Folks,
I just learned by private email, that one of most articulate and frequent contributors to this List is on moderation.
In the interest of full and honest disclosure, I would like to see a list of all persons who are currently on moderation - and why.
Marc Riddell
You don't need to know that, but if you would like to know, e-mail the list owners and ask them, but keep in mind that it is private and they may or may not answer.
On 9/2/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
I just learned by private email, that one of most articulate and frequent contributors to this List is on moderation.
In the interest of full and honest disclosure, I would like to see a list of all persons who are currently on moderation - and why.
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 9/2/07 5:28 PM, Casey Brown at cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
You don't need to know that
Why not?
but if you would like to know, e-mail the list owners and ask them, but keep in mind that it is private and they may or may not answer.
I didn't realize Lists had owners. And, why is it private?
I'm learning more and more about this culture every day :-(
Marc
On 9/2/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
I just learned by private email, that one of most articulate and frequent contributors to this List is on moderation.
In the interest of full and honest disclosure, I would like to see a list of all persons who are currently on moderation - and why.
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/09/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 9/2/07 5:28 PM, Casey Brown at cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
You don't need to know that
Why not?
but if you would like to know, e-mail the list owners and ask them, but keep in mind that it is private and they may or
may
not answer.
I didn't realize Lists had owners. And, why is it private?
I'm learning more and more about this culture every day :-(
Marc
On 9/2/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
I just learned by private email, that one of most articulate and
frequent
contributors to this List is on moderation.
In the interest of full and honest disclosure, I would like to see a
list
of all persons who are currently on moderation - and why.
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Owners are moderators. It's private because there's no need for anyone except moderators to know. I'm not sure how it could benefit anyone else by them knowing reasons for moderation - and often it's quite obvious anyway.
I used that term because that's what is used on the public footer and the e-mail address.
On 9/2/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't realize Lists had owners.
"owner" is a technical term, and is more like an administrator. They appoint moderators, etc.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Marc Riddell wrote:
I didn't realize Lists had owners. And, why is it private?
I'm learning more and more about this culture every day :-(
Hi, Marc. As somebody else, "owner" isn't meant in the territorial sense. It's more like "responsible party of last resort", and related terms are "moderator" and "list mom".
List moderation is a necessary evil for large lists. The more people you have, the more likely someone won't act with sufficient regard for others. If you let that go, then the jerks will drive out the useful contributors and the list will die. Indeed, I've been half wishing for a fully moderated Wikipedia mailing list, as this one sometimes teeters on the brink of usefulness to me.
Anyhow, moderation is nothing new; the earliest mention I can easily find is 1991 [1], and I'm pretty sure I saw moderated lists in the late 80s.
William
[1] Computer Networking for Educational Researchers on BITNET; Jean W. Pierce; Gene V. Glass; Joseph L. Byers; Educational Researcher, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Jan., 1991), pp. 21-23
On 02/09/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
I just learned by private email, that one of most articulate and frequent contributors to this List is on moderation.
In the interest of full and honest disclosure, I would like to see a list of all persons who are currently on moderation - and why.
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not sure why you'd need to know. Any reason? People are usually moderated for good reason.
On 02/09/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
I just learned by private email, that one of most articulate and frequent contributors to this List is on moderation.
In the interest of full and honest disclosure, I would like to see a list of all persons who are currently on moderation - and why.
Marc Riddell
on 9/2/07 5:32 PM, Majorly at axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Not sure why you'd need to know. Any reason?
Because I, like you, am a Member of this List, and of this Community; and, as such have a right to know what's going on and why?
People are usually moderated for good reason.
I'm merely asking what those reasons are.
I'm amazed you're even questioning our right to know.
Marc
On 02/09/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 02/09/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
I just learned by private email, that one of most articulate and
frequent
contributors to this List is on moderation.
In the interest of full and honest disclosure, I would like to see a
list
of all persons who are currently on moderation - and why.
Marc Riddell
on 9/2/07 5:32 PM, Majorly at axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Not sure why you'd need to know. Any reason?
Because I, like you, am a Member of this List, and of this Community; and, as such have a right to know what's going on and why?
People are usually moderated for good reason.
I'm merely asking what those reasons are.
I'm amazed you're even questioning our right to know.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do we have a right to know?
I don't think we do.
Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Majorly Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 5:00 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Who's moderated?
On 02/09/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 02/09/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
I just learned by private email, that one of most articulate and
frequent
contributors to this List is on moderation.
In the interest of full and honest disclosure, I would like to see a
list
of all persons who are currently on moderation - and why.
Marc Riddell
on 9/2/07 5:32 PM, Majorly at axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Not sure why you'd need to know. Any reason?
Because I, like you, am a Member of this List, and of this Community; and, as such have a right to know what's going on and why?
People are usually moderated for good reason.
I'm merely asking what those reasons are.
I'm amazed you're even questioning our right to know.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do we have a right to know?
It's actually a problem in practice that there's no "reason" field on why someone was put on mod. We could do with one.
Keeping people on mod is a damn nuisance and we'd rather not. Usually it's because they're being intolerably obnoxious or repetitive.
I'd rather not post a list of those on mod as it may seem like personal black marks against them.
- d.
On 02/09/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'd rather not post a list of those on mod as it may seem like personal black marks against them.
- d.
If you show such consideration on the list, which does not have particularly high Google rankings, why should it bother you if someone asks for blocked and banned editors to be shown similar consideration on Wikipaedia, which does have very high Google rankings?
Now I'm a little lost.
Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Armed Blowfish Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 5:32 PM To: English Wikipedia; David Gerard Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Who's moderated?
On 02/09/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'd rather not post a list of those on mod as it may seem like personal black marks against them.
- d.
If you show such consideration on the list, which does not have particularly high Google rankings, why should it bother you if someone asks for blocked and banned editors to be shown similar consideration on Wikipaedia, which does have very high Google rankings?
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/09/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Now I'm a little lost.
Armed Blowfish was just pursuing a vendetta of his. It's been going on for a while. I suggest you ignore him every time he talks about "banned users".
He can't even spell the name of the project correctly!
On 02/09/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/09/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Now I'm a little lost.
Armed Blowfish was just pursuing a vendetta of his. It's been going on for a while. I suggest you ignore him every time he talks about "banned users".
He can't even spell the name of the project correctly!
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Wikipaedia could very well be British version of it.
On 02/09/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/09/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Now I'm a little lost.
Armed Blowfish was just pursuing a vendetta of his. It's been going on for a while. I suggest you ignore him every time he talks about "banned users".
Ignorance would be an improvement. : )
Lost where?
Wikipaedia blocks and bans people. The goal of Community Exile, in theory, is to convince someone to exercise his or her Right to Leave.
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?CommunityExile
However, Wikipaedia drags the names and/or pseudonyms of blocked and/or banned users through the dirt, refusing to blank pages, generally acting like ED.
By denying blocked and/or banned users the Right to Vanish, Wikipaedia forces them to hang around in an attempt to protect their reputations. This is bad for everyone.
'You don't want people hanging around solely because they don't have the ability to vanish - such folks are only around out of the need to protect their reputation, rather than BarnRaising.'
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RightToVanish
On 02/09/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Now I'm a little lost.
Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Armed Blowfish Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 5:32 PM To: English Wikipedia; David Gerard Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Who's moderated?
On 02/09/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'd rather not post a list of those on mod as it may seem like personal black marks against them.
- d.
If you show such consideration on the list, which does not have particularly high Google rankings, why should it bother you if someone asks for blocked and banned editors to be shown similar consideration on Wikipaedia, which does have very high Google rankings?
On 02/09/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Lost where?
Wikipaedia blocks and bans people. The goal of Community Exile, in theory, is to convince someone to exercise his or her Right to Leave.
We are not usemod. We don't do everything according to the usemod philosophy. We don't have a principle of "Community Exile", we have "blocks" and "bans". You are neither blocked, nor banned.
Moderators: I'm sure you're reading this, since it's a thread about moderation. I believe Armed Blowfish is on moderation, so could you please stop letting her emails through when she's talking about being banned? It's getting a little tiresome...
On 03/09/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/09/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Lost where?
Wikipaedia blocks and bans people. The goal of Community Exile, in theory, is to convince someone to exercise his or her Right to Leave.
We are not usemod. We don't do everything according to the usemod philosophy. We don't have a principle of "Community Exile", we have "blocks" and "bans".
Meatball Wiki has valuable philosophy that Wikipaedia would be wise to learn from, rather than acting like Encyclopaedia Dramatica.
You are neither blocked, nor banned.
You do realise I didn't even mention myself in the e-mail you are responding to?
Meatball Wiki has valuable philosophy that Wikipaedia would be wise to learn from, rather than acting like Encyclopaedia Dramatica.
Learn from, certainly. Copy, no.
You are neither blocked, nor banned.
You do realise I didn't even mention myself in the e-mail you are responding to?
We're all capable of reading between the lines.
On 03/09/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Meatball Wiki has valuable philosophy that Wikipaedia would be wise to learn from, rather than acting like Encyclopaedia Dramatica.
Learn from, certainly. Copy, no.
The whole practice of escalating matters when someone asks for something to be courtesy blanked or deleted or whatever...
Wikipaedia is worse than Encyclopaedia Dramatica, due to having higher Google rankings and a more serious attitude.
You are neither blocked, nor banned.
You do realise I didn't even mention myself in the e-mail you are responding to?
We're all capable of reading between the lines.
Whether or not I am banned, Wikipaedia attacks plenty of other banned users. I've started a statistical study, but it will take awhile.
When I go to Wikipaedia.com or Wikipaedia.org I don't get the...
...foundation or the Wikipedia project. Just an observation. ;)
Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Armed Blowfish Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 1:15 PM To: English Wikipedia; Thomas Dalton Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Who's moderated?
On 03/09/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Meatball Wiki has valuable philosophy that Wikipaedia would be wise to learn from, rather than acting like Encyclopaedia Dramatica.
Learn from, certainly. Copy, no.
The whole practice of escalating matters when someone asks for something to be courtesy blanked or deleted or whatever...
Wikipaedia is worse than Encyclopaedia Dramatica, due to having higher Google rankings and a more serious attitude.
You are neither blocked, nor banned.
You do realise I didn't even mention myself in the e-mail you are responding to?
We're all capable of reading between the lines.
Whether or not I am banned, Wikipaedia attacks plenty of other banned users. I've started a statistical study, but it will take awhile.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On-wiki block logs are publicly available, so I don't see a huge moral dilemma with a disclosure of the moderation list.
If I was on moderation (which I think I am), I would like to know that, and why.
When I send a contribution to the list, I always get a copy of it from the list, but my contributions don't usually show up in the threads or in the archived discussions.
If I am on moderation, I'm not sure that I should be.
Crockspot
On 9/3/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/09/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Lost where?
Wikipaedia blocks and bans people. The goal of Community Exile, in theory, is to convince someone to exercise his or her Right to Leave.
We are not usemod. We don't do everything according to the usemod philosophy. We don't have a principle of "Community Exile", we have "blocks" and "bans". You are neither blocked, nor banned.
Moderators: I'm sure you're reading this, since it's a thread about moderation. I believe Armed Blowfish is on moderation, so could you please stop letting her emails through when she's talking about being banned? It's getting a little tiresome...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
crock spot schreef:
On-wiki block logs are publicly available, so I don't see a huge moral dilemma with a disclosure of the moderation list.
On WP, there is no expectation of privacy in this matter, at least not by people who are familiar with the system. On the mailing list, there is, because moderation logs have up to now not been made public.
One difference between these two mediums is that users can choose to be completely anonymous on the site, by chosing a random account name, but users of the mailing list can be identified by a "real-world" email address.
If I was on moderation (which I think I am), I would like to know that, and why.
I think this mail of yours was let through without moderation. Moderated posts can be recognized from their full headers, if I'm not mistaken (I cannot be sure though, because I only know of 1 moderated contributor at the moment).
Eugene
I appear to no longer be on moderation, so perhaps this thread served a useful purpose, and the list has been reviewed and cleaned up.
I have to say that I did feel discouraged from participating here after receiving mod notices. But if the moderators will make a good faith effort to keep the list maintained properly, so that only those who need moderation are moderated, then I will maintain good faith in their ability to do so.
crockspot
On 9/3/07, crock spot crockspot@gmail.com wrote:
On-wiki block logs are publicly available, so I don't see a huge moral dilemma with a disclosure of the moderation list.
If I was on moderation (which I think I am), I would like to know that, and why.
When I send a contribution to the list, I always get a copy of it from the list, but my contributions don't usually show up in the threads or in the archived discussions.
If I am on moderation, I'm not sure that I should be.
Crockspot
On 9/3/07, Thomas Dalton < thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/09/07, Armed Blowfish < diodontida.armata@googlemail.com> wrote:
Lost where?
Wikipaedia blocks and bans people. The goal of Community Exile, in theory, is to convince someone to exercise his or her Right to Leave.
We are not usemod. We don't do everything according to the usemod philosophy. We don't have a principle of "Community Exile", we have "blocks" and "bans". You are neither blocked, nor banned.
Moderators: I'm sure you're reading this, since it's a thread about moderation. I believe Armed Blowfish is on moderation, so could you please stop letting her emails through when she's talking about being banned? It's getting a little tiresome...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/2/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
If you show such consideration on the list, which does not have particularly high Google rankings, why should it bother you if someone asks for blocked and banned editors to be shown similar consideration on Wikipaedia, which does have very high Google rankings?
