A solution to *.answers content moderation

---------

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (o.crepin-leblond@ic.ac.uk)
Tue, 13 Aug 1996 01:28:11 +0100

The recent discussion about moderation of FAQs has come again
and again in the past. As far as I can remember, the news.answers
team has never been willing or mandated to moderate the *content* of
FAQs. They already have enough work as it is, and if I do remember
correctly (of course, my memory can fade with time), the *.answers
project was put together by JIK et. al. in the true spirit of USENET,
where any subject goes. That's in fact what has made the rich diversity
of the FAQs found in *.answers newsgroups.

Now of course, this "ideal" project was suited to the "ideal" world
of USENET back in the good ol'days. Flame-wars were unheard-of (well...)
and everybody was just a big group of friends. I could go-on for
pages and pages singing "it was great when it all begaaan, I was
a regular Usenet faaaan" but I'll spare you the nostalgia.

What seems clear to me is that today, the *.answers project, while
being USENET's greatest resource, is a victim of its own success, and
risks being dragged into world issues which, on USENET, do not
end-up in war (as in the "real" world), but in flame-throwing contests,
where the participants end-up replying to each other in puerile ways.

And so the subject comes here in FAQ-maintainers: a discussion amongst
FAQ maintainers where there is a suggestion to giving some moderating
power to the *.answers moderation team for moderation of *content*.

I suggest another way of doing things: a call for votes (CFV) in the
same manner as the CFV for the creation of Usenet Newsgroups. If it
were not for the CFV on the Usenet Newsgroup big 6, we'd be plagued
with comp.fred.stinks etc. etc.

Technically, CFVs have been done regularly for the creation of all
sorts of newsgroups, and the process works out smoothly. For FAQs,
I suggest that new FAQs go through a process where they can be posted
directly to the newsgroups, but if they want to be included in the
*.answers groups, a CFV has to take place.

In the case of soc.culture.russian (and I take this as an example - I
have no opinion on the matter), the 2nd FAQ would need to go through a
CFV, and the readers of s.c.r would be able to vote on whether they
want that FAQ to become "official" or not. (official being the term
given when it also appears in *.answers)
If the FAQ is rejected by the vote, then the poster has the right to
keep on posting the FAQ to his heart's content, but the posting will
not appear in any *.answers newsgroup (hence not making it "official").

I think that this should provide the solution as a compromise between
the "free speech" aspect of USENET, and establishing some form of
controls against individuals who obviously have only anarchy and hate
in their mind.

Cheers,

-- 
Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond, EE Dept | Also: Global Information Highway Ltd.
Imperial College of Science, Tech. & |       Mobile: +44 (0)956 84 1113 
Medicine, London  SW7 2BT, UK        |       Fax:    +44 (0)171 581 4851
<foobar@ic.ac.uk>            In Funk We Trust             <foobar@gih.com>

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]

---------

faq-admin@landfield.com

© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved