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