Please let us know your thoughts on this letter posted by F.O.R.E. It gives an overview of FORE's moderated policies as well as an urge for civil dialogue and accountability, which we should all support.
-----------
[The letter has been removed based on a previous request]
Oh I get it. They don't allow freedom of speech on their new blog. I wonder what would happen if I submitted an opinion that wasn't aligned with the "moderators" agenda. Probably wouldn't make it up. It kind of reminds of Fox News in a way. Fair and Biased...yeah right.
ReplyDeleteWhile some comments may, at times, become contentious and argumentative, I sincerely thank Seth Fiermonti for the time and effort he has put into this blog. His reluctance to edit and remove posts should be applauded. Even when someone descends into rudeness and mean-spiritedness, it is an exercize in the free speech our representative democracy affords us. With the singular exception of a clear and present danger (shouting fire in a theater, inciting violence, or violating laws regarding confidentiality) expression of ideas should be without censorship. Thank you again for the work you have done and continue to do.
ReplyDeleteI understand and sympathize with the desire to have productive, civil discourse on the Internet. Defending against anonymous and pseudonymous abuse online has been a tough nut to crack since the advent of Bulletin Board Systems and Usenet News in the late 70's. There is still no easy solution.
ReplyDeleteOn the surface, moderation via curation appears like a simple, workable plan. However, the outcome is rarely the promised utopia of a vibrant community full of growth, activity, and intelligent discourse; but instead an echo chamber of like-minded sentiment and at-a-boy platitudes. Assuming that isn't the desired goal of a community, the issue boils down to one of earning the trust of contributors -- should I trust my effort and thought put into participating in a conversation will pass the subjective criteria of an anonymous moderator? Will my hard work be given the chance to be acknowledged, respected, debated, and stand on its merit?
Regardless of how sincere the founders of F.O.R.E. are, without subjecting their moderators, editors, and administrators to a standard of accountability in excess of what they demand from their contributors, they face a steep, uphill battle earning that trust from those they desire to engage.
Re-reading my comment, it comes off as a big bundle not-gonna-work and I don't want to leave it that way.
ReplyDeleteEarning trust in a moderated, online community is primarily a human problem, but there is a technology component. Here's what I think F.O.R.E. should do if they are serious about growing their community discussion in a healthy, diverse, and sustainable direction:
* Since it is not on a free service, identify who is funding the site. Who pays the hosting and domain registration bills. The "About" page would be a great place for this.
* Identify who holds what roles in the operation of the online community -- Administrators, Authors, Editors, and Moderators. The "Contributor Rules" or the "About" page could hold this info.
* Provide an avenue for contributors to appeal a moderation decision. Moderators are human and individuals -- they have bad days, make bad judgement calls -- just like the rest of us. A simple form or a group email address would suffice.
* Provide visibility into what comments have been denied. The best way to avoid the impression of bias or impropriety in a moderated community is to have an unfiltered or sequestered view of the content that didn't make the cut. Basically a place outside the main flow for commentary that met the objective requirements of posting (full name, town, etc.), but failed the subjective requirements. The system on the Hacker News forum (a self-moderated community - http://news.ycombinator.com/) that fades comments the more they are moderated down is my favorite example of this in action.
* Finally, when moderation action is taken, the moderator should be willing to stand behind their decision. Ideally, they take public ownership for the denial of a contribution and, if it was not a clear call, provide a justification.