[Foundation-l] Use of moderation

[Milos Rancic]

+1

On 2009-09-09, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> In the thread "WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?"
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Austin Hair<adhair at gmail.com> wrote:
> (to Gregory Kohs)
> [snip]
>>  I've placed you on indefinite
>> moderation with the goal of improving the signal:crazy ratio.
>
> With something like 40 posts made to that thread after Mr. Kohs' last
> I think it is clear that the squelching of a (admittedly,
> trigger-happy) critic was ineffective at improving the SNB
> (signal-to-blah) ratio.
>
> …while at the same time it increased the scent of idea-centric rather
> than presentation-centric censorship.
>
> This is doubly a concern when moderation is used against someone who
> made an error that any one of us could have made and jumped to some
> hasty conclusions.
>
> Certainly there are non-profits which are little more than fronts for
> their operators' private gains, ones started for that purpose, and
> ones which fall into it after years of normal operation. In some
> places and at some scales the kind of self-dealing Mr. Kohs was
> concerned about are arguably the norm.  I don't believe that they
> currently apply to Wikimedia but my confidence is in part derived from
> that fact that were there any real evidence of such things the critics
> would be all over it.  (I do, however, think Wikimedia has done a
> worse job than it could have at avoiding the perception of
> self-dealing)
>
> Kohs was gleefully pointing at some supposed evidence of
> naughty-naughty. He missed a critical detail which made his position
> laughably wrong. I have no doubt that it was an honest mistake: in the
> end it only made him look silly. It was a mistake anyone could have
> made if they didn't begin by assuming good faith but the value of a
> critic is that they start with a different set of assumptions and
> values.
>
> I'm of the view that the further growth and development of Wikimedia
> and its family of projects is utterly dependent on having solid,
> well-considered, and productively-spoken critics. Internet forums are
> highly vulnerable to groupthink: as we work together we become a
> family. It's all too easy to avoid thinking critically about your
> family and about things you've invested time in. It for this reason,
> under other names, that we invite outsiders to serve on our board. A
> view from outside of WMF's reality distortion field (and from inside
> someone else's RDF) is essential.
>
> Mr. Kohs is frequently not an ideal critic: by being too prone to
> extreme positions, and by falling into accusations, he loses
> credibility. But even an off-the-wall critic can help make an
> environment more conducive to productive criticism. Someone more
> moderate may feel more comfortable speaking up when there is a strong
> critic handy to take the unreasonably extreme positions and the
> resulting heresy-fire and the existence of someone with an extreme
> position can help other people find a common ground.
>
> I'd prefer that moderation of this list be used as a last resort to
> maintain civil discourse and not as a tool to impose an external view
> of the desired traffic volume and especially not in a way which could
> be construed as prohibiting criticism.  Dealing with criticism,
> including occasional off-the-wall criticism and sometimes outright
> nutty criticism, is one of the costs of open and transparent
> governance.
>
> I make this post with over a year of consideration: had this kind of
> (in my view) heavy-handed moderation been effective at improving the
> discourse on this list, I would be left with little to say.  I don't
> think anyone here can say that it has improved. As such, it's time to
> try something different.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device