diff --git a/docs/command-script.json b/docs/command-script.json index 91a4068..64d1ea9 100644 --- a/docs/command-script.json +++ b/docs/command-script.json @@ -7,10 +7,6 @@ "command": "html_activity_from_ranking", "replace": "<--html_activity_from_ranking-->" }, - { "format": "html", - "command": "html_threads_replies_to_ranking", - "replace": "<--html_threads_replies_to_ranking-->" - }, { "format": "html", "command": "html_threads_initiated_from_ranking", "replace": "<--html_threads_initiated_from_ranking-->" @@ -18,15 +14,19 @@ { "format": "html", "command": "html_threads_activity_threads_initiated_avg_ranking", "replace": "<--html_threads_activity_threads_initiated_avg_ranking-->" - }, + }, + { "format": "html", + "command": "html_threads_replies_to_ranking", + "replace": "<--html_threads_replies_to_ranking-->" + }, + { "format": "html", + "command": "html_threads_replies_to_ranking", + "replace": "<--html_threads_replies_to_ranking-->" + }, { "format": "html", "command": "html_threads_initiated_replies_avg_ranking", "replace": "<--html_threads_initiated_replies_avg_ranking-->" }, - { "format": "html", - "command": "html_msgs_threads_replies", - "replace": "<--html_msgs_threads_replies-->" - }, { "format": "html", "command": "html_replies_ranking", "replace": "<--html_replies_ranking-->" @@ -35,9 +35,12 @@ "command": "html_replies_avg_ranking", "replace": "<--html_replies_avg_ranking-->" }, + { "format": "html", + "command": "html_threads_ranking", + "replace": "<--html_threads_ranking-->" + }, { "format": "html", "command": "html_threads_ranking_year", "replace": "<--html_threads_ranking_year-->" - } - + } ] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/docs/figures/figure_0.png b/docs/figures/figure_0.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000..21ea632 Binary files /dev/null and b/docs/figures/figure_0.png differ diff --git a/docs/figures/figure_1.png b/docs/figures/figure_1.png index 21ea632..a67cecd 100644 Binary files a/docs/figures/figure_1.png and b/docs/figures/figure_1.png differ diff --git a/docs/figures/figure_2.png b/docs/figures/figure_2.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a246bdf Binary files /dev/null and b/docs/figures/figure_2.png differ diff --git a/docs/figures/figure_3.png b/docs/figures/figure_3.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000..212e50c Binary files /dev/null and b/docs/figures/figure_3.png differ diff --git a/docs/figures/figure_4.png b/docs/figures/figure_4.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2048068 Binary files /dev/null and b/docs/figures/figure_4.png differ diff --git a/docs/figures/figure_5.png b/docs/figures/figure_5.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b34aec6 Binary files /dev/null and b/docs/figures/figure_5.png differ diff --git a/docs/figures/figure_6.png b/docs/figures/figure_6.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4ff478d Binary files /dev/null and b/docs/figures/figure_6.png differ diff --git a/docs/index.html b/docs/index.html index 82ad734..2635fc9 100644 --- a/docs/index.html +++ b/docs/index.html @@ -6,9 +6,6 @@ Nettime Survey (1995-2016) - @@ -17,9 +14,9 @@

Nettime Survey (1995-2016)

Synopsis

-

While contemporary social media have been critiqued for their ephemeral effects on activist politics, the mailing list has proven an enduring venue for geographically dispersed communities to participate remain in dialogue over the course of decades. Founded in Amsterdam in 1995, the Nettime mailing list (http://nettime.org) has played host to a community of activists and media artists and help to launch or establish the careers of a number of prominent new media theorists and Internet critics. Established in an era prior to the corporatization of the Web, over the course of its twenty first years (1995-2016), Nettime has continued to discuss the Web in terms of the radical political possibilities with which it was imagined in its ‘salad days’.

+

While contemporary social media have been critiqued for their ephemeral effects on activist politics, the mailing list has proven an enduring venue for geographically dispersed communities to participate remain in dialog over the course of decades. Founded in Amsterdam in 1995, the Nettime mailing list (http://nettime.org) has played host to a community of activists and media artists and help to launch or establish the careers of a number of prominent new media theorists and Internet critics. Established in an era prior to the corporatization of the Web, over the course of its twenty first years (1995-2016), Nettime has continued to discuss the Web in terms of the radical political possibilities with which it was imagined in its ‘salad days’.

This project aims to trace the evolution of Nettime (more precisely nettime-l) through a survey of its mailing list's archive (http://nettime.org/archives.php).

-

Questions

+

Survey

During our quick investigation of Nettime's list structure and content, we came up with three main clusters of questions that we subsequently approached in our study.

-
  • Outspokeness: Mailing lists, such as Nettime, tend to be dominated by strong personalities/stark intellectual and political convictions.

    +
  • Outspokeness: Mailing lists, such as Nettime, tend to be influenced by stark intellectual and political convictions bolstered by strong personalities.

  • -

    It is worth noting that our study is not (at this stage) a discourse analysis of the content of the mailing list per se. Rather, we used the structure of the list itself (the "meta-data" so to speak) to infer a type of "time series" of the networked activity that occured on the list in the past 21 years (1995-2016).

    +

    It is worth noting that our study is not (at this stage) a discourse analysis of the content of the mailing list per se. Rather, we used the structure of the list itself (the "meta-data" so to speak) to infer a type of "time series" of the networked activity that occurred on the list in the past 21 years (1995-2016).

    Activity

    +

    There are a few instances where Nettime talks to itself, notably to inform of the number of subscribers that are on the list. These messages usually detonate certain subscription milestones. From the current archive, we have identified six of these messages (listed in the table below) which gives an idea of the 'subscription rate' of Nettime over the years.

    +

    One can clearly see that this rate increases at the beginning of the 00's, flattens out between 2002 and 2005, diminishes considerably between 2005 and 2011 and increases slightly between 2011 and 2015. More precisely, if we assume the subscription rate to be linear (which of course is not really), from 1995 to 2001 the rate is roughly 33 subscriptions/month, from 2001 to 2002 it is 66 subscriptions/month (600 in 9 months), from 2002 to 2004 it accounts to 27 subscriptions/month, from 2004 to 2005 to 25 subscriptions/month, form 2005 to 2011 it drops to 6 subscriptions/month and finally it amounts to 10 subscriptions/month from 2011 to 2015.

    @@ -124,14 +123,3593 @@ Reference
    -figure 1: Total number of messages on Nettime -

    figure 1: Total number of messages on Nettime

    +

    +table 0: Nettime's subscriptions digest +

    -

    <--html_msgs_threads_replies_avg_rep_msg_thrd--> <--html_activity_from_ranking--> <--html_threads_replies_to_ranking--> <--html_threads_initiated_from_ranking-->

    +

    Put simply, 3500 subscribers joined Nettime in the first 10 years of its existence, and it took 10 years for another 1000 subscribers to join them.

    +

    Though this is only subscriptions. Not everyone post to the list. So what about the actual number of messages over time?

    +
    +figure 0: Total number of messages on Nettime +

    figure 0: Total number of messages on Nettime

    +
    +

    From the graph above, it is clear that, as with the subscription rates, the list was most active in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. It diminished considerably in 2004 and plateaued (more or less) until 2010, then increased in 2011 and decreased again the last 5 years.

    +

    In our conversations with Geert Lovink, we derived a few observations on the data at hand, mainly that:

    + +

    But are Nettime's heydays only part of the first decade of its existence, its activity slowly declining since then, or is the list itself becoming something else than it may have been back then?

