A> I think it's until you prove that you are loyal A> to WP and its high-ranking members - that A> is, definitely not a serious critic.
We also note the fermentation period before approval.
$ w3m -dump \ http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/92302/r... |grep Mar|tail -n 2 for <wikien-l... >; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:20:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:50:22 +0000
OK, it's March 31 as I post this message. Wonder when you will see it. April 3rd, if at all?
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
OK, it's March 31 as I post this message. Wonder when you will see it. April 3rd, if at all?
It's still March 31st! (As David said, you are now off moderation.)
Never attribute to conspiracy what you can attribute to mods being lazy and not promptly checking the moderation list :)
On Mar 31, 2008, at 1:10 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
OK, it's March 31 as I post this message. Wonder when you will see it. April 3rd, if at all?
It's still March 31st! (As David said, you are now off moderation.)
Never attribute to conspiracy what you can attribute to mods being lazy and not promptly checking the moderation list :)
To be fair, the moderation interface is a piece of shit that is all but designed to make moderation as difficult as humanly possible to do effectively. We've already had to all but rebuff perfectly reasonable requests to use moderation to decrease incivility on the list due to the fact that the moderation system basically can't handle the task.
(Detailed griping follows)
If nobody has checked the moderation system in a few hours there are multiple screens worth of posts to scroll through. All but 1 or 2 will be spam. So the main task of moderation is always reading through that list and finding those 1 or 2. They're usually relatively easy to identify, since most are replies to existing threads and so you can find them via the [WikiEN-l] tag in the subject line. But you do have to watch for people starting new threads on moderated or unsubscribed accounts. And if you screw up, the default outcome is that the message gets deleted from the queue with no notice to the sender, meaning messages get permanently blackholed. I have no idea what our error rate is, because *there is no way to track that*.
More to the point, the task of moderation is, 95% of the time, pointless. So the incentive to go do it is minimal and amounts to "how amusing is today's penis spam." (The answer is often "hilariously," for what it's worth - SPERMAMAX, in particular, is a work of art - masterful pieces of Engrish sexually explicit discussion of massive penises. "You will be able to scratch your forehead with your penis.")
Within that list there is not even a visual distinction between moderated subscribers and non-subscribers. Each message has a little ticky box that, for moderated members, allows us to unmoderate, and for non-subscribers, allows us to ban subscription. That's it - you tell which is which by looking at the ticky box. And you don't want to go willy-nilly clicking it, because it means virtually opposite things in each circumstance - unsubscribed members it amounts to "Go away forever," moderated members it amounts to "You're all right."
Furthermore, there is no information tracking whatsoever for moderated members. From the perspective of a moderator a new subscriber who is moderated is no different from a troll who is moderated. There's no notes feature to say "This person is moderated for a reason," and nothing that says "You've let four messages from this person through and refused none." So in addition to the moderate flag being exceedingly easy to miss, there's also no practical way to implement it or know that it should be cleared for a given person. In theory mods e-mail each other whenever we put someone on moderation, but it's not like we go crawling through our e-mail to see if a person is supposed to be moderated.
So that's why this gets screwed up on a more or less monthly basis.
-Phil
On 31/03/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
More to the point, the task of moderation is, 95% of the time, pointless. So the incentive to go do it is minimal and amounts to "how amusing is today's penis spam." (The answer is often "hilariously," for what it's worth - SPERMAMAX, in particular, is a work of art - masterful pieces of Engrish sexually explicit discussion of massive penises. "You will be able to scratch your forehead with your penis.")
Since we switched off allowing messages from unsubscribed addresses, we don't have this joy either. O NOEZ.
- d.
On Mar 31, 2008, at 11:20 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 31/03/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
More to the point, the task of moderation is, 95% of the time, pointless. So the incentive to go do it is minimal and amounts to "how amusing is today's penis spam." (The answer is often "hilariously," for what it's worth - SPERMAMAX, in particular, is a work of art - masterful pieces of Engrish sexually explicit discussion of massive penises. "You will be able to scratch your forehead with your penis.")
Since we switched off allowing messages from unsubscribed addresses, we don't have this joy either. O NOEZ.
See. So now the task is completely worthless instead of just mostly worthless.
That does explain why, whenever I go to look at the queue, it looks like someone has just moderated, though.
-Phil
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
See. So now the task is completely worthless instead of just mostly worthless.
That does explain why, whenever I go to look at the queue, it looks like someone has just moderated, though.
-Phil
I'm sure there are plenty of coders around who would be willing to give a shot at improving the interface. Assuming this is mailman, they'd just have to get the sources and start hacking, no?
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:41 AM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
See. So now the task is completely worthless instead of just mostly worthless.
That does explain why, whenever I go to look at the queue, it looks like someone has just moderated, though.
-Phil
I'm sure there are plenty of coders around who would be willing to give a shot at improving the interface. Assuming this is mailman, they'd just have to get the sources and start hacking, no?
It is mailman indeed, so if someone would be willing to take this task and present us a modified-improved mailing list software, I could imagine a bounty/prize from all list administrators for the developer...
Michael