Can you show me where a google result will show a user blocked on the wikis? Thanks.
On 02/09/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/2/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
If you show such consideration on the list, which does not have particularly high Google rankings, why should it bother you if someone asks for blocked and banned editors to be shown similar consideration on Wikipaedia, which does have very high Google rankings?
Can you show me where a google result will show a user blocked on the wikis? Thanks.
You could try this one: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:en.wikipedia.org+sockpuppeteer
Alternatively, you could try Googling for the name or pseudonym of the blocked or banned user directly.
Umm...Gregory - Do Google search for "List of banned users"+Wikipedia, and you'll see a whole pile. As far as I can tell, each individual editor's User/Talk pages also come up when googling for *username*+Wikipedia, and that provides any information on either of those pages.
Risker
On 9/2/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/2/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
If you show such consideration on the list, which does not have particularly high Google rankings, why should it bother you if someone asks for blocked and banned editors to be shown similar consideration on Wikipaedia, which does have very high Google rankings?
Can you show me where a google result will show a user blocked on the wikis? Thanks.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I see no reason why the listadmins should have to make known who is on moderation and why. People are moderated for good reason. If someone was wrongly moderated (say, punitively), one of the other listadmins would no doubt raise the issue.
Someone who is moderated might not want their name mentioned - they might want to get over their moderation period and get back to constructively participating in this mailing list and in conversations.
NSLE
On 9/3/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Umm...Gregory - Do Google search for "List of banned users"+Wikipedia, and you'll see a whole pile. As far as I can tell, each individual editor's User/Talk pages also come up when googling for *username*+Wikipedia, and that provides any information on either of those pages.
The claim was made that banned notices where coming up in Google when you searched for someone's name.
Specifically narrowing the search to "lists of banned users", or even site:en.wikipedia.org defeats the claim.
I did get a couple examples via private mail, but all have since been fixed.
I'd rather see us fully no-index the user namespace... and I was hoping to get some good ammo to further that argument, but I haven't gotten any here yet.
You aren't banned and your requests are entirely unreasonable and illogical.
--John Reaves
On 9/2/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 02/09/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'd rather not post a list of those on mod as it may seem like personal black marks against them.
- d.
If you show such consideration on the list, which does not have particularly high Google rankings, why should it bother you if someone asks for blocked and banned editors to be shown similar consideration on Wikipaedia, which does have very high Google rankings?
--- Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 02/09/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'd rather not post a list of those on mod as it may
seem like
personal black marks against them.
If you show such consideration on the list, which does not have particularly high Google rankings, why should it bother you if someone asks for blocked and banned editors to be shown similar consideration on Wikipaedia, which does have very high Google rankings?
I agree with Blowfish & Riddel on this.
Those "moderated"/blocked on Wikipedia and the other wikis are openly known and available for anybody, not just users. Saying the mail moderation list is private is, beside inconsistent and contrary to the otherwise open policy, bordering on stupid CYA antics.
I could understand if it's a size issue. Couldn't that be resolved via dumping it into a compressed file and posting it to media?
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
On 03/09/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 02/09/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'd rather not post a list of those on mod as it may seem like personal black marks against them.
If you show such consideration on the list, which does not have particularly high Google rankings, why should it bother you if someone asks for blocked and banned editors to be shown similar consideration on Wikipaedia, which does have very high Google rankings?
I agree with Blowfish & Riddel on this.
Those "moderated"/blocked on Wikipedia and the other wikis are openly known and available for anybody, not just users. Saying the mail moderation list is private is, beside inconsistent and contrary to the otherwise open policy, bordering on stupid CYA antics.
I could understand if it's a size issue. Couldn't that be resolved via dumping it into a compressed file and posting it to media?
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
Inconsistent, yes, except my suggestion was opposite: that those blocked and/or banned on-wiki should be shown the same consideration.
Some blocked and/or banned users who have made their real names known have complained to me that the blocking / banning process included libel against them. (Don't ask who, that's confidential.)
That said, adding a feature to let the moderated user decide whether or not he or she wishes to appear on a public list of moderated users shouldn't be that complex for a programmer to add. The default, I guess, would be hidden, but it would allow the moderated user a choice in the matter.
We have no right to know, I trust the users to moderate accordingly and they do a very good job at that. E-mail them privately if you want to know, do *not* ask on the list, as weird as it may seem, but this is off-topic chat. :-)
On 9/2/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 02/09/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
I just learned by private email, that one of most articulate and
frequent
contributors to this List is on moderation.
In the interest of full and honest disclosure, I would like to see a
list
of all persons who are currently on moderation - and why.
Marc Riddell
on 9/2/07 5:32 PM, Majorly at axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Not sure why you'd need to know. Any reason?
Because I, like you, am a Member of this List, and of this Community; and, as such have a right to know what's going on and why?
People are usually moderated for good reason.
I'm merely asking what those reasons are.
I'm amazed you're even questioning our right to know.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/09/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
We have no right to know, I trust the users to moderate accordingly and they do a very good job at that. E-mail them privately if you want to know, do *not* ask on the list, as weird as it may seem, but this is off-topic chat. :-)
Why is this OFF TOPIC?
I don't really care who is on the list or not, but a reasonable new thread should never be considered OT.
mike
On 9/2/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/09/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
We have no right to know, I trust the users to moderate accordingly and they do a very good job at that. E-mail them privately if you want to know,
do
*not* ask on the list, as weird as it may seem, but this is off-topic chat. :-)
Why is this OFF TOPIC?
I don't really care who is on the list or not, but a reasonable new thread should never be considered OT.
mike _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I was a little teasing. I remember being told that talking about who was banned in the IRC channel #freenode was off-topic because the channel is for "freenode-help" and not "help about the channel #freenode". Either way, though, this is not something that should be discussed on the list, it should be discussed (if anywhere) privately with the list-mods.
Casey Brown wrote:
On 9/2/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/09/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
We have no right to know, I trust the users to moderate accordingly and they do a very good job at that. E-mail them privately if you want to know, do
*not* ask on the list, as weird as it may seem, but this is off-topic chat. :-)
Why is this OFF TOPIC?
I don't really care who is on the list or not, but a reasonable new thread should never be considered OT
I was a little teasing. I remember being told that talking about who was banned in the IRC channel #freenode was off-topic because the channel is for "freenode-help" and not "help about the channel #freenode". Either way, though, this is not something that should be discussed on the list, it should be discussed (if anywhere) privately with the list-mods.
It makes no sense to use being off-topic as an excuse for dismissing the subject from discussion. Anything generally relating to how the list is run is clearly on-topic, and certainly merits being discussed here. Naming specific people still needs to be avoided unless the result of the discussion says otherwise.
Ec
Casey Brown wrote:
On 9/2/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/09/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
We have no right to know, I trust the users to moderate accordingly and they do a very good job at that. E-mail them privately if you want to know, do
*not* ask on the list, as weird as it may seem, but this is off-topic chat. :-)
Why is this OFF TOPIC?
I don't really care who is on the list or not, but a reasonable new thread should never be considered OT
I was a little teasing. I remember being told that talking about who was banned in the IRC channel #freenode was off-topic because the channel is for "freenode-help" and not "help about the channel #freenode". Either way, though, this is not something that should be discussed on the list, it should be discussed (if anywhere) privately with the list-mods.
on 9/2/07 7:35 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It makes no sense to use being off-topic as an excuse for dismissing the subject from discussion. Anything generally relating to how the list is run is clearly on-topic, and certainly merits being discussed here.
I agree.
Naming specific people still needs to be avoided unless the result of the discussion says otherwise.
I am still puzzled by why the persons being moderated (censored) on this List need to be held so close to the vest; is there a stigma attached to it? There are some excellent voices on this List, and if some power somewhere decides one or more of them needs to be censored, I want to know who they are choosing to shelter me from.
Marc
Hi, Marc.
Marc Riddell wrote:
I am still puzzled by why the persons being moderated (censored) on this List need to be held so close to the vest; is there a stigma attached to it? There are some excellent voices on this List, and if some power somewhere decides one or more of them needs to be censored, I want to know who they are choosing to shelter me from.
I can think of a few reasons.
First, as others have mentioned, there's being considerate. Being on moderation is a black mark, and there's no particular reason to expose that information externally. Even internally to the list, announcing moderations isn't an unmixed good. Sometimes difficult people have useful contributions, and announcing that they're on moderation can prejudice people against the useful bits.
Second, a lot of antisocial behavior on the internet is driven by, or at least thrives on, getting recognition or a reaction. The less we do to feed that, the better. See [[WP:DENY]] for more on that.
Third, spam is a huge issue these days. The best thing you can do with spam is to make it vanish; any informational leakage can and will be exploited by spammers.
Fourth, it's what's easiest. We're all volunteers here, and moderating a list this size is plenty of work on its own.
William
P.S. As a side note, let me mention that it's polite to trim what you're replying to down some. The point of the quoted text is to give enough context so that your message makes sense. Too much and it goes from becoming an aid to your readers to a disservice.
Marc Riddell wrote:
I am still puzzled by why the persons being moderated (censored) on this List need to be held so close to the vest; is there a stigma attached to it? There are some excellent voices on this List, and if some power somewhere decides one or more of them needs to be censored, I want to know who they are choosing to shelter me from.
on 9/3/07 5:14 AM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
I can think of a few reasons.
First, as others have mentioned, there's being considerate. Being on moderation is a black mark
A black mark!? C'mon William.
and there's no particular reason to expose that information externally
I have already given several very good reasons, including the other List Members' right to know whose voices they are being kept from hearing.
Sometimes difficult people have useful contributions, and announcing that they're on moderation can prejudice people against the useful bits.
Speak for yourself, William. You're not giving the readers of this List much credit for independent thinking. No judgement of another person, by another person, is going to influence my judgment of their contributions in any way.
Second, a lot of antisocial behavior on the internet is driven by, or at least thrives on, getting recognition or a reaction. The less we do to feed that, the better. See [[WP:DENY]] for more on that.
William, I am well aware of the sociopathy on this List, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject here.
Third, spam is a huge issue these days. The best thing you can do with spam is to make it vanish; any informational leakage can and will be exploited by spammers.
William, this, too, has absolutely nothing to do with the subject here.
Fourth, it's what's easiest. We're all volunteers here, and moderating a list this size is plenty of work on its own.
This is the feeblest excuse yet.
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
[...] A black mark!? C'mon William.
[...] right to know [...]
[...] Speak for yourself, William. [...]
[...] absolutely nothing to do with the subject here. [...]
[...] absolutely nothing to do with the subject here. [...]
[...] This is the feeblest excuse yet.
When you said you were puzzled, I took that as a request for explaining the context. Mistook, as it turns out, as you clearly aren't interested in explanations. Sorry for the confusion.
William
If I were moderated, I might not want the list to know why, in the interests of not reliving/revisiting whatever I did to go on moderation. Less of our right to know, and more of the privacy of those moderated.
Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Marc Riddell Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 4:52 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Who's moderated?
On 02/09/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
I just learned by private email, that one of most articulate and frequent contributors to this List is on moderation.
In the interest of full and honest disclosure, I would like to see a list of all persons who are currently on moderation - and why.
Marc Riddell
on 9/2/07 5:32 PM, Majorly at axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Not sure why you'd need to know. Any reason?
Because I, like you, am a Member of this List, and of this Community; and, as such have a right to know what's going on and why?
People are usually moderated for good reason.
I'm merely asking what those reasons are.
I'm amazed you're even questioning our right to know.
Marc
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 9/2/07 5:52 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure why you'd need to know. Any reason? People are usually moderated for good reason.
Just for the sake of transparency, I guess.
Yes! If this List, much less the Project, is to maintain any credibility, and the confidence of its Community, it has got to remain open, fair and honest to all. Secrecy breeds suspicion, which breeds distrust. I have never blindly followed anyone. And too many people have ended up in my therapy room for having done just that.
Marc
It looks like no one but you seems to think that we need to share the moderation list. Perhaps just drop it?
On 9/2/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 9/2/07 5:52 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure why you'd need to know. Any reason? People are usually
moderated
for good reason.
Just for the sake of transparency, I guess.
Yes! If this List, much less the Project, is to maintain any credibility, and the confidence of its Community, it has got to remain open, fair and honest to all. Secrecy breeds suspicion, which breeds distrust. I have never blindly followed anyone. And too many people have ended up in my therapy room for having done just that.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/2/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 9/2/07 5:52 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure why you'd need to know. Any reason? People are usually moderated for good reason.
Just for the sake of transparency, I guess.
Yes! If this List, much less the Project, is to maintain any credibility, and the confidence of its Community, it has got to remain open, fair and honest to all. Secrecy breeds suspicion, which breeds distrust. I have never blindly followed anyone. And too many people have ended up in my therapy room for having done just that.
Marc
In confidence, who is it that you were notified is on moderation?
On 9/2/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
In confidence, who is it that you were notified is on moderation?
The dangers of distracted emailing.
I do NOT think it's appropriate for it to just get bounced out to the list, that was supposed to be private email to Marc.
Sorry everyone.
On 02/09/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/2/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
In confidence, who is it that you were notified is on moderation?
