I wrote:
Ed, I'm really not meaning to be contrary here, but I don't think it's a
terribly great idea to tabulate "votes" on this particular issue for the
simple reason that the people whose posts most need moderation will be
voting. I suggest we simply leave the actual choice of moderators up to
Jimbo and debates the merits of the proposal itself.
-----
By "this particular issue" I meant only who the moderators should be--not
whether there should be moderation. That is, indeed, something that I
think should depend a great deal on "votes."
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
> > If a poster violates etiquette, for example by calling a reader a "poopoo
> > face", the moderator ought to chide them (in public or private, it doesn't
> > matter).
>
> Are you talking about a single moderators, or a team of moderators?
>
> If you're talking about a team, how will consistency be guaranteed?
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
Nearly all posts should go straight to the list. It is only someone who who won't listen to reason whose list postings should be filtered by a moderator (or moderator team).
I guess if there are multiple moderators for a mailing list, it should be the same as having multiple sysops on Wikipedia itself.
Whoever takes action first will probably decide the issue. On the other hand, anyone can undo an action.
Like: any sysop can protect an article (as I have sometimes done), and any sysop can unprotect it (as Camembert has sometimes done). I presume that moderators won't start a "moderator war"!!! :-)
Ed Poor
Ed, I'm really not meaning to be contrary here, but I don't think it's a
terribly great idea to tabulate "votes" on this particular issue for the
simple reason that the people whose posts most need moderation will be
voting. I suggest we simply leave the actual choice of moderators up to
Jimbo and debates the merits of the proposal itself.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
Erik asked,
<< How will the moderation be set up? >>
I think the majority of posts should go directly to the list.
If a poster violates etiquette, for example by calling a reader a "poopoo face", the moderator ought to chide them (in public or private, it doesn't matter).
If they keep violating etiquette, the moderator can place the poster on the "screened posters" list. (That is, they'd move a step down from "good" to "bad" on my good, bad and ugly scale.)
Only screened posts would have to be read by a moderator.
Ed Poor
P.S. I don't think Larry actually nominated himself, although he may have seconded his own nomination.
P.P.S. I hereby second my own nomination
Cc'ing wikien-l in case there are members of that list that aren't on
Wikipedia-l and haven't seen the recent discussion about making
Wikipedia-l or WikiEN-l moderated.
Jimbo wrote:
>> I think that's not a bad idea. It leaves the main policy list,
wikipedia-l, wide open, and thus insulates us from (some) charges of
censorship, etc.
But at the same time, it moderates the forum where the worst flame
wars have belonged. Specific grievances against each other for
specific edits tend to be our "hottest" topic where a little moderation
might do wonders. <<
I suggest we keep discussing this for a while and then, if the discussion
is *generally* in favor of some sort of moderation scheme, Jimbo picks the
first moderators.
(I just thought that appeal to vanity would do the trick. ;-) )
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
First to Anthere -- I'd have put this on the En list, but really can't
be bothered to subscribe for one post. Sorry about that.
All -- I have written a personal note to KQ to apologize to him for my
part in the recent flame war -- I had certainly not intended with my
first post (which actually offered concrete suggestions for how the
Wagner issue could be resolved and was an attempt to tone down a flame
war on that front. With luck, my removing myself from this arena will
help to draw him back to the list.
As for Larry's moderation suggestion, I think it's a good one. As for
me being a moderator, I appreciate the support, but do not at present
have the time. Also, considering the accusations that Erik has hurled
at me on Ed's talk page (he has repeatedly called me a liar), I cannot
see that my being included as a moderator at this juncture would be for
the good of the project. I realize (and very much appreciate) that many
of you on the list actually do think I contribute fair-minded NPOV
articles and that I am not pushing some kind of pro-Catholic agenda --
and also that you've seen me on many occasions work with others to
fine-tune debated articles into NPOV . I also appreciate your accepting
that I may have some idea about what's going on in my field -- but that
isn't enough, unfortunately. I don't have time to reinvent the wheel,
which includes trying to prove that certain schools of though do not
exist to the extent that others would have wikipedia readers believe.
Proving a negative is nearly impossible, and most of the people labeled
as trolls have based the validity of their arguments on forcing others
to prove them wrong. Best to remain uninvolved with moderation and
preserve the perceived integrity of the project. For the same reason, I
think Ed and Mav might be compromised. Appearances really *are*
important.
This can be a good project. I've enjoyed most of my time here, and am
glad to have worked with many of you. However, were any of my
colleagues to ask me if they should participate, I would at this time
say "absolutely not." I truly believe that the wikipedia is walking a
very fine line between being at best very ordinary (information that
pretty much reiterates what's already out there, and perhaps as
out-dated as the 1911 encyclopedia) and at worst being subverted by a
few people who have more interest in revisionism (IMO more dangerous
than some forms of relativism), misplaced political correctness, and the
subtle propagation of misleading information. I wish you all the best
in your tightrope act -- as for me, I'm off to continue to teach things
that Erik says medievalists don't teach. Sue me.
Pax, Salaam, and Shalom
Jules
Translation for Ed (correction encouraged):
"Don't worry about that, Ed. It's only my impression, and it appears to
be an ultra-minority one, in view of the good work that you do on the
English Wiki. After having read the mail about our future (?) moderator
and the proposed moderation rules, I was planning on leaving the main list
myself. After all, in a little it will become the English list again, or
so it appears."
If Anthere would leave Wikipedia-l over this, maybe we should begin with
WikiEN-l. I'd like to hear what arguments he has to make about the
proposal (which is just that, of course). "I'll leave if you do" isn't
very much of an argument, though it might have an effect. I don't see
why he says that it will become the English list again soon.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
A moderated list need not be one in which each post is pre-filtered. What if the moderator wants to go to sleep?
I envision a moderator classing letter-writers into three groups:
* good (posts go directly to list)
* bad (posts are held pending approval)
* ugly (posts are automatically deleted)
As long as a poster didn't get nasty, they could stay on the good list. If someone started "acting up", the moderator could shift them to the "bad" list for a while. Like, until they calmed down.
Ed "go stand in the corner!" Poor
We need a flame-free, no-nonsense haven for discussion of Wikipedia.
I agree 100% with:
*Larry's list of nomimated moderators
*Larry's proposal for the duties of a moderator
Please note that my agreement is NOT contingent on me being one of the moderators; I'm not volunteering myself: just agreeing to serve if called upon.
P.S. I also support starting with wikiEN-l first; anything to make a flame-free haven!
Ed Poor
I didn't say half the things I said. --Yogi Berra
What makes you think I said I wouldn't have forwarded any of your recent
messages?
May I take your recent post as an admission that what you said about RK
was "an attack"? If so, would you care to apologize to him?
Uncle Ed, a most forgiving man
----
"Come to me, all who are heavy-laden, and I shall give you rest. For my
burden is light and easy to bear." (Christianity)
"Let us reason together, saith the LORD. Though your sins be dark as
scarlet, they shall be made pure as snow." (Judaism)
"Before each post, ask yourself if you are on the path to slack."
(atheism)