Ed Poor wrote:
> P.S. I also support starting with wikiEN-l first; anything to make a
flame-free haven!
One or the other, it doesn't matter to me.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
> From: koyaanisqatsi(a)nupedia.com
>
> I'm unsubscribing from this list. If I shouldn't be a sysop while not
> following the list, then make it so.
I'm highly inclined to do this myself--again. I can totally sympathize.
On the occasion of one of my posts, some have suggested, rather
ironically, that all flames be banned from the list--or at least
self-censored.
I fully support such a rule, and if we adopt it, I'll pledge to follow it
and, if necessary and appropriate, enforce it. But how *would* we
*enforce* such a rule?
If there is no enforcement of any sort, the rule would be absolutely
worthless, and I won't support it. There are members of this community
that pride themselves on flouting rules, and they would take only too much
joy in flaming away at people who felt morally obliged, by the rule, not
to reply in kind. Moreover, in the current atmosphere, there is no
serious possibility to shame the offenders into silence, because
unfortunately our worst offenders are literally shameless.
I have a suggestion--and I know this will be a highly unpopular
suggestion, but let me get the idea out there anyway. I'm beginning to
think the list should be moderated.
In my eight years' continuous and active experience on mailing lists and
Usenet, I have discovered that some lists can remain productive and useful
while remaining unmoderated. This is because there is a preponderance of
full-fledged adults on the list who are polite, and who know how to reply
witheringly to the occasional eedjit; in short, there's a huge base of
great contributors and a very large shame culture involved.
Now, the value of many other unmoderated lists--like this one--is
undermined by continuous flame wars by battling, enormous egos, to say
nothing of the worthless newbie posts that come from people who have not
read the FAQ.
One of the very best mailing lists I was on (and I think others involved
with it would agree with this assessment) was one that I, and then Ben
Kovitz, moderated. It was a philosophy mailing list. There was a strict
policy of politeness as well as a minimum requirement of philosophical
cogency. I think the list would have suffered hugely if it had been made
unmoderated, because there were a lot of people who would have otherwise
been given to flame wars involved; it was the fact that it was moderated
that gave it a lot of its value, because there was a guarantee of quality.
I am very familiar with the arguments for and against moderation, and of
course one main argument against list moderation in all cases is that it
quells "free speech." Being a lover of freedom, I can understand very
much. But the fact of the matter is that some lists just wouldn't exist,
or they wouldn't be a fraction as interesting as they actually are, if
they weren't moderated. Moderation is, we might say, a necessary evil in
some cases.
In the case of Wikipedia, I'm beginning to think it is a necessary evil.
I for one would be overjoyed if Wikipedia-l were to become moderated and
the moderator were empowered to deal appropriately with flaming and with
trolls.
Larry
My suggestion is actually that neither people nor posts be moderated. If everyone will be "good" and seek slack (whatever the heck that is), then no posts need be filtered at all.
My proposal is only to use the "naughty" category as a temporary measure, to cool off someone who's flagrantly violating the rules. Like a one-hour, three-hour or one-day suspension of "good" status.
I wager that no more than 2 or 3 people would ever get placed in such status at a time. Even then, if even one member of the Moderator Team approved a post from a "person in limbo", it would go through to the list.
If you were suggesting that ALL POSTS be checked first, then count me out. That would be too much work for me. If nominated, I *might* serve, but I'm liable to just set the "pass all posts" flag and not actually read each one first.
I think we should only filter posts from scofflaws, not from everyone.
I hope I've made my position clear -- if not persuasive.
Ed Poor
I don't much like Ed's suggestion that we moderate people rather than
posts. With a virtuous few exceptions, most of us have posted things to
the list that would have been rejected by a good moderator.
The idea of having a list of people who need approval first would be
*highly* controversial, and that's controversy we don't need. We don't
need to give anyone more reason to think that there is a cabal. I support
treating everyone equal in this regard, even if it means more work for the
moderators.
There is, by the way, one implication of making WikiEN-l moderated but not
Wikipedia-l. I think it's safe to predict the following sort of
situation. Some people will no doubt try to post something on Wikien-l
and when it is rejected, they will post it on Wikipedia-l and scream
bloody murder about abuse of power.
This means two things. First, most importantly, we've got to ensure that
moderators do *not*, in fact, abuse their power. (Never give the
above-mentioned types legitimate reason to complain.) The policy has to
be clear and decisions have to be rendered fairly and objectively.
