krone@presto.ig.com (Larry Krone) (10/12/88)
I just got into a discussion with Eliot Lear about his proposed "moderation" (censorship???) of this group. Am I in the minority??? What do the readers of this group think the purposes of this group should be, and would a moderator help matters??? There seems to be a sizable minority of people on USENET that would like to make the net one big, boring, technical journal (no soc groups, talk groups...)..I feel that censorship of anything is the first step to bringing this about.... Okay, what do you think out there (or, am I my usual minority of one) ??? Larry Krone
krone@presto.ig.com (Larry Krone) (10/12/88)
Nothing like getting flamed within 5 minutes after article posting.. I AM SORRY, Eliot --- I did not mean to imply that you are of the group that would like to turn USENET into a technical journal.. But, I still feel that there is no such thing as "lite censorship", I feel it is kind of like pregnancy, it either is there or it isn't. Larry Krone
ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (10/12/88)
In article <6799@ig.ig.com> krone@PRESTO.IG.COM.UUCP (Larry Krone) writes: > >But, I still feel that there is no such thing as "lite censorship", >I feel it is kind of like pregnancy, it either is there or it isn't. > >Larry Krone I don't agree with the implication (eg censorship), although i agree with the statement. From news.groups: "news.admin comments directed to news administrators." In my opinion, news.admin is simply that: news for administrators. I read this group to keep up with pertinent information. I do not read this group to find out who hates who on the net, to find out how much dirty laundry one net.person can dig up on another, to see flames.weemba (or chucky), or to see 30 followups to all of the above. I feel that a moderator will reduce the volume of extraneous postings unrelated to news.admin. If nothing else, a moderator could curb the number of completely irrelevant followups that seem to flow from every poison pen. I do not view the role of the moderator as that of a censor. I would hope that the moderators only job is to screen messages for relevance to the newsgroup. As to what is relevant to the newsgroup, I would not hazzard to give a cannonical list. I do, however, believe that informing us that individual X is a fat slob with no job and a feeble Unix-PC is in NO WAY relevant to keeping me informed about how to be a better news administrator. Of course, these are only my opinions... ken seefried iii ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs, ken@gatech.edu inhp4, masscomp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, ccastks@gitvm1.bitnet unmvax, ut-ngp, ut-sally}!gatech!ken
krone@presto.ig.com (Larry Krone) (10/12/88)
In article <17475@gatech.edu> ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes: > >I do not view the role of the moderator as that of a censor. I would hope >that the moderators only job is to screen messages for relevance to the >newsgroup. > I guess I must be an unabashed liberal. Last time I checked, "screening" messages is the same as "censoring" them...ask the South African Press about that, the S.A. gov't thinks that any reports on military actions there are not "relevant" and should not be reported... Anyway, since I do not want to flood this group with this kind of discussion, please feel free to respond to me via net-mail and I will reply the same way... Larry Krone
jim@fsc2086.UUCP (Jim O'Connor) (10/12/88)
In article <6798@ig.ig.com>, krone@presto.ig.com (Larry Krone) writes: > I just got into a discussion with Eliot Lear about his proposed > "moderation" (censorship???) of this group. Am I in the minority??? > > What do the readers of this group think the purposes of this > group should be, and would a moderator help matters??? > > Okay, what do you think out there (or, am I my usual minority of one) ??? > IMHO, news.admin should be for the posting of instuctions, tips, hints, warnings, etc. on the ADMINISTRATION OF THE NEWS SYSTEM. For example, things like optimization of batching schemes for different physical connections, ways to pass news using the existing software (discussion about changes/new software has its own group), ways to control bugs/problems in current setups, etc. A recent example of this is the Microsoft flood. News admins needed to know about this, and needed to know how to stop/fix it. If most news admins were skipping this group becasue of perceived garbage in it, the flood may have gone on uncontrolled (but probably not). This situation, however, also raises an issue about moderation. If this group is moderated, would the warnings and fix advice, in a situation like this, get out onto the net fast enough to be of real help. It looks like there is a trade-off here. Do we strive for quality and a commitment to specific subject matter at the expense of the speed of dissemination of info, or do we leave it open and deal with the extraneous stuff another way? Personally, I prefer quality and specific subject matter. If info really has to get somewhere fast, there is still e-mail and the telephone. ------- James B. O'Connor +1 615 821 4090 x651 Filtration Sciences Corp. UUCP: uunet!fsc2086!jim 105 West 45th Street or jim@fsc2086.UUCP Chattanooga, TN 37411
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (10/12/88)
