Bernie, I do agree with this, and expect from past traffic that the need to moderate individual posters will be rare. The needed list-moderation is passing on messages from non-subscribers. It is a social meme that those people are also asked to help keep the list from degenerating into off-topic arguments... but such moderation should be with a light hand.
SJ On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Bernie Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Samuel Klein wrote: > > I just forwarded a bunch of mail from non-subscribers from the past two >> weeks. I am looking for 1-2 people to help moderate this list -- this >> involves filtering spam, passing on messages from non-list members, keeping >> heated discussions on-topic, and moderating the rare overzealous poster. >> Please reply to me off-list if interested. >> > > Some time ago, I posted the following comments about moderation > to a closed OLPC list. > > This is not to say there shouldn't be someone managing the list. > Just that they should not apply a strict moderation policy. > > Do you agree on this? > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: on transparency > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:38:29 +0200 > From: Bernie Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Samuel Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: Marco Pesenti Gritti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Samuel Klein wrote: > >> If we can clarify this, the list mods can be encouraged to keep discussion >> on topic. >> > > Strict moderation and splitting into micro-topic groups was attempted > by the venerable FidoNet and Usenet, two very large pre-Internet > networks. In my experience, it created more trouble than benefit. > > A large part of the traffic was moderators bitching with subscribers > about what is on topic and how the policy should be modified to allow > or deny a particular behavior. Lots of posting would begin with > disclaimers: "I'm not sure this is on topic, please forgive me if > it's not...". > > The most popular argument was: "you are wasting everybody's bandwidth!", > along with estimates of how many bytes were transferred to convey the > inappropriate topic. Then when bandwidth was not a problem any more, > it became a S/N ratio issue. > > Some individuals cannot suffer to hear others expressing their own > ideas and bring up bandwidth and S/N excuses as a way to censor them. > This is why moderation in public forums was a bed idea and was dropped > in modern Internet. > > What works very well, instead, is self moderation and peer-to-peer > moderation, because people in general learn to avoid behavior that > upsets everybody else. I think the Wikipedia works on the very same > principle. > > -- > \___/ > _| o | Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/ > \|_X_| "It's an education project, not a laptop project!" >
_______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
