[WikiEN-l] Who's moderated?

[George Herbert]

On 9/5/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Marc Riddell wrote:
> >> on 9/5/07 7:29 PM, John Lee at johnleemk at gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Feel free to disagree with me all you
> >>> like, but I find we're very tolerant of a lot of crap spewed onto the list -
> >>> even those on moderation often have their messages approved.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Once again, you are illuminating the problem, John. You are subjectively
> >> deciding for us all, what is "crap" and what is not. Don't you get it!?
>
> on 9/5/07 8:55 PM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs at earthlink.net wrote:
> >>
> > We get it alright. But you're presenting yourself as the only person who
> > really knows the right way to do things, and you don't. A couple days
> > ago you didn't even know that lists have owners, and now you're trying
> > to tell everybody how to run a mailing list. Well I'm sorry, but you
> > simply don't know enough to have any credible opinions on the subject.
> > Why aren't you willing to listen to the voices of experience? This is
> > not a Wikipedia thing, this is a problem common to all online projects,
> > so much so that moderation capabilities are built into the list
> > management software! I'm willing to cut you some slack, because I'm
> > interested in alternate viewpoints, but please show some respect in
> > return, OK?
> >
> I am not here to fight with anyone. I have absolutely no personal or
> professional stake in any of this. And the idea that I have an agenda (as
> someone suggested) is absurd.
>
> Stop flailing at the messenger, and open you mind to the message.
>
> Marc Riddell

I think you do have an agenda, but it's one of wanting to protect the
project and mailing list from making itself too insular and not
realising it.

In defense of Marc; this is a real concern for online projects.  The
degree to which the project insiders are unaware or uncaring of
external viewpoints varies widely from project to project (and on
something as big as WP, from area to area, list to list, etc).  But it
is a very real and well known effect in online cultures as well as
real ones.

I have several times spoken out for a need for high quality gadflys on
the list and around Wikipedia in general.  People in a position to and
willing to call us on stuff we communally get wrong or get into
groupthink on are an important protective measure for the project.
We've had a tendency to not develop them, which is unfortunate.

What we do have, effectively, is people playing that role in specific
areas where they see a problem, but otherwise generally fitting in
well with the list community and wider WP community.

I spent over a decade moderating Usenet groups, and have done similar
roles for mailing lists before.  I understand people's desire to have
a moderated list.

That said, I would like to encourage everyone to think about whether
our current policy is making us sufficiently available to hear some
gadflys and be aware of them or not.

I think that the answer is probably that things are "ok" - Cheney and
Blowfish and a few others still get postings through, whether they're
moderated or not.  And we don't appear (from what's on the list and
what I've seen in private emails) to have a problem with mainstream
participants being moderated much except when they go on an irrational
rampage, which can happen.

That said, it's reassuring to those of us concerned about this if
there's an open dialog about moderation, and I agree with Marc's
sentiment that knowing who's on moderation would assist in clarifying
the situation.

I understand the privacy issues involved with the list of those
moderated being private at this time; I tend to agree that the benefit
of the list and community as a whole may tend towards making it
public, though.

This is not my top concern about WP this week, but it is somewhat
worrying.  I would urge further calm discussion regarding the
legitimate need for openness and the privacy tradeoffs involved.  That
current formal or informal moderator policy says that you can't make
the list public or give it to Marc doesn't mean that we shouldn't
continue to discuss whether that policy is a mistake and should
change.

The thing that is really annoying about this is that I don't think we
have an easy way of anonymously polling those on moderation to see
what they think about their status being "outed", if we change policy.

Nobody has publically stood up and made a statement so far.  Perhaps
we can ask if anyone on moderation is interested in creating a new
free account somewhere and signing up for the list and sending us just
a quick note about whether you feel the moderation list being public
is ok with you or not?  Moderators, I hope you'd be ok with letting
these through...


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com