The dangers of distracted emailing.
I do NOT think it's appropriate for it to just get bounced out to the list, that was supposed to be private email to Marc.
Sorry everyone.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Maybe we should put George on moderation :D
On 9/2/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Yes! If this List, much less the Project, is to maintain any credibility, and the confidence of its Community, it has got to remain open, fair and honest to all. Secrecy breeds suspicion, which breeds distrust. I have never blindly followed anyone. And too many people have ended up in my therapy room for having done just that.
Marc
on 9/2/07 6:28 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
In confidence, who is it that you were notified is on moderation?
With respect, George, it was told to me in confidence - and it must remain that way.
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/2/07 5:52 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure why you'd need to know. Any reason? People are usually moderated for good reason.
Just for the sake of transparency, I guess.
Yes! If this List, much less the Project, is to maintain any credibility, and the confidence of its Community, it has got to remain open, fair and honest to all. Secrecy breeds suspicion, which breeds distrust. I have never blindly followed anyone. And too many people have ended up in my therapy room for having done just that.
I do have mixed feelings on this because it is a question of conflicting values. Both privacy rights and operational transparency are important. Still it is not enough to say that we must trust somebody simply because he is in a position of leadership. Most people in that position will not abuse the position, but occasionally some do, or perhaps we need sound data so that the community can determine whether the underlying policy is correct.
We don't need a list of the dedicated spammers; that would be too boring. We don't need to know the names of the list newcomers who start with a clearly offensive or overly aggressive post, though some statistics would be interesting. I would still be more sympathetic to knowing about what happens to people who were already list members, and who went over some kind of line. This is where the community may have a different opinion about the punishment. Perhaps the affected person should have some input into whether the action should be kept confidential.
Ec
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/2/07 5:52 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure why you'd need to know. Any reason? People are usually moderated for good reason.
Just for the sake of transparency, I guess.
Yes! If this List, much less the Project, is to maintain any credibility, and the confidence of its Community, it has got to remain open, fair and honest to all. Secrecy breeds suspicion, which breeds distrust. I have never blindly followed anyone. And too many people have ended up in my therapy room for having done just that.
on 9/2/07 8:04 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I do have mixed feelings on this because it is a question of conflicting values. Both privacy rights and operational transparency are important. Still it is not enough to say that we must trust somebody simply because he is in a position of leadership. Most people in that position will not abuse the position, but occasionally some do, or perhaps we need sound data so that the community can determine whether the underlying policy is correct.
We don't need a list of the dedicated spammers; that would be too boring. We don't need to know the names of the list newcomers who start with a clearly offensive or overly aggressive post, though some statistics would be interesting. I would still be more sympathetic to knowing about what happens to people who were already list members, and who went over some kind of line. This is where the community may have a different opinion about the punishment. Perhaps the affected person should have some input into whether the action should be kept confidential.
Is is really the persons being moderated who want the fact be kept confidential?
If I were to become a moderated voice on this List - I would want EVERYONE to know. Then let the other Members of the Community decide if that voice is one they want to be protected from.
Marc
On 03/09/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/2/07 5:52 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure why you'd need to know. Any reason? People are usually
moderated
for good reason.
Just for the sake of transparency, I guess.
Yes! If this List, much less the Project, is to maintain any
credibility,
and the confidence of its Community, it has got to remain open, fair
and
honest to all. Secrecy breeds suspicion, which breeds distrust. I have
never
blindly followed anyone. And too many people have ended up in my
therapy
room for having done just that.
on 9/2/07 8:04 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I do have mixed feelings on this because it is a question of conflicting values. Both privacy rights and operational transparency are important. Still it is not enough to say that we must trust somebody simply because he is in a position of leadership. Most people in that position will not abuse the position, but occasionally some do, or perhaps we need sound data so that the community can determine whether the underlying policy is correct.
We don't need a list of the dedicated spammers; that would be too boring. We don't need to know the names of the list newcomers who start with a clearly offensive or overly aggressive post, though some statistics would be interesting. I would still be more sympathetic to knowing about what happens to people who were already list members, and who went over some kind of line. This is where the community may have a different opinion about the punishment. Perhaps the affected person should have some input into whether the action should be kept
confidential.
Is is really the persons being moderated who want the fact be kept confidential?
If I were to become a moderated voice on this List - I would want EVERYONE to know. Then let the other Members of the Community decide if that voice is one they want to be protected from.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That is you. Others may not.
On 03/09/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 03/09/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/2/07 5:52 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure why you'd need to know. Any reason? People are usually
moderated
for good reason.
Just for the sake of transparency, I guess.
Yes! If this List, much less the Project, is to maintain any
credibility,
and the confidence of its Community, it has got to remain open, fair
and
honest to all. Secrecy breeds suspicion, which breeds distrust. I
have
never
blindly followed anyone. And too many people have ended up in my
therapy
room for having done just that.
on 9/2/07 8:04 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I do have mixed feelings on this because it is a question of
conflicting
values. Both privacy rights and operational transparency are important. Still it is not enough to say that we must trust somebody simply because he is in a position of leadership. Most people in that position will not abuse the position, but occasionally some do, or perhaps we need sound data so that the community can determine whether the underlying policy is correct.
We don't need a list of the dedicated spammers; that would be too boring. We don't need to know the names of the list newcomers who
start
with a clearly offensive or overly aggressive post, though some statistics would be interesting. I would still be more sympathetic to knowing about what happens to people who were already list members,
and
who went over some kind of line. This is where the community may have
a
different opinion about the punishment. Perhaps the affected person should have some input into whether the action should be kept
confidential.
Is is really the persons being moderated who want the fact be kept confidential?
If I were to become a moderated voice on this List - I would want
EVERYONE
to know. Then let the other Members of the Community decide if that
voice
is one they want to be protected from.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That is you. Others may not.
-- Alex (Majorly) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
So.. if it's in the interests of privacy, why can't people who are moderated but don't mind people knowing that they are reply to this thread with something to that effect?
I was just going to suggest that. :-)
On 9/2/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/09/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 03/09/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/2/07 5:52 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
> Not sure why you'd need to know. Any reason? People are usually
moderated
> for good reason. > Just for the sake of transparency, I guess.
Yes! If this List, much less the Project, is to maintain any
credibility,
and the confidence of its Community, it has got to remain open,
fair
and
honest to all. Secrecy breeds suspicion, which breeds distrust. I
have
never
blindly followed anyone. And too many people have ended up in my
therapy
room for having done just that.
on 9/2/07 8:04 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I do have mixed feelings on this because it is a question of
conflicting
values. Both privacy rights and operational transparency are important. Still it is not enough to say that we must trust
somebody
simply because he is in a position of leadership. Most people in
that
position will not abuse the position, but occasionally some do, or perhaps we need sound data so that the community can determine
whether
the underlying policy is correct.
We don't need a list of the dedicated spammers; that would be too boring. We don't need to know the names of the list newcomers who
start
with a clearly offensive or overly aggressive post, though some statistics would be interesting. I would still be more sympathetic
to
knowing about what happens to people who were already list members,
and
who went over some kind of line. This is where the community may
have
a
different opinion about the punishment. Perhaps the affected person should have some input into whether the action should be kept
confidential.
Is is really the persons being moderated who want the fact be kept confidential?
If I were to become a moderated voice on this List - I would want
EVERYONE
to know. Then let the other Members of the Community decide if that
voice
is one they want to be protected from.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That is you. Others may not.
-- Alex (Majorly) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
So.. if it's in the interests of privacy, why can't people who are moderated but don't mind people knowing that they are reply to this thread with something to that effect? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/2/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote: [snip]
Is is really the persons being moderated who want the fact be kept confidential?
If that really isn't a factor then we should probably accept the hypothesis that you omitted the name of the person who sparked your email because mentioning it would have greatly weakened your argument.
On 9/2/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote: [snip]
Is is really the persons being moderated who want the fact be kept confidential?
on 9/2/07 9:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell at gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
If that really isn't a factor then we should probably accept the hypothesis that you omitted the name of the person who sparked your email because mentioning it would have greatly weakened your argument.
I omitted the name of the person because I learned it during a private conversation. And mentioning it would have violated a trust.
Marc
On 9/3/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I omitted the name of the person because I learned it during a private conversation. And mentioning it would have violated a trust.
On 9/3/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I am still puzzled by why the persons being moderated (censored) on this List need to be held so close to the vest; is there a stigma attached to it?
So, hang on, are you saying that it should be kept private or that it shouldn't?
By the way, if you feel that the mods are doing a bad job, you should try discussing it with them. From the tone of your messages, I'm presuming you haven't already done so, and have instead complained publicly.
On 9/3/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I omitted the name of the person because I learned it during a private conversation. And mentioning it would have violated a trust.
On 9/3/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I am still puzzled by why the persons being moderated (censored) on this List need to be held so close to the vest; is there a stigma attached to it?
on 9/2/07 11:46 PM, Stephen Bain at stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
So, hang on, are you saying that it should be kept private or that it shouldn't?
It should be kept private only if the person being moderated wishes it to be.
By the way, if you feel that the mods are doing a bad job, you should try discussing it with them. From the tone of your messages, I'm presuming you haven't already done so, and have instead complained publicly.
It is a public issue.
Marc
On 9/3/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 9/3/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I omitted the name of the person because I learned it during a private conversation. And mentioning it would have violated a trust.
On 9/3/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I am still puzzled by why the persons being moderated (censored) on
this
List need to be held so close to the vest; is there a stigma attached
to it?
on 9/2/07 11:46 PM, Stephen Bain at stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
So, hang on, are you saying that it should be kept private or that it shouldn't?
It should be kept private only if the person being moderated wishes it to be.
In such a case, then why should the list mods make the list of those on moderation public? Shouldn't the presumption be that this information ought to be private unless the person decides otherwise?
By the way, if you feel that the mods are doing a bad job, you should try discussing it with them. From the tone of your messages, I'm presuming you haven't already done so, and have instead complained publicly.
It is a public issue.
Frankly, as a list mod, I would only make the list of those moderated public if there was a consensus to do so, either amongst the active list members or the list mods. (I can't say much about the /reason/ these people were placed on moderation; the software does not allow for such record-keeping, although maybe it ought to.)
If someone on moderation wanted to make this fact public, they could easily write to the list complaining about being on moderation, and if the mods rejected that email, write to a fellow list member who could then raise the issue. If the issue of that person being on moderation is of public concern, it will receive a hearing on the list; otherwise, it will not. Typically, the mods announce when someone is placed on moderation, so it is usually a matter of public record anyway.
In any event, as someone suggested earlier, if we want a rough list of active list members who are on moderation, all we need is for those of them who wish to make this fact public to reply to this email. If they really think the list mods are evil megalomaniacs who will not approve those postings, then they can send their emails to you or someone else for forwarding to the list.
Johnleemk
On 03/09/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
It's pretty obvious when emails with earlier timestamps from one person come in at the same time as a bunch of later ones. It could just be a coincidental misconfiguration, but the facts fit.
That's exactly right.
We're not going to make the moderation list public, because (firstly) there is no "moderation list", there is simply an alphabetical list of the 900 or so email addresses which are subscribed to the mailing list, with a string of options for each one (one of which is moderation). Not everybody puts a real name in when they subscribe, and those that do often put in their real name despite being pseudonymous on Wikipedia. I am not in the habit of making private email addresses or real names public just to satisfy people's curiosity and demands for transparency.
Secondly, for long parts of the history of the mailing list, including right now, all new subscribers to the mailing list are automatically moderated upon subscribing. This is unfortunate but necessary, to give effect to the purposeful moderation of others, who realise that they can otherwise get around their moderation by just signing up with a new email address. This means that people's first posts to the mailing list often require approval, but when I come across such a moderated post, I always check my list administrator log emails for them, and if there is no reason there for them to remain moderated, I unmoderate them at the same time as approving their first post. I also respond to directly emailed requests from such users to be unmoderated.
A couple of times in the past few years I've gone through the list, checked every moderated subscriber for their mailing list history (date of subscription etc) and unmoderated a hell of a lot of them. It's a lot of work and I'll probably get around to doing it again at some stage. I have complete administrator logs of the mailing list running back to when I became a list administrator in mid-2004, so I have a lot of stuff there.
266 list members are currently moderated, out of the 901 list members. Here is a breakdown by first letter of the email addresses: A - 17 B - 16 C - 16 D - 17 E - 13 F - 7 G - 9 H - 11 I - 7 J - 22 K - 12 L - 7 M - 16 N - 11 O - 6 P - 9 Q - 1 R - 9 S - 21 T - 13 U - 0 V - 0 W - 19 X - 0 Y - 2 Z - 5
That's all the data you're going to get about who is moderated from me. If any users find themselves currently moderated and wish to be unmoderated, please email wikien-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org. This email address sends your email to all seven list administrators.
~Mark Ryan
On 03/09/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
266 list members are currently moderated, out of the 901 list members.
Wow - I didn't realise the list membership was so small! (considering the size of Wikipedia) Also 266/901 is a rather hefty proportion on moderation I would have thought - almost 30% of the total membership!
Zoney
On 03/09/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/09/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
266 list members are currently moderated, out of the 901 list members.
Wow - I didn't realise the list membership was so small! (considering the size of Wikipedia) Also 266/901 is a rather hefty proportion on moderation I would have thought - almost 30% of the total membership!
