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.
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>*
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Asaf Bartov <abar...@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).
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org