At 18:14 -0500 3/01/2003, Ben Goertzel wrote:
In my opinion, this list is not in particular need of moderation.
I agree. I like very much its unnamed self-moderation standard.

At 10:00 +1100 6/01/2003, Russell Standish wrote:
Another problem with moderation is how to decide the criteria for
moderation. The FOR list (which is a moderated list covering a similar
range of topics) has a mandate to be accessible to the layperson,
which is interpreted by the moderator as "No mathematics allowed".

And no meta-discussion, like this one. I have nothing
against moderation, once the criteria are clear. But
I do think moderation would not been useful for our type of discussion.

At 10:00 +1100 6/01/2003, Wei Dai wrote:
 > Perhaps instead of creating a seperate moderated list, someone can offer
 the service of selecting high quality posts from this list and reposting
 it - a "best of everything" list. This may serve people who find this list
 too high volume. The authors of the papers cited in the original
 invitation, Bostrom, Schmidhuber, and Tegmark, all subscribe to the list
 > but probably no longer follow it closely because of the volume.

Each one can make selections or travel guides in the everything archive.
Because our interest scan a large spectrum, such selection will be
personal and reflect personal interest. I don't think a best-of would have
a general meaning. Now I do thing the escribe archive could be enhanced.
Actually it was better at the beginning because it was possible to search
with the "author's name". But I guess the big volume makes the handling
of the info rather difficult. Perhaps Wei Dai could tell us why the list of
author has disappeared?

At 20:52 -0500 5/01/2003, John M wrote:

I hope to have fun with this list in the future and wish us all the best.
Thank you John,


Reply via email to