I would imagine that the vast majority of them have never posted, and hence never been automatically taken off moderation.
Wow - I didn't realise the list membership was so small! (considering the size of Wikipedia) Also 266/901 is a rather hefty proportion on moderation I would have thought - almost 30% of the total membership!
I would imagine that the vast majority of them have never posted, and hence never been automatically taken off moderation.
That, and moderated people are more likely to have multiple email addresses signed up than non-moderated people. In terms of people, it is probably a significantly smaller proportion.
As for it being small, I'm not suprised. Only very active Wikipedians would be interested in the mailing list, and not all of them. In September 2006 (the last month I can find stats for - do we have stats anywhere from after the toolserver failed?), 4330 accounts made more than 100 edits. Accounting for growth, etc., I'd say about 10% of very active Wikipedians are on this mailing list. Seems about right.
Plus the mailing list software automatically unsubscribes people after a while when emails sent to them consistently bounce back (e.g. when people have changed email addresses).
~Mark Ryan
On 03/09/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As for it being small, I'm not suprised. Only very active Wikipedians would be interested in the mailing list, and not all of them. In September 2006 (the last month I can find stats for - do we have stats anywhere from after the toolserver failed?), 4330 accounts made more than 100 edits. Accounting for growth, etc., I'd say about 10% of very active Wikipedians are on this mailing list. Seems about right.
As an official place for discussion of en:wp matters, this list tends to select from the most interested.
As one of the last points of appeal for the banned (hence its position as official sewer of en:wp - a function that makes the place cleaner and nicer, but you probably don't want to fish through the output), it tends to select from the least suited.
This creates an interesting list atmosphere requiring more work moderating than any sensible list should ...
- d.
On 03/09/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As for it being small, I'm not suprised. Only very active Wikipedians would be interested in the mailing list, and not all of them. In September 2006 (the last month I can find stats for - do we have stats anywhere from after the toolserver failed?), 4330 accounts made more than 100 edits. Accounting for growth, etc., I'd say about 10% of very active Wikipedians are on this mailing list. Seems about right.
on 9/3/07 11:21 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
As an official place for discussion of en:wp matters, this list tends to select from the most interested.
As one of the last points of appeal for the banned (hence its position as official sewer of en:wp - a function that makes the place cleaner and nicer, but you probably don't want to fish through the output), it tends to select from the least suited.
This creates an interesting list atmosphere requiring more work moderating than any sensible list should ...
Everyone,
Since I was the one who started this thread, allow me to clarify my thoughts about the subject.
This is not a direct response to, nor especially directed at, you David. But, since you are a Moderator on this List, I thought this would be a good a place as any to speak it.
During a private email discussion with a person I have come to respect on this List, and do look forward to their contributions, they made a statement; and then, as an aside, said that they could never make the remark in a post to the List because they were on moderation. I was stunned! Having read and enjoyed all of their past posts, I could not for the life of me imagine why they would be on moderation. Then I wondered who else was being similarly moderated - and why. That is the background of my post.
What I would like to see:
1) A List of persons in this Community who are currently on Moderation; and the reason they are being moderated.
2) Any person on moderation who chooses not to be identified on this list, has the right not to be.
3) That only blatant spam, and unintelligible bullshit be moderated from the List. I can only imagine the amount and type of crap you must weed through. But, please, allow me the right to decide what I do and do not want to read.
That's it folks,
Marc
Marc Riddell schreef:
- A List of persons in this Community who are currently on Moderation; and
the reason they are being moderated.
- Any person on moderation who chooses not to be identified on this list,
has the right not to be.
How would one know this? The only way to do this properly would be to mail all moderated people to ask if they want to be identified, and then only list those people who reply positively. It would be wrong to do let them opt-out; only an opt-in list is acceptable.
- That only blatant spam, and unintelligible bullshit be moderated from the
List. I can only imagine the amount and type of crap you must weed through. But, please, allow me the right to decide what I do and do not want to read.
This would probably make this list unreadable for me. The problem with the moderation of this list is that to much crap is let through already; something I only accept because the moderators are volunteers, and I can understand why they don't want to put more of their own time into it.
Eugene
Can I ask you a question now?
1) If a moderator flat-out denies any or all of your "wants", will you drop it?
On 9/3/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 03/09/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As for it being small, I'm not suprised. Only very active Wikipedians would be interested in the mailing list, and not all of them. In September 2006 (the last month I can find stats for - do we have stats anywhere from after the toolserver failed?), 4330 accounts made more than 100 edits. Accounting for growth, etc., I'd say about 10% of very active Wikipedians are on this mailing list. Seems about right.
on 9/3/07 11:21 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
As an official place for discussion of en:wp matters, this list tends to select from the most interested.
As one of the last points of appeal for the banned (hence its position as official sewer of en:wp - a function that makes the place cleaner and nicer, but you probably don't want to fish through the output), it tends to select from the least suited.
This creates an interesting list atmosphere requiring more work moderating than any sensible list should ...
Everyone,
Since I was the one who started this thread, allow me to clarify my thoughts about the subject.
This is not a direct response to, nor especially directed at, you David. But, since you are a Moderator on this List, I thought this would be a good a place as any to speak it.
During a private email discussion with a person I have come to respect on this List, and do look forward to their contributions, they made a statement; and then, as an aside, said that they could never make the remark in a post to the List because they were on moderation. I was stunned! Having read and enjoyed all of their past posts, I could not for the life of me imagine why they would be on moderation. Then I wondered who else was being similarly moderated - and why. That is the background of my post.
What I would like to see:
- A List of persons in this Community who are currently on Moderation;
and the reason they are being moderated.
- Any person on moderation who chooses not to be identified on this list,
has the right not to be.
- That only blatant spam, and unintelligible bullshit be moderated from
the List. I can only imagine the amount and type of crap you must weed through. But, please, allow me the right to decide what I do and do not want to read.
That's it folks,
Marc
-- If you don't ask the questions - you have no excuse for not knowing the answers.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 18:39 -0400, Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/3/07 6:32 PM, Casey Brown at cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
Can I ask you a question now?
- If a moderator flat-out denies any or all of your "wants", will you drop
it?
No.
You just don't get it do you? The moderators among others have said what they're going to provide and what they're not going to provide. Mark Ryan for example have provided more details than I'm sure most others would bother. Someone somewhere along this thread mentioned the only way that's likely to change is for the community to demonstrate they want such a list, which the community from discussion on this thread have clearly demonstrate the lack of such consensus.
- Any person on moderation who chooses not to be identified on this
list, has the right not to be.
And the presumption should be as have been said, is in favour of privacy, and so an opt-in system, rather than an opt-out one, and those who is on moderation have been offered exactly that in discussing why they're on moderation.
I quote from your response to being asked who told you a certain person was on moderation : "it was told to me in confidence - and it must remain that way". The person in concern have not posted to the list since, saying he or she is that person, and have the list debate whether it was correct or not that this person is indeed on moderation, presumingly because they don't want to have that discussed here. What makes you think any other people on moderation wants any different treatment???
KTC
Casey Brown wrote:
Can I ask you a question now?
- If a moderator flat-out denies any or all of your "wants", will you drop
it?
On 9/3/07, Marc Riddell ...
We already know that for some reason you dislike this thread. There's no reason to whine about it. It will stop when people no longer have anything to say. Meanwhile, is your computer lacking a delete key?
Ec
I don't think people are placed on moderation lightly, if they are there are numerous ways to contact people on the list and oppose their moderation. This seems a classic tempest in a teacup so let's move on.
JodyB
Marc Riddell wrote:
On 03/09/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As for it being small, I'm not suprised. Only very active Wikipedians would be interested in the mailing list, and not all of them. In September 2006 (the last month I can find stats for - do we have stats anywhere from after the toolserver failed?), 4330 accounts made more than 100 edits. Accounting for growth, etc., I'd say about 10% of very active Wikipedians are on this mailing list. Seems about right.
on 9/3/07 11:21 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
As an official place for discussion of en:wp matters, this list tends to select from the most interested.
As one of the last points of appeal for the banned (hence its position as official sewer of en:wp - a function that makes the place cleaner and nicer, but you probably don't want to fish through the output), it tends to select from the least suited.
This creates an interesting list atmosphere requiring more work moderating than any sensible list should ...
Everyone,
Since I was the one who started this thread, allow me to clarify my thoughts about the subject.
This is not a direct response to, nor especially directed at, you David. But, since you are a Moderator on this List, I thought this would be a good a place as any to speak it.
During a private email discussion with a person I have come to respect on this List, and do look forward to their contributions, they made a statement; and then, as an aside, said that they could never make the remark in a post to the List because they were on moderation. I was stunned! Having read and enjoyed all of their past posts, I could not for the life of me imagine why they would be on moderation. Then I wondered who else was being similarly moderated - and why. That is the background of my post.
What I would like to see:
- A List of persons in this Community who are currently on Moderation; and
the reason they are being moderated.
- Any person on moderation who chooses not to be identified on this list,
has the right not to be.
- That only blatant spam, and unintelligible bullshit be moderated from the
List. I can only imagine the amount and type of crap you must weed through. But, please, allow me the right to decide what I do and do not want to read.
That's it folks,
Marc
On 04/09/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote: *snip*
What I would like to see:
- A List of persons in this Community who are currently on Moderation; and
the reason they are being moderated.
- Any person on moderation who chooses not to be identified on this list,
has the right not to be.
- That only blatant spam, and unintelligible bullshit be moderated from the
List. I can only imagine the amount and type of crap you must weed through. But, please, allow me the right to decide what I do and do not want to read.
That's it folks,
Marc
I get the feeling you might have missed my email some way up in this thread which addresses most of what you have been asking.
In short, here are my responses to your three things there:
1. You are not going to see such a list, because it is very long, consists of private information and is almost entirely made up of people automatically moderated upon subscription. If we had wanted to make the list of subscribers to the mailing list public, we would have enabled that option in the mailing list settings.
2. See above.
3. Generally the only things which get moderated (i.e. not allowed through to the mailing list) from moderated users is personal attacks/incivility/unintelligible spam/repetition which has exhausted the patience of subscribers to the point of them asking for the person to be moderated.
If you feel that you would do a better job as one of the list administrators than the current ones, then I encourage you to ask the mailing list/Wikipedia community for support in such an effort. I'm not sure I like your chances, though, because what you are proposing would annoy the hell out of a lot of subscribers.
~Mark Ryan
Now, wouldn't it be ironic if this discussion only ended if people were put on moderation. 0:)
Mark Ryan wrote:
In short, here are my responses to your three things there:
- You are not going to see such a list, because it is very long,
consists of private information and is almost entirely made up of people automatically moderated upon subscription. If we had wanted to make the list of subscribers to the mailing list public, we would have enabled that option in the mailing list settings.
The majority of which you speak is probably not interesting anyway. It is only with the minority that there is likely to be any interest in this.
- Generally the only things which get moderated (i.e. not allowed
through to the mailing list) from moderated users is personal attacks/incivility/unintelligible spam/repetition which has exhausted the patience of subscribers to the point of them asking for the person to be moderated.
Patience levels vary. I know that I can just delete something I don't like. Occasionally a piece of spam gets through. Although there are list members who will complain loudly on these occasions, but I see that as no big deal.
If you feel that you would do a better job as one of the list administrators than the current ones, then I encourage you to ask the mailing list/Wikipedia community for support in such an effort. I'm not sure I like your chances, though, because what you are proposing would annoy the hell out of a lot of subscribers.
I would have no problem with the list being privately sent to some members who just want to audit the list, as long as there is confidence that the person understands the notion of privacy. I have no doubt that Marc, because of his usual real-world employment, would have no problem with respecting privacy. His actions in this thread have certainly demonstrated that he is able to separate the general topic, and its application in individual cases.
Ec
James Farrar wrote:
On 03/09/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/09/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
266 list members are currently moderated, out of the 901 list members.
Wow - I didn't realise the list membership was so small! (considering the size of Wikipedia) Also 266/901 is a rather hefty proportion on moderation I would have thought - almost 30% of the total membership!
I would imagine that the vast majority of them have never posted, and hence never been automatically taken off moderation.
266 does seem high. Many of these should probably be reverted to a newbie status if they haven't tried to post for a significant time. Chronic spammers with no hope of ever being reinstated might be better placed in a separate list. The concern in this thread may be limited to only those individuals who have been put on moderation, after having once been accepted. That should be a much smaller list.
Rather than providing a list, when an active member is put on moderation, a simple announcement that Xxxx has been put on moderation for yy days because of Zxxx should do the trick.
Ec
on 9/4/07 3:41 AM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Rather than providing a list, when an active member is put on moderation, a simple announcement that Xxxx has been put on moderation for yy days because of Zxxx should do the trick.
Yes! Yes! This is a much better idea than mine. All I am wanting to know folks is whether any person who has been a steady contributor to this List has been put on moderation - and why. If I wasn't clear about this before I'm sorry.
I still ask that only blatant spam, and deliberately disruptive bullshit be moderated from the List. And that I be allowed the right to decide what I do and do not want to read.
Marc Riddell
On 9/4/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 9/4/07 3:41 AM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Rather than providing a list, when an active member is put on moderation, a simple announcement that Xxxx has been put on moderation for yy days because of Zxxx should do the trick.
