From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: soc.feminism editorial policy (was Re: I can't believe it!)
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 11:24:18 EST

In article <1993Jan11.023515.15819@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>The only way a killfile would work to effect a change in the nature or
>flavor of a newsgroup is for a group of posters to agree to put
>certain people in their killfiles (a shunning of certain posters).  I
>think you'd probably dislike this.

Not necessarily.  When we are talking about a group of people who
*individually* each make a decision to "reject" certain posts (or posts from
an individual who is notoriously disinteresting to them), I don't see
much problem.  In that case, anybody who does wish to read those posts
can continue to do so.


>I'm also curious as to why you're addressing the moderation status of
>soc.feminism.  (Perhaps you've mentioned this in an earlier post, but
>I missed it.)  Are you trying to change the moderation status?  If so,
>why, especially now that alt.feminism exists?

No.  I'm not trying to change the moderation status of soc.feminism, I'm
merely examining it.  As to the existence of alt.feminism, I think that
the presence of an unmoderated newsgroup devoted to a subject will tend
to alleviate problems in any parallel, moderated group.  Of course, if the
complete lack of moderation makes things as bad as you (and a few others,
via email) have suggested, then perhaps better moderation policies are
important to those reading soc.feminism.

In any case, I explained why I addressed the moderation policies of
soc.feminism via email.  I'll insert that here...

----
Why would I critique the moderation policy of a group which I do not read?

For several reasons.  First, a major theme of interest to many of us who
read alt.censorship is the question of exactly what constitutes "censorship."
(Or, if we were to get into an extended discussion--what constitutes what
I would call "bad" censorship--but that's a *really* involved discussion...)
We examine many different actions/policies.  The editorial policy of a
moderated newsgroup is just another one.

Second, just as the process of examining existing academic computer-use
policies can help to better understand problems and possible solutions in that
area, and can actually result in better policies being drafted and put
into use at some institutions--the process of examining existing newsgroup
moderation policies may help us to better understand the problems and possible
solutions in that area--and may result in better policies being formulated
in the future.

If you check, for example, comp.news.admin or alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
you will see that it is common practice to post policies and then to offer
critiques.  The Computer and Academic Freedom (CAF) archive (for which I
happen to be a co-archivist) even maintains copies of these policies and
their critiques, so that they can be used as a resource by those who may
be looking to formulate new policies, or to otherwise address the issues
involved.

Just as I see no problem with an individual examining and critiquing the
policy for an institution with which he (or she) is not affiliated--I see
nothing wrong with my critiquing the editorial policy of a newsgroup
which I do not read.


Why did I critique the policy of soc.feminism, in particular?

Simply because an individual publicly complained (via a post to alt.censorship)
about something that he perceived as "censorship"--the rejection of his
post to soc.feminism.  This brought about the discussion.  After he mailed
me a copy of his post (which I posted for him, because he was not sure how
to re-route the message to his newsposter), I decided to get a little
additional information that was relevant to the discussion--namely, the
editorial policy FAQ for soc.feminism.
---


BTW, in my haste to get ready to go out of town last weekend, I failed
in my mini-critique to point out a few portions of the soc.feminism
policy that I thought were strong points.  For example, I think that the
presence of an "appeal" procedure, and the use of several moderators are
both beneficial aspects of the policy.

I also commend the moderators for being very open about their editorial
policies, as presented in the FAQ.  The process might be additionally
demystified (particularly for posters new to the group, I would imagine)
if a specific reason for rejection were provided with each rejection notice.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
From: William.Tel@f729.n153.z1.ship.wimsey.bc.ca (William Tel)
Sender: UUCP@ship.wimsey.bc.ca