Bernie,<br><br>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.<br>
<br>SJ<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Bernie Innocenti <<a href="mailto:bernie@codewiz.org">bernie@codewiz.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">Samuel Klein wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Some time ago, I posted the following comments about moderation<br>
to a closed OLPC list.<br>
<br>
This is not to say there shouldn't be someone managing the list.<br>
Just that they should not apply a strict moderation policy.<br>
<br>
Do you agree on this?<br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: on transparency<br>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:38:29 +0200<br>
From: Bernie Innocenti <<a href="mailto:bernie@laptop.org" target="_blank">bernie@laptop.org</a>><br>
To: Samuel Klein <<a href="http://meta.sj" target="_blank">meta.sj</a>@<a href="http://gmail.com" target="_blank">gmail.com</a>><br>
CC: Marco Pesenti Gritti <<a href="mailto:mpg@redhat.com" target="_blank">mpg@redhat.com</a>>, <a href="mailto:tech-team@laptop.org" target="_blank">tech-team@laptop.org</a><br>
<br>
Samuel Klein wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
If we can clarify this, the list mods can be encouraged to keep discussion on topic.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Strict moderation and splitting into micro-topic groups was attempted<br>
by the venerable FidoNet and Usenet, two very large pre-Internet<br>
networks. In my experience, it created more trouble than benefit.<br>
<br>
A large part of the traffic was moderators bitching with subscribers<br>
about what is on topic and how the policy should be modified to allow<br>
or deny a particular behavior. Lots of posting would begin with<br>
disclaimers: "I'm not sure this is on topic, please forgive me if<br>
it's not...".<br>
<br>
The most popular argument was: "you are wasting everybody's bandwidth!",<br>
along with estimates of how many bytes were transferred to convey the<br>
inappropriate topic. Then when bandwidth was not a problem any more,<br>
it became a S/N ratio issue.<br>
<br>
Some individuals cannot suffer to hear others expressing their own<br>
ideas and bring up bandwidth and S/N excuses as a way to censor them.<br>
This is why moderation in public forums was a bed idea and was dropped<br>
in modern Internet.<br>
<br>
What works very well, instead, is self moderation and peer-to-peer<br>
moderation, because people in general learn to avoid behavior that<br>
upsets everybody else. I think the Wikipedia works on the very same<br>
principle.<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
-- <br>
\___/<br>
_| o | Bernie Innocenti - <a href="http://www.codewiz.org/" target="_blank">http://www.codewiz.org/</a><br>
\|_X_| "It's an education project, not a laptop project!"<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>