Author: Pier M. Larson
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 10:47:50 -0500

Pennsylvania State University

I am writing to question the necessity for moderation of this list and to ascertain the sentiments of other members of the list. I currently subscribe to several academic discussion lists, few of which are moderated, and there does not appear to be any difficulty with them. The problem, as I see it, is neither one of censorship nor tampering of message content (by the moderators) nor anything against the moderators at all. Rather, it concerns the timeliness of postings, which seem to accumulate over a period of more than 24 hours at the moderator's computer before they are passed on to the list. This has the effect of removing the discussion from real time and I think prematurely brings debates and lines of inquiry (could we say streams of discourse!) to an end. One can wait several days to first post something, and then derive a response to it when, unmoderated, responses could be forthcoming within minutes. I think this may be one reason for the relative sparsity of debate on this list recently.

1. Is there any merit to this observation colleagues?
2. Perhaps the moderators could reiterate for us the reasons for the policy on "moderation" and their thoughts re my questions. Cheers, Pier M. Larson PML9@psuvm.psu.edu Penn State University

Author:
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 12:06:50 -0500

University of Wisconsin

Re: Pier Larson's post: I personally would drop my subscription if the list were not moderated. Other lists I am on with moderators may have a slow reaction time, but they can prevent a huge flame war; and in the case of FICINO, have served to tell people when the weeks-long discussion had degenerated to the point of personal attacks and minutiae. Ideally, I think a moderator should also introduce topics of discussion and deal personally with the annoying habit many subscribers have of hitting the automatic reply button when they clearly mean to respond personally to a question/answer posted by someone. In addition, they should save us from the one-line messages like "I agree!" - which not only waste bandwith but for people with accounts in which they pay by the page (e.g. on CompuServe, subscribers must pay for any messages after the 1st 60 3-page ones, I think - I probably have this wrong, since I heard it long ago from someone I know who has an account).

IN general, though, I would like to offer another thought: what is so awful about waiting for a response? I tell my students that if there is a problem with their grade, they must wait 24 hours and think clearly about what conflict they have with my exam grading. This serves to produce a dialogue, rather than an argument, the basis for which is often either "but I always got A's in high school" or "well, you *knew* what I meant." In addition, I think (at the risk of sounding old-fashioned) that we are entirely too dependent on the speed with which electronic things *can* work. I emphasize "can" because I do *not* think it is necessarily always the case - nor should it be - that computers = immediate feedback = correct answer/correct way of doing things = the way things should be. Let me add to this that I am a graduate student in history who did not get a TAship this year (there are only a maximum of 7 or 8 TAships in European history per semester here, and a minimum of 40 students on a list for them), so I work in a comp. sci. department - with a professor who develops Internet systems. I deal with the Internet every day, and I do think the benefits are enormous. But I think we should be careful. Even people in their 20s (like me) notice how much shorter the attention spans of teenagers is every year, and we generally lament it. I think that demanding instant responses on e-mail, or in whatever situation, means that we are following the generations to come into that scatterbrained universe - and by that I do NOT mean to insult P. Larson, just to make an observation and to issue a caveat. I feel it myself sometimes and wonder what I did before there were Automatic Teller Machines, faxes, and computers, period, much less e-mail. As a generally impatient person to begin with, I feel that the technological revolution we are experiencing now can only make me more so!

Kathleen

Author: Roger Long
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 12:04:03 -0500

The list is good as it is. It isn't broken so don't fix it! This is another red herring! Roger Long.

Author: Mark Milliorn
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 11:55:58 -0500

University of New Mexico

I belong to several other academic discussion lists, most of which are not moderated. While there is some noise, such as people trying to sign up or sign off, I prefer to receive the mail faster and to see the senders name on the index. Let's try this list without a moderator.

Mark Milliorn
milliorn@unm.edu
History Department, Univ. of New Mexico

Author: Randall Pouwels
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 11:50:36 -0500

University of Central Arkansas

I have no strong feelings about moderation of this list, although Pier might have a point concerning the slow-down in response time to some contributions (however, the relative lack of discussion recently might have to do more with semester ending and start-up). Dealing in something closer to "real time" probably would be beneficial, and I would urge Dan Segal and Pat Manning to do what they can to speed up things.

