Ed Poor wrote:
P.S. I also support starting with wikiEN-l first; anything to make a
flame-free haven!
One or the other, it doesn't matter to me.
Larry
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.
Larry Sanger wrote:
Ed Poor wrote:
P.S. I also support starting with wikiEN-l first; anything to make a
flame-free haven!
One or the other, it doesn't matter to me.
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.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
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.
1) How will the moderation be set up? If there are several moderators, will the first to approve or reject a post make the decision, or will moderation decisions have to made in consensus, or by majority rule?
2) As for specific moderators, I would object especially to making Larry Sanger a moderator (who has proposed himself). Larry has repeatedly shown himself to resort to insults and ad hominem arguments whenever people start to disagree with him. During his tenure as Wikipedia's editor, he has driven away quite a few contributors because of his inability to accomodate opposing views. His paranoia about "subversion" of NPOV is proof that his mindset hasn't changed. I'm sure I've made his personal "black list" by now, the top position of which is currently occupied by Cunctator. Sanger is exactly the kind of person who can destroy a project like Wikipedia if given too much power and control.
I would, for obvious reasons, also object to Julie, but she isn't likely to do it anyway.
Other than that, I can live with most nominations. I don't trust Ed quite enough to have him the only moderator of a list, but if he was part of a group, that would probably be OK.
Regards,
Erik
Eloquence wrote:
Sanger is exactly the kind of person who can destroy a project like Wikipedia if given too much power and control.
Although I've tangled with Larry myself in the past, and have said that I wouldn't want him to be moderator, I don't think that this is a fair appraisal. Larry strikes me as somebody that might not wield power wisely (sorry), but nevertheless would not abuse it. And what power he does have and has had has not been abused, AFAICT. I suspect that he would be particularly loathe to censor posts critical of himself.
Well, that's my impression of him, in any case.
-- Toby
Erik Moeller wrote:
- How will the moderation be set up? If there are several moderators,
will the first to approve or reject a post make the decision, or will moderation decisions have to made in consensus, or by majority rule?
By the nature of the software, the only practical way to do it would be to have the moderators log into the website and process things. If a moderator felt that a post was borderline, he or she could just leave it in the queue, rather than accepting or rejecting, but if the moderator does reject or accept, then that's that -- as far as the software is concerned, anyway.
It's fun and cute to imagine a process whereby 2 moderators have to blackball a post before it's really rejected, or similar, but realistically, it'd be too much work to program that, when simple trust and kindness are so much more powerful.
Probably what should happen is that all rejected posts receive a message saying that if they want to appeal, to forward the post to an alias, which goes to all the moderators plus me. Also good would be for all rejected posts to go separately to all the moderators plus me, thus inducing some peer pressure for moderators to do the right thing.
--Jimbo
Probably what should happen is that all rejected posts receive a message saying that if they want to appeal, to forward the post to an alias, which goes to all the moderators plus me. Also good would be for all rejected posts to go separately to all the moderators plus me, thus inducing some peer pressure for moderators to do the right thing.
That sounds like a reasonable alternative.
Given the dissent on the question, are we or aren't we going to moderate?
Regards,
Erik
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org