SV: moderating the pkt list

["Per Gunnar Berglund" <pgb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Ric Holt,

Thank you for speaking out. You have my full support. PKT ought to be a
very important forum, dealing with major issues of political economy, not a
second-rate chat room for flame-throwers. Perhaps it would be wise to split
the list in two, one dealing with the 'formal' seminar paper discussions,
and the other being more of a general forum for PK discussions?

My kindest regards,

Per Gunnar Berglund
Lilla Sällskapets väg 60
S-127 61  SKÄRHOLMEN
SWEDEN
Phone/fax +46-(0)888 3065

----------
> Från: rholt@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Till: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT   <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Ämne: moderating the pkt list
> Datum:  den 5 mars 1997 18:18
>
> Pkters,
> I was going to wait until after Warren's seminar before sending out this
> message, but given the number of recent flaming and personal messages
that
> have been sent over pkt recently this is the approporiate time. I have
spent
> a lot of time thinking about whether pkt should become a moderated list.
I
> have not been happy with what has been going on and something needs to be
> done. I find it absolutely ironic that we have been carrying on a
discussion
> over pkt about the difficulty of having heterodox views discussed in the
> media, while having the behavior of some people on this list actually
kill a
> forum that wants to support heterodox discussion! Also some people act
like
> it's their right to participate on pkt instead of a privilege. It
requires a
> tremendous amount of private financial resources and time by certain
> individuals to keep pkt running and free. All the messages that are sent
> over pkt are saved forever.
> This cost money. The idea behind pkt is to allow a free and open forum
that
> discusses post Keynesian issues where the messages sent will be stored
for
> future scholars. I'm not interested in saving messages that simply flame
> people. I'm determined to get pkt back to it's original mission. But what
is
> the most appropriate action to take?  I have consulted with numerous
people
> about this, and an old pro of discussion groups made the following
observations:
>
>
> >Your message below does indeed address my issue.  Let me make a more
> >complete statement of the problem:  I think that if you want to
> >genuinely raise the level of conversation, you'll be faced with charges
> >of censorship and if you avoid charges of censorship you won't
> >raise the quality of conversation.
> >
> >There are two models of moderation.  The most common is
> >  xxx and xxx-cafe
> >  xxx and xxx-cafe
> >  xx  and xx-cafe
> >  xxx and xxx-cafe
> >where the cafe version is unmoderated.  In those cases, we retained
> >the original listname for the moderated version and asked those
> >who didn't want moderation to migrate to the cafe version.  That's
> >what caused unending outcries of censorship and freedom of speech.
> >
> >Another model is xx and xxx:
> >xx is the original and still-unmoderated list and xxx is the one-year
> >old moderated list.  In this case, people who wanted moderation were
> >asked to migrate to xxx.  the list owner was not charged with
censorship.
> >
> >People tend to be stationary and not move as one can see from the
> >subscriptions below where the right-hand side is the list to which
> >people had to migrate.
> >
> >orig-list   new-list
> >xxx (1000) xxx-cafe (5)
> >xxx (700)  xxx-cafe (40)
> >xx  (600)  xx-cafe  (10)
> >xxxx (300) xxxx-cafe (5)
> >xx  (900)   xxx  (150)
> >
> >xxx keeps growing because traffic is low but xxxxx is disappointed
because
> >there is so little from xx that he wants to approve for xxx and
> >moderation takes time.  It's certainly not the 'refereed journal' that
> >he sort of hoped for -- the main conversation is still back on xx.
> >
> >Some other lists are moderated and/or have limits, but those
> >above (plus yet a minor variant with xxxxx) are our dual lists.
> >
> >I doubt that people will complain if you leave their playground, pkt,
> >unchanged and start a moderated version of the list.  If you only get
> >about 30 people to migrate, will it be worth your time to moderate?
> >Perhaps you could write all your former unsubs and invite them back --
> >that probably won't get many to return, but perhaps 20 or so.  Just
> >remember that most people are stationary and won't migrate even if they
> >basically prefer moderation.
> >
> >If you run your's like xxxx runs his, then all mail
> >To: xxx   is posted on xx automatically and to the xxx moderators
> >To  xx    is posted on xx automatically and to the xxx moderators
> >
> >Moderation is hard to sustain -- everyone tires of it.
> >You might require some volunteer moderators before
> >proceeding with moderation.
> >
> >Subscription Problem: You can make it very clear in the
> >web area that there is a choice to exercise before subscribing.
> >If someone subs to PKT, you can put a reminder inthe welcome
> >message that there's a moderated alternative.  You can tell them
> >to unsub pkt and sub the moderated version, but I an assure you
> >that they typically won't go to the trouble.
> >
> >ALL our moderators have been surprised, very surprised, at how high
> >their rejection rates have been.  They usually think they're approving
> >90% when they are in fact approving less than 50%.  It's natural because
