Xref: utzoo news.admin:3450 news.groups:5415
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!faline!sword!arrow!yba
From: yba@arrow.bellcore.com (Mark Levine)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Re: Call for Discussion: Moderation of news.admin
Message-ID: <880@sword.bellcore.com>
Date: 22 Sep 88 04:06:38 GMT
References: 
Sender: news@sword.bellcore.com
Reply-To: yba@arrow.UUCP (Mark Levine)
Organization: Bellcore, Red Bank, NJ
Lines: 45

I support the idea of moderating the group.

I can think of no good examples of mass media where an editor of some
sort is not employed.  For one-to-one communications like mail, there
is no public concern, but for one to many, or even worse in our case,
many to many communications, it seems to me everything should be edited
or screened (or moderated, if you prefer).  I can think of no reason,
except cost, not to extend this to about every group (alt.flame would
be a good exception).

An editor is someone you can have a contract with: if I read and write
in your group, you will make sure it is worth my while.  Or more
globally, if my organization pays for me (in whatever way) to have this
access and pass along a feed to other organizations, it can be
reasonably sure of what it pays for.

The largest problem with using kill files and trying to ignore messages
is that there is no back-pressure; the writer of a
useless/offensive/less-than- correct posting never really knows how
many people killed him, nor why.  An editor can make contracts with the
writer also: you send something to me, I'll tell you whether it gets
used, and if not, perhaps why not.  The reason you want such
back-pressure, feedback, is that if it is present in a system, the
system can actually improve!  (For the benefit of those who like to
belabor the obvious: Flames from individuals will not count as feedback
to the receiver, or so I assert.  Trying to blast people publicly as an
attempt at feedback is, as has been pointed out, equally or more
offensive)

This is not censorship.  It is merely quality control.  If you find an
editor offensive, you can unsubscribe without giving up the playground
to the bullies.  If you feel censored, you can be an editor, and find
out whether you were correct or just a poor communicator.  Certainly an
editor can quickly and easily raise the standards and enforce the
etiquette.

We seem to have all the problems of electronic publishing here; why
can't we apply the off-the-shelf solutions?  We cannot fix problems of
illiteracy, lack of courtesy, or the disintegration of western culture
here, but we can at least get up to the level of a tabloid.

Even a constructive message may invite me to cross-post the response....

Eleazor bar Shimon, once and future Carolingian
yba@sabre.bellcore.com