There would need to be a clear determination
beforehand of what will be
moderated. And things like "no personal attacks" are too vague to be a clear
moderation guideline. Even "avoid topical discussion" is hard, because some
degree of appeal to specific entries/topics is necessary for discussion of
broad points.
Like pornography, one knows it when one sees it, a typical attack will
generally include "stupid" blah blah, scatological references etc. Posts on
topics are the same, when they start getting into the details, the debated
issues, we all know it belongs on the discussion page of the article.
Pardon me for saying it, but the U.S. judicial standard on pornography is
not the kind of standard that we should be using. We don't need to emulate
the braindead handling of sex and pornography in the U.S.
Rather, if we *can't* explicate clear guidelines of what is not acceptable,
then we shouldn't be moderating. I'm not saying that all judgment should be
removed, but that such judgment should be clearly defined.
You see, that's the trap: define it clearly so someone can play games with
it. Best just to say: Be courteous and address some subject relevant to
wiki.
Rules are evil, evil, evil...
Fred