[Wikipedia-l] What kind of moderation?

[Fred Bauder]

on 12/12/02 7:28 AM, Poor, Edmund W at Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com wrote:

> For those who are considering moderation of one list or another, let us
> consider our moderation options:
> 
> 1. Each post from ALL subscribers must be approved.
> 2. Only posts from "naughty" subscribers need approved.
> 3. No moderation (status quo)
> 
> I myself reject option #1, since it would take way too much time. It would
> overwork any finite group of moderators. It would prevent urgent messages from
> being passed on quickly. (If this were the only option, I would withdraw my
> support for Larry's idea of moderation altogether.)

I'm coming around to the idea, but it has to include folks like Larry who
whatever their other merits, lapse habitually into insult. Option #2
presumably would focus on those who come here enraged by what they see as
nasty behavior. They may or may not be right, but there is no reason to
single them out for attention. Although it would also catch folks who are
just not in the game.  I think some other system could be set up for alerts.
> 
> Option #2 means that posts would be transmitted immediately, as they are now.
> The exception, however, would be that a moderator could mark any subscriber's
> posts as requiring "administrative approval" (this phrase comes from the
> mailing list software). It would only be the small number of subscribers whose
> posts would be filtered by the moderators. Each post held for approval would
> then either be passed on or rejected. If rejected, it would get the
> appropriate comments:
> * reason for rejection
> * notice of right-of-appeal
> 

> the simple, easy-to-follow
> rules of civil discourse.

Well, not so simple. It's not going to work if someone who is slick can get
away with stuff and someone who is mad (perhaps justifiably) is excluded.
If I were moderating I would allow one or two statements of rage from
someone. (At least someone who new to the list). It's the constant
repetition, and bulldog determinedness, and over and over that spoil the
list.
 
> 
> Ed Poor

Anyway I think moderation could work. As Jimbo points out anyone who has
something important to say can get it together and say it in a civil way.
They may say they're mad and "Ain't gonna take it anymore" but that
addresses their own feelings, not the essential evil which they might feel
resides in the character of those who have offended them.

Fred