taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (09/04/86)
Since the message saying that I was disinclined to continue the discussion
on the ethics of work (etc) I've received some interesting mail from people!
The main thought that keeps running through my head, however, is that no-one
seems to agree on what moderation is...
This is a more general problem with using computers as a communications
medium, however - who, if anyone, decides what should and shouldn't be
sent about, why, and how?
I'd like to start a discussion on this topic in this group. A copy of
this message has been sent out to the moderators of all the Usenet
groups that are moderated.
I see four basic ways that a group can be moderated;
1. The moderator can be a 'funnel' for information, neither checking
the postings for quality nor for accuracy of presentation (e.g.
spelling) or information.
2. The moderator can be a 'copy editor', not saying yes or no on
what to post, but fixing the presentation to a consistent format
and correcting the typographic/spelling errors in the texts
received.
3. The moderator can be a 'newspaper editor', where certain things
can be refused, but the most important issue is SPEED of reporting.
4. The moderator can be a 'magazine editor' where not only is the
presentation monitored, but the topics themselves.
We can point to different groups that moderate in different ways -
examples are "OtherRealms", moderated by Chuq Von Rospach, which
is essentially an electronic magazine, "mod.sources", moderated
by Rich Salz, who is pretty much a 'newspaper editor' - he occasionally
refuses postings, but is more interested in getting good stuff out in
a timely manner. At the other end of the spectrum are groups like
the "philosophy of science" mailing list on the ARPANET, which is
really the 'funnel' of what little information flows through it.
I view my role with the Computers and Society Digest (and newsgroup)
as that of a magazine editor. This means that, as with real magazines,
the reader chooses to subscribe because 1. the topic is of interest
and 2. the direction that the magazine moves in is consistently interesting
enough to at least *read* the stuff.
This second part implies that the editorial direction and policy of the
magazine is amenable to the readers. In some cases magazines have
changed entirely, and changed readership as a consequence, due to a
change in editorial staff. An example that comes to mind is the
magazine "Unix/World", which has completely changed it's direction
as a reporter of the Unix community...
* Given this, then, how do we arrive at a moderator that is appropriate for
the particular group?
Currently, I think the computer systems might just have the ideal - the
people who moderate groups do it because they *enjoy* it and are interested
in the subject. Contrast this to the goings-on of magazines and news-
papers where oftentimes it's due to 'management ability' or some sort of
'dealing' that lands an editorial position (again, "Unix/World" comes to
mind, but that's a longer story!)...
There are some problems in that the moderators don't have official
sanction to 'edit' a newsgroup, so they tend to do it on the side in
their spare time. But again, it shows their dedication to the area of
discussion.
* How does the moderator decide how much to moderate?
This is perhaps the crux of the question. As we've seen, there are various
groups that are moderated at different levels. This question, perhaps, is
the one most in need of clarification by discussion...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I'll end my comments here for now, hoping for an interesting discussion.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-- Dave Taylortaylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (09/05/86)
This article is from sun!plaid!chuq (Chuq Von Rospach) and was received on Thu Sep 4 12:23:36 1986 > The main thought that keeps running through my head, is that no-one > seems to agree on what moderation is... > > This is a more general problem with using computers as a communications > medium, however - who, if anyone, decides what should and shouldn't be > sent about, why, and how? Let me preface my comments with a few things. First, from what I have seen in my traversing through the various electronic networks of the world, USENET is unique. How? Lack of control. Every single other networking system I've been involved in, with one exception (one that I wrote many years ago) had some concept of a moderator. Call it Sysop, call it moderator, call it overseer, call it what you will. Someone was responsible for making sure people acted properly. For good reason. In my youth, I wrote a USENET like thing for a CDC cyber that connected a number of different colleges together. It had, in its prime, about 200 users, with a core group of 25 (core meaning an avreage of one or more posting a week). About like USENET, but about three orders or magnitude smaller. At one point there was an argument about excessive control and censorship of material on the board, so, being Lord God of the program, I decreed that it was anything goes. Anyone could create a new topic, anyone could post anything they wanted. No censorship, no moderation, no mother-in-lawing. Total Chaos. We had one group (called snork) whose entire purpose in life was to say 'snork' to each other. To the tune of 50 messages a day at one point. We had fights that would make some of the flame wars on USENET look like sunday picnics. We had all SORTS of fun. A few months later, I and some other people finally clamped down and put controls back on. Most people were happy to see it happen, but there were a few that made my Wobegon Wars (for those that were around for that fiasco on USENET) look like nothing. It got so bad I almost closed down the program. Anyway, we experimented with a number of ways to check&balance moderation/censorship with freedom of expression, with varying degrees of success. None were perfect, but the one that worked best ended up looking a lot like the current USENET moderation style -- each group had an owner, who did what they felt best for the group. There was also an upper authority (at times, me, at times me and a small group of advisors) who could beat on a moderator that was abusing their authority, and possibly take away the group and give it to someone else. the threat was enough. Real abuse was rare. This is very similar to USENET with two exceptions. First, USENET has unmoderated groups, and second, USENET has no real upper authority. Mark [Horton] is an advisory upper authority only, which is usually just as good until you run into a real meatball. Anyway, remember this when people scream about their "right" to post. It don't exist, folks. USENET is unique in this, and USENET