    Vigour

    -

    <--html_threads_activity_threads_initiated_avg_ranking--> <--html_threads_initiated_replies_avg_ranking--> <--html_replies_ranking-->

    +

    A mailing list certainly lay itself to announcements-type messages where a single message is posted to the list while no one does and/or is expected to reply. Yet, more importantly, what mailing lists also allow is to produce 'threads' which are formed around a varying amount of replies to an initial message. These threads form the basis of an asynchronous 'dialog' so to speak. As introduce in the previous section, we came up with the term 'vigour' to account for this practice of replying to messages, which, in turn, create 'dialogical' dynamics between some of the list's members.

    +

    Our study surveys Nettime's vigour by analyzing the 'who' and 'when' of the list's thread formation. What follows is an overall (initial) measure of this vigour over time.

    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +year + +Messages + +Threads + +Replies in threads + +Avg. Threads + +Ratio Replies per Thread +
    +1995 + +55 + +3 + +4 + +0.0545 + +1.3333 +
    +1996 + +575 + +64 + +108 + +0.1113 + +1.6875 +
    +1997 + +1305 + +194 + +348 + +0.1487 + +1.7938 +
    +1998 + +1286 + +78 + +126 + +0.0607 + +1.6154 +
    +1999 + +2449 + +148 + +229 + +0.0604 + +1.5473 +
    +2000 + +2766 + +283 + +657 + +0.1023 + +2.3216 +
    +2001 + +2338 + +248 + +477 + +0.1061 + +1.9234 +
    +2002 + +2043 + +246 + +431 + +0.1204 + +1.7520 +
    +2003 + +1669 + +210 + +420 + +0.1258 + +2 +
    +2004 + +967 + +125 + +244 + +0.1293 + +1.9520 +
    +2005 + +814 + +115 + +228 + +0.1413 + +1.9826 +
    +2006 + +839 + +110 + +302 + +0.1311 + +2.7455 +
    +2007 + +886 + +132 + +412 + +0.1490 + +3.1212 +
    +2008 + +1068 + +212 + +573 + +0.1985 + +2.7028 +
    +2009 + +1076 + +191 + +611 + +0.1775 + +3.1990 +
    +2010 + +758 + +161 + +458 + +0.2124 + +2.8447 +
    +2011 + +1324 + +270 + +802 + +0.2039 + +2.9704 +
    +2012 + +1005 + +191 + +607 + +0.1900 + +3.1780 +
    +2013 + +697 + +129 + +330 + +0.1851 + +2.5581 +
    +2014 + +851 + +118 + +389 + +0.1387 + +3.2966 +
    +2015 + +803 + +98 + +304 + +0.1220 + +3.1020 +
    +2016 + +698 + +80 + +350 + +0.1146 + +4.3750 +
    +
    +

    +table 1: Nettime list's components (message, threads, replies) year by year +

    +
    +

    It is worth noting and explaining here the nomenclature/taxonomy used in the survey. First, the survey differentiates between what is called a 'message' and a 'thread', a message being anything that is posted on the list while a thread is a message that has at least one reply (a type of message that initiates a 'dialog'/thread). Thus, every thread is a message but not all messages are threads. Second, the survey differentiates between what is dubbed a 'reply' and a thread. A reply is typically a reply to a thread, or, differently put, it is a reply to a message that makes this initial message a thread. Thus reply and thread are closely connected yet different. Needless to say that, as for the case of a thread, a reply is a message but not all messages are replies. Finally, there is single messages, ones that are neither threads or replies. The following chart is a breakdown of figure 1, following this 'message-thread-reply' taxonomy.

    +
    +figure 1: Total number of (1) single messages, (2) threads and (3) replies to threads +

    figure 1: Total number of (1) single messages, (2) threads and (3) replies to threads

    +
    +

    What becomes clear from the chart above is how the ratio of replies and threads versus the sheer amount of messages increases considerably in the last 10 years. While the volume of messages decreases, the average number of 'dialogical' messages increases (threads and replies). The following charts attest this (quite simple and obvious) observation.

    +
    +figure 2: Average of the sum of threads and replies +

    figure 2: Average of the sum of threads and replies

    +
    +
    +figure 3: Difference of the sum of threads and replies versus single messages +

    figure 3: Difference of the sum of threads and replies versus single messages

    +
    +

    According to our survey, it is fair to say that Nettime has become a more dialogical mailing list in the second decade of its existence, even if the number of messages in total have declined considerably during that time. Since 2006, the list steadily churns out, on average, more threads and replies than single messages posting; in other words, less announcements and more discussions/dialogs.

    +

    The following chart (figure 5) shows an even more sustained trend that complements our observations, that is, the ratio of the number of replies per thread. This steady, and almost linear, increase over time of the number of replies to given threads show a certain 'maturity' of the list as it shows how Nettime dialogs are composed of an increasing number of messages and interlocutors.

    +
    +figure 4: Ratio of number of replies per thread +

    figure 4: Ratio of number of replies per thread

    +
    +

    There are, perhaps, many reasons that can explain this shift in the list's activities and behaviours (branching off of nettime-ann in 2005, the 'rise' of political activism since 2008, the list's subscribers knowing each other, etc.) our survey nonetheless observes a sustained trend towards Nettime developing a 'thread culture' as opposed to an earlier 'announcement culture'. Though, since we are not performing discourse analysis of the content of the list, it is impossible to correlate a shift of discourse which could, potentially, accompany such a shift of culture.

    +

    Coming back to our notion of 'vigour' (as described in the previous section), our survey clearly demonstrates that Nettime is more vigourous then ever as it harbours more dialogs (threads and replies) on average than it did in its 'salad days'. While the subscription rate may have decreased in that last decade, Nettime, nonetheless, seems to have become an durable/stable dialogical space with increasing participation form its members.

    Outspokenness

    -

    <--html_replies_avg_ranking--> <--html_threads_ranking_year-->

    +

    What messages have being discussed the most on Nettime? Who are the list's most prolific contributors in terms of (1) messages, (2) threads and (3) replies? In this section, we are interested in ranking messages and contributors according to their respective (brute) statistics derived from the archive. What follows is a set of self-explainable tables and figures that have been produced by these rankings.

    +

    Activity (aka. messages)

    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +from + +nbr-messages +
    +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +888 +
    +patrice{at}xs4all.nl + +726 +
    +tbyfield{at}panix.com + +447 +
    +sondheim{at}panix.com + +388 +
    +morlockelloi{at}yahoo.com + +260 +
    +jya{at}pipeline.com + +245 +
    +bhcontinentaldrift{at}gmail.com + +220 +
    +bruces{at}well.com + +199 +
    +brian.holmes{at}wanadoo.fr + +190 +
    +jaromil{at}dyne.org + +184 +
    +
    +

    +table 2: Top 10 contributors ranking for total amount of messages +

    +
    +
    +figure 5: Top 10 contributors ranking for total amount of messages over time +

    figure 5: Top 10 contributors ranking for total amount of messages over time

    +
    +

    Threads

    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +from + +nbr-initiated-threads +
    +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +145 +
    +patrice{at}xs4all.nl + +126 +
    +felix{at}openflows.com + +60 +
    +bhcontinentaldrift{at}gmail.com + +58 +
    +tbyfield{at}panix.com + +56 +
    +brian.holmes{at}wanadoo.fr + +46 +
    +jaromil{at}dyne.org + +40 +
    +sondheim{at}panix.com + +39 +
    +jya{at}pipeline.com + +36 +
    +newmedia{at}aol.c + +34 +
    +
    +

