The paradox of listserv rudeness

After I remarked here on the notorious rudeness of one of the frequent posters to the R listserv, several commenters agreed with me (for example, Richard Morey wrote, “I’ve found that the R-help forums are legendary for the rude poster(s)”), but Nick Cox writes,

problems of clashing styles and expectations are generic to all technical lists that I’ve ever heard of that are not selective about membership. . . . The problem is a political question, not a technical one. The question is what to do when people, for whatever reason, do not follow the standards laid down for proper behaviour in a group, a discussion list, and one that they willingly join. . . . The solution being complained about is that some people — usually “senior” people on a list with recognisable expertise — are very firm in reminding posters of poor questions about the need to be much more precise about what their difficulty is, to read the documentation, etc. As this advice is very much part of the guidelines that people are asked to follow, it seems disingenuous, if not hypocritical, to complain when those people are trying their level best to maintain the standards of the list, exactly as advertised.

Cox’s comments are interesting–and they suggest that when I and others think the R posters are particularly rude, we just don’t have much experience with large listservs–but I actually want to take this in a different direction.

In my previous entry, I wrote, “I think it’s ok for you to just post your questions and ignore that one [rude] person if he replies to you.” Personally, I find rudeness from strangers unpleasant, even on a listserv, but I recognize that’s just the way things are, and that’s why I advise people to post to the list anyway.

Why is rudeness so upsetting, and how does it relate to altruism?

The more interesting question, perhaps, is why does this sort of rudeness hurt so much? Even though, as a logical matter, we should be able to ignore this rudeness, it actually hurts enough to dissuade people from posting.

The other aspect of listserv rudeness that intrigues me is that posting answers to a listserv is basically an act of altruism. People don’t get paid to do it, they don’t get academic credit, and in fact if they’re rude they don’t even get a lot of respect for it (at least, not as much respect as they might deserve, given their contributions). So, it’s not enough of an answer to describe rude posters as assholes–if they were real assholes, they wouldn’t be posting at all, right? They’re sort of like those legendary caring-but-firm teachers who put a huge amount of effort into helping each individual student, but show it in this crusty, sarcastic, tough-guy fashion. I guess I can see, following Cox’s argument above, that rude posters are serving the greater good by hurting people’s feelings. I just think it’s impressive that people would be so altruistic as to do this.

P.S. Posting on a blog is similar but less altruistic. For example, yes, I answer people’s questions here but I also get a chance to promote my own work, which I don’t see being done so much on the R listserv.

P.P.S. Given all the comments below, I fear I wasn’t being clear enough in my own views here. I am being serious above, not sarcastic. Although certain listserv posters can be abrasive and even rude, I really do feel they are altruistic in providing all this free help on the list. Stylistic issues aside, I think that people who give help in this way are performing a valuable service, and I appreciate this, both for myself (on the occasions that I use the list) and on behalf of students and others whom I refer to the list.

16 thoughts on “The paradox of listserv rudeness

  1. To assume that people who answer questions on listservs do so out of altruism is to overlook the utility gained by being perceived as an expert or super user. If I raise my utility by charging cash to solve problems and another guy raises his utility by getting "expert points" and "tech cred" in a listserv, which of us is altruistic?

    It could be that some folks use rudeness as a way of signaling that they are way to smart and too much inside the guts of R to answer a silly RTFM question. They thus attempt to remind everyone how much tech cred they have through their smugness. Thus raising their utility. (think of kids "piling on" to pick on the fat kid, or crabs in a bucket)

    Or they could just be dicks… hard to know.

    -JD

  2. some people — usually "senior" people on a list with recognisable expertise — are very firm in reminding posters of poor questions about the need to be much more precise about what their difficulty is, to read the documentation, etc.

    This doesn't fully account for the rude behavior of some posters to the R listserv. It doesn't come close.

  3. I'm not sure that all listservs are equal. You don't get the same level of rudeness on Statalist, for example. I wonder if that is because the experts on Statalist are not (AFAIK) involved in its development. If you're an expert on the R list you probably have been involved in developing packages if not the core system itself, so it's more like a personal affront when people don't bother to read the documentation that you have taken so much time and trouble to prepare for them (free!). Or even worse declare that they've found a "bug" in your software, which is actually their mistake or a feature.

  4. I think that there is JD Long got it right in the case of the rude person on the R mailing list that we are all talking about but no one dares name. His responses, although often very informative, are more often awash with contempt for the great unwashed masses.

    In this case it just strikes me as a strategy to make yourself feel superior. He is not altruistic in the sense that Andrew meant it.

    Over the years many have complained, on and off the list, the R world seems to be divided between those who think that he's right to do this, and those who get pretty riled up about it.

    However, the former group miss the point that it is actually possible to tell the ignorant and clueless to RTFM, but politely. I think that educating new posters to post responsibly is a reasonable goal and should be pursued vigorously by the expert users, but it can be done politely. But it isn't. Even admonishing them to do their homework first before posting can be done in a friendly way. And if someone persists in asking questions with easily found answers, just stop replying.

    Another thing that expert users forget is beginning, and even intermediate, users don't know how to find information quickly enough in the manuals. The R help pages can be pretty damn inscrutable; you have to have seen a lot of them to know what to expect and how to deal with it.

    But I have to admit that the surge of superiority one feels in putting down a lesser being is priceless ;).

  5. No, I think the rude poster is altruistic. He'd have just as much status–even more, I think–if he refrained from posting, or if he were to post only occasionally on deep matters. By answering people's questions, he's providing a service.

