers have expressed interest in the
creation of a newsgroup to continue the discussion of topics relevant to
the practicing ob-gyn.  The existing newsgroups sci.med and
misc.kids.pregnancy are not suitable for this purpose due to high volume
posting and limited scope of discussion, respectively.

PROCEDURE
---------

Please post any responses to this message to only to the Usenet
Newsgroup "news.groups."   ALL discussion about
the merits of this proposal should appear on news.groups.

Unless the discussion indicates a need to resubmit a new RFD, a call
for votes (CFV) will be posted approximately four weeks after the
posting of this RFD.  Please do not post any votes now.  When the CFV
is posted, instructions will be given on how to mail your votes to the
independent vote counter.

DISTRIBUTION
------------

This RFD was (cross)-posted to the following Newsgroups and mailing lists:

news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, sci.med, misc.kids.pregnancy,
misc.kids, and soc.women

After the RFD has appeared in news.announce.newgroups a copy will
be distributed to ob-gyn-l.

When Call For Votes (CFV) is issued, it will also be cross-posted in these
groups.
--

 Listowner: ob-gyn-l, Editor: e-jog (electronic journ ob/gyn)
 Baylor College of Medicine, Dept of OB/Gyn
 One Baylor Plaza / Houston, Texas 77030                (713) 798 7517



Tue, 30 Sep 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 RFD: sci.med.ob-gyn moderated
Here is yet another proposal for a moderated sci.med.* newsgroup from the
Baylor College of Medicine -- the third in as many months, if memory serves.

The RFD as posted absolutely fails to address the question, "Why is this
newsgroup proposed as moderated?"  The proponent has suggested himself as
moderator without explaining his qualifications; he has not outlined the
criteria under which posts will be evaluated for posting or rejection;
and he has omitted any sort of rationale or justification for the moderated
status of the group.

I believe this is because he knows he CANNOT justify moderating the group
to the wide Usenet population.  Don't let this one sneak by you, voters.

in his group once it's created.

--
Dave Filippi

--



Fri, 03 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 RFD: sci.med.ob-gyn moderated


Quote:

>> Proposed Group:    sci.med.obgyn
>> Status:            moderated


>> Proposed Newsgroup line:
>> sci.med.obgyn      Discussion of the practice of obstetrics and gynecology

>YES!  I would have appreciated this newsgroup for the simple fact that there
>are a lot of questions I do not ask my OB/GYN simply because I either forget
>at the time of my visits or because I don't feel comfortable.  In this age of
>HMOs you can not always "shop" for a doctor but rather have to settle.  I consider
>myself an intelligent person and often research questions (i.e. my pregnancy)
>on my own but it would be helpful to have a professional and other women to
>converse with regarding questions in a more anonymous fashion.

Take another careful look at that Request For Discussion, Celine!  In the
newsgroup as proposed, not only would your post be off-charter, but Mr.
Klein as moderator would reject it, and nobody would ever see it.


you'd prefer to see an unmoderated newsgroup.  Especially you soc.women types,
who ought to be able to see through this kind of patriarchical power grab.

--
Dave Filippi

--



Fri, 03 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 RFD: sci.med.ob-gyn moderated
-*------

Quote:

> The RFD as posted absolutely fails to address the question,
> "Why is this newsgroup proposed as moderated?" ...

I can think of several noisy reasons why one might want
a new sci.med.* group to be moderated:

   scientologists posting on e-meters
   circumcision repetition ad nauseum
   Catholic morality by Kellmeyer

Quote:
> ...  Especially you soc.women types, who ought to be able
> to see through this kind of patriarchical power grab.

Are these the same soc.women types who broke off and created
soc.feminism?  Soc.feminism is a moderated group where feminist
topics can be discussed without wading through the noise of:

   "me too" postings
   anti-feminist venom
   related noise

It is one of the better newsgroups.

Russell

--
"Why does our innate subjective spacing of qualities accord so well with the
functionally relevant groupings in nature as to make our inductions come out
right? ...  Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic
but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing."   --  W. V. O. Quine



Fri, 03 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 RFD: sci.med.ob-gyn moderated

Quote:

>-*------


>> The RFD as posted absolutely fails to address the question,
>> "Why is this newsgroup proposed as moderated?" ...
>I can think of several noisy reasons why one might want
>a new sci.med.* group to be moderated:
>   scientologists posting on e-meters
>   circumcision repetition ad nauseum
>   Catholic morality by Kellmeyer

I have made several posts on catholic morality, but they've all been
to the Catholic listserv (can't remember it off-hand, since it's been
a few months). Have you been cross-posting them here????? Or perhaps
you're referring to a different Kellmeyer. My apologies if the latter.