Yes! Yes! This is a much better idea than mine. All I am wanting to know folks is whether any person who has been a steady contributor to this List has been put on moderation - and why. If I wasn't clear about this before I'm sorry.
I still ask that only blatant spam, and deliberately disruptive bullshit be moderated from the List. And that I be allowed the right to decide what I do and do not want to read.
Well, as I said earlier, it is standard practice to announce that so-and-so has been put on moderation, usually in response to a particular discussion or posting pattern. (There is no duration for moderation; it's basically at the moderators' pleasure, bluntly put. If someone hasn't been making trouble for a while, we may take them off moderation, but there have been a number of high-profile cases where this turned out to be a mistake.)
Johnleemk
On 02/09/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/2/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote: [snip]
Is is really the persons being moderated who want the fact be kept confidential?
If that really isn't a factor then we should probably accept the hypothesis that you omitted the name of the person who sparked your email because mentioning it would have greatly weakened your argument.
Of all the people on this list, Marc is probably the least likely to do something like that.
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/2/07 8:04 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote
I do have mixed feelings on this because it is a question of conflicting values. Both privacy rights and operational transparency are important. Still it is not enough to say that we must trust somebody simply because he is in a position of leadership. Most people in that position will not abuse the position, but occasionally some do, or perhaps we need sound data so that the community can determine whether the underlying policy is correct.
We don't need a list of the dedicated spammers; that would be too boring. We don't need to know the names of the list newcomers who start with a clearly offensive or overly aggressive post, though some statistics would be interesting. I would still be more sympathetic to knowing about what happens to people who were already list members, and who went over some kind of line. This is where the community may have a different opinion about the punishment. Perhaps the affected person should have some input into whether the action should be kept confidential.
Is is really the persons being moderated who want the fact be kept confidential?
It often happens that people in conflict with governments make detailed public statements about the incident, but governments (with police being the worst) clam up saying that it is because of privacy restrictions. It makes you wonder whose privacy they are protecting.
If I were to become a moderated voice on this List - I would want EVERYONE to know. Then let the other Members of the Community decide if that voice is one they want to be protected from.
Then it would seem that what is needed is a mechanism so that allows moderated users the opportunity to have that fact made public.
Ec
It's pretty obvious when emails with earlier timestamps from one person come in at the same time as a bunch of later ones. It could just be a coincidental misconfiguration, but the facts fit.
Marc Riddell wrote:
Yes! If this List, much less the Project, is to maintain any credibility, and the confidence of its Community, it has got to remain open, fair and honest to all. Secrecy breeds suspicion, which breeds distrust. I have never blindly followed anyone. And too many people have ended up in my therapy room for having done just that.
So then I don't understand why you haven't published all of *your* personal info here - bio, family history, bank account numbers (so I can crosscheck against my list of Microsoft-funded shills, for instance), credit cards, etc. All that is useful in interpreting your postings, so why keep it all secret and breed distrust in the rest of us? You're digging for information on other people that they haven't agreed to disclose, but then turn around and expect to keep information about yourself secret.
Stan
On 9/3/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
Yes! If this List, much less the Project, is to maintain any credibility, and the confidence of its Community, it has got to remain open, fair and honest to all. Secrecy breeds suspicion, which breeds distrust. I have never blindly followed anyone. And too many people have ended up in my therapy room for having done just that.
So then I don't understand why you haven't published all of *your* personal info here - bio, family history, bank account numbers (so I can crosscheck against my list of Microsoft-funded shills, for instance), credit cards, etc. All that is useful in interpreting your postings, so why keep it all secret and breed distrust in the rest of us? You're digging for information on other people that they haven't agreed to disclose, but then turn around and expect to keep information about yourself secret.
Stan
Stan, this is a bit unlike you, comparing apples and oranges to make a point.
KP
On 03/09/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/3/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
Yes! If this List, much less the Project, is to maintain any credibility, and the confidence of its Community, it has got to remain open, fair and honest to all. Secrecy breeds suspicion, which breeds distrust. I have never blindly followed anyone. And too many people have ended up in my therapy room for having done just that.
So then I don't understand why you haven't published all of *your* personal info here - bio, family history, bank account numbers (so I can crosscheck against my list of Microsoft-funded shills, for instance), credit cards, etc. All that is useful in interpreting your postings, so why keep it all secret and breed distrust in the rest of us? You're digging for information on other people that they haven't agreed to disclose, but then turn around and expect to keep information about yourself secret.
Stan
Stan, this is a bit unlike you, comparing apples and oranges to make a point.
I'd say more like apples and orangutans... there is no comparison between a list of moderated email addresses with the reasons for moderation and bank account numbers!
K P wrote:
On 9/3/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
Yes! If this List, much less the Project, is to maintain any credibility, and the confidence of its Community, it has got to remain open, fair and honest to all. Secrecy breeds suspicion, which breeds distrust. I have never blindly followed anyone. And too many people have ended up in my therapy room for having done just that.
So then I don't understand why you haven't published all of *your* personal info here - bio, family history, bank account numbers (so I can crosscheck against my list of Microsoft-funded shills, for instance), credit cards, etc. All that is useful in interpreting your postings, so why keep it all secret and breed distrust in the rest of us? You're digging for information on other people that they haven't agreed to disclose, but then turn around and expect to keep information about yourself secret.
Stan
Stan, this is a bit unlike you, comparing apples and oranges to make a point.
Well, Marc made a statement about fruit in general, so I wasn't really being flippant, not too much anyway. :-) There is a lot of stuff that remains secret even in large open online projects, often for very good reasons. As a former manager in a company that did some highly confidential work on open-source software, I know a lot of secrets, some of which would unfairly destroy people's reputations if I blurted them all out one day (and given the amount of Japanese business involved, the yakuza would likely get to me before the legal system would, ha ha).
In fact, one of the ways that potential volunteers evaluate large online projects is by whether the degree of openness is compatible with one's personality. For instance, some of the BSD Unix projects have long had a reputation for secrecy, at least partly because of paranoia over security bugs, and the participants like it that way - newbies aspire to a position of sufficient trust to be told about unfixed security holes, etc. I work on Firefox these days, and every random accusation of closed decisionmaking causes a flurry of navelgazing angst among the senior Mozillians. WP is very open, and openness is pretty well ingrained in the culture; you're going to have a hard time finding a more open project out there.
Stan
On 9/3/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Well, Marc made a statement about fruit in general, so I wasn't really being flippant, not too much anyway. :-)
But, when it comes to a pome versus a berry, I'm going to hold you to a higher standard than Marc--until Marc indicates other wise.
WP is very open, and openness is pretty well ingrained in the culture; you're going to have a hard time finding a more open project out there.
Stan
And when openness is ingrained in part of a culture, it makes it hard to justify it in other parts, or maybe necessary to justify it, which is why people get irritated on list and on en.wiki about lacks of transparency.
KP
PS Let's not go overboard on criticizing spellings in English, please. I do research in 19th century Brittish journals and often throw in weird vowels when I get back to writing Standard American English--if you haven't had to switch between dialects on purpose it's hard to appreciate how difficult it is in English. I vote for Polish becoming the world language--at least we could all spell, and they have great poets.
I'm sure there is a good reason. Why would you want to know who is on moderation?
Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Marc Riddell Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 4:19 PM To: Wiki-EN-L (new topics) Subject: [WikiEN-l] Who's moderated?
Folks,
I just learned by private email, that one of most articulate and frequent contributors to this List is on moderation.
In the interest of full and honest disclosure, I would like to see a list of all persons who are currently on moderation - and why.
Marc Riddell
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Marc Riddell wrote:
Folks,
I just learned by private email, that one of most articulate and frequent contributors to this List is on moderation.
In the interest of full and honest disclosure, I would like to see a list of all persons who are currently on moderation - and why.
Marc Riddell
I've actually read through most of this thread so far. Just a couple observations:
* I prefer the moderators to use moderation sparingly. I'd rather that I make the decision of who I should ignore. Of course, pure spam should be moderated. And abusive posts as well. But I would rather not see someone moderated for simply being disliked and persistent.
* Somewhere in the thread it was mentioned that most non-automatic moderations are announced on list. I know I seen such announcements in the past. Isn't this list archived? Could not someone search through the archives and compile a list? Labor-intensive, yes. But doable. And the fact that those announcements *are* made would seem to reduce the weight of any argument about "privacy" or "black marks". There does not seem to be any presumption of privacy regarding moderation on the list. (I'm not referring here to the issue of other private data being included in some posting of a list).
* Which raises a third point, or question really: Are there times when a contributor is put on moderation and intentionally not announced to the list? That would be troubling...the exception being, I suppose, if someone were to request that it not be announced to the list in their case, but that seems an unlikely scenario, since as I understand it, there is no "negotiating" over moderation.
-Rich Holton
On 9/5/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
- I prefer the moderators to use moderation sparingly. I'd rather that I
make the decision of who I should ignore. Of course, pure spam should be moderated. And abusive posts as well. But I would rather not see someone moderated for simply being disliked and persistent.
It's a fine line. IMHO we're there to keep discussion moving along. If every post from a certain user is causing a flurry of indignant "how dare you use language like that", "oh sorry that's just the way I talk, no offence caused", then they can really clog up a list and reduce the signal to noise ratio.
- Somewhere in the thread it was mentioned that most non-automatic
moderations are announced on list. I know I seen such announcements in
Mostly that happens to avoid confusion as to why a loud voice suddenly disappeared in the middle of a discussion. People get moderated for other reasons without such fanfare.
- Which raises a third point, or question really: Are there times when a
contributor is put on moderation and intentionally not announced to the list? That would be troubling...the exception being, I suppose, if
No, that would be weird. More likely, someone is moderated for blatant list abuse (eg, spamming) and no explicit announcement is made, but if anyone asks, we confirm it.
someone were to request that it not be announced to the list in their case, but that seems an unlikely scenario, since as I understand it, there is no "negotiating" over moderation.
Dunno about "negotiating" but if someone really wanted to be unmoderated, they're certainly entitled to ask politely. But it's better to just change the style of one's posts. Remember, being moderated doesn't mean being banned, it just means having every post approved before it goes through to the list. So for example if someone is being too abusive, I might moderate them, then reject future posts one at a time with an explanation of what was wrong with it, and how they should reword it. Or sometimes I'll end up just rejecting some messages and letting others through. Some of the people in this category have ended up sending 20+ messages a day, half of which were sarcastic one liners like "Yeah, right." Really positive, helpful stuff.
Steve
On 9/5/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
- I prefer the moderators to use moderation sparingly. I'd rather that I
make the decision of who I should ignore. Of course, pure spam should be moderated. And abusive posts as well. But I would rather not see someone moderated for simply being disliked and persistent.
on 9/5/07 4:30 AM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It's a fine line. IMHO we're there to keep discussion moving along. If every post from a certain user is causing a flurry of indignant "how dare you use language like that", "oh sorry that's just the way I talk, no offence caused", then they can really clog up a list and reduce the signal to noise ratio.
You are using the reactions of the members of the group to decide what to allow to be said; instead of focusing on the substance of what is being said? What I hear you saying is "This person is upsetting people, they've gotta go." That's rather paternalistic isn't it?
Steve, managing a group discussion requires a great deal of objectivity, patience and skill. To silence someone in that discussion simply because the other members of the group are getting upset, or you, personally, find them irritating is amateur, arbitrary, and counter to the purpose of an open discussion.
Steve, please rethink your criteria for what, and whom, you choose to censor out of the discussions on this List.
And, as as a member of these group discussions, please allow me the right to decide what upsets me or not. If I don't like what's being said, I can simply move on to another discussion.
Marc Riddell
And, as as a member of these group discussions, please allow me the right to decide what upsets me or not. If I don't like what's being said, I can simply move on to another discussion.
All these "let me decide what to read" arguments are fundamentally flawed. You can't make that decision until after you've read the email, by which point it's too late.
on 9/5/07 9:19 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
And, as as a member of these group discussions, please allow me the right to decide what upsets me or not. If I don't like what's being said, I can simply move on to another discussion.
All these "let me decide what to read" arguments are fundamentally flawed. You can't make that decision until after you've read the email, by which point it's too late.
Thomas,
When a message comes onto my screen, I scan it quickly. If I am interested in what I see, I read it thoroughly; if I'm not interested, I move on. I'm simply asking that it appear in the first place.
Marc
Thomas Dalton wrote:
And, as as a member of these group discussions, please allow me the right to decide what upsets me or not. If I don't like what's being said, I can simply move on to another discussion.
All these "let me decide what to read" arguments are fundamentally flawed. You can't make that decision until after you've read the email, by which point it's too late.
Thomas,
Too late for what? Of course you can't "unread" what you've read, but I'm NOT advocating the elimination of all moderation...I am advocating the light-handed application of it. I support moderating messages that contain personal attacks, etc. What harm have you received by reading a message? Or by reading a message enough to decide it's not worth reading further? And you can decide for yourself whether to respond.
You can decide who to ignore in the future, right? Isn't it better to be able to do that for yourself, instead of having someone else do it for you? In fact, don't most mail clients allow you to filter certain messages based on criteria? That would allow you to moderate anyone you choose.
