on 12/13/02 11:35 AM, The Cunctator at cunctator@kband.com wrote:
There would need to be a clear determination beforehand of what will be moderated. And things like "no personal attacks" are too vague to be a clear moderation guideline. Even "avoid topical discussion" is hard, because some degree of appeal to specific entries/topics is necessary for discussion of broad points.
Like pornography, one knows it when one sees it, a typical attack will generally include "stupid" blah blah, scatological references etc. Posts on topics are the same, when they start getting into the details, the debated issues, we all know it belongs on the discussion page of the article.
Pardon me for saying it, but the U.S. judicial standard on pornography is not the kind of standard that we should be using. We don't need to emulate the braindead handling of sex and pornography in the U.S.
Rather, if we *can't* explicate clear guidelines of what is not acceptable, then we shouldn't be moderating. I'm not saying that all judgment should be removed, but that such judgment should be clearly defined.
You see, that's the trap: define it clearly so someone can play games with it. Best just to say: Be courteous and address some subject relevant to wiki.
Rules are evil, evil, evil...
Fred