For those who are considering moderation of one list or another, let us consider our moderation options:
1. Each post from ALL subscribers must be approved. 2. Only posts from "naughty" subscribers need approved. 3. No moderation (status quo)
I myself reject option #1, since it would take way too much time. It would overwork any finite group of moderators. It would prevent urgent messages from being passed on quickly. (If this were the only option, I would withdraw my support for Larry's idea of moderation altogether.)
Option #2 means that posts would be transmitted immediately, as they are now. The exception, however, would be that a moderator could mark any subscriber's posts as requiring "administrative approval" (this phrase comes from the mailing list software). It would only be the small number of subscribers whose posts would be filtered by the moderators. Each post held for approval would then either be passed on or rejected. If rejected, it would get the appropriate comments: * reason for rejection * notice of right-of-appeal
I would expect that anyone whose post was rejected, would then either: (A) Clean up their language and participate like an adult, or (B) Go sulk, like a naughty child (thus proving that they did indeed merit the "time out")
In either case, I predict that only someone who was deliberately working against the project would refuse to comply with the simple, easy-to-follow rules of civil discourse: exactly the kind of *ahem* troll no one wants on a mailing list anyway.
Ed Poor
on 12/12/02 7:28 AM, Poor, Edmund W at Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
For those who are considering moderation of one list or another, let us consider our moderation options:
- Each post from ALL subscribers must be approved.
- Only posts from "naughty" subscribers need approved.
- No moderation (status quo)
I myself reject option #1, since it would take way too much time. It would overwork any finite group of moderators. It would prevent urgent messages from being passed on quickly. (If this were the only option, I would withdraw my support for Larry's idea of moderation altogether.)
I'm coming around to the idea, but it has to include folks like Larry who whatever their other merits, lapse habitually into insult. Option #2 presumably would focus on those who come here enraged by what they see as nasty behavior. They may or may not be right, but there is no reason to single them out for attention. Although it would also catch folks who are just not in the game. I think some other system could be set up for alerts.
Option #2 means that posts would be transmitted immediately, as they are now. The exception, however, would be that a moderator could mark any subscriber's posts as requiring "administrative approval" (this phrase comes from the mailing list software). It would only be the small number of subscribers whose posts would be filtered by the moderators. Each post held for approval would then either be passed on or rejected. If rejected, it would get the appropriate comments:
- reason for rejection
- notice of right-of-appeal
the simple, easy-to-follow rules of civil discourse.
Well, not so simple. It's not going to work if someone who is slick can get away with stuff and someone who is mad (perhaps justifiably) is excluded. If I were moderating I would allow one or two statements of rage from someone. (At least someone who new to the list). It's the constant repetition, and bulldog determinedness, and over and over that spoil the list.
Ed Poor
Anyway I think moderation could work. As Jimbo points out anyone who has something important to say can get it together and say it in a civil way. They may say they're mad and "Ain't gonna take it anymore" but that addresses their own feelings, not the essential evil which they might feel resides in the character of those who have offended them.
Fred
On 12/12/02 9:28 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
For those who are considering moderation of one list or another, let us consider our moderation options:
- Each post from ALL subscribers must be approved.
- Only posts from "naughty" subscribers need approved.
- No moderation (status quo)
You have failed to mention:
4. Use a BBS instead of mailing lists
Option 2 is astoundingly pernicious.
The Cunctator wrote:
- Use a BBS instead of mailing lists
Just to be clear, I think we should research this, but it's a big step. I have no opposition to it at all, if it means that I can still work the same way I do now, i.e. I can just read this like a mailing list, using Mutt/Emacs. If I have to go on the web and contend with a browser interface, oh the horror.
But, if most people keep using mail software, it's hard to see a big advantage relative to a regular mailing list and archive.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales heeft geschreven:
The Cunctator wrote:
- Use a BBS instead of mailing lists
Just to be clear, I think we should research this, but it's a big step. I have no opposition to it at all, if it means that I can still work the same way I do now, i.e. I can just read this like a mailing list, using Mutt/Emacs. If I have to go on the web and contend with a browser interface, oh the horror.
But, if most people keep using mail software, it's hard to see a big advantage relative to a regular mailing list and archive.
--Jimbo
Or using a newsreader. Wikitech-l is ready for use now For instructions see http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
The others are comming very soon. I am waiting for responds from the admins of the English, Polish and German list. Do not know what to do whit wikipedia-l *.wikipedia.wikipedia *.wikipedia.policy *.wikipedia.general.policy *.wikipedia.main *.wikipedia.misc
Giskart
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Giskart wrote:
Or using a newsreader. Wikitech-l is ready for use now For instructions see http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
The others are comming very soon.
Wouldn't it make more sense to create a generally distributed wikipedia.* hierarchy, rather than have thee newsgroups on just one server ?
Imran
On 12/12/02 6:07 PM, "Giskart" giskart@wikipedia.be wrote:
Do not know what to do with wikipedia-l *.wikipedia.wikipedia *.wikipedia.policy *.wikipedia.general.policy *.wikipedia.main *.wikipedia.misc
.misc would be standard.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org