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
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 02:12:50PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
We need a flame-free, no-nonsense haven for discussion of Wikipedia.
Julie said some things about Erik's behavior that needed to be said. They may not have been pleasant things, but they did not constitute a flame either.
Neither did my detailing of RK's behavior constitute a flame; it was a factual appeal to the list for help in dealing with something destructive to the community.
Since you have said you wouldn't have forwarded those messages, I see that we disagree on the definition of a "flame". I am against flaming. But we need a place to put forward the facts when coming to a group concensus about a persons behavior.
Jonathan
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 11:14:59AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
Julie said some things about Erik's behavior that needed to be said. They may not have been pleasant things, but they did not constitute a flame either.
Neither did my detailing of RK's behavior constitute a flame; it was a factual appeal to the list for help in dealing with something destructive to the community.
And to complete the set, what Erik wrote about Julie was not flaming, either.
What we have is people disagreeing with each other's behaviour, and describing what they disapprove of. It would doubtless have been possible to do so with rather more tact on all sides, but there's value in honesty, too.
Flames are valueless, unconstructive insults. I've seen no flaming on either this list or -en for some time. I don't think either list needs moderating yet.
-M-
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org