Quote:
>Russell

Umm - Russelll - I thought Geffrey explictly stated that the RFD was
supposed to be discussed _elsewhere_.....

Quote:

>--
>"Why does our innate subjective spacing of qualities accord so well with the
>functionally relevant groupings in nature as to make our inductions come out
>right? ...  Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic
>but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing."   --  W. V. O. Quine

Steve
--

"It is a very great poverty to decide that a child must die
that you may live as you wish"           --Mother Theresa


Fri, 03 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 RFD: sci.med.ob-gyn moderated


* Here is yet another proposal for a moderated sci.med.* newsgroup from the
* Baylor College of Medicine -- the third in as many months, if memory serves.
*
* The RFD as posted absolutely fails to address the question, "Why is this
* newsgroup proposed as moderated?"  The proponent has suggested himself as
* moderator without explaining his qualifications; he has not outlined the
* criteria under which posts will be evaluated for posting or rejection;
* and he has omitted any sort of rationale or justification for the moderated
* status of the group.
*
* I believe this is because he knows he CANNOT justify moderating the group
* to the wide Usenet population.  Don't let this one sneak by you, voters.

* in his group once it's created.

The ob-gyn community has expressed a desire to discuss topics relevant to
the practice of ob-gyn.  As you can see from the postings in sci.med, many
people use the forum to ask medical questions.  This is counter productive
to a healthy exchange of information between ob-gyn's.  Many would simply
not read the group and the discussion would be no different than that which
appears in misc.kids.pregnancy or sci.med...

Thanks for your interest..

......................................................................
                                             _______
 Geffrey H. Klein, MD                       |       |\

 Listowner: ob-gyn-l                        |       | |
 Editor: e-jog (electronic journ ob/gyn)    |        \_\______
 Baylor College of Medicine, Dept of OB/Gyn |                 \
 One Baylor Plaza                  _________|                  |\
 Houston, Texas 77030              \                           | |
 (713) 798 7500                     \.                         \ |
                                     \.           Houston    _/ \
                                      \.   __            *_/  _/
                                       \__/  \           /  _/
                                         \__/ \        _/  /
                                               \      |  _/
                                                \.    / |
                                                  \___\ /
                                                   \___\
......................................................................



Fri, 03 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 RFD: sci.med.ob-gyn moderated
I thought the follow-ups for this topic were supposed to be
set to news.groups only!  Please edit the Newsgroups: line!
Thanks!

<whole bunch of arguments snipped>



Sat, 04 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 RFD: sci.med.ob-gyn moderated

Quote:
>>YES!  I would have appreciated this newsgroup for the simple fact that there
>>are a lot of questions I do not ask my OB/GYN simply because I either forget
>>at the time of my visits or because I don't feel comfortable.  In this age of
>>HMOs you can not always "shop" for a doctor but rather have to settle.  I consider
>>myself an intelligent person and often research questions (i.e. my pregnancy)
>>on my own but it would be helpful to have a professional and other women to
>>converse with regarding questions in a more anonymous fashion.

>Take another careful look at that Request For Discussion, Celine!  In the
>newsgroup as proposed, not only would your post be off-charter, but Mr.
>Klein as moderator would reject it, and nobody would ever see it.


>you'd prefer to see an unmoderated newsgroup.  Especially you soc.women types,
>who ought to be able to see through this kind of patriarchical power grab.

Oh, please stop right there.  I agree that the sci.med.obgyn group should
be unmoderated, and we have every right to disagree and debate this point.
But let's please leave the male-bashing to soc.feminists.  Mr. Klein has
his idea of the group, and other people have theirs.  It has nothing at
all to do with gender roles, balance of power, or any other feminist
claptrap.  Leave it out.

--Bradley J. Wilson
--Kalamazoo College
--Kalamazoo Michigan



Sat, 04 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 RFD: sci.med.ob-gyn moderated

* I'd like to lend my support to the proposal for a moderated group, for ob-gyn
* practitioners.  Before I get flamed for "supporting the patriarchical
* whatever", can we take a step back, and look at the purpose of such a group,
* without considering the "content"?  Think of it as a group for the
members of a
* certain profession to discuss the issues, research, developments of that
* profession, much as they would at a professional conference, but without the
* travel expense.  Would they not have the right, in such a forum, not to be
* inundated with questions that should be asked on one's own doctor, not to
* mention the circumcision flame wars, etc.?
*
* My perspective?  I read several mail-lists for librarians, related to the
* practice of OUR profession.  Many of these lists, particularly one for medical
* librarians, are inundated by questions that could very easily be answered by a
* quick call to a local library reference desk.  The feeling when this
happens is
* very much as though someone walked into a panel discussion at a professional
* meeting, and asked "Do you have the latest Stephen King book?".
*
* Moderated doesn't mean others can't read the list, but that postings will be
* restricted to those appropriate to the PURPOSE OF THE GROUP.