    +table 3: Top 10 contributors ranking for total amount of (initiated) threads +

    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +from + +messages + +threads + +avg.threads +
    +felix{at}openflows.com + +181 + +60 + +0.3315 +
    +f{at}mediafilter.org + +62 + +20 + +0.3226 +
    +armin{at}easynet.co.uk + +74 + +22 + +0.2973 +
    +mckenziewark{at}hotmail.com + +75 + +21 + +0.2800 +
    +bhcontinentaldrift{at}gmail.com + +220 + +58 + +0.2636 +
    +stalder{at}fis.utoronto.ca + +95 + +25 + +0.2632 +
    +anansi1{at}earthlink.net + +76 + +20 + +0.2632 +
    +dk{at}telekommunisten.net + +88 + +22 + +0.2500 +
    +brian.holmes{at}wanadoo.fr + +190 + +46 + +0.2421 +
    +jaromil{at}dyne.org + +184 + +40 + +0.2174 +
    +
    +

    +table 4: Top 10 contributors ranking for average amount of (initiated) threads +

    +
    +

    Replies

    +

    Our survey's replies statistics are divided into two categories: (1) replies to a thread initiated by a given contributor ('replies to') and (2) replies originating from a given contributor ('replies from')

    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +from + +nbr-references +
    +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +483 +
    +patrice{at}xs4all.nl + +311 +
    +bhcontinentaldrift{at}gmail.com + +263 +
    +felix{at}openflows.com + +175 +
    +brian.holmes{at}wanadoo.fr + +145 +
    +jaromil{at}dyne.org + +128 +
    +tbyfield{at}panix.com + +128 +
    +jya{at}pipeline.com + +112 +
    +dk{at}telekommunisten.net + +104 +
    +newmedia{at}aol.c + +102 +
    +
    +

    +table 5: Top 10 contributors ranking for total amount 'replies to' +

    +
    +
    +figure 6: Top 10 contributors ranking for total amount of 'replies to' over time +

    figure 6: Top 10 contributors ranking for total amount of 'replies to' over time

    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +from + +threads + +replies + +avg.replies +
    +flrncrmr{at}gmail.com + +12 + +59 + +4.9167 +
    +dk{at}telekommunisten.net + +22 + +104 + +4.7273 +
    +bhcontinentaldrift{at}gmail.com + +58 + +263 + +4.5345 +
    +alex.foti{at}gmail.com + +24 + +96 + +4 +
    +armin{at}easynet.co.uk + +22 + +83 + +3.7727 +
    +lotu5{at}resist.ca + +16 + +59 + +3.6875 +
    +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +145 + +483 + +3.3310 +
    +jaromil{at}dyne.org + +40 + +128 + +3.2000 +
    +brian.holmes{at}wanadoo.fr + +46 + +145 + +3.1522 +
    +jya{at}pipeline.com + +36 + +112 + +3.1111 +
    +
    +

    +table 6: Top 10 contributors ranking for average amount 'replies to' +

    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +from + +nbr_replies +
    +morlockelloi{at}yahoo.com + +248 +
    +jya{at}pipeline.com + +199 +
    +bhcontinentaldrift{at}gmail.com + +175 +
    +tbyfield{at}panix.com + +167 +
    +jhopkins{at}neoscenes.net + +151 +
    +patrice{at}xs4all.nl + +148 +
    +brian.holmes{at}wanadoo.fr + +118 +
    +jaromil{at}dyne.org + +115 +
    +newmedia{at}aol.c + +110 +
    +mgoldh{at}well.com + +110 +
    +
    +

    +table 7: Top 10 contributors ranking for average amount 'replies from' +

    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +from + +messages + +replies + +avg.replies +
    +morlockelloi{at}yahoo.com + +260 + +248 + +0.9538 +
    +rob{at}robmyers.org + +84 + +78 + +0.9286 +
    +carlg{at}vermilion-sands.com + +68 + +61 + +0.8971 +
    +benjamin.geer{at}gmail.com + +93 + +82 + +0.8817 +
    +heikorecktenwald{at}googlemail.com + +88 + +77 + +0.8750 +
    +jhopkins{at}neoscenes.net + +177 + +151 + +0.8531 +
    +porculus{at}wanadoo.fr + +123 + +102 + +0.8293 +
    +jya{at}pipeline.com + +245 + +199 + +0.8122 +
    +matze.schmidt{at}n0name.de + +85 + +69 + +0.8118 +
    +bhcontinentaldrift{at}gmail.com + +220 + +175 + +0.7955 +
    +
    +

    +table 8: Top 10 contributors ranking for average amount 'replies from' +

    +
    +

    Most replied messages overall (1995-2016)

    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2015-04-01 07:35:14 + +<nettime> nottime: the end of nettim + +nettime{at}kein.org + +48 +
    +2016-11-09 09:44:53 + +<nettime> What is the meaning of Trump's victory? + +bhcontinentaldrift{at}gmail.com + +37 +
    +2014-05-11 15:57:28 + +<nettime> tensions within the bay area elites + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +35 +
    +2011-05-13 06:52:45 + +<nettime> ISEA 2011 fees + +nak44{at}cornell.edu + +34 +
    +2003-10-01 06:36:04 + +Re: <nettime> A Puff Piece on Wikipedia (Fwd) + +sdela{at}ahk.nl + +29 +
    +2006-06-06 19:51:17 + +<nettime> report_on_NNA + +tobias{at}techno.ca + +29 +
    +2016-02-12 21:33:21 + +<nettime> notes from the DIEM25 launch + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +27 +
    +2012-08-27 13:21:03 + +<nettime> crowd-funding on nettim + +nettime{at}kein.org + +26 +
    +2012-05-03 08:43:01 + +<nettime> The insult of the 1 percent: "Art-history majors" + +bhcontinentaldrift{at}gmail.com + +25 +
    +2009-09-21 22:58:08 + +<nettime> Has Facebook superseded Nettime? + +fc-nettime{at}pleintekst.nl + +23 +
    +
    +

    +table 9: Top 10 most replied messages +

    +
    +

    Most replied messages per year (1995-2016)

