rsk@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec) (08/07/88)
This article is quite long; here's what it contains: I. Introductory remarks; just what was this all about? II. Results of the voting III. My comments I. Introductory remarks A. Here is the relevant part of the original article: > It would appear that there is significant interest in ascertaining > how Usenet as a whole feels about this question, so, loathe as I am > to generate more mail traffic -- especially when it lands in my mailbox -- > this article announces a poll on total moderation. > The question at hand is: > > Should all Usenet newsgroups be moderated? I also asked folks to classify themselves as "news users" or "news admins". B. Thanks to everyone who took the time to mail in a response to the poll. Special thanks to everyone who followed the directions as requested and kept the "Subject" line, so that their letters could be filed automatically, saving me some work. I've taken pains to tabulate the results carefully; but I'm a human being, and I make mistakes. C. Most people clearly indicated "yes", "no", or "maybe" as their answers. A few (half dozen or so) people made comments, but never came out and said what their vote was. If I thought I could reasonably intuit their vote without stretching one way or the other, I did so. If I couldn't, I left it as a "?". Again, sorry if I guessed wrong. Same for the "user or news admin" question. D. This is just an observation. Most of the responses were calm, clear, and some contained interesting comments. However, I did note that many of those who responded seemed to feel that their vote would somehow count for more if it was in capital letters, repeated numerous times, or (in one case) spelled out in a banner. Curiously, every one of these was a "no" vote. E. Another observation: some people seemed to think that I was expressing an opinion in my original posting that needed correcting. Perhaps I did, but I assure you that was accidental, as I attempted to make the original posting as neutral as possible. My opinions, such as they are, are contained later in this article. II. Results. Summary: Participating: 142 No: 85 (34 admins, 26 users) Yes: 44 (20 admins, 11 users) Maybe: 9 Individual results: jgreely@tree.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes rsalz@pineapple.bbn.com (Rich Salz) VOTE: yes ADMIN: ? trent@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Glenn Jordan) VOTE: no (more) ADMIN: no mentat@louie.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) VOTE: no ADMIN:? jwl@ernie.berkeley.edu (James Wilbur Lewis) VOTE: no ADMIN: no mit-athena!sethg VOTE: no ADMIN: ? Lazlo Nibble <cscbrkac@charon.unm.edu> VOTE: no ADMIN: no "Gary L. Newell" <gln@arizona.edu> VOTE: no ADMIN: no chuq@sun.com (Chuq Von Rospach) VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes wcf@hcx.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) VOTE: no (more) ADMIN: yes ucbvax!cad.Berkeley.EDU!hijab VOTE: no ADMIN: no blarson%skat.usc.edu@oberon.usc.edu (Bob Larson)VOTE: maybe ADMIN: no ucbvax!ncc.Nexus.CA!lyndon (Lyndon Nerenberg) VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes Andy Freeman <andy@polya.stanford.edu> VOTE: no ADMIN: yes glenns@revolver.gatech.edu (Glenn R. Stone) VOTE: no ADMIN: ? werner@astro.as.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) VOTE: no (some) ADMIN: ? swarbric%tramp@boulder.colorado.edu (Swarbrick) VOTE: yes ADMIN: no mangler@csvax.caltech.edu (Don Speck) VOTE: no (some) ADMIN: ? Jacob Gore <gore@eecs.nwu.edu> VOTE: no ADMIN: yes Kenn Barry <barry@eos.arc.nasa.gov> VOTE: no ADMIN: no rpp386!jfh (The Beach Bum) VOTE: yes ADMIN: ? jclyde!usenet (John B. Meaders, Jr.) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes octopus!pete (Pete Holzmann) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes dsndata!wayne (Wayne Schlitt) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes Kevin T. Likes <likes@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> VOTE: yes ADMIN: no Greg Skinner <gds@spam.istc.sri.com> VOTE: no ADMIN: yes jwp%chem@ucsd.edu (John Pierce) VOTE: yes ADMIN: ? trudel@caip.rutgers.edu (Jonathan D. Trudel) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes Byron C. Howes <bch@uncecs.edu> VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes ridge!matheny (John Matheny) VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes