[WikiEN-l] Who's moderated?

[Monahon, Peter B.]

> Earlier: "... I hate the fact that so many messages get wasted on stupid topics like this ..."

Peter Blaise responds: And I wholeheartedly support our right to extend such a discussion with an objection to it.  Since even the objection is not spam, I can't imagine asking any moderator to waste their time pre-reading it in an effort to save me from the trials and tribulations of deciding for myself what interests me or not, and just scroll-on instead.

> Earlier: "... I'd really like much firmer rules for moderation ... where anything off topic is not tolerated ... maintain a high signal to noise ratio ..."

Peter Blaise responds: Ahh, and therein lies the rub.  Who decides what's off topic?  As suggested earlier, even a moderator's feeling of déjà vu would be enough to ... to do what about it?  Therein lies another rub - what to do about it, once a moderator decides a post is actionable?  Quash the topic on the list?  Delete it?  Ban the writer?

What is it again that we are trying to protect by asking another person (a moderator) to preempt or take other action on a post that's not spam?  In the meantime, might I suggest that we all rise to the challenge of adjusting our own signal-to-noise ratio controller - using our own delete keys, and our own scroll-down arrows!

"> Earlier: "... I don't want to read messages from people talking about their cats either ..."

Peter Blaise responds: That's one.  I not that I've yet to read another thread about cats - has it ever happened here before?  

As a computer consultant with 30+ years successful experience supporting customers, may I assist anyone in finding the scroll-down arrow key on our own computer so we don't have to read anything that does not interest us?  And, we don't have to ask a moderator to deny anyone else from reading that thing that does not interest us.  Win win win.  Perhaps I should make stickers that fit over the down-arrow key and say, in small print: [Don't read this!], then instead of demanding that someone else do our pre-reading for us, we can do our own decision-making - just tap that key until the post disappears off screen!

Or, write back in complaining about people who talk about their cats, and be the first on the list, then, to talk about cats on the list!

> Earlier: "... These lists are a tool. They are a tool to further the project. They're not a sounding board for anything anyone wants to post; they're not a forum for community warm-fuzzies.  I really don't see what would be gained by abandoning any attempt to keep them on-topic and free of random crap.  What, exactly, are we trying to achieve here? ..."

Peter Blaise responds: A community.

I'm not sure what is meant by "warm-fuzzies"?  Oh, I get it, that's the reference to people talking about their cats, right?  Warm-fuzzies - hahahahah!  Okay, that's a grand total of two people who have mentioned cats on the list.  I can scroll past that.  Anyone want to go for three?  I can scroll past that, too.

Meta-discussions like this one, that is, discussions-about-our-discussions, seem to be an integral part of any community's self-governance, as proven by even those among us who object to meta-discussions, using a meta-discussion to do so, thereby proving the intrinsic value of meta-discussions.

I want to thank the one or two people who have read this far -- but I object!  

Didn't you read and understand what I wrote about the scroll-down keys?!?  

Am I not being clear?   

SCROLL ON!

=8^o

-- Peter Blaise