    +
    +
    +1995 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +1995-12-14 22:02:24 + +No + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +2 +
    +1995-11-19 17:01:30 + +Utopian Promises-Net Realities / Critical Art Ensembl + +pit{at}uropax.contrib.de + +1 +
    +1995-11-13 22:31:48 + +No + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +1 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +1996 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +1996-01-04 12:17:28 + +No + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +7 +
    +1996-05-07 11:40:08 + +distribution + +matt{at}aec.at + +6 +
    +1996-01-07 02:17:55 + +The Disappearance of Public Space on the N + +f{at}mediafilter.org + +6 +
    +1996-12-10 02:21:59 + +nettime: "Wired?" + +cbertsch{at}crl.com + +4 +
    +1996-11-01 16:09:16 + +Re: nettime: net.weight launch + +vuk{at}kud-fp.si + +3 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +1997 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +1997-06-16 00:59:00 + +<nettime> Translation: The vagina is the boss on intern + +sigorney{at}knoware.nl + +10 +
    +1997-08-05 11:03:19 + +<nettime> Olia Lialina interview Ljubljana + +jesis{at}xs4all.nl + +10 +
    +1997-06-17 20:57:31 + +<nettime> bossy cunts onlin + +gashgirl{at}sysx.apana.org.au + +9 +
    +1997-08-05 11:39:38 + +<nettime> net.<foo> + +sondheim{at}panix.com + +9 +
    +1997-08-05 18:18:27 + +Re: <nettime> net.<foo> + +jesis{at}xs4all.nl + +8 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +1998 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +1998-03-12 06:05:49 + +<nettime> Technorealism + +davidsol{at}panix.com + +5 +
    +1998-12-15 14:26:18 + +<nettime> net.times, not swatch tim + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +5 +
    +1998-02-05 20:42:10 + +<nettime> The Californian Demonology + +markdery{at}well.com + +4 +
    +1998-10-12 07:06:34 + +<nettime.free> Re: many questions! + +cinque{at}kdi.com + +4 +
    +1998-07-28 16:12:21 + +<nettime> Net Criticism 2.0/network extension + +crandall{at}blast.org + +4 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +1999 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +1999-09-06 02:28:42 + +<nettime> Linux wins Prix Ars due to MICROSOFT INTERVENTION + +marleen{at}dds.nl + +15 +
    +1999-08-23 09:18:48 + +<nettime> Fragments of Network Criticism + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +10 +
    +1999-11-09 02:23:14 + +<nettime> Re: olia lialina: Re:art.hacktivism + +snafu{at}kyuzz.org + +8 +
    +1999-11-22 03:23:36 + +<nettime> e-LITISM (UK and beyond) + +geert{at}desk.nl + +7 +
    +1999-04-06 19:52:16 + +<nettime> Digital Resistance: WWW War... + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +4 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2000 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2000-07-22 20:13:35 + +<nettime> Terror in Tune Town + +mwark{at}laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au + +21 +
    +2000-09-09 23:06:37 + +<nettime> draft article on WTO + +jbunzl{at}simpol.org + +21 +
    +2000-11-11 05:00:57 + +<nettime> Cellphones and the Cancer of Cellspa + +mollybh{at}pop.netspace.net.au + +17 +
    +2000-12-03 06:42:02 + +<nettime> Fw: Enemies of the Futur + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +11 +
    +2000-06-12 03:36:14 + +<nettime> [talk given at tulipomania dotcom] + +ar4{at}is.nyu.edu + +11 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2001 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2001-02-13 15:53:12 + +<nettime> Usenet archives sold? + +nda{at}ais.org + +19 +
    +2001-01-06 22:26:54 + +<nettime> Disassociate Webdesign from Usability + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +11 +
    +2001-12-12 00:56:27 + +<nettime> The Fading Altruism of Open Source Developmen + +oliver{at}firstfloor.org + +9 +
    +2001-03-14 18:29:52 + +<nettime> Armor, Amour + +crandall{at}blast.org + +8 +
    +2001-01-10 20:11:23 + +RE: <nettime> don't Disassociate Webdesign (as an aspect of app engineering) from Usability + +talan{at}percepticon.com + +8 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2002 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2002-11-01 23:43:27 + +<nettime> From Tactical Media to Digital Multitudes + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +11 +
    +2002-07-03 15:56:54 + +<nettime> the language of tactical media + +subsol{at}mi2.hr + +10 +
    +2002-04-17 04:06:49 + +<nettime> The Economist: The Internet sells its soul + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +8 +
    +2002-10-20 20:51:23 + +<nettime> 'IANA' to revoke .su ccTLD? + +nettime{at}bbs.thing.net + +7 +
    +2002-12-01 11:49:32 + +Re: <nettime> joxe's empire of disorder + +hart_keith{at}compuserve.com + +7 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2003 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2003-10-01 06:36:04 + +Re: <nettime> A Puff Piece on Wikipedia (Fwd) + +sdela{at}ahk.nl + +29 +
    +2003-10-15 09:56:37 + +<nettime> Linux strikes back III + +auskadi{at}tvcabo.co.mz + +19 +
    +2003-10-04 22:32:02 + +<nettime> New Media Education and Its Disconten + +treborscholz{at}earthlink.net + +15 +
    +2003-09-25 20:02:13 + +<nettime> Request to Nettime to be part of DISTRIBUTED CREATIVITY online forum with Eyebeam + +bethr{at}eyebeam.org + +14 +
    +2003-08-14 15:07:05 + +<nettime> Six Limitations to the Current Open Source Development Methodology + +felix{at}openflows.org + +8 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2004 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2004-08-01 15:08:38 + +<nettime> The Art of Sweatshops + +nettime{at}bbs.thing.net + +12 +
    +2004-08-06 23:44:53 + +<nettime> A 'licensing fee' for GNU/Linux? + +felix{at}openflows.org + +10 +
    +2004-02-25 06:33:44 + +<nettime> floss enforcement/complian + +auskadi{at}tvcabo.co.mz + +9 +
    +2004-03-22 16:11:49 + +<nettime> Marion von Osten: email interview with Brian Holmes + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +8 +
    +2004-02-16 13:24:13 + +<nettime> One year After Rhizom + +afterrhizome{at}ilse.nl + +7 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2005 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2005-11-01 22:19:12 + +<nettime> a new definition + +olia{at}profolia.org + +13 +
    +2005-05-19 14:43:22 + +<nettime> Landscape Painting of the Information Ag + +armin{at}easynet.co.uk + +9 +
    +2005-11-23 22:50:44 + +<nettime> FW: [IP] Craigslist Planning To Shake Up Journalism + +gurstein{at}adm.njit.edu + +6 +
    +2005-01-16 12:22:55 + +<nettime> Re: What's the meaning of "non-commercial"? + +patrice{at}xs4all.nl + +5 +
    +2005-08-01 02:15:01 + +Re: <nettime> Benjamin Mako Hill on Creative Commons + +cantsin{at}zedat.fu-berlin.de + +5 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2006 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2006-06-06 19:51:17 + +<nettime> report_on_NNA + +tobias{at}techno.ca + +29 +
    +2006-04-17 12:36:38 + +<nettime> Network, Swarm, Microstructur + +brian.holmes{at}wanadoo.fr + +13 +
