the Least Energy Maintenance of a sci.math.moderated Re: sci.math.club or call it sci.math.focus
- From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Jonathan Groves wrote:
AP (plutonium.archimedes@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:(snipped)
OwlHoot wrote:
I agree. Having such an unmoderated newsgroup that prevents much of
the garbage on sci.math these days is a great idea. That way, we still
have our freedom to post without having to go through a moderator
but that those who love to post garbage all over sci.math will be excluded
Well I am throwing out some ideas before I settle on one in which I
like and
feel will work smoothly
from the group and not cause us problems. One main reason I don't keep up
with sci.math much these days is all the garbage all over the place.
This idea will work better than something like Wikipedia because our posts
remain up on the board as is and won't be removed. The latter option does
I think the Wikipedia moderated newsgroup concept will work in some
sci.
newsgroups but not for sci.math.moderated.
So that was a idea tossed up.
I am settling into the idea of Least Energy and that would look like a
MathForum
scheme of membership for the moderation mechanism.
As you said-- you want easy and free access without being judged of
your post
and yet not all the clutter of spam and offtopic. So I believe a
"membership
mechanism" is just the cup of tea sci.math needs.
And the least energy for maintaining sci.math.moderated would be to
simply
take Drexel's MathForum which already has moderated out the commercial
spam and I did not see any Musatoff posts in the first 40 in
MathForum.
So simply have a computer set up that reposts the MathForum into
sci.math.moderated. Now if we wanted to fine tune that reposting even
further
we can write into the Charter that members can throw out other members
if they cross a line. For instance those posters that make it through
MathForum
but have swear words. Or those that like Uncle Al never have any
mathematics
in their posts, well strip them of membership.
not insure that our posts remain and may be edited instead. And those who
think it's funny to post garbage--even if it remains for only a little
while--won't be discouraged from posting their garbage.
As for the one who complained that your original post is off-topic, I
strongly disagree. Though this is not about math itself, your post
is about a serious issue with this newsgroup, so it is relevant. This
problem needs to be addressed, and someone does need to propose solutions
to get this problem fixed.
Jonathan Groves
So, Jonathan, I think I am settling on a very clever
sci.math.moderated that requires
Least Energy to maintain and gets rid of the offtopic garbage. It has
room for even
further improvements over MathForum.
Now John Ramsden, Owlhoot, wrote:
Hmm, fair point
There are two features of sci.math that make it superior to any
moderated sci.math. The instant date time group stamp in case you
posted something in which another person at about the same time
also posts the idea. So in a fight over priority of discovery, I want
to have the earliest stamp on my post.
That problem would be solved if an approved post was automatically
annotated with the date/time received, like journals do with papers
perhaps months before they are published.
So that instead of sci.math.moderated, is to write a new charter
for sci.math itself and leave it unmoderated as before.
Do you really think the spammers and manual sellers and people
like Musatov would take a blind bit of notice?
--- end of Owlhoot wrote ---
I still have a problem with a sci.math.moderated that tries to inject
a date time
group of received.
One of the superior advantages of sci.math over a moderated newsgroup
is
a date time stamp in case of priority of discovery. This is especially
important
for history newsgroups or politics where an event is posted in say
sci.politics
unmoderated and a few minutes later the same event posted in
sci.politics.moderated
and now the question of priority? The problem with a "date/time
received" is that
it is easy to manipulate or tamper with. So in the hypothetical case
of two posts
at about the same time with the same important information, so who
wins priority?
If it comes down to "date/time received" and since that is tamperable,
then I
see problems with it. It would be like the Olympics race or swimming
contests
where each country has their own stop-watch to say how fast their
athlete scored
at that contest.
So a sci.math.moderated should have a date-time stamp just as does
sci.math itself
and that is possible if sci.math.moderated were just the reposting of
MathForum
since the date time stamp of MathForum is the same date time as
sci.math itself.
So I think I stumbled upon the Least Energy Maintenance of a
sci.math.moderated.
Where it eliminates over 90% of the dross and offtopic of sci.math.
And it has
no delays in time and it has the same date time stamp as sci.math. It
does not
have quite the Freedom of expression as sci.math but it does not want
all that
expression in order to be Focused and ontopic.
AP
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Lebesgue density theorem
- Next by Date: Talking about the sci.math FAQ (was: Re: sci.math.moderated Guidelines)
- Previous by thread: Theorem of Division
- Next by thread: Re: the Least Energy Maintenance of a sci.math.moderated Re: sci.math.club or call it sci.math.focus
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