utstat!geoff VOTE: yes ADMIN: ? wpg!russ (Russell Lawrence) VOTE: no ADMIN: ? tp@td2cad.intel.com VOTE: yes (more) ADMIN: yes csccat!loci (Chuck Brunow) VOTE: yes ADMIN: no Vielmetti <emv@starbarlounge.cc.umich.edu> VOTE: ? ADMIN: yes snark!eric VOTE: no ADMIN: yes N. Christopher Phillips <ncp@math.ucla.edu> VOTE: no (some) ADMIN: ? haddock!karl (Karl Heuer) VOTE: maybe ADMIN: no David Robinson <david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes terrell@musky2.MUSKINGUM.EDU (Roger Terrell) VOTE: maybe ADMIN: yes c3engr!charles (Charles Green) VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes tom pfister <pfister@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> VOTE: no ADMIN: no dmk3b1!dmk (David Keaton) VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes Glendenning <brian@radio.astro.toronto.edu> VOTE: no ADMIN: yes Karen E. Isaacson <karen@rand-unix.arpa> VOTE: yes (more) ADMIN: no mike@turing.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) VOTE: no ADMIN: ? utzoo!henry VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes llama!mca (Mark Adams) VOTE: yes ADMIN: no epimass.EPI.COM!jbuck (Joe Buck) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes Jonathan Griffin <jfg@otter.lb.hp.co.uk> VOTE: no ADMIN: no Amos Shapir <nsc.uucp!taux01!amos> VOTE: ? ADMIN: ? gre@mitre-bedford.arpa (Gabe Elkin) VOTE: no ADMIN: ? John.Myers@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu VOTE: no ADMIN: ? Bob Weissman <acornrc!bob> VOTE: no ADMIN: yes msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) VOTE: no ADMIN: no Tim Becker <becker@cs.rochester.edu> VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes tolerant!jane (Jane Medefesser) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes mcglk@scott.biostat.washington.edu (McGlothlen) VOTE: maybe ADMIN: ? Joel B Levin <levin@oakland.bbn.com> VOTE: no ADMIN: no rfm@sun.com (Richard McAllister) VOTE: no ADMIN: ? ki4pv!tanner (Dr. T. Andrews) VOTE: yes ADMIN: ? chemabs!lwv27 (Larry W. Virden) VOTE: no ADMIN: ? win@gatech.edu (Win Strickland Jr) VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes tgt@cbnews.att.com (Tim Thompson) VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes vnend@engr.uky.edu (David W. James) VOTE: no ADMIN: no wesommer@athena.mit.edu VOTE: yes ADMIN: maybe Dave Mack <sundc!inco!mack> VOTE: no (more) ADMIN: yes oxtrap!osm (Owen Scott Medd) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes <matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu> VOTE: yes ADMIN: ? cup.portal.com!Sonia_Orin_Lyris VOTE: ? ADMIN: no Paul A Vixie <vixie@decwrl.dec.com> VOTE: ? ADMIN: ? moriarty@tc.fluke.com (Jeff Meyer) VOTE: no ADMIN: ? sq.com!msb (Mark Brader) VOTE: maybe ADMIN: no brahms.berkeley.edu!silverio (C J Silverio) VOTE: no ADMIN: no dhw68k.cts.com!david (David H. Wolfskill) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes smt@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu VOTE: yes ADMIN: no eggert@sm.unisys.com (Paul Eggert) VOTE: yes ADMIN: ? Bjorn Lisper <lisper-bjorn@yale.arpa> VOTE: no ADMIN: no amdcad!cdr (Carl Rigney) VOTE: no (some) ADMIN: yes libove!root (Jay Libove) VOTE: yes ADMIN: ? Murray Jensen <munnari!mimir.dmt.oz.au!mjj> VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes phri!roy (Roy Smith) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes spectrix!clewis (Chris Lewis) VOTE: yes Adin: yes <kaufman@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> VOTE: no ADMIN: no olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu (Jim Olsen) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes Scott Huddleston <scott@tekcrl.crl> VOTE: yes (most) ADMIN: no ebm%postgres.Berkeley.EDU (Eli Messinger) VOTE: no ADMIN: no wytten@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dale R. Wyttenbach) VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes blia.UUCP!ted@cgl.ucsf.edu (Ted Marshall) VOTE: no ADMIN: no teletron!andrew (Andrew Scott) VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes cook@alliant.alliant.com (Dale C. Cook) VOTE: no ADMIN: no Steve Alter <ucbvax!ttidca.TTI.COM!sa> VOTE: no ADMIN: yes rsb584@leah.albany.edu (Raymond S Brand) VOTE: no ADMIN: ? ncrwic!Intrepid!BSloane VOTE: yes ADMIN: ? killer!linimon (Mark Linimon) VOTE: maybe ADMIN: maybe ficc!peter VOTE: no ADMIN: yes uokmax!rmtodd VOTE: no ADMIN: no "John A. Ockerbloom" <ockerbloom-john@yale.arpa>VOTE: no