[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
A more sophisticated form of moderation.
With all the recent traffic about if moderation is the future of the net,
it seems like an appropriate idea to get some brainstorming on some
better forms of moderation.
Specifically, I was thinking along the lines of a newsgroup where only
selected individuals are able to post, but anybody who wants to can read
the group. However, the "selected individuals" could fall into several
categories.
You could have one or very few "selected individuals" and the newsgroup
would work almost exactly like the current moderated groups.
You could have many "selected individuals" who may have been selected by
proving that they read a FAQ or some other minimal criteria, which could
theoretically cut down on newbie fever.
You could have several dozen "selected individuals" who are selected by
some means (a committee? a vote? a "trusted individual who selects
more individuals") and have an unrestricted talk between these
individuals. This way, you have a newsgroup where these experts can
discuss topics in an unrestricted way. I'm thinking along the lines of
the "boards" in _Ender's Game_, where a newsgroup is somewhat similar to
a newspaper. Once the reporters get hired, they have a lot of freedom
on what they can report about.
There are a lot of details to be worked out, including:
1) Can such a system work? Are there protocols which can guarantee
authentication on a large distributed system like news? I'm assuming
that there would have to be some sort of cryptographic authentication to
prevent wide-scale abuse.
2) Is such a system desirable? Is the current "anybody can post
anywhere if they know how" system better? Which one promotes cypherpunk
goals more? Can I anonymously prove that I am a "selected individual"?
Remember, I'm considering this a brainstorming session, so I'd like to
hear any comments you may have.
--
Mike Gebis [email protected] Mean people suck.
http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/m-gebis/