[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Moderation vs. non-moderation




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Postings not related to the writing of the Manifesto or policy chapters
are likely to be summarily rejected. Thanks for your understanding. IPI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This issue has once again cropped up. My view, based on the extensive
experience of moderation, is clear. We need to moderate the debate in
order to keep improving the quality of debate and to keep attracting the
best brains of India.

Let me describe moderation in some detail. Each week, at least 4-6 mails
are deleted forthright for being advertisements, for being carbon copies
of some useless mail, or for being personal mail sent out by people
inadvertantly to IPI. Also, once in a while, an inappropriate word is
used by some writer (this has fortunately been coming down) which must
be moderated. Very often requests for subscription or unsubscription are
also sent out by people to the main debate list. Those are taken care of
at a different level. We do not want to clutter up an already high
intensity list with garbage.

In addition, I am beginning to screen out irrelevant news-items which
are not preceded by clear statement of purpose by the person forwarding
that news item. Finally, there is often a trimming down of useless
appendages which are repetitive, in order to minimize bandwidth for
members from India.

Thus, moderation serves multifarious purposes and helps provide you, the
members of IPI, with an invaluable service. IPI did start off as an
unmoderated list and I can assure you that moderation has made this
forum 'tolerable.' I also assure you that not a SINGLE mail of even the
remotest relevance to policy, has been deleted.

In due course we will have to stricly eliminate the noise and focus on
policy issues alone. But that stage is not yet there. It is ultimately
the quality of moderation that will make or break IPI. If we are to make
a difference in India we will have to strive to get more and more
focused in our debates to attract the best brains. Given the tremendous
noise in our discussions, I regret to state that at least 4 Professors
have opted to be advisors but not listen in to the debate. If we can
minimize noise, and truly focus on policy, we can get all the best
brains of India operating freely on IPI, and we can then make a real
difference.

With this, I hope all members of IPI will approve the continued
moderation of mail, and I hope that we will receive requests from
members to be the next moderator/s of IPI. Moderation is a challenging
work. Please feel free to volunteer to be a moderator. Anyone from
anywhere in the world can moderate.

Thanks,

Sanjeev

On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Arvind Kumar wrote:

> ---Vinay Chandekar <vinay@asiaaccess.net.th> wrote:
> > 
> > You criticize India Govt for trying to censor
> Internet. Yet you
> > employ Moderators to censor out individual
> opinions. If this is not
> > duplicity and hypocricy, I don't know what else it
> is.
> 
> Maybe we should try running IP without moderation
> for some time. If things go out of control, we 
> should step in?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------