Second, we need to make it clear from the outset that if wikien-l *does*
become moderated, that *does indeed* mean that somebody's going to have
power that they didn't have before. That in turn means that we have
accepted the associated risks, and a *few* mistakes are perfectly
predictable, and moreover, within the bounds of acceptability.
LP/Camembert wrote:
>> I understand why people want the list moderated - there's been a lot of
tiresome crap on here lately (there usually is). But if you don't want to
read a message, what's wrong with simply deleting it? Everybody can be
their own moderator that way, without having somebody decide what they
should and shouldn't read. <<
The problem is that the noise drives off the signal and even literally
drives off prime producers of signal (e.g., posts from Julie and KQ would
count as signal). Basically, there are too many children on the list, and
there needs to be a few playground moms, or else the adults will want to
have nothing to do with the list.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
I'm going to take a break from the lists of at least one week. If a
moderated list is not to be--which is a damn shame, because we *REALLY*
need one--I at least definitely need a break.
For the health of the list and the project, I think it would be an
excellent idea if several of us would take a break as well, and let the
more peaceful among us to move on to more productive matters. Then, maybe
when we return, we can be calmer and work together in a spirit of mutual
respect, or at least as much respect as we can muster.
Larry
As I originally expected, we're seeing more and more "no" answers to
moderation. That's too bad.
Good luck, everyone, trying to implement other solutions, or with the
status quo: I think the list will continue to be mired in constantly
flowing excrement. Those with a low toleration for it will continue to be
driven off.
The rest will be a reply to Anthere (her comments are preceded by ">>"):
>> 1. I would *really* appreciate that you refer to me as
a she and not as a he. Respecting people gender is
important
Of course that's important--I simply didn't know whether you were male or
female, and simply (and wrongly) assumed you were male.
>> 2. I think conflict issue could be solved in most
cases by discussion and appeasement. That could imply
that some - non involved in a conflict - take time to
calm things down, publicly or privately. I don't
support blocking mails as a way to quiet things down
Good luck, again, with your proposed solution.
>> 3. On wikipedia (the encyclopedia), it is possible to
participate anonymously. Only Jimbo has the right
(except for couple of occasions, but I think there was
no abuse) to *ban* people. This is done after careful
and lenghty examination of case. This mean wikipedia
is - to a certain point - respecting freedom of
speech. How could it be that the mailing list do not
follow the same line ?
I would have thought it was obvious that there is a HUGE difference
between banning someone from Wikipedia and making the mailing list
moderated.
>> Why could it be that more
freedom of speech is allowed on wiki than on the
mailing list ?
What you imply with your moderation system is that a
mailing-list sysop will be given more power than
encyclopedia-sysop.
There's nothing at all unusual about moderating mailing lists, as surely
you must know. Many mailing lists are moderated. Some moderators are
virtual tyrants, and others are basically rubber stamps that might as well
not exist. If the community decides--as it has not--to adopt a moderated
list, then it seems strange to say that there is a "freedom of speech"
issue involved at all, unless you're of the opinion that all moderation
implies an infringement of freedom of speech.
> I think there should be 2-4 moderators. I made the
> suggestion and I am
> willing to act as part-time co-moderator, but not as
> the only moderator.
>BS
>KQ
>Ed
> Julie Kemp
> Mav
> April
> Axel
> Brion (he has better things to do, though, with the
> software)
> Magnus (ditto)
> Lee Crocker (ditto)
>> 4. This is a *general* mailing list (and don't try to
sneakily say it is been done behind everybody's back.
The subject has been raised several time, and it took
at least 2 months before being there - you were not
there - or not listening).
Perhaps indeed I wasn't there, but it certainly came as a surprise to me
and others when you started enforcing the rule, which I happen to agree
with. (So, you can stop arguing with me now. I agree with you. :-) )
>> A general list moderated by
only english (one exception who likely will not have
the time) people is an english list.
But I understand non-english users will not be trusted
since not known.
You didn't understand. In the very next sentence,
> There should also be a French language moderator.
I suggested that there should be a French language moderator among any
moderators of Wikipedia-l. Also, the proposal now on the table is to
moderate WikiEN-l, leaving you with even less to worry about.
> :-) Actually, I did
> have four years of French in high school, so I could
> do an OK job but I
> think I'd probably miss things like (the French
> equivalents of) "your
> mother wears army boots."