On the other hand, I know how unmoderated lists can degenerate into "flaming." I had a rather nasty experience with one list last summer where one contributor seemed especially prone to this. In the absence of moderation, finally I saw no alternative to signing off a list that had become less useful and more personally abusive.

Perhaps a middle road would be desirable. Dan and Pat should refrain from moderating the list unless things start degenerating?

Sincerely,
Randall L. Pouwels
Department of History
University of Central Arkansas
Conway, AR 72035-0001
U.S.A.
RANDYP@cc1.uca.edu
FAX: 501-450-5208
TEL: 501-450-5620

Author: Timothy Burke
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 11:43:46 -0500

Swarthmore College

Moderation is pretty important early in the life of a listserv: I've seen lots of them balloon full of members, get caught up in debates initiated by someone with relatively little interest in the central purpose or point of the list, often someone with mischevious or even malicious intent,and then collapse as people flee from the list and its effect on their email flow.

A mature listserv seems to get along alright without moderation once it has its own little civil society, but the presence of moderators does tend to act as a safety valve if something happens to radically deform that established discourse.

Pier is also right, however, in pointing out that moderated groups invariably have less discussion and debate, and can become *too* cordial, depending on how heavy-handed the moderators are...I can't characterize H-World, having just joined. Perhaps some people *want* less discussion: more active lists generate 20-40 messages per day.

Timothy Burke
Swarthmore College, Department of History Swarthmore, PA 19081
610-328-8115 (w), 610-544-2504 (h)

Author: Dave McFadden
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 13:37:04 -0500

Fairfield University

I agree with Roger Long : "if it ain't broke, don't fix it. " the Moderators are doing great - we still get lots of debate, and lots of topics. Let's keep going this way for awhile. I am a member of several unmoderated lists, and the proliferation of extraneous or irrelevant material is enormous. This one is great. I may yet be drawn into a major debate, but right now it is providing good interchange, and more important, good information.

Dave McFadden,
Fairfield University, Connecticut.

Author: Pat Manning
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 14:58:59 -0500

Northeastern University

Here are my thoughts, from the point of view of a moderator, on the role of moderation in this list. I finish with a question to subscribers.

First, we are fortunate to have World-L, an unmoderated list which is quite parallel to H-WORLD, and whose existence substantially predates H-WORLD's appearance in September of 1994. We will learn about the similarities and differences of moderated and unmoderated lists through the interplay of these two lists, especially in the minds of those subscribing to both.

Second, moderating does slow down the flow of postings

• at least by several hours, commonly by a day or so, and sometimes by several days. The question others have addressed, with both clarity and charity, is whether the benefits are worth that cost.

Moderator activities, in my experience, are as follows:

1. The moderator screens "flames." I have in fact sent back about three postings for rewording: two of these were easily reworded and posted; the third was dropped. But that's all.
2. The existence of the moderator makes authors of postings more circumspect. I'm sure this is true, but can't document it.
3. The moderator encourages readability and common format in postings, by doing some light editing.
4. The moderator can check for facts -- these range from listing e-mail addresses to checking bibliographical citations and historical facts.
5. The moderator can intervene in the discussion, by commenting within postings or by sending separate postings. Dan Segal and I have tended to take the latter approach.
6. The moderator selects the subject listing for each posting, and thus names the threads. We have attempted to maintain consistent subject listings within each thread, and to modify the subject listing clearly as the discussion changes. If it is successfully done, the H-WORLD archive should be easy to use; if not, the archive is a mess of miscellaneous postings. This work involves judgment calls, and subscribers may wish to comment on the approach we moderators take to listing subject of postings.
7. This list is about the world, but is dominated by subscribers in the U.S. To be sensitive to this issue, I thought it best, for instance, to relabel postings submitted as "National Standards in History" and to identify them as "U.S. National Standards in History."
8. The moderators can solicit book reviews (Dan Segal has already begun work on reviews for H-WORLD), and can develop research tools linked to the list (I will work on establishing an H-WORLD gopher).
9. Finally, there is the question of identifying authors of postings. My own preference is that each author identify himself or herself by name, e-mail address, and by institutional affiliation or at least location. Sometimes I have held up postings, requesting the latter information from authors, at other times I have pored through the sub list to find the institution of an author. My feeling is that, given the wide range of national and institutional bases from which we write, it would be helpful to readers of the list to have relatively full descriptions of each author.

