🚀 go-pugleaf

Since the message saying that I was disinclined to continue the discussion
on the ethics of work (etc) I've received some interesting mail from people!  
The main thought that keeps running through my head, however, is that no-one 
seems to agree on what moderation is...

This is a more general problem with using computers as a communications
medium, however - who, if anyone, decides what should and shouldn't be
sent about, why, and how?

I'd like to start a discussion on this topic in this group.  A copy of
this message has been sent out to the moderators of all the Usenet
groups that are moderated.

I see four basic ways that a group can be moderated;

   1. The moderator can be a 'funnel' for information, neither checking
      the postings for quality nor for accuracy of presentation (e.g.
      spelling) or information.

   2. The moderator can be a 'copy editor', not saying yes or no on
      what to post, but fixing the presentation to a consistent format
      and correcting the typographic/spelling errors in the texts
      received.

   3. The moderator can be a 'newspaper editor', where certain things
      can be refused, but the most important issue is SPEED of reporting.
      
   4. The moderator can be a 'magazine editor' where not only is the 
      presentation monitored, but the topics themselves. 

We can point to different groups that moderate in different ways - 
examples are "OtherRealms", moderated by Chuq Von Rospach, which
is essentially an electronic magazine, "mod.sources", moderated
by Rich Salz, who is pretty much a 'newspaper editor' - he occasionally
refuses postings, but is more interested in getting good stuff out in
a timely manner.  At the other end of the spectrum are groups like
the "philosophy of science" mailing list on the ARPANET, which is
really the 'funnel' of what little information flows through it.

I view my role with the Computers and Society Digest (and newsgroup)
as that of a magazine editor.  This means that, as with real magazines,
the reader chooses to subscribe because 1. the topic is of interest
and 2. the direction that the magazine moves in is consistently interesting
enough to at least *read* the stuff.

This second part implies that the editorial direction and policy of the
magazine is amenable to the readers.  In some cases magazines have
changed entirely, and changed readership as a consequence, due to a
change in editorial staff.  An example that comes to mind is the
magazine "Unix/World", which has completely changed it's direction
as a reporter of the Unix community...

* Given this, then, how do we arrive at a moderator that is appropriate for
  the particular group?

Currently, I think the computer systems might just have the ideal - the
people who moderate groups do it because they *enjoy* it and are interested
in the subject.  Contrast this to the goings-on of magazines and news-
papers where oftentimes it's due to 'management ability' or some sort of
'dealing' that lands an editorial position (again, "Unix/World" comes to
mind, but that's a longer story!)...

There are some problems in that the moderators don't have official 
sanction to 'edit' a newsgroup, so they tend to do it on the side in
their spare time.  But again, it shows their dedication to the area of
discussion.

* How does the moderator decide how much to moderate?

This is perhaps the crux of the question.  As we've seen, there are various
groups that are moderated at different levels.  This question, perhaps, is
the one most in need of clarification by discussion...

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I'll end my comments here for now, hoping for an interesting discussion.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

						-- Dave Taylor