[WikiEN-l] Who's moderated?

[Steve Bennett]

On 9/6/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's exactly this kind of attitude that makes me nervous. Are you
> suggesting that Marc has engaged in behavior that should result in his
> moderation? What exactly is that behavior?
>
> No one is forcing you to read, let alone *respond* to any of Marc's
> postings. Yet you suggest that he should be moderated because you
> disagree with him and/or are tired of the topic.
>
> I am very glad that our moderators have a clearer understanding of what
> should result in moderation.

Personally, I hate the fact that so many messages get wasted on stupid
topics like this. I do feel that insinuations of conspiracy theories
and veiled allusions to silent masses of unhappy people (but refusal
to substantiate such claims) cause disruption to the list and
interfere with its primary purpose. And I find that the argument "you
don't have to read it if you don't want to" is just bunkum - there are
laws against junk mail (and junk email for that matter) precisely
because having junk in the system makes the system work less well.

Personally, I'd really like much firmer rules for moderation, like
most email lists do, where anything off topic is not tolerated, and
people strive to maintain a high signal to noise ratio. People who
complain that the moderation is too strict already, what are they
looking for really? Therapy? A soapbox? A social chitchat list? A
conspiracy theory forum? A kindergarten? This list should be none of
those. It should be a serious forum for discussion of genuine issues
that affect Wikipedia in an adult manner.

</grumble>
</rant>

Steve