   My question to subscribers: do you agree that it is worth the extra effort to make authors' institutional affiliations or locations part of each posting?

   If you think it makes little difference, I will cease to press authors for that information. If you think it helps, I hope authors will remember to add it to their postings.

Author: Steven Leibo
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 14:04:33 -0500

Idaho State University

I forward the following from a related list because I found much good sense in Steve Leibo's comments.

• Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 22:43:54 -0500 Reply-to: H-Net list for Asian History

 Subject:       H-NET and the Chronicle of Higher Education
 To:            Multiple recipients of list H-ASIA

By now many of you, especially those based in the United States and Canada, will have seen the attack on H-NET moderators which was highlighted in the Jan. 20 issue of the Chronicle. In essence, the writer claimed that our (volunteer) service as moderators impinges on the free flow of ideas and constitutes some sort of assault on the American understanding of free speech. The specific issue was the long standing H-NET insistence that material posted be both professionally oriented and "civil."

With the above in mind, it does seem reasonable to explain what really does go on in the background as Frank and I prepare our daily posts. In contrast to the impression given by the Chronicle's op-ed piece the vast majority of everything posted on H-ASIA goes out as written. The exceptions are because of the following issues:

1. subscription requests from individuals and other list maintenance issues of concern only to single individuals
2. material that falls outside of our agreed-upon mandate (between the members and moderators) that we will only post material relevant to the professional study of Asia.

Frank and I have also sent posts back for revision on occasion. The vast majority of those "returns" were tied to requests for material to be more precise and thus of greater use to our readers.

As to the issue of "tone," well, it is true. We have no wish to waste our time helping individuals be rude to others. On a few occasions I have returned posts asking that they be presented in a more professional manner with various irrelevant asides left out. More often than not, I have subsequently received thank you notes from people for taking the trouble to return materials. One of the "problems" with e-mail is that it is simply too easy to respond without reflection - thus moderators can often serve as helpful "sounding boards" before people embarrass themselves.

Lastly, I always spell check the posts that go out. That is necessary because many of us are still learning how to edit on line with poor editing facilities and thus mistakes creep in. I, for one, did not co-create H-ASIA to embarrass my Asian Studies colleagues - thus the necessity of light editing.

                               Steven A. Leibo
                Leibo@ALBNYVMS.bitnet
  
                Steven A. Leibo
                The Sage Colleges
                Co-Moderator, H-ASIA

J. B. "Jack" Owens
Department of History
Idaho State University
Pocatello, ID 83209 USA
Voice: (208) 233-8589
e-mail: owenjack@isu.edu
www: http://isuux.isu.edu/~owenjack

Author: Kathleen Alaimo
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 13:50:47 -0500

I support the moderation of this list. Moderation insures that with my limited time I can participate in discussions that are truly meaningful, useful, and interesting. Kathleen Alaimo

Author: Peter Holloran
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 13:48:30 -0500

Pine Manor College

A good example of why we need a moderator is the Public History list at Harvard, which is in the process of deciding this issue and relocating or (I hope) joining the H-Net. You H-Netters may not appreciate the many problems on other lists, especially those without full-time moderators/editors.

Peter Holloran, Pine Manor College, pch@world.std.com

Author: Gordon Thomasson
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 13:46:39 -0500

Having withdrawn from several lists because a few used their unmoderated nature to convert the information superhighway into an obscene grafitti-strewn alleyway, I resolved to avoid unmoderated lists in the future. I would hate to leave H-World but I would if it went the route of Free Speech uber alles, instead of being a moderated (that is, simply, lightly edited) avenue for scholarly communication. I vote for moderation in all things H-WORLDly. Gordon C. Thomasson
World History Faculty
THOMASSON_G@SUNYBROOME.EDU

P.S. The moderators are doing an heroic, all too often unthanked, and precious service. A HUGE vote of thanks to them!