> >there's so much noise -- we're all habituated to hitting the del key
> >as we skip through our overflowing mailboxes.  So you might wind up
> >with 60 people on the moderated list and spending your time protecting
> >them from the noise.  I think that's what xxxx is doing,
> >
> >xxx grows because traffic is low but xxx subscribers aren't interacting
> >much.  So rather than creating a refereed journal, xxx is spending
> >his time keeping so a lot of stuff out of xxxers mailboxes.  He's not
> >raising the level of conversation bec he's not moderating the large
> >list.  If, alternatively, you followed the xxxxx strategy and
> >moderated pkt while creating pkt-cafe for anyone who felt pkt was
> >censored, you'll face howls of protest.  Since the protestors can join
> >pkt-cafe.  they can't be howling about your censorship of mail coming
> >into *their* mailbox.  What they are implicitly complaining about is
> >that some people should move to pkt-cafe but they won't and, therefore,
> >these other peoples' mailboxes are getting censored.  I.e., their
> >argument is patronizing to the other subscribers.  So if you want to
> >raise the level of conversation, you need to moderate the big list but
> >if you do you'll get charged with censorship.
> >
>  is this a waste of time?  -Ric
> >
> >If you create pkt-moderated, you'll spend a lot of your life in a
> >thankless but socially helpful job saving your 60 pkt-moderated
> >listmembers from having to waste their life hitting the del key --
> >you do it for them.  It also takes/wastes time to find others to
> >do the moderation.  xxxx spent considerable time finding two others to
> >help moderate xxx last year but I think they quit.
>
> I have decided that pkt will continue to be an unmoderated list, but now
> there will be very strong rules that must be followed. When people decide
to
> subscribe to pkt there will be a message sent to them explaining the
purpose
> of pkt and the general "golden rules" for civilized discussion. I want
> people to recognize that participating over pkt is a privilege and not a
> right. The focus of the discussions have to do with post Keynesian
economics
> defined in a broad way. You shouldn't feel obligated to send a message
> everyday, or use pkt as your own personal public platform. In the future,
I
> will enforce the following guidelines:
>
> Except for the seminars, you shouldn't send anymore than three message a
> day. Pkt is a very active list and we need to make the number of messages
> sent over pkt managable. Also the cost to us in storing these messages is
> going up, and so to keep pkt free we need to control the flow of
messages.
> If someone after numerous warnings continues to break this rule they will
be
> taken off the pkt list.
>
> There is absolutely no reason to send a message over pkt that flames
> someone. After a number of warnings, if a person continues to do this
they
> will be taken off the pkt list.
>
> People should not feel obligated to tell us their personal philosophy or
> views about every issue under the sun. I want our discussions to cover
many
> different areas and topics, but there are limits. If I believe that a
> discussion is simply being dragged to the ground or has no relevancy to
the
> pkt mission then I will ask people to stop the discussion. If particular
> individuals continue after numerous warnings they will be taken off the
pkt
> list.
>
> Some people have argued that I should make pkt just a list for
professoinal
> economists, and this would improve the quality of conversation. I
disagree
> with this, and doesn't follow the lines of post Keynesian thought. Some
of
> the best discussion on this list has come about from people outside of
> economics. But it should be remember that the topic being discussed is
> fairly focused -- post Keynesian economics and that the tilt here is
mostly
> toward scholarly pursuits. Now, I have given myself a lot of authority.
> I don't like it, but something has to be done. And there is only so much
I
> can do. Many post Keynesian economists have complained that they find too
> much "noise" over pkt and not enough discussion of post keynesian issues.
> But these same people never made any contributions to the discussion! For
> example, recently a very important post Keyensian died ( though he
claimed
> not to be a post Keynesian), Hyman Minsky. Outside of Randy Wray there
has
> been very little discussion about his work.  I'll do what I can to
control
> the flaming, but the quality of discussion, the topics covered are up to
the
> members of pkt. One of the most successful parts of pkt has been our
> seminars. Volunteer to do a seminar that will help the quality. I have
asked
> people to put up their working papers and provide class syllabi for the
pkt
> archives that can also improve the quality. Bring your research into the
pkt
> discussions. Respond to the needs of undergraduate and graduate students
who
> request reading lists over pkt. And be tolerant! To stay an unmoderated
list
> means that you are going to receive messages that you don't like, but
I've
> tried to put a limit on this. Don't get involved with a flaming war --
just
> ignore it if someone starts egging you on, think about the list and the
> people on this list instead of one's ego.
>
> The issues we are facing on pkt are not uncommon. But for pkt to remain
an
> open and free list will require uncommon behavior. We are facing an
> important crossroad for pkt. It's up to you.
>
> -Ric Holt
> editor of pkt
>