I was on a very active music mailing list for over 10 years and I was
grateful it was not moderated. Moderation can inhibit discussion, even when
there are disruptors, and it also requires moderators donate a lot of
volunteer hours. Which I think within the Wikimedia family community is
already being required of many of us. So I would vote against moderation.
If an argument / shift was towards moderation, maybe it could be based on
edit count and/or contributions? But that seems a bit extreme and awful.
- Erika
*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>*
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Asaf Bartov <abartov(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
A meta-question: I am wondering whether, if one thinks
a user on this list
should be moderated, it is better to discuss it privately with the list
admins (who, if convinced, could announce the moderation publicly, or not),
or publicly on this list (explicitly inviting more opinions, being
transparent about my position regarding moderating the user, but also
embarrassing the user whatever the outcome).
Thoughts?
A.
--
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>