In article <6798@ig.ig.com> krone@PRESTO.IG.COM.UUCP (Larry Krone) writes: > There seems to be a sizable minority of people on USENET that would like > to make the net one big, boring, technical journal (no soc groups, talk > groups...)..I feel that censorship of anything is the first step to > bringing this about.... Technical, yes. Boring, I hope not. Around here, we've got computer resources which were bought to help us do real work, not as entertainment devices. The vast majority of our funding comes from NIH and NSF, which means your tax dollars paid for it. Which would you rather have us do with your tax dollars, spend them on boring technical stuff like figuring out how to make Suns deal properly with nameservers and how to make the GenBank database more useful (being at IG, you should appreciate that example) or spend them on arguing about the ethics of abortion, discussing the relative merits of one TV show over another, and passing around 500 old light bulb jokes? Granted, I could chop out a lot of the drivel by just not getting the soc and rec groups (we already don't get alt and talk), but sometimes I think that the quality of comp.unix.wizards isn't much better, and certainly most of news.* is turning into a sewer. I don't understand why people keep trying to equate moderation with censorship, with all its evil connotations. Practically everything I read, from PNAS to SciAm, to the New York Times Letters To The Editor page is filtered in one way or another. Even things like Omni (which I don't read) have somebody at the helm deciding what is worth printing and what isn't. The key is to find a publication whose editorial policy matches your own, not to find a publication which has no editorial policy at all. -- Roy Smith, System Administrator Public Health Research Institute {allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net "The connector is the network"
skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Patricia Roberts) (10/13/88)
I was under the impression that people thought this group should be moderated because the group can serve two functions: to provide an open forum (that is, one which net.plebes like myself can read) in which administrators can talk among one another; to provide a way in which net.plebes can communicate with administrators. Neither of those can happen if administrators don't read the group. And they won't read the group if it is filled with threats and counter- threats, whining, and name-calling. But a group lacking those things is not necessarily purely technical. For example, some of the Portal discussion was not inappropriate here--in theory, if not in practice and in content, if not in tone. A moderator would try to keep the practice a little closer to the theory and the tone a little more appropriate. -- ==================================================================== -Trish "...a lifetime is too narrow skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu too understand it all..." --A. Rich
RWC102@PSUVM (R. W. F. Clark) (10/13/88)
In article <3536@phri.UUCP>, roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) says: > >. . .Which would you rather have us do with >your tax dollars, spend them on boring technical stuff like figuring out how >to make Suns deal properly with nameservers and how to make the GenBank >database more useful (being at IG, you should appreciate that example) or >spend them on arguing about the ethics of abortion, discussing the relative >merits of one TV show over another, and passing around 500 old light bulb >jokes? First, that's an unfair categorization of the purpose of the rec. and talk. groups. rec.arts.books, for example, hardly falls into this category. It would be unfair were I to categorize the comp. groups as useless based upon the crap in comp.unix.wizards, while ignoring the RISK Forum and the interesting comp.theory.* sub-sub- hierarchy. Second, in answer to your question, I'd rather do both. ---- rwc102@psuvm.BITNET Robert Wayne Clark
krone@presto.ig.com (Larry Krone) (10/13/88)
In article <3536@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > > Technical, yes. Boring, I hope not. Around here, we've got computer >resources which were bought to help us do real work, not as entertainment >devices. The vast majority of our funding comes from NIH and NSF, which >means your tax dollars paid for it. Which would you rather have us do with >your tax dollars, spend them on boring technical stuff like figuring out how >to make Suns deal properly with nameservers and how to make the GenBank >database more useful (being at IG, you should appreciate that example) or >spend them on arguing about the ethics of abortion, discussing the relative >merits of one TV show over another, and passing around 500 old light bulb >jokes? Granted, I could chop out a lot of the drivel by just not getting the >soc and rec groups (we already don't get alt and talk), but sometimes I think >that the quality of comp.unix.wizards isn't much better, and certainly most >of news.* is turning into a sewer. > I am not going to respond to another message through the group (I will respond via Email) as I think the purpose of news.admin should have been to introduce this discussion, not continue it...However, since I have already started this, Personally I think that a tax dollar spent on furthering computer communincation is a tax dollar not spent on: 1) War 2) Pork Barrel politics 3) Political Campaigns and is much better spent on UseNet....PLEASE if Y'all want to discuss this do it through EMAIL (I'd hate to have this turn into net.news.politics), As my argument against censorship falls down to its knees if people don't treat groups with respect... Larry
len@netsys.COM (Len Rose) (10/13/88)
This is why having an arrangement in the software so that only news administrators could post to news.admin would be beneficial. It is pretty high on my wish list for the next generation of news software.
