dveditz@dbase.UUCP (Dan Veditz) (01/12/90)
I would love to read a newsgroup where all the articles were well-written and free of spelling, grammar and punctuation errors. At each error I stumble a little in my reading, my stride is broken as my attention shifts away from the ideas expressed and I must momentarily focus on the words themselves. A newsgroup free of mechanical errors would be ideal but not reasonable, for that would require an editor. Karen Valentino is right that an article should not be printed under an author's name unless it is exactly as she wishes it. This is accomplished in print media by having the author approve a galley copy of the work. If we want journal quality articles in USENET we need to operate like a journal -- after editing, the moderator should send a copy of the article back to the author for approval. Although it does consist of typed words and can be printed on paper, USENET is more a discussion or debate than a journal (something like a discussion carried on by recording your bits and passing the tape around). The time required for editing and approval would kill most discussions here: responses would be disjointed, conversations would have no flow. A group moderator should think of herself as the moderator of a debate rather than as the editor of a journal. A debate moderator might say "Sir, your opponent's mother's predilection for military footgear is not germane to this discussion," or "You two have presented both sides thoroughly and are not accomplishing anything by prolonging this discussion," or even "Could you clarify that?" But rejections like "Sir, I'm sorry, but I cannot permit you to address this august body until you can say 'washed-up' instead of 'warshed-up,'" are inappropriate in a debate, and have no place on USENET. A group moderator will have enough work to do without trying to be an editor as well. The moderator should restrict herself to a simple accept-reject decision based on the content of an article with little regard for its mechanical presentation. I would like to add a requirement to the charter that all rejected articles be returned to the author. "Rejection letters" will accomplish three aims: first, the author will know that the article was not lost in the mail and so won't transmit it multiple times. Second, it will provide some clue about what was unacceptable with the article. And last (and least), it lets the readers keep an eye on the moderation to ensure it's not turning into censorship. -Dan uunet!ashtate!dveditz dveditz@ashtate.A-T.com