Re: wsn delayed access

The original critique as about delayed postings, not about stringent
moderation cutting down traffic. About the seemingly small number of
postings? Well, actually, this is an empirically verifiable
question........is moderation cutting out that many posts? I don't know, but
I do know that internet traffic on lists such as this has ebbs and flows
(where are the statisticians when we need them?) and especially drops way
down from December-February because of school and work schedules, final
exams, vacations, start-up at the beginning of a new term, etc. On a list
such as this, moderators receive:

some "good" posts,

some "bad" posts (mainly advertisements----you would be AMAZED at how many
advertisements for fake African inheritances, sex drugs, and mortgage
financing, as well as some extremely personal attacks,

and finally, there are some "marginal" posts, usually that combine some sort
of personal attack or other private correspondence with some relevant
points. Personally, I favor a very loose policy towards the "marginal"
posts, and I agree that it is better to err on the side of an occasional
inappropriate post rather than reject something that might have even the
slightest relevancy.

So now the question is whether the apparently diminished traffic on WSN is
because of overzealous moderation. As I said, it is an empirical question,
and I don't know the answer. But I am willing to bet that the moderation is
not that stringent, and that in fact, the apparent reduction in traffic is
because of factors common to other academic lists this time of
year..........

Alan Spector

==========================================================================




----- Original Message -----
From: "Boris Stremlin" <bstremli@binghamton.edu>
To: "WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK" <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: wsn delayed access


> With all due respect - why would someone want to subscribe to a list from
> which they want to see fewer postings?  I certainly agree that quantity
> does not translate into quality, but the amount of discussion in the last
> two or three months (not taking into consideration the last several days)
> seems to indicate that the result of moderation has merely eliminated
> discussion, not enhanced it.  Ironically, the people who demanded
> moderation most frequently and most loudly now post much less frequently
> (or not at all).  I can see I am not the only one who sees the current
> atmosphere on this list as just a tad nihilistic.
>
> --
> Boris Stremlin
> bstremli@binghamton.edu
>