-Rich
On 05/09/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Too late for what? Of course you can't "unread" what you've read, but I'm NOT advocating the elimination of all moderation...I am advocating the light-handed application of it. I support moderating messages that contain personal attacks, etc. What harm have you received by reading a message? Or by reading a message enough to decide it's not worth reading further? And you can decide for yourself whether to respond.
We keep the moderation light because otherwise it's a damn nuisance.
People get put on mod by being massive pains in the backside. Even then, their messages get through if they aren't a continuation of being the massive pain in the backside.
The default moderation of new members is a massive pain in the backside itself, but was put into place (and then put back into place after it was removed) because people posting annoying rubbish to the list would just morph addresses to continue. We keep an eye on this in the hope of being able to remove it again.
- d.
On 05/09/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Too late for what? Of course you can't "unread" what you've read, but I'm NOT advocating the elimination of all moderation...I am advocating the light-handed application of it. I support moderating messages that contain personal attacks, etc. What harm have you received by reading a message? Or by reading a message enough to decide it's not worth reading further? And you can decide for yourself whether to respond.
on 9/5/07 9:40 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
We keep the moderation light because otherwise it's a damn nuisance.
A "damn nuisance" to whom?
People get put on mod by being massive pains in the backside. Even then, their messages get through if they aren't a continuation of being the massive pain in the backside.
A "pain in the backside" to whom?
people posting annoying rubbish
"annoying rubbish" to whom"
David, what is a nuisance, a pain, or rubbish to you, may not be to me.
Marc
We keep the moderation light because otherwise it's a damn nuisance.
A "damn nuisance" to whom?
The moderators.
People get put on mod by being massive pains in the backside. Even then, their messages get through if they aren't a continuation of being the massive pain in the backside.
A "pain in the backside" to whom?
To the readers of the mailing list. It's usually fairly obvious from the replies when people are getting annoyed.
people posting annoying rubbish
"annoying rubbish" to whom"
The readers of the list - see above.
We keep the moderation light because otherwise it's a damn nuisance.
A "damn nuisance" to whom?
on 9/5/07 10:17 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The moderators.
Part of their motivation for doing what they are doing as moderators is to reduce their own, personal nuisance factor?
People get put on mod by being massive pains in the backside. Even then, their messages get through if they aren't a continuation of being the massive pain in the backside.
A "pain in the backside" to whom?
To the readers of the mailing list. It's usually fairly obvious from the replies when people are getting annoyed.
people posting annoying rubbish
"annoying rubbish" to whom"
The readers of the list - see above.
Thomas, as you really wanting to speak for all Members of this List?
Marc
Part of their motivation for doing what they are doing as moderators is to reduce their own, personal nuisance factor?
Yes. Seems reasonable to me - they are volunteers, after all.
Thomas, as you really wanting to speak for all Members of this List?
It doesn't take a psychic to realise that people are getting annoyed when they say as much in their replies... Yes, it's based on the assumption that those posting are a representative sample of those reading, which probably isn't very precise, but it's close enough.
On 9/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
David, what is a nuisance, a pain, or rubbish to you, may not be to me.
While this is true, I think this thread has shown pretty clearly that you are a fairly far outlier in terms of your social expectations. Not that this is a bad thing, but it would be unwise to expect the list to change to meet those expectations, at least while the general consensus remains as it is.
If your proposals are accepted, and the mailing list becomes disagreeable to the majority of its active users (as they have indicated it would), to the point that they leave and go elsewhere, *what has been gained?* This sort of thinking, elevating pragmatics over principle in all but a few cases, has been enshrined in the project since the beginning, in the form of [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]], and that spirit continues to inform the vast majority (one hopes!) of the community.
-Michael Noda
On 9/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
David, what is a nuisance, a pain, or rubbish to you, may not be to me.
on 9/5/07 3:23 PM, Michael Noda at michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
While this is true, I think this thread has shown pretty clearly that you are a fairly far outlier in terms of your social expectations. Not that this is a bad thing, but it would be unwise to expect the list to change to meet those expectations, at least while the general consensus remains as it is.
If your proposals are accepted, and the mailing list becomes disagreeable to the majority of its active users (as they have indicated it would), to the point that they leave and go elsewhere, *what has been gained?* This sort of thinking, elevating pragmatics over principle in all but a few cases, has been enshrined in the project since the beginning, in the form of [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]], and that spirit continues to inform the vast majority (one hopes!) of the community.
Michael,
I receive many, many private emails from Members of this List Community every day. The great majority of these persons are NOT banned or moderated Members; but who fear ending up that way if they voice their opinions.
That is what drives me.
Marc Riddell
On 9/6/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 9/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
David, what is a nuisance, a pain, or rubbish to you, may not be to me.
on 9/5/07 3:23 PM, Michael Noda at michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
While this is true, I think this thread has shown pretty clearly that you are a fairly far outlier in terms of your social expectations. Not that this is a bad thing, but it would be unwise to expect the list to change to meet those expectations, at least while the general consensus remains as it is.
If your proposals are accepted, and the mailing list becomes disagreeable to the majority of its active users (as they have indicated it would), to the point that they leave and go elsewhere, *what has been gained?* This sort of thinking, elevating pragmatics over principle in all but a few cases, has been enshrined in the project since the beginning, in the form of [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]], and that spirit continues to inform the vast majority (one hopes!) of the community.
Michael,
I receive many, many private emails from Members of this List Community every day. The great majority of these persons are NOT banned or moderated Members; but who fear ending up that way if they voice their opinions.
That is what drives me.
That comes as a surprise to me; as I said elsewhere, we mods are very lenient when it comes to moderating people and approving messages from those on moderation. (Also, hardly anybody is actually banned from the list, as far as I know - I think I've only banned someone once, when the person posted nothing helpful at all to the list.)
David Gerard said in the same thread I referred to that we're meant to be a last resort; people who are banned from Wikipedia post here. As a result, we have much lower standards than the English Wikipedia for moderation or banning.
Dialogue is crucial; I personally would like to engage those who fear they will be moderated, because I cannot think of a reason they would fear that unless they actually intend to contribute nothing more than the same things as those presently on moderation - most of whom are on it for good reason.
I would also add that speaking in vague abstract generalities is not very helpful or conducive to a resolution of this problem; we need to know just whats, whys, etc. of these fears. Feel free to disagree with me all you like, but I find we're very tolerant of a lot of crap spewed onto the list - even those on moderation often have their messages approved.
Johnleemk
On 9/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
David, what is a nuisance, a pain, or rubbish to you, may not be to me.
on 9/5/07 3:23 PM, Michael Noda at michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
While this is true, I think this thread has shown pretty clearly that you are a fairly far outlier in terms of your social expectations. Not that this is a bad thing, but it would be unwise to expect the list to change to meet those expectations, at least while the general consensus remains as it is.
If your proposals are accepted, and the mailing list becomes disagreeable to the majority of its active users (as they have indicated it would), to the point that they leave and go elsewhere, *what has been gained?* This sort of thinking, elevating pragmatics over principle in all but a few cases, has been enshrined in the project since the beginning, in the form of [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]], and that spirit continues to inform the vast majority (one hopes!) of the community.
On 9/6/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Michael,
I receive many, many private emails from Members of this List Community every day. The great majority of these persons are NOT banned or moderated Members; but who fear ending up that way if they voice their opinions.
That is what drives me.
on 9/5/07 7:29 PM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Dialogue is crucial; I personally would like to engage those who fear they will be moderated, because I cannot think of a reason they would fear that
That reason is the climate and culture that has been created on the List.
unless they actually intend to contribute nothing more than the same things as those presently on moderation - most of whom are on it for good reason.
And this is the type of cynicism that contributes to that culture.
I would also add that speaking in vague abstract generalities is not very helpful or conducive to a resolution of this problem;
These were private communications; that's all you're going to get from me.
we need to know just whats, whys, etc. of these fears.
You will have to get these from them; and as long as the culture remains as it is, I doubt very much that you will.
Feel free to disagree with me all you like, but I find we're very tolerant of a lot of crap spewed onto the list - even those on moderation often have their messages approved.
Once again, you are illuminating the problem, John. You are subjectively deciding for us all, what is "crap" and what is not. Don't you get it!?
Marc
On 9/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 9/5/07 7:29 PM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I would also add that speaking in vague abstract generalities is not
very
helpful or conducive to a resolution of this problem;
These were private communications; that's all you're going to get from me.
Then keep them private and don't just mention them abstractly to achieve your own agenda.
we need to know just
whats, whys, etc. of these fears.
You will have to get these from them; and as long as the culture remains as it is, I doubt very much that you will.
You are the one who brought it up.
Feel free to disagree with me all you
like, but I find we're very tolerant of a lot of crap spewed onto the
list -
even those on moderation often have their messages approved.
Once again, you are illuminating the problem, John. You are subjectively deciding for us all, what is "crap" and what is not. Don't you get it!?
What you don't get is that they were appointed (or nominated by the community at the time, I forget which) to do the job. They have done it well and I don't see any long-time contributors complaining. You claim to have all these people behind you who are talking to you privately, but we are not to know that. If they wish to have a say, they should say it themselves, not go whining to you.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 06/09/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
What you don't get is that they were appointed (or nominated by the community at the time, I forget which) to do the job.
We basically all volunteered as the need arose to have people minding the mod queue. Anyone who wants off moderating can easily remove themselves from the list of moderators as their last act as a moderator ;-)
- d.
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/5/07 7:29 PM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Feel free to disagree with me all you like, but I find we're very tolerant of a lot of crap spewed onto the list - even those on moderation often have their messages approved.
Once again, you are illuminating the problem, John. You are subjectively deciding for us all, what is "crap" and what is not. Don't you get it!?
We get it alright. But you're presenting yourself as the only person who really knows the right way to do things, and you don't. A couple days ago you didn't even know that lists have owners, and now you're trying to tell everybody how to run a mailing list. Well I'm sorry, but you simply don't know enough to have any credible opinions on the subject. Why aren't you willing to listen to the voices of experience? This is not a Wikipedia thing, this is a problem common to all online projects, so much so that moderation capabilities are built into the list management software! I'm willing to cut you some slack, because I'm interested in alternate viewpoints, but please show some respect in return, OK?
Stan
I second that, this is a really suspicious situation.
On 9/5/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/5/07 7:29 PM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Feel free to disagree with me all you like, but I find we're very tolerant of a lot of crap spewed onto the
list -
even those on moderation often have their messages approved.
Once again, you are illuminating the problem, John. You are subjectively deciding for us all, what is "crap" and what is not. Don't you get it!?
We get it alright. But you're presenting yourself as the only person who really knows the right way to do things, and you don't. A couple days ago you didn't even know that lists have owners, and now you're trying to tell everybody how to run a mailing list. Well I'm sorry, but you simply don't know enough to have any credible opinions on the subject. Why aren't you willing to listen to the voices of experience? This is not a Wikipedia thing, this is a problem common to all online projects, so much so that moderation capabilities are built into the list management software! I'm willing to cut you some slack, because I'm interested in alternate viewpoints, but please show some respect in return, OK?
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/5/07 7:29 PM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Feel free to disagree with me all you like, but I find we're very tolerant of a lot of crap spewed onto the list - even those on moderation often have their messages approved.
Once again, you are illuminating the problem, John. You are subjectively deciding for us all, what is "crap" and what is not. Don't you get it!?
on 9/5/07 8:55 PM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
We get it alright. But you're presenting yourself as the only person who really knows the right way to do things, and you don't. A couple days ago you didn't even know that lists have owners, and now you're trying to tell everybody how to run a mailing list. Well I'm sorry, but you simply don't know enough to have any credible opinions on the subject. Why aren't you willing to listen to the voices of experience? This is not a Wikipedia thing, this is a problem common to all online projects, so much so that moderation capabilities are built into the list management software! I'm willing to cut you some slack, because I'm interested in alternate viewpoints, but please show some respect in return, OK?
I am not here to fight with anyone. I have absolutely no personal or professional stake in any of this. And the idea that I have an agenda (as someone suggested) is absurd.
Stop flailing at the messenger, and open you mind to the message.
Marc Riddell
On 9/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I am not here to fight with anyone. I have absolutely no personal or professional stake in any of this. And the idea that I have an agenda (as someone suggested) is absurd.
Stop flailing at the messenger, and open you mind to the message.
The idea that you have an agenda is absurd, Marc? Please do recall that you *posted* your agenda on this topic to this list. As a numbered list headed "What I would like to see", no less.
In any case, I think that this very thread has shown the remarkable looseness of our moderators. To wit, we still receive your comments, despite your obstinacy in pressing this issue despite having been told point-blank that you aren't going to get any of the things on the aforementioned numbered list.
I believe that this is good evidence that this list is emphatically not one in which dissenting voices are quashed, and that this is a good state of affairs.
-- Jonel
Nick Wilkins wrote:
On 9/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I am not here to fight with anyone. I have absolutely no personal or professional stake in any of this. And the idea that I have an agenda (as someone suggested) is absurd.
Stop flailing at the messenger, and open you mind to the message.
The idea that you have an agenda is absurd, Marc? Please do recall that you *posted* your agenda on this topic to this list. As a numbered list headed "What I would like to see", no less.
In any case, I think that this very thread has shown the remarkable looseness of our moderators. To wit, we still receive your comments, despite your obstinacy in pressing this issue despite having been told point-blank that you aren't going to get any of the things on the aforementioned numbered list.
