On 06/09/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/5/07 7:29 PM, John Lee at johnleemk@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@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@gmail.com
Note: Using patches may involve upgrading to the development version of Mailman, if such patches are written.
1. If a patch were to be written for Mailman-side killfiles, for individual users, would the patch be used? 2. If a patch were to be written for a user preference for a moderated user to be able to decide if s/he wants to appear on a public list of moderated users, would the patch be used? (The default could be set to 'no'.) 3. Mailman already has the ability to not archive publicly. Would not archiving publicly reduce tension on the list? Should this option be changed? 4. Would it be better to let individual users decide whether or not they want their messages archived? If a patch were written to grant this capability, would it be used? 5. Are there any other possible patches that might be used?