[Bug-gnupedia] Moderation/Editor Issues (was Re:Just a few issues)

[PIIS31415926]

address@hidden (Tom Chance) wrote:
>
>Ok I thought of two things that need some thought,
>both involving moderation and editing of articles.
>
>
    *SNIP*
>And on the moderator theme, should there be such a
>thing? Obviously a group of 50 mods who are chosen
>from this list will be very biased towards open source
>software, and many other things besides. Any moderator
>idea would rely on a very dissperate group of mods
>being available, and an input from the author, so the
>'pedia keeps many viewpoints and not just the
>prevailing ones of us lot. And if we did have mods,
>they would have to gain the status through trust and
>quality articles (not quantity, more of a /. style
>karma approach)..
>
>And finally on ranking articles Good-bad or 1-5, I
>think this could be a mistake. This will marginalise
>views that aren't mainstream, so that if somebody
>submits an article on gene therapy that is very pro
>the subject, and a lot of people are against it, the
>article would look bad perhaps unjustly. As such I
>would say when reviewing a rating is available, but it
>is not shown. Instead each article could build up a
>score, and if it were sufficiently negative the
>article should be highlighted on this list/to whoever
>else ends up as mods/etc. as one that mighr be
>removed. And then only on grounds of complete
>fabrication of facts, lack of any content, or
>something similar..
>
>Thom Chance

One thing that I really like about a moderation system is that it really 
doesn't censor any content whatsoever.  Furthermore, if I am trying to 
seriously research a particular topic, I would probabally perfer to read 
everything that has been submitted on that topic, good bad or ugly.  It is up 
to the researcher to make a determiniation regarding what is important or 
not.  However, if I'm trying to do a brief survey of a subject or explore 
some related topics to fill in some details, I would like to be able to cut 
out some of the noise that would come from people deliberately trying to 
overwhelm a project like this with pure junk.  How do you keep the Natile 
Portman/Troll/Offtopic-subject stuff from overwhelming serious well-though 
out articles that include references and substantial original research to 
develop the article?  If you don't think this is a problem, try reading 
Slashdot at -1 moderation to get a feel for what we will eventually get for 
submission content (although I think the editorial policies of Slashdot do 
encourage this behavior to some extent... but that is another issue).

A project such as this one (GNUpedia) is certainly going to be quite a bit 
different from a news-oriented site like Slashdot.  One aspect that can 
improve a project like this is that the article submission does not have to 
be publically displayed immediately.  I think there is a role for an "editor" 
to review the article for content, accuracy, and grammar before it becomes 
formally a part of the encyclopedia.  This could also have an automatic 
inclusion time limit on editorial review (about a month, for example) where 
the article will become "published" if an editor is dragging their feet or 
fighting the author because of a philosophic difference of opion (as opposed 
to a gentle mentoring to improve the quality of the article).  A delay would 
help stop (or hopefully discourage) people from simply submitting random 
garbage.  The author could, at their discression, extend this review period 
if they think they need some additional help.

Another aspect that can significantly improve something like an encyclopedia 
is that the article is probabally going to be classified according to a 
number of criteria.  A power that an editor could have is to control exactly 
where something is classified.

I guess I'm trying to define a role for what an editor should have on a 
project like this, or whether we should even have editors.  Here is my 
proposal for what an "editor" in a free encyclopedia should be like:

1) Somebody who has already submitted an article and understands the quality 
standards that we are trying to achieve on this project.

You can argue that this shouldn't be necessary, but it would act as a filter 
to show that they are trying to be serious towards this project.  What do you 
do to somebody who literally submits random garbage (such as typing 
@#*()FGL:WE G) as an article?

2) New editors would start with a very narrow category to start with, and 
only be able to review or moderate articles in that category.  

3) Categories for articles are initially suggested by the original author of 
the article, but can be modified by an editor to fit the general organization 
of the encyclopedia better.

4) Using some sort of guidelines, an editor can be "promoted" to covering a 
broader category.  

One way to make this a more organic process is allow editors of a category to 
do this promotion themselves, or even be able to grant "access" to subjects 
they already have access to.  For example, an editor of a category such as 
"science.physics" would be able to talk to somebody (through IRC, e-mail, 
person-to-person) and give them the ability to edit 
"science.physics.newtonian".

Note that the purpose of restricting access it to both help somebody new to 
the project from getting overwhelmed, as well as to build a trust 
relationship between that person and the rest of the project.  If you have 
taken the time to go through the process of being able to edit the entire 
project, you probably have the comittment to the project that you won't try 
to cause some damage.  Nowhere in this definition am I suggesting what 
credentials somebody should have in order to edit in a particular category.  
In some ways, I think that should be something that each category should sort 
out on their own using some general project guidelines and based on the 
number of participants who have already signed up.  Significant leeway should 
be granted to allowing people to edit categories that havn't been touched for 
some time (with a back-log of articles needing review) or even categories 
that don't have editors, especially when it is a new editor signing up for 
the first time.

The number of editors who can edit the entire encyclopedia should be kept at 
a relatively small number, and only increased when somebody has a whole lot 
of enthusiasm or the work load is getting out of hand.  Essentially, these 
will be the "project leaders".

5)  Editors of the category are the people who have moderation control.

This is just a proposal, and a way to (hopefully)  keep things under control. 
 The alternative is a reader-driven moderation system, but there is nothing 
stopping the typical reader from joining up and getting editorial authority 
other than taking some time.

6)  Peer disiplinary action.

This is probabally one of the toughest things to consider.  What happens 
when, despite the best efforts, somebody goes in and really starts messing up 
the project and intentionally tries to do damage?  How should they be dealt 
with?  Disiplinary actions could take many forms, and should ultimately have 
review authority by the project leaders.  Being able to "cast a vote" to 
remove somebody from the project would be one way to have a self-organizing 
system with only rare cases having to be dealt with by the top leadership.

One other subject of disiplinary action is in regards to somebody signing up 
with multiple e-mail accounts to become an editor, in an attempt to moderate 
their own articles or to skew results according to their own political 
viewpoint.

Appeals can be made to editors going up the subject heirarchy to the top.

7) Editors can't moderate their own articles.

This just make sense, in the idea you can't be objective in regards to your 
own idea.  'nuff said.

8) Sub-category creation.

Editors of a particular category can further sub-divide the content according 
to the needs of that category.  Sometimes they will make some mistakes here, 
but it will allow a self-organization aspect with people who know that 
subject best anyway.  This probabally should be done in a general concensus 
arrangement with other editors of a particular category.

9) Cross-referencing authority.

This is one area where I think an editor would be able to make some 
significant contributions to an open encyclopedia.  In reviewing an article 
an editor could add a "See also" or "See" links to related articles in the 
encyclopedia.  This would be particularly important when new articles have 
been submitted and earlier articles can be updated to reference this new 
article.  It also allows an editor to make some "minor" changes to an article 
without changing the content and at the same time keeping the content fresh.

Crossreferences can also be added to the category itself, to suggest related 
ideas that could be found in an entirely different heirarchy of the 
encyclopedia.

There is more that could be added here, but I think that a concensus needs to 
come about as to if an editor is needed, and what role they should play.