ADMIN: no tj@alliant.alliant.com (Tom Jaskiewicz) VOTE: no ADMIN: ? dasys1!tneff (Tom Neff) VOTE: no ADMIN: no sherr@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Adam B. Sherr) VOTE: no ADMIN: ? frog!sc@eddie.mit.edu (STella Calvert) VOTE: no ADMIN: ? Paul Davison <pd%cs.qmc.ac.uk> VOTE: no ADMIN: yes tom uffner <tom@vax1.acs.udel.edu> VOTE: no ADMIN: no munnari!uowcsa.oz.au!david (David E A Wilson) VOTE: yes ADMIN: no cals01.zone1.com!cals (Charles A. Sefranek) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes dasys1!wfp (William Phillips) VOTE: no ADMIN: ? eurtrx!evas (Eelco van Asperen) VOTE: no ADMIN: no kathy@xn.ll.mit.edu (Kathryn Smith) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes newbery@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Newbery) VOTE: no ADMIN: no David Wright <mcvax!stl.stc.co.uk!dww> VOTE: no ADMIN: yes Julian Bradfield <jcb%lfcs.edinburgh.ac.uk> VOTE: no ADMIN: no rayssd.RAY.COM!hxe (Heather Emanuel) VOTE: maybe (most) ADMIN: no isis!aburt (Andrew Burt) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes Brad Templeton <looking!brad> VOTE: maybe (most) ADMIN: yes scott@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu (Scott Hammond) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes pearl@aramis.rutgers.edu (Starbuck) VOTE: no ADMIN: no kennedy%asuvax.UUCP (Ralph Kennedy) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes csi!ggere (Gary M. Gere) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes mott%ucscd.UCSC.EDU (Hung H. Le) VOTE: yes ADMIN: no bk@kullmar.se (Bo Kullmar) VOTE: yes ADMIN: ? jetson!john (John Owens) VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes nexus!shields%ists.YORKU.CA (Paul Shields) VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes rainier!pell (P{r Emanuelsson) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes cup.portal.com!roger_warren_tang VOTE: no ADMIN: no phred!mark (Mark Lawrence) VOTE: yes ADMIN: ? micomvax!ray (Ray Dunn) VOTE: yes ADMIN: no uvm-gen!tnl!norstar (Daniel Ray) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes spectrix!John_M (John Macdonald) VOTE: maybe (most) ADMIN: ? necntc!lpi!abc (Anton Chernoff) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes ken streeter <steinmetz!streeter> VOTE: no ADMIN: ? sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) VOTE: no ADMIN: ? ateng!chip (Chip Salzenberg) VOTE: no ADMIN: ? geovision!graham (Graham Ashby) VOTE: no ADMIN: no uport!plocher VOTE: no (some) ADMIN: ? cole@unix.sri.com (Susan Cole) VOTE: no ADMIN: yes bu-it.BU.EDU!tower (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes wayne%teemc.uucp (Michael R. Wayne) VOTE: no ADMIN: ? Rob McMahon <cudcv@cu.warwick.ac.uk> VOTE: no ADMIN: yes zermelo@eddie.mit.edu (Richard Duffy) VOTE: yes ADMIN: no Aled Morris <aledm%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk> VOTE: no ADMIN: ? ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM!greg (Greg Noel) VOTE: yes ADMIN: yes III. My two cents' worth. These comments are largely in response to issues raised in the letters that I received. They are by no means comprehensive; they are simply an expression of my views on the matter. 1. Censorship It's certainly a possibility; and it is not a pleasant one to contemplate. However, during the eight years that I've been on Usenet, the number of cases of [alleged/proven] censorship is very small. Even though (personally) I have very strong feelings about censorship, I have been slowly convinced over the years that this is a theoretical problem on Usenet, not a practical one. In view of the evidence, I think the burden of proof is on those who argue that widespread moderation means widespread censorship. 2. "Right" of free speech. This is problematic due to the international scope of Usenet. However, speaking only for myself, and pausing to note that I am not an attorney, none of my readings of (U.S.) constitutional law cases give the slightest support to this "right", at least in this country. To terribly oversimplify the matter, our (limited) right of free speech does not allow us to compel others to provide the means for the exercise of that right in all but very isolated cases. There is no such thing as "a right to post to Usenet", and until someone manages to convince a judge to the contrary, I think those who argue that this right in fact exists are on dubious ground. 