Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Oct 2008 15:58 UTC
Here at OSNews, we use a moderation system where your peers rate your comments, and where the OSNews staff rarely intervene. This system was put in place after realising that the editorial moderation was failing miserably; it had become too much work. Sifting through ten reported comments a day is one thing, sifting through 100 of them each day is another. The result was that editorial moderation had become willy-nilly, which led to understandable user frustration, and pointless email rants back and forth between users and staff members (mea culpa). The answer to this problem turned out to be a two-step process: banning anonymous commenting, and our peer moderation system. While the moderation system has its flaws, it has exceeded all of our expectations in making sure that our comments' sections are free of spam, and relatively fun to read. Still, we realise problems exist, but we also see a lot of misinformation floating around. The treat we have in store for you today will help in fixing some of that.
Thread beginning with comment 334328
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Moderation Always Ends Up Being Censorship
by irbis on Wed 22nd Oct 2008 17:27
in reply to "Moderation Always Ends Up Being Censorship"
Member since:2005-07-08
why can't moderation be automatic? Removing obscene, offensive and otherwise unacceptable comments could be automated.
Automatic? You mean word filters and such things? Maybe here on OSnews the terminology used tends to be so technological (and is in English only, mostly) that it could prevent some of the worst shortcomings of automatic filters. But still, as far as I know, automatic censorship programs never work too well, especially in multicultural and heterogenous discussion environments. They are sometimes too strict, sometimes don't notice even most obvious cases of offensive behavior. Most typically they only censor certain words supposedly considered offensive. How could that kind of simplistic filtering prevent subtle offensive behavior where the offender may use very polite terms but still behave in a completely unfair and offensive way towards someone else?
What is offensive, obscene or otherwise unacceptable behavior is not so much about the words used only, and it depends on the context and changing human values. Computer programs, even the most advanced AI programs, have no real idea of things like the meaning of subtle cultural contexts in ethics, or ethics in general (well, sometimes I wonder if many people have much better clue about such things either, but that is another matter...).
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-05-09
It never fails. All moderated sites (Digg, Slashdot, Reddit, etc.) end up being taken over by a small group or gang of regulars with a lot of time on their hands. Of course, the group never represents a fair cross section of the users. These so-called moderators simply mod down anything or anybody that they disagree with. But it does not matter. Moderation should not be about disagreement or popularity. It should be exclusively about infringement of the TOS and that's it.
No small group should have the power to affect the free expression of ideas. The decision as to whether or not one reads a comment should be left to the reader and the reader alone. In this vein, I think it would be best for OSNews to offer a means whereby members can kill-file or privately rate commenters as they see fit. We don't need chaperones, thank you very much.
Furthermore, why can't moderation be automatic? Removing obscene, offensive and otherwise unacceptable comments could be automated. In my opinion, this is what OSNews should be investigating. Forget about tweaking the current algorithms in the hope of removing abuse from the current system. It will never work.
Edited 2008-10-20 22:54 UTC