From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:23:55 GMT

In article <478@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.002324.22505@galois.mit.edu>, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>> [...] 
>> If folks - and especially the other moderators!! - think I've gone
>> overboard here, I would gladly recant, especially if we follow Corscadden's
>> suggestion and label quantum mechanics interpretation posts in such a
>> way as to make them easily kill-filed.  The general issue of threads
>> that endlessly chase their own tail is perhaps inadequately addressed in
>> Austern's proposal; I had the sense from discussions with moderators
>> that such threads would be discouraged... but maybe I was mistaken.
>
>There seems to be a large disconnect between the formal charter
>for this group and what John Baez wants it to be. Either of these
>two might be good groups, but it is important to be clear about what the
>charter is and to recognize that the group's charter and not the desires
>of the moderators must dictate what gets accepted. 

     I think the difference here is between discussions that have
     new information and discussions that have no substantial new
     information.  Quantum mechanics interpretations should certainly
     not be a proscribed subject.  On the other hand, if no one
     is saying anything new, perhaps we should move on.

     And I hope to a great extent the group's charter reflects
     the feelings of the prospective moderators, since we did discuss it.
     However, to a certain extent a charter is not and cannot be
     a manual to allow bureaucratic precision in selection of
     which articles to post.  First, the variety of posts is unpredictable,
     and it is difficult to handle all of the cases a priori.  Second,
     there will be an adjustment process if the group passes, I'm sure
     we'll all look at the articles that are and are not accepted by 
     the other moderators and adjust accordingly.  Finally, we're all
     human and there will be differences, no matter how hard we try.

     That said, it might be good to address rehashing in some general
     way in the charter.

>Here are some specific issues that I think need to be more clearly addressed.
>
>1. It is a bad idea to have the word crackpot in the charter. You need to
>be able to reference the charter when you give the reason for rejecting
>an article and calling someone a crackpot is not good form especially for
>someone in a position of authority (even the limited authority of
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a newsgroup moderator). Miss Manners would not approve. It is also too

     I'll say.  However, I think all of us have enough politesse
     to prevent open rudeness in such a situation.  The phrase has
     the advantage of giving a vivid picture of what is being precluded.

>ambiguous. If you want to reject articles that are `not even wrong' then
>reject articles that are primarily philosophical in nature or that make
>claims that cannot even in principle be decided by experiment.
>This criteria would probably rule out most discussions of interpretations
>of QM since they generally cannot be verified experimentally. You need
>to decide whether the philosophy of quantum mechanics is an acceptable topic
>in this group. 

     'Not even wrong' is a succinct way of saying that the phrase
     'muons decay because of their innate desire to be free' would
     be unacceptable.  In my view, this would not necessarily apply
     to postings about philosophy of QM.

>2. If you want to put limits on the quantity of articles and have this
>influence the decision about what articles get accepted this must be
>in the charter.

     This might be a good idea, as long as the 'limits' are flexible
     and only targets.

>3. The charter as I read it implys that little of what gets posted
>that has real physics content and is not addressed by the FAQ or repetitive
>would be rejected even if it is almost certainly erroneous. For example
>I think much of what Jack Sarfatti posts would probably be accepted.
>It at least reaches the level of being wrong rather than `not even
>wrong'. I do not think that is what you want the group to be, but it
>is not clear from the charter how you could exclude postings that
>contradict well understood principles. Perhaps you need a line
>about this in the charter.

     It is inappropriate to consider the name of the poster when
     making moderation decisions, but if a posting reaches
     the level of being clearly wrong, it should not be acceptable.

>4. If you want a group that only addresses research issues as John Baez
>apparently does, then you need a different charter. This requires
>`heavy' not `light' moderation. It also requires that the moderators
>be well informed about what constitutes current research as opposed to
>well established results or pure speculation over a broad class of topics.
>That is a heavy burden to impose.

     I'm not going to speak for John, but it seems to be the re-hashing
     process that is the sticking point.  It should not be all that
     difficult to determine when a thread is only plowing up a field
     previously tilled with the same plow and to coax the participants
     onto new ground.

     Maybe we should be more positive in what we are talking about.
     In my view, we should encourage vigourous and substantial discussion
     in all areas of physics.

                                dale bass


-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups