Xref: utzoo news.groups:16057 rec.arts.movies:27979
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!onyx!reiher
From: reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Reiher)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Volunteer for rec.arts.movies.serious moderator/editor
Message-ID: <2477@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Date: 2 Jan 90 16:05:46 GMT
References: <50208@bbn.COM> <1812@zerkalo.cfa250.harvard.edu> <50239@bbn.COM>
Sender: news@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
Reply-To: reiher@onyx.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Peter Reiher)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 68

In article <50239@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes:
>
>Apparently there are some strong feelings that moderated groups are a
>bad idea unless the group is "technical" (I know of two people who
>will vote 'no' for that reason alone). Since I don't want 'no' votes,
>I'd like to address this issue up front. IF we want a group with a
>sophisticated level of discourse, a level which presupposes some
>expertise in the discipline in question (scientific or otherwise), why
>isn't a moderated group the way to go?  Or, to put it another way, if
>the level of discussion is what distinguishes "technical" groups from
>other groups, why shouldn't this proposed group be regarded as
>"technical" in that limited sense, regardless of its place in the
>hierarchy? 

As far as I'm concerned, the group will never work if it isn't moderated.
The net is regularly flooded with new people unfamiliar with the way things
work.  They invariably post things to newsgroups that seem plausible.  If
it's a movie newsgroup, then why shouldn't they post their query about what
a key grip is?  If it's a serious newsgroup, so much the better, because it's
a serious question to them and serious people are more likely to know, right?
Even if no one is consciously trying to break the rules, junk will leak in.
One joker who thinks that the idea of "serious" discussions of film is
ridiculous can also sabotage the idea maliciously.  Such people have appeared
in rec.arts.movies in the past.

The main argument against moderation is that the moderator might moderate
improperly.  A moderator has the power to impose the censorship of their own
views on a newsgroup.  For instance, "_The Road Warrior_ isn't a serious
movie, so nothing you have to say about it belongs in this newsgroup."  Actual
cases are likely to be less blatant, but the fear is that the moderator will
reject appropriate articles for inappropriate reasons.  Some people feel that
the real problem isn't that someone will knowingly censor the group, but that
fuzziness of the boundaries of appropriateness will make some censorship 
unavoidable.  As Richard earlier mentioned, should the "Blade Runner" 
discussions about whether the central character is a replicant be included?
They involve careful analysis of the film by people who care about it very
much, so maybe they should.  On the other hand, that strand of discussion
eventually led to a lot of trash.  The moderator would have to choose a point
for cutting it off, and that choice is bound to offend someone.  

Despite this argument, I don't think this newsgroup will last without 
moderation.  If it can't be moderated, it's hardly worth doing at all.  Does 
anyone actually know of a case where a newsgroup had serious problems with its
moderator?  I've never heard of one.  If it is moderated, however, I feel very 
strongly that it should be moderated only on the basis of inclusion/exclusion.  
I don't think that the moderator should serve as an editor, beyond possibly 
pointing out the reasons that an article was rejected.  Most articles on the
net are not intended to be publication-quality writing.  Forcing people to
write at that level is likely to have a chilling effect on postings to the
newsgroup. People will decide not to post an article, as they know that the
moderator will only return it to fix some spelling errors and unsplit an
infinitive.  Also, it raises the fears of moderator censorship even more.  In
addition, it places a greater burden on the moderator.  The more burden the job
carries, the harder it will be to carry out and the slower the output of 
articles.  They've got to move through the moderator system at a rapid clip
in order to make the newsgroup work.  (Slowness of response is perhaps the
second greatest argument against moderation.)  If a serious, publication-
quality discussion of film is really wanted, the electronic magazine model
of OtherRealms is a better model than a moderated newsgroup.

I'll probably vote for this newsgroup, no matter what form it takes.  However,
I do have doubts about its viability.  Is there some good reason not to try a 
mailing list for a couple of months, to see whether there is enough interest 
in serious discussions of film to warrant a newsgroup?

			Peter Reiher
			reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov
			. . . cit-vax!elroy!jato!jade!reiher