I agree.. that seems to be the point of the newsgroup..  The intended
audience would stay away if inundated with questions from patients..

......................................................................
                                             _______
 Geffrey H. Klein, MD                       |       |\

 Listowner: ob-gyn-l                        |       | |
 Editor: e-jog (electronic journ ob/gyn)    |        \_\______
 Baylor College of Medicine, Dept of OB/Gyn |                 \
 One Baylor Plaza                  _________|                  |\
 Houston, Texas 77030              \                           | |
 (713) 798 7500                     \.                         \ |
                                     \.           Houston    _/ \
                                      \.   __            *_/  _/
                                       \__/  \           /  _/
                                         \__/ \        _/  /
                                               \      |  _/
                                                \.    / |
                                                  \___\ /
                                                   \___\
......................................................................



Sat, 04 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 RFD: sci.med.ob-gyn moderated

* >The ob-gyn community has expressed a desire to discuss topics relevant to
* >the practice of ob-gyn.  As you can see from the postings in sci.med, many
* >people use the forum to ask medical questions.  This is counter productive
* >to a healthy exchange of information between ob-gyn's.  Many would simply
* >not read the group and the discussion would be no different than that which
* >appears in misc.kids.pregnancy or sci.med...
*
* Okay, how about two groups then: sci.med.obgyn.discussion and
*                                  sci.med.obgyn.questions  ?

This is a great suggestion..  Perhaps as an exchange for the opportunity to
discuss the specialty in a moderated forum, ob-gyn doctors would step over to
an unmoderated forum to answer questions..

The RFD could be modified in this fashion if there is support..

Geffrey H. Klein, MD                      



Sat, 04 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 RFD: sci.med.ob-gyn moderated

Quote:
>The ob-gyn community has expressed a desire to discuss topics relevant to
>the practice of ob-gyn.  As you can see from the postings in sci.med, many
>people use the forum to ask medical questions.  This is counter productive
>to a healthy exchange of information between ob-gyn's.  Many would simply
>not read the group and the discussion would be no different than that which
>appears in misc.kids.pregnancy or sci.med...

Okay, how about two groups then: sci.med.obgyn.discussion and
                                 sci.med.obgyn.questions  ?


Sat, 04 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 RFD: sci.med.ob-gyn moderated

: * Okay, how about two groups then: sci.med.obgyn.discussion and
: *                                  sci.med.obgyn.questions  ?

: This is a great suggestion..  Perhaps as an exchange for the opportunity to
: discuss the specialty in a moderated forum, ob-gyn doctors would step over to
: an unmoderated forum to answer questions..

: The RFD could be modified in this fashion if there is support..

I like this idea better than just a providers only newsgroup.  They could
even both be moderated, because there is a lot of garbage that I think
would best be kept out of a patient questions newsgroup.  Things like
MAKE MONEY FAST, the endless flamewars, etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

        Shrine of the {*filter*}netic Madonna BBS  213-766-1356
"The board that Hates Rush Limbaugh *and* Newt Gingrich With A Passion"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Mon, 06 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 RFD: sci.med.ob-gyn moderated
I'd very much like to see some discussion forum, especially for
generalized questions, comments, etc. that would be posed by the public
(me being one of them).

After reading the thread, I'd say there will always be those who are
highly sensitive about any moderation in this {*filter*}space environment.
After all, it is a decidely public forum. On the other hand
(pro-moderation), internet history proves that there is a tendency of some
who feel compelled to tease, incite or attack almost any newsgroup related
to woman's topics. (Just lurk in talk.{*filter*} for a little while.) So if
such a newsgroup were created, there's a very good chance many readers and
posters, (if they were of less sensitive stock) would have to deal with
some posts which are likely to be less polite than preferred.

Altough a moderated newsgroup would seem an obvious alternative, it is a
tremendous amount of work. An alternative to forming a moderated newsgroup
could be forming a members-only mailing list. However, administrating a
mailing list is not much less work. But for a group of professionals, that
might be the best option. As a professional group, hiring an administrator
would probably foot the bill nicely. Just lease a server and line and
there you are!

As one of the public, I'd still prefer a newsgroup, for however long it
lasts. I'd like to see it start out unmoderated, though. Although I think
the chances of either remaining in their originally intended state are
extremely slim, they'd erode in different ways.

