Xref: utzoo news.admin:8008 news.groups:15794 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!dkuug!freja!stodol From: stodol@freja.diku.dk (David Stodolsky) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups Subject: Re: Mutual Moderation (was: Semi-moderated newsgroups) Keywords: moderation newsgroups semi-moderated peer review quality Message-ID: <5057@freja.diku.dk> Date: 17 Dec 89 22:29:14 GMT Organization: DIKU, U of Copenhagen, DK Lines: 53 In Message-ID: <602@scorn.sco.COM> davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: >A good idea, but it doesn't deal at all with subjects; only authors. I may >disagree with someone's opinion, but I may still want to read what they have >to say on the subject, your groupware posts as an example (1/2 :-) ). I was trying to keep it simple by limiting evaluation to a single dimension, but since you asked, here is the overall framework (Stodolsky, 1988): Stodolsky (1984) suggested a model for structuring dialogue based upon categories of criticism related to validity claims (C - F). Even cooperative responses (A & B) to statements can be critical of the manner of presentation (Grice, 1975). Priority to cooperative responses gives the following ranking: (A) Addition or correction offered; (B) Additional information needed; (C) Do not understand; (D) Not sincere; (E) False; (F) Disagree. A review message could contain one or more of the above. Generally, a person would not be expected to respond to a lower criticism if responding to a higher one. That is, it doesn't make much sense to say a message is "false" if you do not understand it. However, in general, review messages can be considered to be a vector of responses. Depending on your objectives, you could tune your reader to select referenced messages based upon the values of the vectors received. For instance, if you were in the mood for controversy, then messages receiving criticisms of "disagree" would be selected more often. The question of content is really a separate issue, but it is possible to think of each message being described on a vector of newsgroup names. Each person would also have a vector of this type indicating the groups that they read. If many people reading news.groups rejected a message (as irrelevant) that had been cross-posted to news.admin, and if news.admin (only) readers thought it was relevant, then this information could be used by pure news.groups readers to skip the message. This type of system would also generate a lot of data for name space management. That is, it could be used to measure how "close" different names were to each other. ============ Reference: Stodolsky, D. (1988, September). Self-management of criticism in dialogue. Fourth European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, Cambridge, UK: European Society for Cognitive Ergonomics. ============= -- David S. Stodolsky, PhD Routing: <@uunet.uu.net:stodol@diku.dk> Department of Psychology Internet: Copenhagen Univ., Njalsg. 88 Voice + 45 31 58 48 86 DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark Fax. + 45 31 54 32 11