[sugar] Mail backlog; list moderators needed

[Samuel Klein]

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 <bernie at codewiz.org> 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 <bernie at laptop.org>
> To: Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com>
> CC: Marco Pesenti Gritti <mpg at redhat.com>, tech-team at laptop.org
>
> 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!"
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/sugar/attachments/20080508/4adc54e3/attachment.htm