The moderated one would probably require a lot of work from someone or a
few folks. How long could the moderators be counted on to be there doing
their volunteer jobs? Years? And moderators are generally recipients of
much mail from folks who don't like being moderated in a public arena.

Sadly, the unmoderated one would probably dissolve from relevant
discussions into something as useless as most of talk.{*filter*} in no time
flat. However, even though chances are that it would be a mere shadow of
it's originally intended self, there it would be, for as long as the
internet lasts.

--
Desiree



Sun, 12 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 RFD: sci.med.ob-gyn moderated

Quote:

>I'd very much like to see some discussion forum, especially for
>generalized questions, comments, etc. that would be posed by the public
>(me being one of them).

>After reading the thread, I'd say there will always be those who are
>highly sensitive about any moderation in this {*filter*}space environment.
>After all, it is a decidely public forum. On the other hand
>(pro-moderation), internet history proves that there is a tendency of some
>who feel compelled to tease, incite or attack almost any newsgroup related
>to woman's topics. (Just lurk in talk.{*filter*} for a little while.) So if
>such a newsgroup were created, there's a very good chance many readers and
>posters, (if they were of less sensitive stock) would have to deal with
>some posts which are likely to be less polite than preferred.

I think the idea behind the moderation of this group is not so much polite-
ness as maintaining a professional level of conversation.  Others have
pointed out that sci.med and misc.kids.pregnancy serve as public forums
for asking health questions; I don't think it's unreasonable for physicians
to want a place to discuss professional issues with a low signal to  noise
ratio.  Most of the physicians I know (I work for a medical society) are
somewhat overcommitted already between their practices, committee work
at hospital, at medical societies, volunteer work in the community, and
the demands of continuing education.  They have to be very selective about
what they read.

This group would probably be especially useful for rural practitioners who
often suffer from isolation from the larger medical community.  The
opportunity to keep in touch and consult with colleagues could be very
beneficial to both them and their patients.

Quote:
>Altough a moderated newsgroup would seem an obvious alternative, it is a
>tremendous amount of work. An alternative to forming a moderated newsgroup
>could be forming a members-only mailing list. However, administrating a
>mailing list is not much less work. But for a group of professionals, that
>might be the best option. As a professional group, hiring an administrator
>would probably foot the bill nicely. Just lease a server and line and
>there you are!

The proponent of this group already runs a mailing for ob/gyns.  I believe
the reason for this proposal was the growth of that list.  

Quote:
>As one of the public, I'd still prefer a newsgroup, for however long it
>lasts. I'd like to see it start out unmoderated, though. Although I think
>the chances of either remaining in their originally intended state are
>extremely slim, they'd erode in different ways.

The proponent indicated that if there was interest, he would not be adverse
to adding an unmoderated group to his proposal.  The two groups would have
different purposes and different target audiences -- I can see nothing wrong
with that.

Quote:
>The moderated one would probably require a lot of work from someone or a
>few folks. How long could the moderators be counted on to be there doing
>their volunteer jobs? Years? And moderators are generally recipients of
>much mail from folks who don't like being moderated in a public arena.

Since the proponent is already running a mailing list and he is also the
proposed moderator, he probably has some idea of the amount of work
involved.  In working with physicians, I have found that they are usually
very dedicated to their areas of interest.

Quote:
>Sadly, the unmoderated one would probably dissolve from relevant
>discussions into something as useless as most of talk.{*filter*} in no time
>flat. However, even though chances are that it would be a mere shadow of
>it's originally intended self, there it would be, for as long as the
>internet lasts.

By all means encourage Dr. Klein to add an unmoderated group to his
proposal; I don't see any reason for that to include denying a request
for a useful group for professionals.  In the end that will result in
improved care for patients as physicians have a opportunity to consult
with and learn from each other.

Jamie Eimerman



Tue, 14 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 RFD: sci.med.ob-gyn moderated

The proponent for sci.med.ob-gyn has had to go out of town
suddenly and has withdrawn his RFD.

Kate Gregory, mentor, sci.med.ob-gyn



Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 21 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. 2nd RFD: sci.med.emergency moderated

2. 2nd RFD: sci.med.emergency moderated

3. RFD: sci.med.orthopedics moderated

4. RFD: sci.med.veterinary moderated

5. RFD: sci.med.midwifery moderated

6. RFD: sci.med.pediatrics moderated

7. RFD: sci.med.obgyn moderated

8. RFD: sci.med.plasticsurgery moderated

9. RFD: sci.med.plasticsurgery moderated

10. RFD: sci.med.obgyn moderated

11. RFD: sci.med.orthopedics moderated

12. RFD: sci.med.orthopedics moderated


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software