Re: A solution to *.answers content moderation

---------

lfirrantello@BIX.com
Tue, 13 Aug 1996 01:31:42 -0400 (EDT)

>>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)
>....ommissions ....

The CFV process in news.groups seems far from perfect. Look at some of the
flame fests and innane nit-picking, the net-kooks, etc. The vote-takers are
regularly abused. I suspect that some of the FAQ fights could be worse. I
suspect that some groups get voted down that shouldn't be voted down.

Admittedly many of new group proposals go though the process without much
stridency, but some seemingly innocuous RFDs cause great heaps of
acrimonious verbiage: I would have thought that the rec.aquaria.* re-org to
be fairly straightforward, but it generated lots of posts in news.groups
and various alt.aquaria.* and email lists.

I don't see how that sort of situation can be avoided when you're asking
the general net populace to vote on content. I suspect it could be much
worse for news.faqs.cfv.discuss.

--Mick Brown (lfirrantello@bix.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