On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
John Lee wrote:
On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
>>> Earlier: "... I receive ... private emails from Members of this List
>>>
>> Community ... persons ... NOT banned or moderated ... but who fear
>> ending up that way [anywhere] if they voice their opinions ..."
>>
>> Ditto. Some of my most valuable correspondents are off list. I'm
even
>> maintaining a connection with one
moderator (of another list) who
banned
me for actions not on the list - another Zen Cohan if
ever there was
one!
The most disturbing thing about that exchange was that the person
proposing a more open distribution of information understood the nature
of privacy and confidence, while at least one opponent did not believe
that the discussion could move forward unless these trusts were broken.
Excuse me? What is the point of posting a vague alarmist description of
apparent terror imposed on the list by ostensibly totalitarian mods, and
then refusing to disclose any details, or provide any means of obtaining
details from or otherwise engaging in conversation with those who fear
retaliation? Is there any other way to approach the issue? If there
isn't,
then why broach it if there is no feasible way to
address it?
This seems like a hypersensitive reaction. The terms "alarmist
description" and "totalitarian mods" are yours, not that of the person
who mentioned the private e-mails.
Well, I'm glad I'm the only one who got that impression then. These apparent
insinuations that we are an insufficiently open community reflect on the
moderators of the list - but then maybe that's just my point of view.
Revealing names or outing the people
who complained in confidence will have no bearing on
finding a
solution. In many respects revealing those names will give some the
chance to personalise the problem, thereby avoiding the real issues. At
best personalising the issue will only solve the problem as it relates
to those individuals.
I asked for concrete details of the problem and/or a way to contact those
concerned. Marc had responded to such an earlier request citing privacy
issues. If we cannot even have a concrete description of the problem sans
names, nor a way to contact those concerned to find out the issue, do tell
me what way there is to resolve the problem.
I have no reason to believe that Marc acted dishonestly in raising these
facts.
Neither do I; I'm just wondering why he would hint that the mods are
inappropriately stifling discourse but refuse to divulge further reasons for
this belief.
I'm not even asking that I see the specific emails
or for the names of
those
worried to be revealed publicly. They can contact
me or any of the other
mods with their concerns; we never place people on moderation for
off-list
incidents.
What difference will it make if they contact you?
They need not expose who they are in public, which I think is what they
want. No?
If these people have no intent of seeking to address
the problem, but
instead find someone else to make a vague
explanation of the problem on
the
list, while refusing to come forward (at least to
the mods or a mod) to
aid
resolution of the issues at hand, then how do you
expect *anything* to
move
forward?
Maybe it's just not about
just solving individual problems.
Yes, as I said, it seems clear Marc is pushing for a philosophical change.
He is free to do that, but in view of the general pragmatism Wikipedians
adopt, unless he can present a real problem that this philosophical change
will resolve, he will not make much headway. I am trying to understand the
problem(s) that he feels would be resolved by this alteration of our
philosophy.
Johnleemk