[Foundation-l] Moderation and this list
birgitte_sb at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 21 18:47:13 UTC 2007
--- SJ Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Birgitte SB wrote:
> >> This all sounds nice, however you are truly
> >> this as reciprocal we have already lost. While
> >> people representing WMF are inherently some of
> >> best people on this list, the "reciprocating"
> group is
> >> open to anyone. There will always be bitter,
> >> mean-spirited people around. If lack of
> >> is really due to these things, lets increase the
> >> moderation to a level where there is enough
> >> to warrant transparency. Otherwise everyone will
> >> continue to be held hostage by lowest common
> >> denominator.
> Open communities have always had their openness and
> goodwill tested by
> emotional, clueless, suspicious, and irritable
> community members, who
> naturally put other people off (both intentionally
> and not); as well as
> by intentional trolls, manipulative people, and
> sowers if ill will.
> Wikipedia was built on a foundation of such people
> (yes, even clueless
> people -- and they don't remain cluelss for long
> when you welcome them ;).
> We are lucky to have problems of primarily the
> former type on this list --
> even our trolls tend to be people who support the
> community's mission in
> some fashion; not people who are here because they
> stumbled across it and
> want attention.
> So I am really sad when I see longtime contributors
> who no longer read the
> -en list because it offends them so much; or who see
> this list as a sewer.
> We have to remedy this; hopefully without raising
> the barrier to
> People are hesitant to moderate because noone wants
> to censor discussion
> or prevent people from expressing valid
> perspectives. This is good.
> Let's increase /mediation/, not what we call list
> 'moderation' (blocking
> list contributors). The best community solutions to
> such situations that
> I have seen had skilled mediators to step in where
> there was serious
> argument. I value the discussions we have on this
> list very much, and
> hope that we will find alternatives to giving up on
> sharing ideas here.
> Are there any mediators out there willing to take on
> [part of] a list?
> (perhaps even some of our current list mods?)
Moderation does not necessarily mean *blocking*.
Inappropriate posts can be returned to the sender
asking them to rephrase their concerns into a more
appropriate tone. Or if the problem posts are just
"pot-shots", the sender can be asked try again by
contributing something more substantial on the issue
without the personal remarks. If you don't trust the
current moderators so let through subsequent posts
from potentially moderated contributors, perhaps you
would be willing to volunteer becoming a moderator
yourself. I would certainly trust your judgment.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
More information about the foundation-l