3. Delays After reading tens of thousands of articles in many groups, I find that I can only think of a handful which would have suffered by being delayed a day, a week, or a month. Going further, I think that it can be argued that an article which loses its impact after a few days is an article that the author should consider not posting at all...except under unusual circumstances, for example, a critical bug fix to a critical program. It's true that Usenet has the theoretical capability of supporting very fast news propagation; but the mere existence of that capability does not require us to use it to its limits. To put it informally, I find myself asking "What are we all in such a hurry for? What the heck difference does it make if that article on Frank Zappa (rec.music.misc), sailboat racing tactics (rec.boats) or dating habits (soc.singles) gets out today or next week?" Sure, it's "nice" if it gets out today; but if it's delayed for a while, is that a catastrophe? Or is it something that we can easily learn to live with?" 4. Loss of audience I do not think it is reaching to assert that people who post to Usenet do so because an audience exists. [ Those of you who do not agree will be content to post your next message to /dev/null, I suppose. ] Well, the audience is shrinking in several ways: (1) sites are leaving Usenet; (2) people are leaving Usenet (3) people are unsubscribing to groups and (4) people are using things like "KILL" files. [ Granted, KILL files have their uses even in moderated groups. ] This reduction in audience hurts *everyone*; it hurts the people who are part of the reduction, because they no longer have full/partial access to a resource; and it hurts the people who post, because their message no longer reaches as many people [as it once would have. [ Some might argue that those who cut themselves off get what they want; however, my experience has been that they do this with some regret. ] For instance, it means that fewer people will answer a query, or use a piece of source code, or critique a poem, etc. It also hurts the "rest of us", the news-readers, because we don't enjoy the benefits of the continued participation of those who have departed. To put it simply, those who lower the signal-to-noise ratio really do a lot of damage, in subtle ways. 5. Transmission and storage costs vs. usefulness I think we all know this one; volume on Usenet has been increasing steadily; yet the aggregate "usefulness" hasn't kept pace. I tend to think this is true regardless of how you measure "usefulness"; though admittedly that's a personal assessment that may be different for everyone. I find that in nearly every group that I read, volume is way up...but the percentage of useful postings is way down. 6. Unmoderated groups suffer from several problems; here are a few. 1. Inappropriately posted articles (including excessive cross-posting) 2. Numerous replies to simple questions (which should have been mailed) 3. Excessively-quoting followups (sometimes bypassing 2.11's checks) 4. Public airing of private squabbles (e.g. flames) 5. Test (and similar) articles from novice users 6. Articles with questions that have been asked zillions of times (and answered) and could be dealt with in a single letter. 7. Signatures longer than articles (sometimes bypassing 2.11's checks) 8. Article skew (see above). [ This is curable with smart news-reading software, but only if the whole discussion is read after it completely arrives. ] These problems were once not problems at all; they were isolated incidents. Now they're almost the norm, as a random sampling of nearly any group quickly reveals...and they're getting worse, despite the best efforts of some to alleviate them through (a) education and (b) software. 7. Moderated groups suffer from several problems; here are a few. 1. Mail delays; mail misrouting and failure. 2. Moderator overload...people do get busy with real work. 3. Over- or under- inclusion. (some moderators might pass along just about anything; others almost nothing) 4. Finding "good" moderators is difficult. Some of these are being attacked, notably (1). The rest are people problems, and are susceptible to people solutions. To put it one way, I think it would be much, much easier to find 300-or-so moderators with the time, energy, knowlege, and judgement to alleviate (2) and (3) than to educate tens of thousands of users in order to alleviate (1) through (8) above.