PART 2 - MODERATING THE BIOSCI/bionet NEWSGROUPS

tivol at tethys.ph.albany.edu tivol at tethys.ph.albany.edu
Thu Mar 2 14:01:27 EST 1995


>David Kristofferson (kristoff at net.bio.net) wrote:
>
>: Although I think that the use of the word "idiotic" is a bit too
>: strong, thanks for your comments on the above.  I'd like to hear from
>: others on this.  The motive is to restrict the newsgroups to use by
>: professionals while leaving some groups like bionet.general open for
>: general use.  Also remember that there are other lay person groups
>: like sci.bio for open discussions.  While I realize that net gurus
>: like DanZ might not appreciate such a move, I'm not sure this feeling
>: is shared by users who don't spend as much time on the net and want to
>
I think the idea of automated monitoring of the newsgroups is a good one.
I agree with the post which said that getting rid of most of the chaff is OK,
and that aiming for perfection is not necessary.  I think allowing high-school
students, etc. into the newsgroups is OK (at least for bionet.general).  The
idea of (re)registering is also a good one, and since it requires no more
effort than subscribing to a listserver, anyone who cannot give that much ef-
fort to register will probably not be a useful contributer to the newsgroups.
I'm sure you mean "professionals" to include scientists in fields other than
that of a particular newsgroup, so that biochemists would be allowed in the
emf-bio group, etc., this way anyone authorized to post from an ".edu" site
would be passed by the monitoring (Yes, unauthorized posters can get by here).
Eliminating those who violate protocol after one warning (posted or private)
would seem to be fair--those who detect moderator bias could protest if the
warning was posted.  BTW, we seem to be getting spammed by messages of undel-
ivered mail.
				Yours,
				Bill Tivol



More information about the Bioforum mailing list