I believe that this is good evidence that this list is emphatically not one in which dissenting voices are quashed, and that this is a good state of affairs.
-- Jonel
It's exactly this kind of attitude that makes me nervous. Are you suggesting that Marc has engaged in behavior that should result in his moderation? What exactly is that behavior?
No one is forcing you to read, let alone *respond* to any of Marc's postings. Yet you suggest that he should be moderated because you disagree with him and/or are tired of the topic.
I am very glad that our moderators have a clearer understanding of what should result in moderation.
-Rich
On 9/6/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Nick Wilkins wrote:
On 9/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I am not here to fight with anyone. I have absolutely no personal or professional stake in any of this. And the idea that I have an agenda
(as
someone suggested) is absurd.
Stop flailing at the messenger, and open you mind to the message.
The idea that you have an agenda is absurd, Marc? Please do recall that
you
*posted* your agenda on this topic to this list. As a numbered list
headed
"What I would like to see", no less.
In any case, I think that this very thread has shown the remarkable looseness of our moderators. To wit, we still receive your comments, despite your obstinacy in pressing this issue despite having been told point-blank that you aren't going to get any of the things on the aforementioned numbered list.
I believe that this is good evidence that this list is emphatically not
one
in which dissenting voices are quashed, and that this is a good state of affairs.
-- Jonel
It's exactly this kind of attitude that makes me nervous. Are you suggesting that Marc has engaged in behavior that should result in his moderation? What exactly is that behavior?
No one is forcing you to read, let alone *respond* to any of Marc's postings. Yet you suggest that he should be moderated because you disagree with him and/or are tired of the topic.
I am very glad that our moderators have a clearer understanding of what should result in moderation.
I thought the final sentence of Jonel's email made it clear she (he?) approves of the present situation, i.e. Marc not being moderated.
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
On 9/6/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Nick Wilkins wrote:
On 9/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I am not here to fight with anyone. I have absolutely no personal or professional stake in any of this. And the idea that I have an agenda
(as
someone suggested) is absurd.
Stop flailing at the messenger, and open you mind to the message.
The idea that you have an agenda is absurd, Marc? Please do recall that
you
*posted* your agenda on this topic to this list. As a numbered list
headed
"What I would like to see", no less.
In any case, I think that this very thread has shown the remarkable looseness of our moderators. To wit, we still receive your comments, despite your obstinacy in pressing this issue despite having been told point-blank that you aren't going to get any of the things on the aforementioned numbered list.
I believe that this is good evidence that this list is emphatically not
one
in which dissenting voices are quashed, and that this is a good state of affairs.
-- Jonel
It's exactly this kind of attitude that makes me nervous. Are you suggesting that Marc has engaged in behavior that should result in his moderation? What exactly is that behavior?
No one is forcing you to read, let alone *respond* to any of Marc's postings. Yet you suggest that he should be moderated because you disagree with him and/or are tired of the topic.
I am very glad that our moderators have a clearer understanding of what should result in moderation.
I thought the final sentence of Jonel's email made it clear she (he?) approves of the present situation, i.e. Marc not being moderated.
Johnleemk
OK. But he calls it "remarkable looseness" that Marc has not been moderated?
On 9/6/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
John Lee wrote:
On 9/6/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Nick Wilkins wrote:
On 9/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I am not here to fight with anyone. I have absolutely no personal or professional stake in any of this. And the idea that I have an agenda
(as
someone suggested) is absurd.
Stop flailing at the messenger, and open you mind to the message.
The idea that you have an agenda is absurd, Marc? Please do recall
that
you
*posted* your agenda on this topic to this list. As a numbered list
headed
"What I would like to see", no less.
In any case, I think that this very thread has shown the remarkable looseness of our moderators. To wit, we still receive your comments, despite your obstinacy in pressing this issue despite having been told point-blank that you aren't going to get any of the things on the aforementioned numbered list.
I believe that this is good evidence that this list is emphatically
not
one
in which dissenting voices are quashed, and that this is a good state
of
affairs.
-- Jonel
It's exactly this kind of attitude that makes me nervous. Are you suggesting that Marc has engaged in behavior that should result in his moderation? What exactly is that behavior?
No one is forcing you to read, let alone *respond* to any of Marc's postings. Yet you suggest that he should be moderated because you disagree with him and/or are tired of the topic.
I am very glad that our moderators have a clearer understanding of what should result in moderation.
I thought the final sentence of Jonel's email made it clear she (he?) approves of the present situation, i.e. Marc not being moderated.
Johnleemk
OK. But he calls it "remarkable looseness" that Marc has not been moderated?
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 suspect Marc's proposal is in line with the proposal made by Peter B. not so long ago - interestingly Peter's proposal seems to have been ignored though (I think it was tl;dr syndrome).
Johnleemk
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
On 06/09/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Concur entirely.
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.
God yes. 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?
On 9/6/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
It's exactly this kind of attitude that makes me nervous. Are you suggesting that Marc has engaged in behavior that should result in his moderation? What exactly is that behavior?
No one is forcing you to read, let alone *respond* to any of Marc's postings. Yet you suggest that he should be moderated because you disagree with him and/or are tired of the topic.
I am very glad that our moderators have a clearer understanding of what should result in moderation.
Personally, I hate the fact that so many messages get wasted on stupid topics like this. I do feel that insinuations of conspiracy theories and veiled allusions to silent masses of unhappy people (but refusal to substantiate such claims) cause disruption to the list and interfere with its primary purpose. And I find that the argument "you don't have to read it if you don't want to" is just bunkum - there are laws against junk mail (and junk email for that matter) precisely because having junk in the system makes the system work less well.
Personally, I'd really like much firmer rules for moderation, like most email lists do, where anything off topic is not tolerated, and people strive to maintain a high signal to noise ratio. People who complain that the moderation is too strict already, what are they looking for really? Therapy? A soapbox? A social chitchat list? A conspiracy theory forum? A kindergarten? This list should be none of those. It should be a serious forum for discussion of genuine issues that affect Wikipedia in an adult manner.
</grumble> </rant>
Steve
On 9/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/5/07 7:29 PM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Feel free to disagree with me all you like, but I find we're very tolerant of a lot of crap spewed onto the list - even those on moderation often have their messages approved.
Once again, you are illuminating the problem, John. You are subjectively deciding for us all, what is "crap" and what is not. Don't you get it!?
on 9/5/07 8:55 PM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
We get it alright. But you're presenting yourself as the only person who really knows the right way to do things, and you don't. A couple days ago you didn't even know that lists have owners, and now you're trying to tell everybody how to run a mailing list. Well I'm sorry, but you simply don't know enough to have any credible opinions on the subject. Why aren't you willing to listen to the voices of experience? This is not a Wikipedia thing, this is a problem common to all online projects, so much so that moderation capabilities are built into the list management software! I'm willing to cut you some slack, because I'm interested in alternate viewpoints, but please show some respect in return, OK?
I am not here to fight with anyone. I have absolutely no personal or professional stake in any of this. And the idea that I have an agenda (as someone suggested) is absurd.
Stop flailing at the messenger, and open you mind to the message.
Marc Riddell
I think you do have an agenda, but it's one of wanting to protect the project and mailing list from making itself too insular and not realising it.
In defense of Marc; this is a real concern for online projects. The degree to which the project insiders are unaware or uncaring of external viewpoints varies widely from project to project (and on something as big as WP, from area to area, list to list, etc). But it is a very real and well known effect in online cultures as well as real ones.
I have several times spoken out for a need for high quality gadflys on the list and around Wikipedia in general. People in a position to and willing to call us on stuff we communally get wrong or get into groupthink on are an important protective measure for the project. We've had a tendency to not develop them, which is unfortunate.
What we do have, effectively, is people playing that role in specific areas where they see a problem, but otherwise generally fitting in well with the list community and wider WP community.
I spent over a decade moderating Usenet groups, and have done similar roles for mailing lists before. I understand people's desire to have a moderated list.
That said, I would like to encourage everyone to think about whether our current policy is making us sufficiently available to hear some gadflys and be aware of them or not.
I think that the answer is probably that things are "ok" - Cheney and Blowfish and a few others still get postings through, whether they're moderated or not. And we don't appear (from what's on the list and what I've seen in private emails) to have a problem with mainstream participants being moderated much except when they go on an irrational rampage, which can happen.
That said, it's reassuring to those of us concerned about this if there's an open dialog about moderation, and I agree with Marc's sentiment that knowing who's on moderation would assist in clarifying the situation.
I understand the privacy issues involved with the list of those moderated being private at this time; I tend to agree that the benefit of the list and community as a whole may tend towards making it public, though.
This is not my top concern about WP this week, but it is somewhat worrying. I would urge further calm discussion regarding the legitimate need for openness and the privacy tradeoffs involved. That current formal or informal moderator policy says that you can't make the list public or give it to Marc doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to discuss whether that policy is a mistake and should change.
The thing that is really annoying about this is that I don't think we have an easy way of anonymously polling those on moderation to see what they think about their status being "outed", if we change policy.
Nobody has publically stood up and made a statement so far. Perhaps we can ask if anyone on moderation is interested in creating a new free account somewhere and signing up for the list and sending us just a quick note about whether you feel the moderation list being public is ok with you or not? Moderators, I hope you'd be ok with letting these through...
George Herbert wrote:
On 9/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/5/07 7:29 PM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Feel free to disagree with me all you like, but I find we're very tolerant of a lot of crap spewed onto the list - even those on moderation often have their messages approved.
Once again, you are illuminating the problem, John. You are subjectively deciding for us all, what is "crap" and what is not. Don't you get it!?
on 9/5/07 8:55 PM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
We get it alright. But you're presenting yourself as the only person who really knows the right way to do things, and you don't. A couple days ago you didn't even know that lists have owners, and now you're trying to tell everybody how to run a mailing list. Well I'm sorry, but you simply don't know enough to have any credible opinions on the subject. Why aren't you willing to listen to the voices of experience? This is not a Wikipedia thing, this is a problem common to all online projects, so much so that moderation capabilities are built into the list management software! I'm willing to cut you some slack, because I'm interested in alternate viewpoints, but please show some respect in return, OK?
I am not here to fight with anyone. I have absolutely no personal or professional stake in any of this. And the idea that I have an agenda (as someone suggested) is absurd.
Stop flailing at the messenger, and open you mind to the message.
Marc Riddell
I think you do have an agenda, but it's one of wanting to protect the project and mailing list from making itself too insular and not realising it.
In defense of Marc; this is a real concern for online projects. The degree to which the project insiders are unaware or uncaring of external viewpoints varies widely from project to project (and on something as big as WP, from area to area, list to list, etc). But it is a very real and well known effect in online cultures as well as real ones.
I have several times spoken out for a need for high quality gadflys on the list and around Wikipedia in general. People in a position to and willing to call us on stuff we communally get wrong or get into groupthink on are an important protective measure for the project. We've had a tendency to not develop them, which is unfortunate.
What we do have, effectively, is people playing that role in specific areas where they see a problem, but otherwise generally fitting in well with the list community and wider WP community.
I spent over a decade moderating Usenet groups, and have done similar roles for mailing lists before. I understand people's desire to have a moderated list.
That said, I would like to encourage everyone to think about whether our current policy is making us sufficiently available to hear some gadflys and be aware of them or not.
I think that the answer is probably that things are "ok" - Cheney and Blowfish and a few others still get postings through, whether they're moderated or not. And we don't appear (from what's on the list and what I've seen in private emails) to have a problem with mainstream participants being moderated much except when they go on an irrational rampage, which can happen.
That said, it's reassuring to those of us concerned about this if there's an open dialog about moderation, and I agree with Marc's sentiment that knowing who's on moderation would assist in clarifying the situation.
I understand the privacy issues involved with the list of those moderated being private at this time; I tend to agree that the benefit of the list and community as a whole may tend towards making it public, though.
This is not my top concern about WP this week, but it is somewhat worrying. I would urge further calm discussion regarding the legitimate need for openness and the privacy tradeoffs involved. That current formal or informal moderator policy says that you can't make the list public or give it to Marc doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to discuss whether that policy is a mistake and should change.
The thing that is really annoying about this is that I don't think we have an easy way of anonymously polling those on moderation to see what they think about their status being "outed", if we change policy.
Nobody has publically stood up and made a statement so far. Perhaps we can ask if anyone on moderation is interested in creating a new free account somewhere and signing up for the list and sending us just a quick note about whether you feel the moderation list being public is ok with you or not? Moderators, I hope you'd be ok with letting these through...
Thanks, George.
All of us that are not list moderators suffer from ignorance. We don't know what is prevented from reaching the list. We don't know how much junk is filtered out. We don't know how many messages from moderated users are filtered out, nor do we know the nature of those moderated messages.
If we're in a suspicious mood, we might imagine that the moderators are suppressing opinions they don't agree with. Let me rush to say that I don't tend towards suspiciousness, at least with the moderators of this list. I'm just pointing out that lack of knowledge can breed suspicion and fear.
Just dreaming for a moment, without thought as to implementation details, it would be instructive to have a place where any list members (only) could go and see what is *not* published to the list. This would give information to those that desire it, provide a sort of "check" for the moderators, and still keep the list free from garbage.
-Rich
On 9/6/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, George.
All of us that are not list moderators suffer from ignorance. We don't know what is prevented from reaching the list. We don't know how much junk is filtered out. We don't know how many messages from moderated users are filtered out, nor do we know the nature of those moderated messages.
No one seemed to care before he brought it up, and rightly so, they have never done anything bad, IMO.
If we're in a suspicious mood, we might imagine that the moderators are
suppressing opinions they don't agree with. Let me rush to say that I don't tend towards suspiciousness, at least with the moderators of this list. I'm just pointing out that lack of knowledge can breed suspicion and fear.
I know this isn't your necessarily your opinion, but if the moderators did that type of thing, this thread would not have gotten though at all, much less lasted as long as it has.
Just dreaming for a moment, without thought as to implementation
details, it would be instructive to have a place where any list members (only) could go and see what is *not* published to the list. This would give information to those that desire it, provide a sort of "check" for the moderators, and still keep the list free from garbage.
What you are asking for is a software change that would get a "WONTFIX" in bugzilla, I am sure that if someone from the Foundation or a Committee member asked to check up, they would be allowed to. Furthermore, it's not as simple as you suggest. Any material that is not desired is normally deleted (like spam) and is irretrievable, moderated posts are either deleted, pushed forward, or left for another moderator to filter through. This isn't a feasible solution.
-Rich
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/7/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
All of us that are not list moderators suffer from ignorance. We don't know what is prevented from reaching the list. We don't know how much
We don't filter much out. Less than 1% of messages, probably. And because we don't want to be accused of being the Cabal, we err on the side of inclusion.
Of course there is a huge amount of actual spam sent to this list, but that's a separate problem.
junk is filtered out. We don't know how many messages from moderated users are filtered out, nor do we know the nature of those moderated messages.
It's not very exciting. It's mostly just a continuation of rants which started on the list, but that everyone eventually tired of. You know, 3 months later and someone's still complaining about having been blocked.
If we're in a suspicious mood, we might imagine that the moderators are suppressing opinions they don't agree with. Let me rush to say that I don't tend towards suspiciousness, at least with the moderators of this list. I'm just pointing out that lack of knowledge can breed suspicion and fear.
If this was the case, it wouldn't be hard for aggrieved parties to complain, perhaps by personally emailing other contributors on the list. If they thought only one moderator was at fault, they could email wikien-l-owner, so we could all see what was going on.
Just dreaming for a moment, without thought as to implementation details, it would be instructive to have a place where any list members (only) could go and see what is *not* published to the list. This would give information to those that desire it, provide a sort of "check" for the moderators, and still keep the list free from garbage.
Yeah, but you'd still be trusting the moderators to set that up, wouldn't you? Besides, most of that junk is somewhat abusive, if not downright libellous.
Steve
On 07/09/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/7/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
junk is filtered out. We don't know how many messages from moderated users are filtered out, nor do we know the nature of those moderated messages.
It's not very exciting. It's mostly just a continuation of rants which started on the list, but that everyone eventually tired of. You know, 3 months later and someone's still complaining about having been blocked.
I'm interested. If you are going to block these emails, please at least suggest to these blocked/banned users that they email me?
On 9/6/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 9/5/07 7:29 PM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> > > Dialogue is crucial; I personally would like to engage those who fear they > will be moderated, because I cannot think of a reason they would fear that
That reason is the climate and culture that has been created on the List.
unless they actually intend to contribute nothing more than the same
things
as those presently on moderation - most of whom are on it for good
reason.
And this is the type of cynicism that contributes to that culture.
I would also add that speaking in vague abstract generalities is not
very
helpful or conducive to a resolution of this problem;
These were private communications; that's all you're going to get from me.
Then how can we progress? If I don't even know who to talk to, you're the only way we'll ever find out what's these people's concerns beyond vague ominous descriptions.
we need to know just
whats, whys, etc. of these fears.
You will have to get these from them; and as long as the culture remains as it is, I doubt very much that you will.
But who is "them"? Unless you tell me (feel free to drop me a private email), I cannot engage them.
Feel free to disagree with me all you
like, but I find we're very tolerant of a lot of crap spewed onto the
list -
even those on moderation often have their messages approved.
Once again, you are illuminating the problem, John. You are subjectively deciding for us all, what is "crap" and what is not. Don't you get it!?
In the most recent instance of someone being moderated, we had a crapload of emails complaining about that person dragging the list off-topic to the point that most of the conversations on the list had to do with one subject alone, continually going in circles. A number of these complaints appeared on the list, though several also complained privately to the mods. Pretty much the same occurs every time someone is placed on moderation; a few complaints are made, if not more.
The only exceptions, of course, are when mods are particularly alert - but even then, it's only with absolutely uncontroversial trolling, such as someone calling someone else a murderer. (Still, seems we've become a bit more lenient since then, as I recall in spite of some people feeling they had been called rapists on the list not too long ago, none of the mods took action until the calls for moderation grew even louder.)
So, in summation, we don't place people on moderation unless what they've said is unambiguously ridiculous (outright libel, spam, etc.) and/or the community demands we place them on moderation. Moderation decisions are rarely questioned, but not because we are intolerant of them; as this thread proves, we're more than happy to discuss questionable cases of moderation.
The problem is, unless we know what these questionable cases are, there is no way we can look at them and reconsider our decision.
It seems to me, though, that you are not bothered with challenging individual cases so much as the whole philosophy behind how this list is moderated. We operate on a community-governed, sort of consensual manner, and it seems to me that there's not a whole lot of support for altering the present moderation policy.
I'm honestly open to new ways of managing the list. But I'm not sure what the problem is at the moment; it really looks like a philosophical and theoretical one to me. Being rather pragmatic, I would like to see an actual example of productive discussion (whether in your or anyone else's opinion) that is being silenced by the present modus operandi.
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
On 9/6/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 9/5/07 7:29 PM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I would also add that speaking in vague abstract generalities is not very helpful or conducive to a resolution of this problem;
These were private communications; that's all you're going to get from me.
Then how can we progress? If I don't even know who to talk to, you're the only way we'll ever find out what's these people's concerns beyond vague ominous descriptions.
There is a shred of a valid issue here, although it's a difficult one to discuss dispassionately, and I believe it's more germane to the wiki itself than this mailing list.
There *is* a class of otherwise-innocent, relatively inexperienced editors who end up, by an unfortunate conjunction of circumstances, being absolutely convinced that they're being unjustly persecuted (often to the point of being blocked and banned) on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is a class of admins who, through bluntness and tactlessness, end up fostering this paranoia. (It's then exacerbated by the too-accurate-for-comfort perceptions that there are one or more cliques of admins who reflexively defend each other against any serious criticism.)
When I've brought up issues like this in the past, I haven't wanted to do so in the context of a specific example, either, because discussion almost inevitably then turns to a reexamination of the details of the particular example (too often culminating in a self-righteous "See? We were right to block him"), rather than useful reflection on the deeper roots of the problem.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk: Requests_for_comment/StuRat_2&diff=prev&oldid=99684424 for one (rather longwinded, I'm afraid) screed of mine on the subject.
With that said, though, I don't see this as being an issue for the mailing list. This *is* an adequately tolerant list, as I think a skim of its archives will show. Anybody who has become so paranoid and conspiracy-theoretical that they're afraid they'll be moderated on sight for posting to the list is probably beyond our help anyway. (And anybody who *does* manage to be so truculently intractable as to be put on moderation isn't one of the "otherwise-innocent, relatively inexperienced editors" I'm talking about.)
David Gerard wrote:
On 05/09/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Too late for what? Of course you can't "unread" what you've read, but I'm NOT advocating the elimination of all moderation...I am advocating the light-handed application of it. I support moderating messages that contain personal attacks, etc. What harm have you received by reading a message? Or by reading a message enough to decide it's not worth reading further? And you can decide for yourself whether to respond.
We keep the moderation light because otherwise it's a damn nuisance.
People get put on mod by being massive pains in the backside. Even then, their messages get through if they aren't a continuation of being the massive pain in the backside.
The default moderation of new members is a massive pain in the backside itself, but was put into place (and then put back into place after it was removed) because people posting annoying rubbish to the list would just morph addresses to continue. We keep an eye on this in the hope of being able to remove it again.
- d.
I really am not criticizing the job the mods are doing. I hope that's not how I've come across.
-Rich
On 05/09/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
I really am not criticizing the job the mods are doing. I hope that's not how I've come across.
Not at all :-) It's better for people to know how it works than not.
- d.
On 05/09/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
What I hear you saying is "This person is upsetting people, they've gotta go." That's rather paternalistic isn't it?
Being a moderator involves undertaking a balancing act of considerations between the annoyance effect of a list member and the substance of what that list member has to say. Generally we err on the side of non-intervention/non-moderation, mostly because we are lazy and don't want to create extra work for ourselves.
On 05/09/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 9/5/07 9:40 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
We keep the moderation light because otherwise it's a damn nuisance.
A "damn nuisance" to whom? Marc
A damn nuisance to the list moderators, to have to actually go to the effort of reading moderated messages and decide whether to let them through. Hence why we don't do it much. Which, I believe, is what you seem to want.
Moderation is a necessary evil. It is not often that we reject posts from the mailing list, but it is usually for a good reason. The WikiEN-l list administrators make up a (relatively) large and diverse group, by comparison to other mailing lists (such as wikipedia-l, which has one list admin). The potential for abuse of moderation is thus reduced.
Finally, to address your request to be able to decide which emails to read yourself, I understand your viewpoint (and it has been conveyed by several people before you in prior discussions about moderation, which were quite similar to this, only not 100 emails long). However, I'm not convinced your sentiments are matched by most WikiEN-l subscribers, and I don't think we would be kept as moderators for very long if we started allowing through a lot of the stuff we presently moderate.
~Mark Ryan
On 05/09/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
- I prefer the moderators to use moderation sparingly. I'd rather that I
make the decision of who I should ignore. Of course, pure spam should be moderated. And abusive posts as well. But I would rather not see someone moderated for simply being disliked and persistent.
It's a fine line. IMHO we're there to keep discussion moving along. If every post from a certain user is causing a flurry of indignant "how dare you use language like that", "oh sorry that's just the way I talk, no offence caused", then they can really clog up a list and reduce the signal to noise ratio.
- Somewhere in the thread it was mentioned that most non-automatic
moderations are announced on list. I know I seen such announcements in
Mostly that happens to avoid confusion as to why a loud voice suddenly disappeared in the middle of a discussion. People get moderated for other reasons without such fanfare.
- Which raises a third point, or question really: Are there times when a
contributor is put on moderation and intentionally not announced to the list? That would be troubling...the exception being, I suppose, if
No, that would be weird. More likely, someone is moderated for blatant list abuse (eg, spamming) and no explicit announcement is made, but if anyone asks, we confirm it.
someone were to request that it not be announced to the list in their case, but that seems an unlikely scenario, since as I understand it, there is no "negotiating" over moderation.
Dunno about "negotiating" but if someone really wanted to be unmoderated, they're certainly entitled to ask politely. But it's better to just change the style of one's posts. Remember, being moderated doesn't mean being banned, it just means having every post approved before it goes through to the list. So for example if someone is being too abusive, I might moderate them, then reject future posts one at a time with an explanation of what was wrong with it, and how they should reword it. Or sometimes I'll end up just rejecting some messages and letting others through. Some of the people in this category have ended up sending 20+ messages a day, half of which were sarcastic one liners like "Yeah, right." Really positive, helpful stuff.
Steve
Peter said this better than I can: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078970.html
Actually, try reading this one instead: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/080037.html
On 05/09/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 05/09/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
- I prefer the moderators to use moderation sparingly. I'd rather that I
make the decision of who I should ignore. Of course, pure spam should be moderated. And abusive posts as well. But I would rather not see someone moderated for simply being disliked and persistent.
It's a fine line. IMHO we're there to keep discussion moving along. If every post from a certain user is causing a flurry of indignant "how dare you use language like that", "oh sorry that's just the way I talk, no offence caused", then they can really clog up a list and reduce the signal to noise ratio.
- Somewhere in the thread it was mentioned that most non-automatic
moderations are announced on list. I know I seen such announcements in
Mostly that happens to avoid confusion as to why a loud voice suddenly disappeared in the middle of a discussion. People get moderated for other reasons without such fanfare.
- Which raises a third point, or question really: Are there times when a
contributor is put on moderation and intentionally not announced to the list? That would be troubling...the exception being, I suppose, if
No, that would be weird. More likely, someone is moderated for blatant list abuse (eg, spamming) and no explicit announcement is made, but if anyone asks, we confirm it.
someone were to request that it not be announced to the list in their case, but that seems an unlikely scenario, since as I understand it, there is no "negotiating" over moderation.
Dunno about "negotiating" but if someone really wanted to be unmoderated, they're certainly entitled to ask politely. But it's better to just change the style of one's posts. Remember, being moderated doesn't mean being banned, it just means having every post approved before it goes through to the list. So for example if someone is being too abusive, I might moderate them, then reject future posts one at a time with an explanation of what was wrong with it, and how they should reword it. Or sometimes I'll end up just rejecting some messages and letting others through. Some of the people in this category have ended up sending 20+ messages a day, half of which were sarcastic one liners like "Yeah, right." Really positive, helpful stuff.
Steve
Peter said this better than I can: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078970.html