>> 5. I won't recognise you as a french moderator should
there be need of one. I don't see 4 years in french at
school as a credential to give you this role when you
care so little about us. Actually, there are no french
with a real moderating role right now. But we are
polite enough :-)
It wasn't clear enough that I was joking, Anthere. Of course I'll admit
I'm unqualified to moderate French language posts to Wikipedia.
> Anyway, there's an important question you left off
> of your list of
> questions, Ed: what should the moderation policy be?
>> 6. Currently is under work a list of moderators for
which NO job has been defined. Until a proper
definition of what *moderation* could be, I fail to
see why would people accept or not accept that role,
or how could people be given that role.
Nobody has decided anything. I first proposed a number of possible
moderators (mainly, in fact, to give people the idea that there were a
number of people that we really could trust). Then, I described some
*possible* rules--which I myself might reject, after reflection--that
would indeed define what moderation would be.
>> 7.Your initial proposition was to avoid the
unpleasantness of flame war. I see quite a number of
points here that have *nothing* to do whatsoever with
flaming wars.
Indeed, that's correct.
* Reject trollish suggestions from newbies that
> Wikipedia should be
> radically changed in some particular way. This is
> to be distinguished
> from reasonable and well-supported suggestions,
> from anyone, that
> Wikipedia should be radically chagned in some
> particular way. Bear in
> mind that people can disagree about what is
> "reasonable." The point is
> that we should not have to listen, for the
> umpteenth zillionth time,
> to facile objections to the neutrality policy, for
> example.
>> 8. To come back to the international issue, you should
know that all wikipedias don't necessary have a clear
neutrality point of view policy yet. It might be
necessary that we discuss it one day. So you might
have to listen to newbies, and these suggestions can
be worth listening to
You should know, Anthere, that they *do* have a neutrality policy, though
it might not be enforced (and too bad, if so). That's one point about
Wikipedia that is non-negotiable. If you have questions regarding this
point, I suggest you ask Jimmy Wales about it.
Moreover, the item above is not directed to polite suggestions, questions,
or any such thing, but to newbies who are, unwittingly or not, trying to
undermine well-established policy when they're not familiar with it. It
seems perfectly reasonable to me (though I can certainly understand it if
you want to disagree with me on this point) that we ask the newbie first
to get acquainted with what he or she is attacking.
Asking *questions* is, of course, always perfectly appropriate.
The point is
> that we should not have to listen, for the
> umpteenth zillionth time,
> to facile objections to the neutrality policy, for
> example. Moderators
> should direct offenders to the relevant documents
> and ask the poster to
> rewrite the post bearing in mind that we've
> probably heard it all
> before.
>> 9. And of course, I might also add that most
international who start on this list, usually start
with basic questions of copyrights, neutrality....
issues. Coldly sending a "worried" international to a
remote english circonvoluted 10000 words page on a
copyright subject is not gonna make it. Human answer
will. If you don't want to answer...just don't answer
for the zillionth time...but don't prevent others to
do so.
I'm not suggesting any such thing at all!
>> Please don't mix flame issues with other issues.
I will if I want to, thank you very much. I think several related issues
go to undermine the quality of the list.
Larry
In response to Ed's questions, I'd say we should start with Wikipedia-l,
and see how moderating that goes, and then if it's a success or if it's
felt to be needed, we should moderate WikiEN-l. I think it's entirely
possible that the new sobriety of the "master list" will have a positive
effect on other lists.
I think there should be 2-4 moderators. I made the suggestion and I am
willing to act as part-time co-moderator, but not as the only moderator.
That's how much I would appreciate a polite, non-trollish, non-flamebait,
non-flaming list. As a co-moderator, I'm sure she wouldn't appreciate the
workload, and maybe we shouldn't try her patience, but I'd love to have
Ruth Ifcher, who has a low tolerance for BS and a high appreciation for
what we're doing. My next choice would be KQ, who would make an
incredible moderator, I think. Ed would be great too. Other people who I
think would do a brilliant job include (since I think they could be
extremely fair, because they're smart, and because they have a deep
respect and understanding of what we on Wikipedia are doing):
Julie Kemp
Mav
April
Axel
Brion (he has better things to do, though, with the software)
Magnus (ditto)
Lee Crocker (ditto)
There should also be a French language moderator. :-) Actually, I did
have four years of French in high school, so I could do an OK job but I
think I'd probably miss things like (the French equivalents of) "your
mother wears army boots."
This is just the short list--I'm sure I'm leaving off many people who I
think could do at least as good a job.
