On 9/6/07, John Lee johnleemk@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