Marc Riddell wrote:
I am still puzzled by why the persons being moderated (censored) on this List need to be held so close to the vest; is there a stigma attached to it? There are some excellent voices on this List, and if some power somewhere decides one or more of them needs to be censored, I want to know who they are choosing to shelter me from.
on 9/3/07 5:14 AM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
I can think of a few reasons.
First, as others have mentioned, there's being considerate. Being on moderation is a black mark
A black mark!? C'mon William.
and there's no particular reason to expose that information externally
I have already given several very good reasons, including the other List Members' right to know whose voices they are being kept from hearing.
Sometimes difficult people have useful contributions, and announcing that they're on moderation can prejudice people against the useful bits.
Speak for yourself, William. You're not giving the readers of this List much credit for independent thinking. No judgement of another person, by another person, is going to influence my judgment of their contributions in any way.
Second, a lot of antisocial behavior on the internet is driven by, or at least thrives on, getting recognition or a reaction. The less we do to feed that, the better. See [[WP:DENY]] for more on that.
William, I am well aware of the sociopathy on this List, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject here.
Third, spam is a huge issue these days. The best thing you can do with spam is to make it vanish; any informational leakage can and will be exploited by spammers.
William, this, too, has absolutely nothing to do with the subject here.
Fourth, it's what's easiest. We're all volunteers here, and moderating a list this size is plenty of work on its own.
This is the feeblest excuse yet.
Marc