If we go with moderation, maybe KQ will come back and help moderate the
list so that it becomes something he feels he won't have to quit in
disgust. ;-)
Anyway, there's an important question you left off of your list of
questions, Ed: what should the moderation policy be?
I've written two or three moderation policies before and I've given them a
lot of thought. Roughly speaking (this would need fine-tuning), I suggest
the following:
* When in doubt, approve the post. Don't block posts that are on the
borderline.
* Reject posts that express any sort of disrespect for others. There can
be exceptions; for example, if we have to discuss a problem troll on
Wikipedia, then expressions of disrespect (among other things) are
totally on-topic. This implies reject of the following:
* Plain old insults.
* Slightly subtle implications of something highly insulting.
(Certain Wikipedians have perfected this to an art form.)
* Really obvious condescension and other disrespectful attitudes.
* To human beings and listmembers (as opposed to spammers, for instance),
always give some explanation of why the post is rejected. If the
software doesn't do it (I think it does, though), include the full post
with the rejection so that the author can revise it.
* Reject all spam without comment.
* On Wikipedia-l, reject posts that should go to WikiEN-l (I happen to
agree with this rule that was foisted upon us without much discussion
;-) ).
* Reject trollish suggestions from newbies that Wikipedia should be
radically changed in some particular way. This is to be distinguished
from reasonable and well-supported suggestions, from anyone, that
Wikipedia should be radically chagned in some particular way. Bear in
mind that people can disagree about what is "reasonable." The point is
that we should not have to listen, for the umpteenth zillionth time,
to facile objections to the neutrality policy, for example. Moderators
should direct offenders to the relevant documents and ask the poster to
rewrite the post bearing in mind that we've probably heard it all
before.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
Can the Wikipedia say that a certain person is anti-Semitic? Or must an article step back and say only that the person is "regarded as anti-Semitic?"
Does it serve our neutrality policy to say rather that such a person is "universally regarded" or "all but universally regarded" as anti-Semitic?
Consider the following:
If someone ever quotes a Wikipedia article in a newspaper or book, should they be able to say, "According to Wikipedia, Joe Blow is anti-Semitic".
My interpretation of our neutrality policy may be a bit shaky, but something smells wrong here. The hypothetical quote above makes it seems like we are endorsing a view.
Is there any difference between stating that a certain person studied at a university and stating that the person "is anti-Semitic"?
Perhaps I am making a fact-value distinction:
* studied at the university (fact)
* is anti-Semitic (value judgement)
I'm not really asking for a chorus of opinions from the list, but an authoritative, once-and-for-all pronouncement from the Founders.
Ed Poor
Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a list moderator:
-- April
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry
Axel Boldt
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry
Brion Vibber
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry
Ed
* for: Larry, Jonathan (Clutch)
* pregnant chad: Erik (only as co-moderator)
* dimpled chad: Toby
* hanging chad: Anthere (pas *entièrement* d'accord)
Jimbo:
* for: everyone but him
* opposed: himself
Julie
* for: Larry
* opposed: Erik, Julie, Toby
KQ
* for: Toby, Larry, Ed
Larry
* for: Ed, Jonathan (Clutch)
* opposed: Erik, Toby
Lee Crocker
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry
Magnus Manske
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry
maveric149
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry
* opposed: Jonathan (Clutch)
Ruth
* for: Larry
* opposed: Toby
Having moderation at all: Larry proposed it, and I assume everyone else who "voted" agrees with it
* dimpled chad: Erik (Eloquence)
* hanging chad: Tom Parmenter (aka Ortolan88)
* pregnant chad: Jimbo (won't fight it, but has reservations)
* opposed: Matthew Woodcraft
(signed)
Ed Poor
Administrator for wikiEN-l
At 18:43 11/12/2002 +0000, Jimbo wrote:
>Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> > Jimbo simply doesn't have the time, so I don't think he'd agree to do this.
>
>That's right. Count me out. :-)
>
>I'm not really supportive of the idea, either.
I don't like the idea either. It would slow down the pace of the list, and
I fear that a moderated list would only lead to more bad feeling, when
somebody who thinks they are making a legitimate point has their message
rejected because somebody else considers it a flame. And of course, that
bad feeling will spread to the wikipedia itself.
I understand why people want the list moderated - there's been a lot of
tiresome crap on here lately (there usually is). But if you don't want to
read a message, what's wrong with simply deleting it? Everybody can be
their own moderator that way, without having somebody decide what they
should and shouldn't read.
LP (camembert)