[Foundation-l] Use of moderation

[Brian]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Tim Starling<tstarling at wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> > Erik Moeller wrote:
> >> 2009/9/8 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
> >>> As such, it's time to try something different.
> >>
> >> What do you suggest? Are there models from other mailing list
> >> communities that we should experiment with to create a healthier, more
> >> productive discussion culture? What, based on your own experience of
> >> this list, would you like to see change?
> >
> > I think we should stop using this outdated technology altogether and
> > instead switch to a web-based forum, where comments can be
> > postmoderated (i.e. removed after posting), and unproductive threads
> > can be moved or locked.
> >
> > Mailing lists, by their nature, have a large potential for abuse by
> > trolls and spammers. It's trivial to impersonate another user, or to
> > continue posting indefinitely despite being blocked. We're lucky that
> > the behaviour we've seen here has been merely inconsiderate, rather
> > than malicious.
> >
> > Discussion on the English Wikipedia continues to function despite
> > hateful users who try every dirty trick they can think of to disrupt
> > the community. We're lucky that foundation-l has only seen the merest
> > hint of a reflection of that turmoil, because the tools we have to
> > deal with abusive behaviour on mailing lists are far less capable than
> > those that have been developed for Wikipedia.
>
> Some modern forums have features that can interact very intelligently
> with email, which to my mind might be the best of both worlds.  Such
> things would still allow the features you mention such as thread
> locking and removal of abuse from the archive, but would also allow
> people to continue to receive email copies of posts if that is what
> they prefer.
>
> For example, have a forum where people can subscribe to receive email
> copies of either all posts or just specific threads of interest.  Most
> systems would require that you then visit the website to post replies
> (which could be facilitated by including a reply url in any emailed
> copy), though I do recall once seeing a forum email manager that
> created a unique reply-to address for each thread/user, hence allowing
> one to email replies directly onto the forum while still having those
> replies be subjected to any thread and/or user specific rules that had
> been put in place.
>
> In any event, I think we could probably set up a system that provided
> more flexible control over threads and users without necessarily
> sacrificing the convenience of email for people that prefer that
> approach.  And of course, people who don't want email interaction
> could just use such a web forum as a web forum without enabling any
> email features.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
>
If an enterprising hacker were to enable fully bidirectional e-mail <->
 liquid threads functionality then I can see this being accepted, but
otherwise it seems implausible. Despite all the benefits of forums they
don't come close to the global usage habits and convenience of e-mail.