From owner-metabolic-reg@net.bio.net Wed Feb 05 22:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!bcm.tmc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.unt.edu!news From: "C. J. Fields" Newsgroups: bionet.metabolic-reg Subject: Re: Moderation Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 21:47:33 -0600 Organization: University of North Texas Lines: 136 Message-ID: <32F95455.3702@gab.unt.edu> References: <32F896B7.65FB@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> Reply-To: cfields@gab.unt.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: den1-2-6.dialup.unt.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) Athel wrote: > > As Paul Schlosser surmised, I'm in favour of moderation, but to avoid > misunderstanding I should comment that the discussion that John Woods > referred to at the beginning of his message occurred before Dr Miano's > message was posted, and was not, therefore, a consequence of it. I agree > with John that it is not reasonable to call moderation censorship: is it > really censorship to deny the $$$MAKE MONEY FAST$$$ pests the > opportunity to post free advertisements?) I also disagree with Herbert Unfortunately, it is censorship; court cases have been based on this stuff (ever heard of Larry Flynt?). I just want the right to decide what is the trash and what isn't. Once this group goes moderated, then what's next? Bionet.microbiology? All bionet groups? All usenet groups? That's an extreme scenario, but realize that by moving to moderation sets a standard for others groups. It may get rid of the trash, but what else would disappear? *Anything* that isn't relevant to metabolic-reg? > that refusing irrelevant (but serious) messages is censorship: would he > cry Censorship if his monumental treatise on Wild Flowers of the > Aberystwyth Area was refused publication by the Journal of Mathematical > Biology on the grounds that it was outside their scope. Defining the > scope of a journal or a news group and requiring contributors to adhere > to it is just common sense, not censorship. I agree with the rest of > what John says, as well. What you propose makes sense on the surface, but, as I said before, this is a publicly accessible newsgroup, not a journal group or an academic society group. Otherwise, I would be agreeing with everything you say. Another thing: comparing the posts here to publications in a scholarly journal is ludicrous. That's editting, not censorship. If he sent his article to the wrong journal, sure, it wouldn't be published, he'd be committed as a loony, etc. etc. He'd then sen it to another journal. This is *not* a journal; this is a newsgroup, a meeting of the minds where we can express whatever opinions we want, even if they are wrong. Yeah, we do need to stick to the main subject, that being metabolic regulation, but don't shun somebody b/c they ask a small question that doesn't relate to the subject. In their mind, it may be relevant to met-reg. > Personally, if I were moderating this news group I would exclude all the > $$$MAKE MONEY FAST$$$ messages, I would use some discretion for the > CD-R's at Great Price type of message (some of them, though not strictly > within the terms of reference of the group, might still be considered as > having sufficient interest for a sufficient number of subscribers), I > would accept irrelevant messages (however much I might be irritated by > them) unless they became numerous enough to be a serious nuisance, and I So who decides when they become a nuisance? That would be *you*, not us. If it is a nuisance, then let us decide that. I am sure that you wouldn't intentionally do anything, but what if you were faced with a message that you knew, in you mind, was a complete and utter fallacy, total nonsense through and through, and this something had to do with metabolism. Wouldn't it at the very least cross your mind to do something about it? It shouldn't if you want to moderate. Okay, now what if it had to do with your research? Or research that somebody you knew was doing? Is it fair to put you in the position of moderator if there is a bias? > would accept all messages pertinent to the news group, no matter how > stupid, confused, misleading or even dangerous I might think them. Would > this be censorship? Herbert? What if I think a message is pertinent to the newsgroup, but you don't? I guess I won't know the answer if moderation occurs. > To set Paul's worries at rest, I might add that in my discussion with > John I have already indicated to him (as discussion leader of the group) > that if it were the wish of subscribers, and if it appeared not to > involve an unreasonable amount of work, I would be willing to act as > moderator. > > Incidentally, I may be naive, but it isn't clear to me why many people > (see for example Paul's messages) assume that moderation is a lot of > work. Am I missing something, or does it involve more than > > 1. looking at all the messages that come in (I do this anyway); > > 2. trashing the trash (I do this anyway); > > 3. forwarding the rest (I don't do this at the moment, but it doesn't > sound like a huge amount of work)? Probably not, and as you say yourself, this is not a high-traffic NG. So why moderate it? > The main problem as I see it is that I'm not always here, and am > sometimes away for several weeks in succession, and clearly subscribers > wouldn't be happy for the news group to go silent for several weeks just > because I wasn't around. However, it seems to me that John's statement > that "There will always be more than one moderator" should take care of > that. Of course, it may sometimes happen, around BTK time, for example, > that all the moderators are away at the same moment, but I feel that > with foresight this needn't create problems. If we were planning to > leave the group unmoderated for a couple of weeks we wouldn't send > messages first to all the $$$MAKE MONEY FAST$$$ people giving them the > good news. > > One other point: I agree with John that this news group is beginning to > look more lively, but I notice that of the nine messages so far posted > in February not a single one is concerned with metabolism! Doesn't > anyone have any points they want to make about metabolism, metabolic > control analysis, biothermokinetics, metabolic diseases, etc.? If not, > maybe we should disband... No, don't do that. Just act with some sound reasoning. Think about it. You said "One other point: I agree with John that this news group is beginning to look more lively, but I notice that of the nine messages so far posted in February not a single one is concerned with metabolism!" I don't think that nine messages constitute the major overhaul of a newsgroup (by moderating it). I think that it would be fair, yes; I just don't like the idea of a public newsgroup having to resort to somebody editting out the "bad" and keeping the "good." It's kind of nice and discomforting at the same time to realize a post can be both praised and lambasted by anybody who reads it, even those crazies who don't understand it. So what if we get spam. Is it really necessary to do this? I think if it comes down to moderation, you would do a great job. I just worry about little things, like personal biases and conflicts of interest. So, if you guys decide to go with this, so be it. My opinion has, however, been aired... > Athel -- C. J. Fields Graduate Student, Dept. of Biological Sciences The University of North Texas Denton, TX P. S. I promise to talk about metabolism next time I post. .