    +2006-06-08 18:33:35 + +<nettime> nettime as idea + +human{at}electronetwork.org + +13 +
    +2006-02-13 09:22:52 + +Re: <nettime> publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not... + +s-i{at}publiclife.org + +11 +
    +2006-01-07 17:47:29 + +<nettime> Frank Rieger: We lost the War--Welcome to the World of Tomorrow + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +10 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2007 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2007-11-06 09:17:29 + +<nettime> Goodbye Classic ? + +davidg{at}xs4all.nl + +23 +
    +2007-08-09 18:08:53 + +<nettime> The banality of blogging + +phatzopoulos{at}gmail.com + +20 +
    +2007-12-18 23:33:23 + +<nettime> Critique of the "Semantic Web" + +fc-nettime{at}plaintext.cc + +18 +
    +2007-01-05 20:36:42 + +<nettime> Iraq: The Way Forward + +mgoldh{at}well.com + +17 +
    +2007-09-19 10:41:50 + +<nettime> search engines on the mov + +geert{at}desk.nl + +10 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2008 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2008-12-05 00:31:58 + +<nettime> Call for support: Pirates of the Amazon, taken down by Amazon.com + +fc-nettime{at}plaintext.cc + +14 +
    +2008-10-14 14:44:55 + +<nettime> Zittrain’s Foundational Myth of the Open Intern + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +14 +
    +2008-10-14 22:43:42 + +Re: <nettime> Zittrain?s Foundational Myth of the Open Intern + +fc-nettime{at}plaintext.cc + +12 +
    +2008-12-03 15:25:48 + +<nettime> Saskia Sassen: Cities and new wars: after Mumbai + +patrice{at}xs4all.nl + +11 +
    +2008-12-05 20:04:14 + +Re: <nettime> Call for support: Pirates of the Amazon, taken down by Amazon.com + +morlockelloi{at}yahoo.com + +11 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2009 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2009-09-21 22:58:08 + +<nettime> Has Facebook superseded Nettime? + +fc-nettime{at}pleintekst.nl + +23 +
    +2009-05-11 21:29:14 + +<nettime> Political Work in the Aftermath of the New Media Arts Crisis + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +23 +
    +2009-01-22 04:10:41 + +<nettime> Digital Humanities Manifesto + +kdevries{at}csustan.edu + +15 +
    +2009-03-05 00:27:17 + +<nettime> Amsterdam-Surfing the Crisis and Anomalous Waves with Edufactory and Unirio + +stef_arello{at}riseup.net + +13 +
    +2009-01-22 23:00:07 + +Re: <nettime> Digital Humanities Manifesto + +fc-nettime{at}pleintekst.nl + +13 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2010 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2010-01-13 11:09:19 + +<nettime> Googl + +tbyfield{at}panix.com + +15 +
    +2010-11-11 18:29:05 + +<nettime> Steve Coll: Leaks (The New Yorker) + +patrice{at}xs4all.nl + +12 +
    +2010-12-06 01:58:28 + +<nettime> FW: [IP] WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder + +gurstein{at}gmail.com + +12 +
    +2010-01-11 17:51:50 + +Re: <nettime> Facebook demands Cease & Desist for the "Web 2.0 Suicide Machine" + +i.poppe{at}chello.nl + +11 +
    +2010-11-11 22:42:19 + +Re: <nettime> Steve Coll: Leaks (The New Yorker) + +jya{at}pipeline.com + +11 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2011 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2011-05-13 06:52:45 + +<nettime> ISEA 2011 fees + +nak44{at}cornell.edu + +34 +
    +2011-07-24 03:52:03 + +<nettime> some more nuanced thoughts on SWARTZ + +dgolumbia{at}gmail.com + +12 +
    +2011-02-19 00:28:17 + +<nettime> Wisconsin repor + +danwang{at}mindspring.com + +12 +
    +2011-07-27 12:38:37 + +Re: <nettime> some more nuanced thoughts on publishing, editing, reading, using + +gary.hall{at}connectfree.co.uk + +11 +
    +2011-02-19 11:51:47 + +Re: <nettime> Wisconsin repor + +tapasrayx{at}gmail.com + +11 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2012 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2012-08-27 13:21:03 + +<nettime> crowd-funding on nettim + +nettime{at}kein.org + +26 +
    +2012-05-03 08:43:01 + +<nettime> The insult of the 1 percent: "Art-history majors" + +bhcontinentaldrift{at}gmail.com + +25 +
    +2012-02-07 15:45:39 + +<nettime> Sex Work and Consent at {AT} transmedial + +dk{at}telekommunisten.net + +22 +
    +2012-03-07 00:59:17 + +<nettime> What do you think about .art? + +desiree{at}relax.co.uk + +17 +
    +2012-05-08 09:21:40 + +<nettime> Privacy, Moglen, {AT} ioerror, #rp12 + +dk{at}telekommunisten.net + +15 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2013 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2013-05-13 10:01:51 + +<nettime> Jaron lanier: The Internet destroyed the middle class + +nettime{at}kein.org + +15 +
    +2013-07-01 15:00:10 + +<nettime> NSA-spying-on-Europe outrage somewhat disingenuous + +armin{at}easynet.co.uk + +15 +
    +2013-10-11 13:46:08 + +Re: <nettime> Pascal Zachary: Rules for the Digital Panopticon (IEEE) + +newmedia{at}aol.c + +15 +
    +2013-09-23 08:46:44 + +<nettime> The secret financial market only robots can s + +nettime{at}kein.org + +13 +
    +2013-04-06 14:54:40 + +<nettime> Bitcoin, the end of the Taboo on Money + +jaromil{at}dyne.org + +11 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2014 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2014-05-11 15:57:28 + +<nettime> tensions within the bay area elites + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +35 +
    +2014-01-20 18:47:57 + +<nettime> The Californian Reality (from: New Geography) + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +21 +
    +2014-06-09 23:17:25 + +<nettime> a free letter to cultural institutions + +ozgur.k{at}httpdot.net + +20 +
    +2014-03-01 14:53:30 + +<nettime> Hans Magnus Enzensberger: Rules for the digital world + +flrncrmr{at}gmail.com + +20 +
    +2014-04-14 09:58:33 + +<nettime> Will your insurance company subsidize your quantified self? + +felix{at}openflows.com + +16 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2015 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2015-04-01 07:35:14 + +<nettime> nottime: the end of nettim + +nettime{at}kein.org + +48 +
    +2015-09-25 21:01:33 + +<nettime> VW + +tbyfield{at}panix.com + +10 +
    +2015-11-01 16:24:30 + +<nettime> choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim + +nettime{at}kein.org + +10 +
    +2015-10-02 16:31:53 + +Re: <nettime> VW + +jaromil{at}dyne.org + +9 +
    +2015-07-10 14:45:11 + +<nettime> Hacked Team + +jaromil{at}dyne.org + +8 +
    +
    +
    +
    +
    +2016 +
    +
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    +date + +subject + +from + +nbr. replies +
    +2016-11-09 09:44:53 + +<nettime> What is the meaning of Trump's victory? + +bhcontinentaldrift{at}gmail.com + +37 +
    +2016-02-12 21:33:21 + +<nettime> notes from the DIEM25 launch + +geert{at}xs4all.nl + +27 +
    +2016-06-24 06:42:09 + +<nettime> England leaves Europ + +alex.foti{at}gmail.com + +20 +
    +2016-05-01 23:30:54 + +<nettime> Live Your Models + +bhcontinentaldrift{at}gmail.com + +18 +
    +2016-04-05 15:17:42 + +<nettime> Ten Theses on the Panama Papers + +patrice{at}xs4all.nl + +16 +
    +
    +
    +

