[Wikipedia-l] Moderation

Thu Dec 12 00:32:45 UTC 2002

In answer to your comment Larry

1. I would *really* appreciate that you refer to me as
a she and not as a he. Respecting people gender is
important

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

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 ? 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. 

> 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). 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.

> 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."

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 :-)

> 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.

> 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

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.

* 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

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.

Please don't mix flame issues with other issues.

-----

But 2 is the most important point.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com