In answer to your comment Larry
1. I would *really* appreciate that you refer to me as a she and not as a he. Respecting people gender is important
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
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 ? 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.
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). 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.
There should also be a French language moderator. :-) 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 :-)
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.
I've written two or three moderation policies before and I've given them a lot of thought. Roughly speaking (this would need fine-tuning), I suggest the following:
- When in doubt, approve the post. Don't block
posts that are on the borderline.
- Reject posts that express any sort of disrespect
for others. There can be exceptions; for example, if we have to discuss a problem troll on Wikipedia, then expressions of disrespect (among other things) are totally on-topic. This implies reject of the following:
- Plain old insults.
- Slightly subtle implications of something highly
insulting. (Certain Wikipedians have perfected this to an art form.)
- Really obvious condescension and other
disrespectful attitudes.
- To human beings and listmembers (as opposed to
spammers, for instance), always give some explanation of why the post is rejected. If the software doesn't do it (I think it does, though), include the full post with the rejection so that the author can revise it.
- Reject all spam without comment.
- On Wikipedia-l, reject posts that should go to
WikiEN-l (I happen to agree with this rule that was foisted upon us without much discussion ;-) ).
- 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. 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.
Larry
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.
* 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
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.
Please don't mix flame issues with other issues.
-----
But 2 is the most important point.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com