Scott V. McGuire allegedly said: [...]
I didn't change my subscription from the filtered to the unfiltered list because I expected this to end in a month and I was willing to participate in the experiment. You can't ask someone to try something for a month to see if they like it and call there use of it in that month evidence that they like it.
I agree. But there is more. As much as anything else, I didn't change lists because of inertia and laziness. I suspect that most people are like me in this regard. I suspect that if the tactic had been to require people to subscribe to the moderated list we would see just the reverse of the current numbers. In fact, in the interests of fairness, integrity, and adherence to the scientific method, I suggest that after this month trial has passed that we reverse the lists, and see how many change to the moderated list. [snip]
Sandy, you said that you thought the list had improved since you began moderating. How could you think otherwise? When you send an article to the flames list its because you think the list would have been worse otherwise. I don't think the moderators opinion should be considered in determining if moderation is a good thing. I think there is a conflict of interest there.
Absolutely no doubt that there is a conflict of interest. In Sandy's shoes a saint couldn't be objective. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F