Author: Self
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 13:44:42 -0500

Indiana University Northwest

As my contribution to the H-World discussion on Moderation I offer a posting I just sent to H-Teach.

• Forwarded Message Follows -------

X-cs:
To: H-Teach@uicvm.uic.edu
Subject: Re: Moderation
Reply-to: rrotz@iunhaw1.iun.indiana.edu Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 16:46:35

Eric Wakin asks for my opinion on the manner in which H-Net lists are moderated. Frankly, I am very happy with things as they are. I suppose I really don't know how they are moderated since I never see what is rejected by the moderators. But as a matter of civility and of good use of limited time, I like the nature of the flow I get from the H-Net lists. If I have time for unmoderated free-flow discussion, I can go over to a Usenet Newsgroup. I strongly suspect that what makes the cost in time/benefit in useful ideas or information balance so favorable on the H-Net lists is precisely the moderation. I don't mind the slight delay at all. Indeed, I can foresee where it might work to my advantage. Example: "Dear Moderator, ten minutes ago I sent H-Teach something extremely stupid, can I get you to kill it before it goes out?" I don't know if that would work but I comfort myself with the thought.

In short, I like the idea that someone out there is working very hard to minimize the likelihood that I will feel like I have wasted my time opening a message. I don't feel like that restricts my "rights" in the slightest, and a small delay in getting the messages is a very small price to pay. Kudos to the moderators!

Incidentally a debate on this very subject is going on right now at H-World.

Dr. Rhiman A. Rotz, Associate Professor of History Indiana University Northwest, Gary, Indiana 46408, USA Phone: (219) 980-6973
E-mail: rrotz@iunhaw1.iun.indiana.edu

Author: Terry Burke
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 22:22:34 -0500

University of California, Santa Cruz

The advantages of an archivable list far outweight spontaneity, especially when the only ones able to be spontaneous are presumably hackers with nothing better to do than watch the posting. A little thought before replying to postings is all to the good in my view.

Author: Jack Owens (more info below)
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 22:21:01 -0500

Idaho State University

On Sat, 28 Jan 1995, Patrick Manning asked:

< My question to subscribers: do you agree that it is < worth the extra effort to make authors' institutional < affiliations or locations part of each posting? < If you think it makes little difference, I will cease to < press authors for that information. If you think it helps, I < hope authors will remember to add it to their postings.

Successful lists are built on giving help and sharing. Many people are much more comfortable doing these things if they have some sense of who the other people are. Except where there is a self-perceived security problem (a matter that should be communicated to the moderator in a private message), authors should identify themselves in signatures to their messages. And except where an exchange involves a personal matter, I wish that the flow of information would be kept on the list for the benefit of all (e.g., a discussion of issues to be included in a topically-organized Western Civ course). We are building a valuable institution and need to contribute to its growth. The hard work of the moderators is important in this process and merits the thanks of all list members, but perhaps in private messages :-)
Jack

J. B. "Jack" Owens
Department of History
Idaho State University
Pocatello, ID 83209 USA
Voice: (208) 233-8589
e-mail: owenjack@isu.edu
www: http://isuux.isu.edu/~owenjack

Author: Peter H. Hansen
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 21:27:17 -0500

I'm for adding the institutional affiliation, if it is not clear from the email address.
Peter Hansen, phansen@wpi.edu

Moderator's note (Pat Manning): WPI, clearly, is Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Author: Ken Wolf
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 12:22:32 -0500

Murray State University

Yes, I do think it is worth the time to make each contributors address and institutional affiliation clear to list members. We might want to write them using s-mail. Of course, I say this fully aware of how easy it is to suggest extra work for someone else. I realize that the H-Net moderators do a fantastic job which must be very time-consuming. God love you all!

 Ken Wolf, Dept. of History          (502) 762-2232 or 762-6582
 Murray State University             FAX (502) 762-3424
 Murray KY 42071                     e-mail 

[an error occurred while processing this directive]