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (10/13/88)
In article <6802@ig.ig.com> krone@PRESTO.IG.COM.UUCP (Larry Krone) writes: >In article <17475@gatech.edu> ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes: >>I do not view the role of the moderator as that of a censor. I would hope >>that the moderators only job is to screen messages for relevance to the >>newsgroup. >I guess I must be an unabashed liberal. Last time I checked, "screening" >messages is the same as "censoring" them...ask the South African Press >about that, the S.A. gov't thinks that any reports on military actions >there are not "relevant" and should not be reported... Ah, but a moderator would not decide that something should not be said, but only that it should not be said IN THIS PLACE, i.e. news.admin. He would (or should) not delete unsuitable communications, but simply redirect them to the appropriate place. That's not censorship, but simply reminding people of the polite manners they should have acquired before leaving their parents' home :-). And not carrying certain newsgroups is not censorship either, but just simply chosing not to listen to certain people's free speech on certain topics. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) (10/13/88)
In article <10639@netsys.COM> len@netsys.COM (Len Rose) writes: >This is why having an arrangement in the software so that only >news administrators could post to news.admin would be beneficial. > >It is pretty high on my wish list for the next generation of news >software. As has been repeatedly stated, this already exists. The FASCIST option can be used to keep individuals out of any group you would want to. doing #define FASCIST "all,!news.admin" should suffice. -- John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US) HASA, "S" Division "Why waste negative entropy on comments, when you could use the same entropy to create bugs instead?" -- Steve Elias
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (10/14/88)
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) said:
[some editing has occured in this posting]
-Granted, I could chop out a lot of the drivel by just not getting the
-soc and rec groups (we already don't get alt and talk), but sometimes I think
-that the quality of comp.unix.wizards isn't much better, and certainly most
-of news.* is turning into a sewer.
-
Actually, much of the reason behind news.* turning into a "sewer" (a view
I don't agree with) are people not properly using features of rn, and new
users not understanding the purpose of the specific news.* groups. (There
are, of course, a few exceptions.) For instance, while moderation of
news.admin is appopriate to this group, discussion of the reasons for
moderation in general (like this article) is more appropriate to news.misc
(at least I think so).
- I don't understand why people keep trying to equate moderation with
-censorship, with all its evil connotations.
[ Note. Some editing occurred. ]
-Even things like Omni (which I don't read)
-have somebody at the helm deciding what is worth printing and what isn't.
-The key is to find a publication whose editorial policy matches your own, not
-to find a publication which has no editorial policy at all.
But no editorial policy IS an editorial policy. And I like the no editorial
policy for news.admin. Remember...a moderated newsgroup is only as good
as it's moderator. Peter Neumann does a fantastic job with comp.risks.
Brad Templeton doesn't do nearly as good a job with rec.humor.funny but
it's still mostly readable.
And until someone can prove to me that they're flexible enough to introduce
new topics to news.admin, and have enough time to wade through the volume
of mail of stuff for submission (and not just say "I guess I'll do it")
then I'd rather maintain the status quo.
--
David Bedno (aka The Cat in the Hat) Now appearing at: davidbe@sco.COM -OR-
...!{uunet,decvax!microsoft,ucbvax!ucscc}!sco!davidbe -OR-
At home: 408-425-5266 At work: 408-425-7222 x5123 (I'm probably here...)
Disclaimer: Not SCO's opinions. At least not that they've told me.
The future is a long fly ball, curving foul.skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Patricia Roberts) (10/15/88)
In article <10639@netsys.COM> len@netsys.COM (Len Rose) writes: >This is why having an arrangement in the software so that only >news administrators could post to news.admin would be beneficial. In my profession, we say this sentences suffers from a pronoun reference problem. I assume the "this" refers to stupid or inflam- matory postings? Or something along those lines? If so, Len Rose is assuming that news administrators never make those kinds of postings and that net.plebes always do. That's a highly problematic assumption. One kind of article which is guaranteed to provoke a flame war is the X's-account-should-be-pulled or let's-send-nasty-mail-here article. Someone who is the subject of that kind of article _must_ be given the right to reply--whether it be jj@portal or Gene Spafford. Some of those kinds of accusations are fair and some are completely unfounded. And some of the unfounded accusations have come from system administrators. (Am I the only one who senses an analogy to the soc.women.only debate?) -- ==================================================================== -Trish "...a lifetime is too narrow skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu too understand it all..." --A. Rich
liz@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Liz Allen-Mitchell) (10/16/88)
In article <5598@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> skyler@ecsvax.UUCP (Patricia Roberts) writes: >One kind of article which is guaranteed to provoke a flame war is >the X's-account-should-be-pulled or let's-send-nasty-mail-here >article. Someone who is the subject of that kind of article _must_ >be given the right to reply--whether it be jj@portal or Gene Spafford. > >-Trish Maybe we should change to the software to allow news.admin to be semi- moderated. That is, the new admins could post to it directly but other users would post to it via a moderator. This would allow information to get out quickly about such things as the recent flood of duplicates from microsoft while still allowing non-admins to post. Meanwhile, I think we'd better go with moderating all of it. Perhaps more than one person could volunteer to lighten the load and, hopefully, help get important articles out more quickly. It could help set the tone for the group later on if we decided to change over to a partially moderated scheme. We definitely need to do something!!! -- - Liz Allen-Mitchell liz@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us ames!elroy!grian!liz "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." -- 1 John 1:5b