On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
John Lee wrote:
On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Earlier: "... I receive ... private emails from Members of this List
Community ... persons ... NOT banned or moderated ... but who fear ending up that way [anywhere] if they voice their opinions ..."
Ditto. Some of my most valuable correspondents are off list. I'm
even
maintaining a connection with one moderator (of another list) who
banned
me for actions not on the list - another Zen Cohan if ever there was one!
The most disturbing thing about that exchange was that the person proposing a more open distribution of information understood the nature of privacy and confidence, while at least one opponent did not believe that the discussion could move forward unless these trusts were broken.
Excuse me? What is the point of posting a vague alarmist description of apparent terror imposed on the list by ostensibly totalitarian mods, and then refusing to disclose any details, or provide any means of obtaining details from or otherwise engaging in conversation with those who fear retaliation? Is there any other way to approach the issue? If there
isn't,
then why broach it if there is no feasible way to address it?
This seems like a hypersensitive reaction. The terms "alarmist description" and "totalitarian mods" are yours, not that of the person who mentioned the private e-mails.
Well, I'm glad I'm the only one who got that impression then. These apparent insinuations that we are an insufficiently open community reflect on the moderators of the list - but then maybe that's just my point of view.
Revealing names or outing the people
who complained in confidence will have no bearing on finding a solution. In many respects revealing those names will give some the chance to personalise the problem, thereby avoiding the real issues. At best personalising the issue will only solve the problem as it relates to those individuals.
I asked for concrete details of the problem and/or a way to contact those concerned. Marc had responded to such an earlier request citing privacy issues. If we cannot even have a concrete description of the problem sans names, nor a way to contact those concerned to find out the issue, do tell me what way there is to resolve the problem.
I have no reason to believe that Marc acted dishonestly in raising these
facts.
Neither do I; I'm just wondering why he would hint that the mods are inappropriately stifling discourse but refuse to divulge further reasons for this belief.
I'm not even asking that I see the specific emails or for the names of those
worried to be revealed publicly. They can contact me or any of the other mods with their concerns; we never place people on moderation for
off-list
incidents.
What difference will it make if they contact you?
They need not expose who they are in public, which I think is what they want. No?
If these people have no intent of seeking to address the problem, but
instead find someone else to make a vague explanation of the problem on
the
list, while refusing to come forward (at least to the mods or a mod) to
aid
resolution of the issues at hand, then how do you expect *anything* to
move
forward?
Maybe it's just not about just solving individual problems.
Yes, as I said, it seems clear Marc is pushing for a philosophical change. He is free to do that, but in view of the general pragmatism Wikipedians adopt, unless he can present a real problem that this philosophical change will resolve, he will not make much headway. I am trying to understand the problem(s) that he feels would be resolved by this alteration of our philosophy.
Johnleemk