As I originally expected, we're seeing more and more "no" answers to
moderation. That's too bad.
Good luck, everyone, trying to implement other solutions, or with the
status quo: I think the list will continue to be mired in constantly
flowing excrement. Those with a low toleration for it will continue to be
driven off.
The rest will be a reply to Anthere (her comments are preceded by ">>"):
>> 1. I would *really* appreciate that you refer to me as
a she and not as a he. Respecting people gender is
important
Of course that's important--I simply didn't know whether you were male or
female, and simply (and wrongly) assumed you were male.
>> 2. I think conflict issue could be solved in most
cases by discussion and appeasement. That could imply
that some - non involved in a conflict - take time to
calm things down, publicly or privately. I don't
support blocking mails as a way to quiet things down
Good luck, again, with your proposed solution.
>> 3. On wikipedia (the encyclopedia), it is possible to
participate anonymously. Only Jimbo has the right
(except for couple of occasions, but I think there was
no abuse) to *ban* people. This is done after careful
and lenghty examination of case. This mean wikipedia
is - to a certain point - respecting freedom of
speech. How could it be that the mailing list do not
follow the same line ?
I would have thought it was obvious that there is a HUGE difference
between banning someone from Wikipedia and making the mailing list
moderated.
>> Why could it be that more
freedom of speech is allowed on wiki than on the
mailing list ?
What you imply with your moderation system is that a
mailing-list sysop will be given more power than
encyclopedia-sysop.
There's nothing at all unusual about moderating mailing lists, as surely
you must know. Many mailing lists are moderated. Some moderators are
virtual tyrants, and others are basically rubber stamps that might as well
not exist. If the community decides--as it has not--to adopt a moderated
list, then it seems strange to say that there is a "freedom of speech"
issue involved at all, unless you're of the opinion that all moderation
implies an infringement of freedom of speech.
> I think there should be 2-4 moderators. I made the
> suggestion and I am
> willing to act as part-time co-moderator, but not as
> the only moderator.
>BS
>KQ
>Ed
> Julie Kemp
> Mav
> April
> Axel
> Brion (he has better things to do, though, with the
> software)
> Magnus (ditto)
> Lee Crocker (ditto)
>> 4. This is a *general* mailing list (and don't try to
sneakily say it is been done behind everybody's back.
The subject has been raised several time, and it took
at least 2 months before being there - you were not
there - or not listening).
Perhaps indeed I wasn't there, but it certainly came as a surprise to me
and others when you started enforcing the rule, which I happen to agree
with. (So, you can stop arguing with me now. I agree with you. :-) )
>> A general list moderated by
only english (one exception who likely will not have
the time) people is an english list.
But I understand non-english users will not be trusted
since not known.
You didn't understand. In the very next sentence,
> There should also be a French language moderator.
I suggested that there should be a French language moderator among any
moderators of Wikipedia-l. Also, the proposal now on the table is to
moderate WikiEN-l, leaving you with even less to worry about.
> :-) Actually, I did
> have four years of French in high school, so I could
> do an OK job but I
> think I'd probably miss things like (the French
> equivalents of) "your
> mother wears army boots."
>> 5. I won't recognise you as a french moderator should
there be need of one. I don't see 4 years in french at
school as a credential to give you this role when you
care so little about us. Actually, there are no french
with a real moderating role right now. But we are
polite enough :-)
It wasn't clear enough that I was joking, Anthere. Of course I'll admit
I'm unqualified to moderate French language posts to Wikipedia.
> Anyway, there's an important question you left off
> of your list of
> questions, Ed: what should the moderation policy be?
>> 6. Currently is under work a list of moderators for
which NO job has been defined. Until a proper
definition of what *moderation* could be, I fail to
see why would people accept or not accept that role,
or how could people be given that role.
Nobody has decided anything. I first proposed a number of possible
moderators (mainly, in fact, to give people the idea that there were a
number of people that we really could trust). Then, I described some
*possible* rules--which I myself might reject, after reflection--that
would indeed define what moderation would be.
>> 7.Your initial proposition was to avoid the
unpleasantness of flame war. I see quite a number of
points here that have *nothing* to do whatsoever with
flaming wars.
Indeed, that's correct.
* Reject trollish suggestions from newbies that
> Wikipedia should be
> radically changed in some particular way. This is
> to be distinguished
> from reasonable and well-supported suggestions,
> from anyone, that
> Wikipedia should be radically chagned in some
> particular way. Bear in
> mind that people can disagree about what is
> "reasonable." The point is
> that we should not have to listen, for the
> umpteenth zillionth time,
> to facile objections to the neutrality policy, for
> example.
>> 8. To come back to the international issue, you should
know that all wikipedias don't necessary have a clear
neutrality point of view policy yet. It might be
necessary that we discuss it one day. So you might
have to listen to newbies, and these suggestions can
be worth listening to
You should know, Anthere, that they *do* have a neutrality policy, though
it might not be enforced (and too bad, if so). That's one point about
Wikipedia that is non-negotiable. If you have questions regarding this
point, I suggest you ask Jimmy Wales about it.
Moreover, the item above is not directed to polite suggestions, questions,
or any such thing, but to newbies who are, unwittingly or not, trying to
undermine well-established policy when they're not familiar with it. It
seems perfectly reasonable to me (though I can certainly understand it if
you want to disagree with me on this point) that we ask the newbie first
to get acquainted with what he or she is attacking.
Asking *questions* is, of course, always perfectly appropriate.
The point is
> that we should not have to listen, for the
> umpteenth zillionth time,
> to facile objections to the neutrality policy, for
> example. Moderators
> should direct offenders to the relevant documents
> and ask the poster to
> rewrite the post bearing in mind that we've
> probably heard it all
> before.
>> 9. And of course, I might also add that most
international who start on this list, usually start
with basic questions of copyrights, neutrality....
issues. Coldly sending a "worried" international to a
remote english circonvoluted 10000 words page on a
copyright subject is not gonna make it. Human answer
will. If you don't want to answer...just don't answer
for the zillionth time...but don't prevent others to
do so.
I'm not suggesting any such thing at all!
>> Please don't mix flame issues with other issues.
I will if I want to, thank you very much. I think several related issues
go to undermine the quality of the list.
Larry