On 9/6/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I would say it's remarkable because very few lists have mods as
lenient as this list does. It's almost the word I'd use. I think the
context
was unfortunate. But anyway, it's not really relevant to the issue at hand
which is: do we agree with Marc's proposal to loosen the moderation of the
list? How exactly would this proposal work? Vague philosophical handwaving
is not all that helpful - we need a concrete proposal to move forward.
I wish there were stronger moderation; I would love it if a handful of
people would sort through more of the crap and pick out the useful bits for
me. (R.I.P. List Syndication Service, where this whole thread would be
summed up as "Moderation was discussed"). Alas ... if there were heavier
moderation (i.e. fewer messages) I would certainly be more inclined to read,
think about, and reply to those messages, and I think many other subscribers
would be as well (and more Wikipedians would be encouraged to subscribe). (I
say this as someone who has subscribed and unsubscribed more than once in my
few years here, usually overwhelmed by the flood of repetitive topics and
whining). Moderation -- like skillful editing -- leads to a good end. As
David points out, there are practical reasons why there isn't heavier
moderation here -- besides the moderators' workload and the desire to be
open, the list is often the place of last resort for the disgruntled. But
this is not and should not be a completely open forum -- I don't want to
read messages from people talking about their cats either.
Let us not forget that the mailing lists are supposed to be an offshoot of
Wikip/media, a place where the sites are discussed -- not an end and a
community unto themselves. Any impression of the projects gotten from the
list alone is likely to be a rather misguided one.
-- phoebe