Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!bu.edu!bu-cs!buengc!bph From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: rec.arts.cinema: moderated or not? Summary: Unexplained numbers are not statistics. Message-ID: <5279@buengc.BU.EDU> Date: 15 Jan 90 05:34:28 GMT References: <10954@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <3364@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng. Lines: 77 In article <3364@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes: >In article <10954@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >> In article <5246@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >> >I would be much more comfortable with something that resembles >> >comp.unix.wizards, where the sheer inapproachability of the >> >discussions keep the neophytes and lurkers out of print >> >> I agree. This newsgroup is supposed to include indepth discussion >> on a variety of historical, artistic and technical subjects. That >> alone should be enough to make it self-moderating. > >As of today, 40 out of 176 articles in comp.unix.wizards are cross-posted from >comp.unix.questions (out of 311 articles there). *My* feeling is that >self-moderation is not working in this instance, but others may disagree. And you'd be right on that latter point. But not the feeling. Most of the crossposting in those groups is perpetrated by utter neophytes who have problems on which their lives (even slightly) depend. A mixture of panic and uncertainty leads them to the economically rational choice of erring in their plea for help on the side of excess. Meanwhile, almost all of the traffic in rec.arts.movies consists of discussions of leisurely matters by the regulars, and only occasionally do newbies appear. A cogent effort to make it known periodically that rec.arts.cinema is not rec.arts.movies will keep the regulars from making more than the most obnoxious transgressions and may with luck catch the neophytes before they mistakenly crosspost. Further, a little conspicuous noblesse oblige by the rec.arts.cinema regulars will maintain the utility of rec.arts.movies, so that questions of r.a.m merit about films more naturally suited to r.a.c can still be expected to be answered entirely in the movies group. Also, by not raising an enormous fuss about the crossposting, and by not in many cases even noticing it, comp.unix.wizards regulars do not exacerbate the problem with unnecessary flames. Finally, a great portion of those crosspostings are, as I expect any in rec.arts.cinema will be, justified by some ambiguity or universality. Clearly, if the effects of self-moderation, and of active ad hoc moderation, which I practice by email to blatant offenders, even to acknowledged unix gurus who lose their composure, were not felt in comp.unix.wizards, then much more than a mere 14% of the postings to comp.unix.questions would be arrogantly copied to the elevated group. Reevaluating my position in light of this analysis, and considering the tack that recent discussion of the moderator's duties has taken[*], makes me realize that any sympathy I may previously have expressed for the moderation of rec.arts.cinema was entirely underthought. [*](e.g., whether the moderator should actually do something so obnoxious as to impose his own uncertain grammatical and lexicographical know- ledge on postings; would you bounce a message posted by Milos Forman simply because he can't keep straight "their", "there", and "their"!? and who is Milos Forman compared to any of us, anyway? Only the french think Jerry Lewis is a genius!) Rec.arts.cinema must not be a moderated group. --Blair "Moderation is anathema to the expansive, free exchange of ideas facilitated by the excess capacity of the internet, and as long as these leased lines pass over american soil this net will remain free... ...but I digress..."