    I admit, though, that answering 50 easy questions with "read the manual" is less intellectual effort than answering 1 hard question seriously.

  6. Dave has a really good point when he commented above about the vested personal interest that a developer has vs. a typical super user w.r.t. comments on a list. I have worked with a number of highly technical folks who turn defensive when I review their code and ask clarifying questions. I suspect that some R contributers are like that except jacked up a level because of the flame war tendency that Kevembuangga linked to.

  7. The rude poster to the R-help list does not appear to be altruistic. Rather, he (if it's who I think we're talking about) is a narcissist. I'm ok with ripping people who have clearly not read the posting guidelines ("how do I import data from an rdbms" etc), but oftentimes it seems this person is merely fanning his feathers. I wonder how many people have been chased back to SAS or Stata because they can call a help desk and not be belittled for no reason (or at all.)

    And if he is reading this thread: Just let others do the helping. Your role in the R project I think gives you a pass on the service end of things.

  8. As the one who inadvertently started this, I will add just two comments.

    As Statalist has been mentioned, I should say that the difference from the R list is not nearly as great as implied.

    It's true that Stata is a commercial product, but also true that many Stata users have contributed both to that product and to extra packages that have been developed. In fact, the total amount of Stata code in the public domain now exceeds that produced by StataCorp. Several of these Stata programmers are among the most active members of Statalist. So, quite often, it really is users' code that is being discussed on Statalist.

    I am pleased, as its FAQ maintainer, to hear that Statalist has the reputation of being more polite than the R list. There have also been occasional kerfuffles about quite how friendly it is to new members.

    But on the main point, I get the impression here that the rudeness on the R list being complained about is one of tone, as no one has put in evidence crude language or personal attacks. People are inferring disdain or contempt.

    Incidentally, some of the contributors to this blog make remarks that would be considered out of order on Statalist!

  9. When I was a kid, I'd sometimes ask my dad how a word was spelled, and he'd usually reply "Look it up in the dictionary." He wasn't being altruistic, he was being an asshole.

  10. I've been on large listservs since around 1990, and I was also a contributor to various usenet newsgroups for several years. I think there might be a culture difference at work here between the way Americans and Brits communicate. Americans are in general more polite than Brits (no I don't have any data to back this up. It's just my personal experience and opinion). Although most Brits in my experience are friendly, Americans pay more attention to the social niceties (even if they don't like you). Combining that with the culture of terseness of many technical listservs such ar r-help, and the tendency of some academics to not suffer fools gladly, can lead to an unpleasant experience for newbies. I tell my students NEVER to post a question to r-help without asking me first. I'm big enough to take the slings and arrows. They will probably get upset if they are shot to bits. I've come across many unpleasant academics in my time, as an undergrad, graduate student, postdoc, and now as an academic myself (Even I can be unpleasant on a bad day.). It's pretty common in the Australian and British systems. The best attitude is to not take it personally, thank the person for their excellent advice, and step back and marvel at the quality, quantity and intensity of the abuse!

  11. That one person is truly amazing. I once got a reply from him "… [details removed]". Hmmmmph. Of course, other people on the list *did* answer the question.

    But the overall mood on R-help is curt.

    But try SAS-L. A very different experience. Almost no one gets rude answers, and some experts give long and very helpful replies. On statistics, Dale McLerran and David Cassell will often write answers that go beyond the question.

    A very different (and much better) experience.

  12. Hello,

    I hope you are all well.

    On behalf of all Brits everywhere on technical help lists, perhaps I may be allowed a few words of explanation?

    If it seems that we are terse, that is just because we are trying to be concise. We thought that you are all busy people.

    If it seems that we lack social niceties, that is just because we were trying to answer your question, not indulge in social chitter-chatter or flim-flam. We thought that was the purpose of technical help lists.

    Of course, the British have lots to apologise for. Perhaps you have seen in that nice Mr Gibson's The Patriot how awful we were. Even in statistics Francis Galton, Karl Pearson and Ronald Fisher were all somewhat obnoxious much of the time. And then there was that rather nasty person Voldemort, of whom we had better not speak, as there are rumours that he is really alive and active on the R help list. (No one dares say his name, because of the terrible things that might happen!)

    I do hope that clears a few things up.

    Have a nice day!

  13. On behalf of all Brits everywhere on technical help lists, perhaps I may be allowed a few words of explanation?

    If it seems that we are terse, that is just because we are trying to be concise. We thought that you are all busy people.

    If it seems that we lack social niceties, that is just because we were trying to answer your question, not indulge in social chitter-chatter or flim-flam. We thought that was the purpose of technical help lists.

    Of course, the British have lots to apologise for. Perhaps you have seen in that nice Mr Gibson's The Patriot how awful we were. Even in statistics Francis Galton, Karl Pearson and Ronald Fisher were all somewhat obnoxious much of the time. And then there was that rather nasty person Voldemort, of whom we had better not speak, as there are rumours that he is really alive and active on the R help list. (No one dares say his name, because of the terrible things that might happen!)

    Yeah, and your cricket team sucks, too! :-) As an Australian, I wish to apologize for bizarre accents, everyone being called "Bruce" except for the "sheilas", the crocodile hunter, being so bad at football that we had to invent TWO games (Australian Rules, Rugby League) to compensate (which almost nobody else plays), shrimps on the barbie, Mel Gibson, Clive James, Germaine Greer, Robert Hughes, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, and any rude posts on r-help by me or anyone else.

Comments are closed.