NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/comp/acadfre/talk/4023

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 4.0 KB

Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:4023 ucb.english:85 talk.environment:5742 comp.org.eff.talk:9215
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!biosci!agate!soda.berkeley.edu!tom
From: [e-mail] (Tom Holub)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,ucb.english,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: [ucb.org.csua, et al.]  The Schedule of Classes
Message-ID: <1k1din$[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:03:51 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: inet
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Lines: 63
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wes Morgan) writes:
)
)hh>I listed many reasons why they should just mail me a
)hh>copy of it; they told me that they were not yet ready to release it to the
)hh>net.  They finally gave the reason that if they mailed it to me, it would
)hh>not be updated, but people would assume that it was, so they would be
)hh>misled.
)
)It may only be one reason, but it's a darned good one.  We had a similar
)situation here at UK.  The Registrar's Schedule of Classes is online via
)the UK Prime and IBM 3090 systems; those copies are updated twice daily.
)As an experiment, I grabbed a copy of it for my systems <with permission>
)and put a VERY specific disclaimer at the top which stated that this was
)a WORKING COPY, that NONE of the information was guaranteed, that it would
)NOT be updated, that it did NOT reflect the actual course situations, and
)that the students should verify the information with the updated versions
)on the Prime/IBM and the printed copies before registration.
)
)Needless to say, there were *dozens* of students who ignored that disclaimer,
)created their schedules, and *then* found that sections were closed or dropped.
)I took quite a bit of heat for that, despite my disclaimers; needless to say,
)the experiment was considered a failure.

Let me start this by saying that I feel that the Office of the Registrar
has handled this situation quite poorly from the start, and an
updated--or even non-updated--online Schedule of Classes is a good thing.

I agree that it's important that such information be kept as up-to-date
as possible; however, there's no fundamental difference between an
out-of-date online copy and the out-of-date paper copy I have right
here.  You can probably even check the last modified date on the online
copy, which is a plus.

Certainly, it should be prominently noted that the information is
valid as of mm/dd/yy and is not guaranteed in any way, just like it
is in the paper schedule.  hh failed to do this, which is bad.  If
it is properly noted, however, it is the student's responsibility to
make sure the information is correct, whether the list is on paper
or on a online.

)hh>The data belongs to _us_.  We paid for it, we should have access to it.  I
)hh>will not let them keep our data from us.  I believe that all information
)hh>which is normally availble on paper should be free and available in
)hh>electronic form.
)
)Yes, but with information comes a responsibility to ensure its accuracy.
)The Registrar handles that obligation in a proper manner; they have a sin-
)gle online copy, accessible from <apparently> many campus locations, and
)they don't have to worry about the problems inherent in maintaining mul-
)tiple, physically separate copies.

At the time, the information was accessible from very few campus locations.
hh first went to the Registrar and asked that the Schedule be opened
to campus-wide telnet; their failure to do this is inexcusable.

I would agree, though, that it's also inexcusable to circumvent normal
channels to impose your view of what is 'right' on an administration
of people who are paid to make these decisions.  hh was totally
right to bring his concerns and suggestions to the Registrar.  When
the Registrar disliked hh's suggestion, however, the proper way to
deal with the issue was to elevate it through the normal channels.
His actions were childish and counterproductive.
 -Tom