From: cyberoid@u.washington.edu (Bob Jacobson) Subject: Re: ADMIN: Discussion: Voluntary contributions ($) to improve s.v-w? Date: 30 Jun 1993 09:03:44 GMT Organization: Sci.Virtual-Worlds Moderators, University of Washington In article <20rgjk$b7h@news.u.washington.edu> jeff@is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Jeff McAffer) writes: >[ RFC re: $ for s.v-w deleted ] > >First let me say that I like s.v-w. There are many interesting people >and much interesting information floating in and out of its various >ports. I can understand that running such a system *can* be time >consuming and I do appreciate most of the work that the moderators put >into the newsgroup. > >Having said that, I would like to comment on some philosophical >points. First, in this community of all communities I should think >that *open* access and communication would be highly valued. I cannot >understand why this group is moderated. I find moderation >particularly annoying on a couple of counts. First (and IMO, most >important) it introduces at least a day's delay in message turn-around >between the appearance of the post and any replies. Even worse for >those of us who are not near the west coast timezones. This makes it >really difficult to have meaningful discussion. Second is that it >kills threads. This may seem like a little point but my news reader >(like many I assume) has facilities for managing post threads (i.e., >groups of related postings). Since everything goes through the >moderator it all comes out 'flat' and news readers cannot detect the >threads (is this just a quirk of my stuff?). In a group with even a >reasonable number of posts (such as s.v-w), this is essential for >decent time/information management. Moderation and "open access" are not mutually exclusive. On some newsgroups, moderators do exercise a gate-keeping function; they're well-known and usually called on it or their newsgroups are shunned. Well-done moderation keeps the channels open and the communications, rather than blather, flowing. Usually, on s.v-w, posts go up the same day. (Sorry this isn't a case in point. I got too ill one day to tend to the chores and couldn't notify Mark to back me up.) We generally scan the incoming mail three times each day. Usually you can read postings and get responses within hours. The record is held by a post from Australia, to which responses were made in less than 10 minutes. Anyway, is anything so crucial that it cannot stand a day's seasoning? Particularly in a field as rife with rumor as virtual worlds, thoughtful reflection and hesitation is a survival skill. Why your machine cannot follow threads is beyond me. My system does all right, so long as people don't get too creative with new Subject: titles in subsequent posts. My news reader keys on titles, not anything interjected by the moderators. >Proponents argue that moderation keeps the noise and flame level down. >By the admission of the moderators (some months ago) they filter >(delete) less than 10% of posts. They also do not have time >(understandably) to read all the posts thoroughly. Not true. Except for the too long and abstruse postings, we (Mark and I) generally read them all. We find this edifying. We're fortunate in this group that flames constitute a tiny proportion of posts -- perhaps as a result of prior knowledge that flames _will_ get tossed. Most of what gets deleted is requests for information better served by email, redundant postings, and misplaced small animals and artificial forms of life. >So, what does moderation get us in the long run? > >+ Some noise is removed. >- It delays the posts (something I simply cannot stand in this day and age) >- trashes the threads >- By virtue of the thread trashing, it wastes my time (and everyone > else's) as I cannot use my automatic post managing tools. >- It wastes the moderator's time because for all their effort they > only end up removing a very small percentage of the volume. Not a > very good return for investment. >- This is strickly a personal taste but I like the flames. It lets me > know what people *really* think. Where their mind is. It also feeds > my kill file :-) Most people, judging from private email when a flame does get through, do not like flames. They do not like the bandwidth expended in idle chit-chat, either, although humor is always appreciated. The main reason we moderate is not to remove material but to add to it or to incorporate wholly new material, like crossposts from newsgroups readers may not check out or publications not available to everyone. We also (I like to think) provide some continuity and a sense of security that things aren't totally dependent on dump computers. Not least, we edit headers and otherwise ensure that the mechanics of the newsgroup work properly. About 10 percent of postings would not show up at all if not for some tweaking of the headers, etc., because the automated system would discard them. >As I see it, the bulk of the moderator's effort comes in in the >moderation. The FAQ is a potential time consumer but again, it need >not be. If the community wants to have a FAQ, then the community >should make one. If the community wants to disseminate (archive) >information about their work, we have the technology. We should do >it. We should sluff this off on a particular individual. We have >many real experts in various things who could easily dash off a few >paragraphs about their domain (and probably have done so for a paper >or proposal). If they cared to make it available... Sure, it will >still require someone to coordinate and merge but should that should >not be an enormous task (and need not be done by the moderators). The bulk of a moderator's effort comes in moderating: this is a tautology. But we do spend a good deal of time archiving and FAQing. The idea that people will just come together to put it all together by themselves is a nice sentiment; it just doesn't happen. We are attempting to share responsibility on sci.virtual-worlds.apps -- and believe me, this is more than a few experts "dashing off a few paragraphs about their domain." Try coordinating a dozen very busy people sometime! Then think about coordinating 25,000 participants from countries around the world to produce your archives and FAQ. >Maintaining an archive shouldn't be that time consuming. Some disk >space and a consistent directory/index structure. There are tools for >this. Sorry, it is time consuming. Tools don't work themselves, not yet at least. The issue isn't just accumulating data, but sifting and filtering it to make it make sense and within the short time most participants have to fiddle with archives. >I don't want to dump on the moderators. I just don't think that we >need any sort of regulation. A place to post and a place to archive >is all I ask for. I am certainly opposed to paying for a service >(moderation) that I don't want and which wastes my time. No dump is taken. But if you feel badly about helping out with cash, don't pay. No one is paying for moderation. The recent _discussion_ on contributions had to do mostly with _voluntary_ contributions to a _nonprofit fund_ established for acquiring new materials and tools for better maintaining the newsgroup. You couldn't afford Mark's or my time, if you were paying for it. This is not a defense of Mark's and my current moderation or that of the HIT Lab's to follow. Moderation, for those who use the Net regularly and extensively, needs no defense. Fix your threading machinery and you'll see, I believe, that moderation is not the culprit. Bob Jacobson CoModerator