I was on a very active music mailing list for over 10 years and I was grateful it was not moderated. Moderation can inhibit discussion, even when there are disruptors, and it also requires moderators donate a lot of volunteer hours. Which I think within the Wikimedia family community is already being required of many of us. So I would vote against moderation.
If an argument / shift was towards moderation, maybe it could be based on edit count and/or contributions? But that seems a bit extreme and awful.
- Erika
*Erika Herzog* Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle*
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
A meta-question: I am wondering whether, if one thinks a user on this list should be moderated, it is better to discuss it privately with the list admins (who, if convinced, could announce the moderation publicly, or not), or publicly on this list (explicitly inviting more opinions, being transparent about my position regarding moderating the user, but also embarrassing the user whatever the outcome).
Thoughts?
A.
Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>