    Method & Archives

    +

    The survey's object of study is Nettime's archived mailing list, which is available online nettime.org/archive.php. Though we had to program a custom MHonArc web scrapper to gather all the messages from this online archive as there is no export function available from the current web interface.

    + +

    Also, consistent with the ‘90’s-era origins of the Nettime list our survey aesthetically resembles a web 1.0 report and does not allow for much interaction (static page). This was done deliberately ;-)

    +

    Further Research

    +

    To our mind the content of the posts and conversations in Nettime is, in fact, what makes this list of particular interest from the perspective of new media studies. Our survey is, of course, limited in scope and could have featured a much deeper (and perhaps more scientific) analysis of Nettime. To this end, here are a couple of points that may be worked on:

    + +

    Nettime Surveyors

    +

    David Gauthier, Marc Tuters and Geert Lovink

    + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/docs/index.md b/docs/index.md index cc78149..91f6072 100644 --- a/docs/index.md +++ b/docs/index.md @@ -4,11 +4,11 @@ title: Nettime Survey (1995-2016) #Synopsis -While contemporary social media have been critiqued for their ephemeral effects on activist politics, the mailing list has proven an enduring venue for geographically dispersed communities to participate remain in dialogue over the course of decades. Founded in Amsterdam in 1995, the Nettime mailing list ([http://nettime.org](http://nettime.org)) has played host to a community of activists and media artists and help to launch or establish the careers of a number of prominent new media theorists and Internet critics. Established in an era prior to the corporatization of the Web, over the course of its twenty first years (1995-2016), Nettime has continued to discuss the Web in terms of the radical political possibilities with which it was imagined in its ‘salad days’. +While contemporary social media have been critiqued for their ephemeral effects on activist politics, the mailing list has proven an enduring venue for geographically dispersed communities to participate remain in dialog over the course of decades. Founded in Amsterdam in 1995, the Nettime mailing list ([http://nettime.org](http://nettime.org)) has played host to a community of activists and media artists and help to launch or establish the careers of a number of prominent new media theorists and Internet critics. Established in an era prior to the corporatization of the Web, over the course of its twenty first years (1995-2016), Nettime has continued to discuss the Web in terms of the radical political possibilities with which it was imagined in its ‘salad days’. This project aims to trace the evolution of Nettime (more precisely nettime-l) through a survey of its mailing list's archive ([http://nettime.org/archives.php](http://nettime.org/archives.php)). -#Questions +#Survey During our quick investigation of Nettime's list structure and content, we came up with three main clusters of questions that we subsequently approached in our study. @@ -22,18 +22,20 @@ During our quick investigation of Nettime's list structure and content, we came * When was Nettime at its most dialogical? * What can be a sound measure of Nettime's vigour (over time)? -* Outspokeness: Mailing lists, such as Nettime, tend to be dominated by strong personalities/stark intellectual and political convictions. +* Outspokeness: Mailing lists, such as Nettime, tend to be influenced by stark intellectual and political convictions bolstered by strong personalities. * Who have been (are) Nettime's most prolific contributors? * Is there different kinds of contributions (posting, threads/replies)? * How might one begin to periodize the list in light of these contributions? * Does Nettime have cliques? -It is worth noting that our study is not (at this stage) a discourse analysis of the content of the mailing list per se. Rather, we used the structure of the list itself (the "meta-data" so to speak) to infer a type of "time series" of the networked activity that occured on the list in the past 21 years (1995-2016). +It is worth noting that our study is not (at this stage) a discourse analysis of the content of the mailing list per se. Rather, we used the structure of the list itself (the "meta-data" so to speak) to infer a type of "time series" of the networked activity that occurred on the list in the past 21 years (1995-2016). ##Activity +There are a few instances where Nettime talks to itself, notably to inform of the number of subscribers that are on the list. These messages usually detonate certain subscription milestones. From the current archive, we have identified six of these messages (listed in the table below) which gives an idea of the 'subscription rate' of Nettime over the years. +One can clearly see that this rate increases at the beginning of the 00's, flattens out between 2002 and 2005, diminishes considerably between 2005 and 2011 and increases slightly between 2011 and 2015. More precisely, if we assume the subscription rate to be linear (which of course is not really), from 1995 to 2001 the rate is roughly 33 subscriptions/month, from 2001 to 2002 it is 66 subscriptions/month (600 in 9 months), from 2002 to 2004 it accounts to 27 subscriptions/month, from 2004 to 2005 to 25 subscriptions/month, form 2005 to 2011 it drops to 6 subscriptions/month and finally it amounts to 10 subscriptions/month from 2011 to 2015. @@ -75,20 +77,131 @@ It is worth noting that our study is not (at this stage) a discourse analysis of
    - -![figure 1: Total number of messages on Nettime](figures/figure_1.png) +

    table 0: Nettime's subscriptions digest

    -<--html_msgs_threads_replies_avg_rep_msg_thrd--> -<--html_activity_from_ranking--> -<--html_threads_replies_to_ranking--> -<--html_threads_initiated_from_ranking--> +Put simply, 3500 subscribers joined Nettime in the first 10 years of its existence, and it took 10 years for another 1000 subscribers to join them. + +Though this is only subscriptions. Not everyone post to the list. So what about the actual number of messages over time? + +![figure 0: Total number of messages on Nettime](figures/figure_0.png) + +From the graph above, it is clear that, as with the subscription rates, the list was most active in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. It diminished considerably in 2004 and plateaued (more or less) until 2010, then increased in 2011 and decreased again the last 5 years. + +In our conversations with Geert Lovink, we derived a few observations on the data at hand, mainly that: + +* The fact that the list became moderated in 1999 did not prevent its activity to grow considerably or at least sustain its level of activity in the subsequent years. +* nettime-ann was created in July 2005 and may be the reason explaining the drop in activity on nettime-l during the last decade. +* The spikes in 2008/2009 may be explained by the global economical context. +* The spike in 2011 may be explained by the political uprisings in the middle-east. + +But are Nettime's heydays only part of the first decade of its existence, its activity slowly declining since then, or is the list itself becoming something else than it may have been back then? ##Vigour -<--html_threads_activity_threads_initiated_avg_ranking--> -<--html_threads_initiated_replies_avg_ranking--> -<--html_replies_ranking--> + +A mailing list certainly lay itself to announcements-type messages where a single message is posted to the list while no one does and/or is expected to reply. Yet, more importantly, what mailing lists also allow is to produce 'threads' which are formed around a varying amount of replies to an initial message. These threads form the basis of an asynchronous 'dialog' so to speak. As introduce in the previous section, we came up with the term 'vigour' to account for this practice of replying to messages, which, in turn, create 'dialogical' dynamics between some of the list's members. + +Our study surveys Nettime's vigour by analyzing the 'who' and 'when' of the list's thread formation. What follows is an overall (initial) measure of this vigour over time. + +<--html_msgs_threads_replies_avg_rep_msg_thrd--> + +

    table 1: Nettime list's components (message, threads, replies) year by year

    + +It is worth noting and explaining here the nomenclature/taxonomy used in the survey. First, the survey differentiates between what is called a 'message' and a 'thread', a message being anything that is posted on the list while a thread is a message that has at least one reply (a type of message that initiates a 'dialog'/thread). Thus, every thread is a message but not all messages are threads. Second, the survey differentiates between what is dubbed a 'reply' and a thread. A reply is typically a reply to a thread, or, differently put, it is a reply to a message that makes this initial message a thread. Thus reply and thread are closely connected yet different. Needless to say that, as for the case of a thread, a reply is a message but not all messages are replies. Finally, there is single messages, ones that are neither threads or replies. The following chart is a breakdown of _figure 1_, following this 'message-thread-reply' taxonomy. + +![figure 1: Total number of (1) single messages, (2) threads and (3) replies to threads](figures/figure_1.png) + +What becomes clear from the chart above is how the ratio of replies and threads versus the sheer amount of messages increases considerably in the last 10 years. While the volume of messages decreases, the average number of 'dialogical' messages increases (threads and replies). The following charts attest this (quite simple and obvious) observation. + +![figure 2: Average of the sum of threads and replies](figures/figure_2.png) + +![figure 3: Difference of the sum of threads and replies versus single messages](figures/figure_3.png) + +According to our survey, it is fair to say that Nettime has become a more dialogical mailing list in the second decade of its existence, even if the number of messages in total have declined considerably during that time. Since 2006, the list steadily churns out, on average, more threads and replies than single messages posting; in other words, less announcements and more discussions/dialogs. + +The following chart (_figure 5_) shows an even more sustained trend that complements our observations, that is, the ratio of the number of replies per thread. This steady, and almost linear, increase over time of the number of replies to given threads show a certain 'maturity' of the list as it shows how Nettime dialogs are composed of an increasing number of messages and interlocutors. + +![figure 4: Ratio of number of replies per thread](figures/figure_4.png) + +There are, perhaps, many reasons that can explain this shift in the list's activities and behaviours (branching off of nettime-ann in 2005, the 'rise' of political activism since 2008, the list's subscribers knowing each other, etc.) our survey nonetheless observes a sustained trend towards Nettime developing a 'thread culture' as opposed to an earlier 'announcement culture'. Though, since we are not performing discourse analysis of the content of the list, it is impossible to correlate a shift of discourse which could, potentially, accompany such a shift of culture. + +Coming back to our notion of 'vigour' (as described in the previous section), our survey clearly demonstrates that Nettime is more vigourous then ever as it harbours more dialogs (threads and replies) on average than it did in its 'salad days'. While the subscription rate may have decreased in that last decade, Nettime, nonetheless, seems to have become an durable/stable dialogical space with increasing participation form its members. ##Outspokenness + +What messages have being discussed the most on Nettime? Who are the list's most prolific contributors in terms of (1) messages, (2) threads and (3) replies? In this section, we are interested in ranking messages and contributors according to their respective (brute) statistics derived from the archive. What follows is a set of self-explainable tables and figures that have been produced by these rankings. + +###Activity (aka. messages) + +<--html_activity_from_ranking--> + +

    table 2: Top 10 contributors ranking for total amount of messages

    + +![figure 5: Top 10 contributors ranking for total amount of messages over time](figures/figure_5.png) + +###Threads + +<--html_threads_initiated_from_ranking--> + +

    table 3: Top 10 contributors ranking for total amount of (initiated) threads

    + +<--html_threads_activity_threads_initiated_avg_ranking--> + +

    table 4: Top 10 contributors ranking for average amount of (initiated) threads

    + +###Replies + +Our survey's replies statistics are divided into two categories: (1) replies to a thread initiated by a given contributor ('replies to') and (2) replies originating from a given contributor ('replies from') + +<--html_threads_replies_to_ranking--> + +

    table 5: Top 10 contributors ranking for total amount 'replies to'