shows the failings of this approach clearly. sigh. Anyway, onward and upward: > I see four basic ways that a group can be moderated; > > 1. The moderator can be a 'funnel' for information, neither checking > the postings for quality nor for accuracy of presentation (e.g. > spelling) or information. This isn't really moderation, Dave. This is what happens to many of the ARPA groups gatewayed into mod groups, but remember there is a moderator on the front end of the group somewhere. Many ARPA groups are 'pass-through' in that the moderator simply redistributes, but remember that he has the option to stop the breakthrough at any time, either for the group as a whole or a single person, and take an active stance. This 'threat' is more than enough in most cases to keep people in line. There is no real reason for a moderator to crack down on a group unless there is a problem. > 2. The moderator can be a 'copy editor', not saying yes or no on > what to post, but fixing the presentation to a consistent format > and correcting the typographic/spelling errors in the texts > received. > > 3. The moderator can be a 'newspaper editor', where certain things > can be refused, but the most important issue is SPEED of reporting. This can be done in a number of ways. Unless a moderator digests (I don't like digesting...) they shouldn't muck with the format or material. A yes/no decision on posting is all they should consider. They CAN suggest running spell or how to rewrite to make it acceptable, or where it might be more acceptable. I firmly do not believe that a moderator, as such, should change material because their name is NOT on it and they may change something that gets someone else in trouble. > > 4. The moderator can be a 'magazine editor' where not only is the > presentation monitored, but the topics themselves. This is OtherRealms format (my electronic SF/Fantasy reviewzine). In most cases, it ain't worth it. Lots of work, lots of detail, and you have to know what you're doing with the subject matter, the electronic jungle, and with the English language as well. Most people don't. Here, rewriting, formatting, and re-arranging things are neccessary, but as 'editor' you are known to be taking an active part so when things get screwed up, the editor is to be blamed at least as much as the writer (the editor should KNOW that an article is screwed up, for instance, and not publish is, even if the writer didn't). It's tough, and more work that most people would want to put into it. Are the results worth it? I think so, but I'm not really sure yet. OtherRealms is nearing a year old, and I'm still figuring out how to do it right. There are inherent limitations to the network that make a magazine format difficult to impossible. We'll see what happens. > There are some problems in that the moderators don't have official > sanction to 'edit' a newsgroup, so they tend to do it on the side in > their spare time. But again, it shows their dedication to the area of > discussion. I don't agree with Dave here. Moderators DO have the sanction to edit, if what you mean by that is that moderators choose acceptable material (back to the yes/no comment above). The moderator's view of the group is (or should be) well known, and the moderator should be consistent with it. In Dave's case, he did the right thing by pointing out that he was going to refuse this material, because it gives people a chance to comment on the decision. If enough people complain, he just changes his mind again. If the material is important enough to someone, they can always go off, start a mailing list, and see if it grows enough to become its own mod group. There are always alternatives. > * How does the moderator decide how much to moderate? By doing what he thinks is right. By keeping his readership informed of this, he gets feedback and can modify his view of 'right' based on his readers needs. Sometimes the needs of the group or the net outweigh this, but this is one of those judgement calls moderators are paid to decide. chuq [Comment: Chuq misinterprets my comment about official sanction for moderating newsgroups. The "official" I'm referring to is the org the moderator works for. The idea I was trying to convey was that as the amount of work the moderator has to do goes up, there is no equivalent amount of time/space given by the persons' org. --Dave]
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (09/05/86)
This article is from mark@cbpavo.cbosgd.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) and was received on Thu Sep 4 15:21:45 1986 My opinion: The moderator should choose, based primarily on input from the readers and posters, which category to use. All are fair game. I also opin that mod.sources is a magazine and mod.comp-soc is a newspaper. mod.sources has a backlog and a finite amount of network resources to consume, so there's often several days delay before a source is posted. I don't read mod.comp-soc, but I'd guess that since it's more discussion oriented, timely turnaround is more important than super-high quality. (Super-high means making multiple passes with the author before a typical posting is approved - something that's appropriate to a magazine.) Mark
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (09/09/86)
This article is from ubc-vision!alberta!sask!andrew (Derek Andrew) and was received on Sat Sep 6 16:14:21 1986 I believe that you have the right as moderator to run the group as you see fit. If you feel that the ethics of work has been "overworked", then you may do whatever you wish. That is the price we pay for your volunteer labour. If we don't like it, then maybe someone else would set up their own list. The only thing you should not do is modify a person's ideas. You may digest submissions of course, as long as you do not quote people saying things they did not say. Keep up the good work and thanks. Derek Andrew ihnp4!sask!andrew andrew@sask.bitnet
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (09/09/86)
This article is from Eugene miya <eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA> and was received on Fri Sep 5 16:52:04 1986 I thought my recent article submitted to you was sufficiently far from the Ethics of work, that I was a bit taken aback when you rejected it. I don't know. I've had journal articles rejected so it no big deal to me. You should point that out. Those people are called editors. I've seen some groups with rampent flaming: net.flame, net.misc, net.space. I'll just sit back and watch this one to judge what I think in the long run (Does the power go to Dave's head? Winston Smith, BNW... Dave, Dave, your mind is going Dave...8-). You can post this opinion. if you want. --eugene miya ["Power go to my head?" he asks, laughing maniacally! hahahahahahahahah]