    + +![figure 6: Top 10 contributors ranking for total amount of 'replies to' over time](figures/figure_6.png) + +<--html_threads_initiated_replies_avg_ranking--> + +

    table 6: Top 10 contributors ranking for average amount 'replies to'

    + +<--html_replies_ranking--> + +

    table 7: Top 10 contributors ranking for average amount 'replies from'

    + <--html_replies_avg_ranking--> + +

    table 8: Top 10 contributors ranking for average amount 'replies from'

    + +###Most replied messages overall (1995-2016) + +<--html_threads_ranking--> + +

    table 9: Top 10 most replied messages

    + +###Most replied messages per year (1995-2016) + <--html_threads_ranking_year--> + +#Method & Archives + +The survey's object of study is Nettime's archived mailing list, which is available online [nettime.org/archive.php](nettime.org/archive.php). Though we had to program a custom [MHonArc](http://www.mhonarc.at) web scrapper to gather all the messages from this online archive as there is no export function available from the current web interface. + +* All Nettime Survey's scripts written in Python are publicly available and can be found at [https://github.com/gauthiier/nettime](https://github.com/gauthiier/nettime). The logic and output scripts heavily rely on [pandas](http://pandas.pydata.org) and [matplotlib](http://matplotlib.org). +* Nettime archive (1995-2016) is publicly available in the legacy [mbox](http://www.qmail.org/man/man5/mbox.html) format at the following address: [http://nettime-survey.xyz/arch/nettime-l-2016-12-31.mbox.tar.gz](http://nettime-survey.xyz/arch/nettime-l-2016-12-31.mbox.tar.gz) (archived 31/12/2016) +* Nettime archive (1995-2016) is publicly available in json format at the following address: [http://nettime-survey.xyz/arch/nettime-l-2016-12-31.json.gz](http://nettime-survey.xyz/arch/nettime-l-2016-12-31.json.gz) (archived 31/12/2016) + +Also, consistent with the ‘90’s-era origins of the Nettime list our survey aesthetically resembles a web 1.0 report and does not allow for much interaction (static page). This was done deliberately ;-) + +#Further Research + +To our mind the content of the posts and conversations in Nettime is, in fact, what makes this list of particular interest from the perspective of new media studies. Our survey is, of course, limited in scope and could have featured a much deeper (and perhaps more scientific) analysis of Nettime. To this end, here are a couple of points that may be worked on: + +* It seems that a thorough time analysis of the list would prompt interesting question has to do with periodizing the ‘eras’ or ‘times of Nettime’, in terms of who were the main contributing figures in different periods and how might they have clustered into specific cohorts. + +* Performing a discourse analysis on the content of the messages may also shed light into Nettime's periods. For instance, we know that media-arts-centered debates took place on the list at different times. Would it be possible to periodises these instances and compare their advent, for example, with the more activist-type dialogs that seemed the pervade the list in all epochs? + +* Dialogical clusters may be extracted and analysed to foreground the possible various 'cliques' that may, by habit, form depending on the subject at hand. Coupling this type of analysis with the previous discourse analysis could potentially produce an interesting index of the list. + +#Nettime Surveyors + +David Gauthier, Marc Tuters and Geert Lovink + diff --git a/docs/makefile b/docs/makefile index 41b7d8b..f5eb41c 100644 --- a/docs/makefile +++ b/docs/makefile @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ # generates docs -ARCHIVE := archives/nettime-l_2016-12-31.json.gz +ARCHIVE := arch/nettime-l_2016-12-31.json.gz CMDSCRIPT := command-script.json all: init index.html clean-stage @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ init: @command -v pandoc > /dev/null 2>&1 || (echo 'pandoc not found... please visit -- http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/installing.html' && exit 1) %.stage.md: index.md - python ../report.py -i $(CMDSCRIPT) -o index.stage.md -t index.md + python ../report.py -i $(CMDSCRIPT) -o index.stage.md -t index.md -a $(ARCHIVE) %.html: %.stage.md pandoc -s --template style/template.html5 -c style/style.css -o $@ $< diff --git a/docs/style/style.css b/docs/style/style.css index df26e5f..42eb8af 100644 --- a/docs/style/style.css +++ b/docs/style/style.css @@ -502,3 +502,26 @@ div.footnotes li[id^="fn"] /* A footnote item within that div */ display:none; } } + +/* custom styling for nettime survey (1995-2016)*/ + +.thread_rank_year { + display: inline-block; + border: 1px solid black; + margin: 1em; +} + +.thread_rank_year:hover { + background-color: #964be3; +} + +.thread_rank_year .year_t { + bborder: 1px solid black; + margin: 1em; +} + +.thread_rank_year .rank_t { + display: none; + margin: 1em; + margin-bottom: 2em; +} diff --git a/docs/style/style.js b/docs/style/style.js new file mode 100644 index 0000000..668a3cd --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/style/style.js @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ + +var ranks = document.getElementsByClassName("thread_rank_year"); + +for(var i = 0; i < ranks.length; i++) { + let r = ranks[i]; + r.state = false; + r.addEventListener('click', function(who) { + if(r.state) { + r.children[1].style.display = 'none'; + } else { + r.children[1].style.display = 'block'; + } + r.state = !r.state; + }, false); +} + + + diff --git a/docs/style/template.html5 b/docs/style/template.html5 index 64ef71e..46a8001 100644 --- a/docs/style/template.html5 +++ b/docs/style/template.html5 @@ -12,9 +12,6 @@ $if(date-meta)$ $endif$ $if(title-prefix)$$title-prefix$ - $endif$$pagetitle$ - $if(quotes)$ $endif$ @@ -67,5 +64,6 @@ $body$ $for(include-after)$ $include-after$ $endfor$ + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/nettime/plot.py b/nettime/plot.py index c1ae8f0..0214ef0 100644 --- a/nettime/plot.py +++ b/nettime/plot.py @@ -9,8 +9,8 @@ import query # for colors see: # http://matplotlib.org/examples/color/named_colors.html -def bar_plot_series(series, title, color='blueviolet'): - return series.plot(kind = 'bar', title=title, color=color, alpha=0.8, stacked=True) +def bar_plot_series(series, title, color='blueviolet', ylim=None): + return series.plot(kind = 'bar', title=title, color=color, alpha=0.8, stacked=True, ylim=ylim) def save(plot, name): fig = plot.get_figure() diff --git a/nettime/report.py b/nettime/report.py index 448b176..864e7af 100644 --- a/nettime/report.py +++ b/nettime/report.py @@ -35,14 +35,25 @@ class Report: # nbr non-replies (aka. non-threads) mat['nbr-single-messages'] = mat['nbr-messages'] - mat['nbr-replies'] - mat['nbr-threads'] - # avg. rep per message - mat['avg--per-msg'] = mat['nbr-threads'] / mat['nbr-messages'] + # avg. threads per message + mat['avg-thrd-per-msg'] = mat['nbr-threads'] / mat['nbr-messages'] + + # avg. replies per message + mat['avg-rep-per-msg'] = mat['nbr-replies'] / mat['nbr-messages'] + + # avg. threadss + replies per message + mat['avg-thrd-rep-per-msg'] = (mat['nbr-threads'] + mat['nbr-replies']) / mat['nbr-messages'] + + # avg. threadss + replies per message + mat['diff-thrd-rep-vs-single-msg'] = (mat['nbr-threads'] + mat['nbr-replies']) - mat['nbr-single-messages'] # avg. rep per thread mat['avg-rep-per-thrd'] = mat['nbr-replies'] / mat['nbr-threads'] # same as: # mat['avg-rep-per-thrd'] = q.threads_overall(aggregate='mean')['nbr-references'] + + self.matrix = mat return self.matrix @@ -69,23 +80,42 @@ class Report: return plot.bar_plot_series(self.matrix['nbr-replies'].to_frame(label), title=title, color=color) - def plot_avg_rep_p_msg(self, title='Avg. Thread per Message', label='replies-per-messasges', color='limegreen'): + def plot_avg_thread_p_msg(self, title='Avg. Threads', label='', color='crimson'): self.matrix_msgs_threads() - return plot.bar_plot_series(self.matrix['avg--per-msg'].to_frame(label), title=title, color=color) + return plot.bar_plot_series(self.matrix['avg-thrd-per-msg'].to_frame(label), title=title, color=color) - def plot_avg_rep_p_thrd(self, title='Avg. Replies per Thread', label='replies-per-thread', color='blueviolet'): + def plot_avg_replies_p_msg(self, title='Avg. Replies', label='', color='dimgray'): + + self.matrix_msgs_threads() + + return plot.bar_plot_series(self.matrix['avg-rep-per-msg'].to_frame(label), title=title, color=color) + + def plot_avg_threads_replies_p_msg(self, title='Avg. Threads + Replies', label='avg', color='crimson'): + + self.matrix_msgs_threads() + + return plot.bar_plot_series(self.matrix['avg-thrd-rep-per-msg'].to_frame(label), title=title, color=color) + + def plot_diff_threads_replies_v_single_msg(self, title='Diff. Threads + Replies vs Single Messages', label='diff', color='b'): + + self.matrix_msgs_threads() + + return plot.bar_plot_series(self.matrix['diff-thrd-rep-vs-single-msg'].to_frame(label), title=title, color=color) + + + def plot_avg_rep_p_thrd(self, title='Ratio Replies per Thread', label='replies-per-thread', color='blueviolet'): self.matrix_msgs_threads() return plot.bar_plot_series(self.matrix['avg-rep-per-thrd'].to_frame(label), title=title, color=color) - def plot_msgs_replies(self, title='Nbr. Messages segments (individual messages vs thread replies)'): + def plot_msgs_replies(self, title='Messages Constituency'): self.matrix_msgs_threads() - return plot.bar_plot_series(self.matrix[['nbr-single-messages', 'nbr-threads', 'nbr-replies']], color=['mediumblue', 'red', 'dimgray'], title=title) + return plot.bar_plot_series(self.matrix[['nbr-single-messages', 'nbr-threads', 'nbr-replies']], color=['b', 'crimson', 'dimgray'], title=title) ''' text (tabular) @@ -98,13 +128,13 @@ class Report: def tab_avg_rep_msg_thrd(self): self.matrix_msgs_threads() - return format.Tab.from_dataframe(self.matrix[['avg--per-msg', 'avg-rep-per-thrd']], - name_map={'avg--per-msg': 'avg. thread per message', 'avg-rep-per-thrd': 'avg. replies per thread'}) + return format.Tab.from_dataframe(self.matrix[['avg-thrd-per-msg', 'avg-rep-per-thrd']], + name_map={'avg-thrd-per-msg': 'avg. thread per message', 'avg-rep-per-thrd': 'avg. replies per thread'}) - def html_msgs_threads_replies_avg_rep_msg_thrd(self): + def tab_msgs_threads_replies_avg_rep_msg_thrd(self): self.matrix_msgs_threads() - return format.Tab.from_dataframe(self.matrix[['nbr-messages', 'nbr-threads', 'nbr-replies', 'avg--per-msg', 'avg-rep-per-thrd']], - name_map={'nbr-messages': 'messages', 'nbr-threads': 'threads', 'nbr-replies': 'replies in threads', 'avg--per-msg': 'avg. thread per message', 'avg-rep-per-thrd': 'avg. replies per thread'}) + return format.Tab.from_dataframe(self.matrix[['nbr-messages', 'nbr-threads', 'nbr-replies', 'avg-thrd-per-msg', 'avg-rep-per-thrd']], + name_map={'nbr-messages': 'messages', 'nbr-threads': 'threads', 'nbr-replies': 'replies in threads', 'avg-thrd-per-msg': 'avg. thread per message', 'avg-rep-per-thrd': 'avg. replies per thread'}) def tab_activity_from_ranking(self, rank=5): d = self.query.activity_from_ranking(rank=rank) @@ -166,13 +196,13 @@ class Report: def html_avg_rep_msg_thrd(self): self.matrix_msgs_threads() - return format.Html.from_dataframe(self.matrix[['avg--per-msg', 'avg-rep-per-thrd']], - name_map={'avg--per-msg': 'avg. thread per message', 'avg-rep-per-thrd': 'avg. replies per thread'}) + return format.Html.from_dataframe(self.matrix[['avg-thrd-per-msg', 'avg-rep-per-thrd']], + name_map={'avg-thrd-per-msg': 'avg. thread per message', 'avg-rep-per-thrd': 'avg. replies per thread'}) def html_msgs_threads_replies_avg_rep_msg_thrd(self): self.matrix_msgs_threads() - return format.Html.from_dataframe(self.matrix[['nbr-messages', 'nbr-threads', 'nbr-replies', 'avg--per-msg', 'avg-rep-per-thrd']], - name_map={'nbr-messages': 'messages', 'nbr-threads': 'threads', 'nbr-replies': 'replies in threads', 'avg--per-msg': 'avg. thread per message', 'avg-rep-per-thrd': 'avg. replies per thread'}) + return format.Html.from_dataframe(self.matrix[['nbr-messages', 'nbr-threads', 'nbr-replies', 'avg-thrd-per-msg', 'avg-rep-per-thrd']], + name_map={'nbr-messages': 'Messages', 'nbr-threads': 'Threads', 'nbr-replies': 'Replies in threads', 'avg-thrd-per-msg': 'Avg. Threads', 'avg-rep-per-thrd': 'Ratio Replies per Thread'}) def html_activity_from_ranking(self, rank=10): d = self.query.activity_from_ranking(rank=rank) @@ -212,8 +242,12 @@ class Report: nl = '\n' s = "" for i in years: + s += '
    ' + nl s += '
    ' + i + '
    ' + nl + s += '
    ' + nl s += format.Html.from_dataframe(d[i], name_map={'nbr-references': 'nbr. replies'}, url_map={'subject': 'url'}) + nl + s += '
    ' + nl + s += '
    ' + nl return s + nl def html_replies_ranking(self, rank=10): diff --git a/report.py b/report.py index 63749d3..87f7d78 100644 --- a/report.py +++ b/report.py @@ -82,7 +82,12 @@ def run(options): print 'No template file. Nothing to do.' return - a = nettime.archive.Archive(options.archive) + if os.path.isfile(options.archive): + path, file = os.path.split(options.archive) + a = nettime.archive.Archive(data=file, archive_dir=path) + else: + a = nettime.archive.Archive(options.archive) + q = nettime.query.Query(a) r = nettime.report.Report(q)