Robin
July 23rd 03, 03:17 AM
The mkm moderation team would like to ask readers for some input on
our standards for "parenting content" in posts.
Mkm was established as a forum for parenting-related topics, and from
the start, the moderation team has used the question "does it relate
to parenting?" as one of its criteria for acceptable posts. A couple
of years ago, in response to reader request, we loosened this standard
so that this rule would apply primarily to posts that *begin* threads.
(Threads that drift into non-parenting-related topics are now usually
left to run their course, unless the off-topic drift develops into a
completely new line of discussion.) This loosened standard has, we
think, worked pretty well. As it stands, we reject posts for "no
parenting content" less than once a month on average.
Readers have said they like the high signal-to-noise ratio and
topicality of mkm, and we consider the focus on parenting content a
cornerstone of mkm's character. We don't intend to eliminate that
criterion. However, we would like to get your opinions on exactly how
we determine what qualifies as "parenting content" on initial posts.
As with our other charter-based criteria -- e.g. civility, quotations,
etc. -- we've developed internal guidelines that that help us draw the
line between what's acceptable and what's not. We based these "rules
of thumb" on the examples we had to work with: the posts that were
appearing in misc.kids. For the most part, the rules have stood up
well, in that they've allowed us to reject the types of posts that the
first users of mkm said they did *not* want to see on the new 'group,
while still allowing for the things people *did* want.
Every once in a while, though, we hit a post that falls smack on the
borderline. The post we approved Saturday about "60 Minutes II" was
one of these. If we wanted to be consistent with our guidelines, we
would very likely have rejected the post. But many of the moderators
felt that this was not a post that our rules should require us to
reject. That left us in the awkward position of either accepting the
post and seeming inconsistent with our established standards, or
rejecting it even though it seemed reasonable for mkm.
Because our policy requires us to bias toward acceptance in borderline
cases, we accepted the post. But we also decided to use this
opportunity to ask you to help us determine whether our rules need any
adjustment, and if so, what kind.
Here are some of the guidelines we use for determining parenting
content.
1. Not all posts about "children's issues" are necessarily
parenting-related.
When mkm was first under discussion, many of the posts people
complained about on mk were on topics that somehow involved children
-- such as vaccines, circumcision, and education policy. Readers made
it clear that while they wanted to see posts about parents'
experiences with these and other topics, they didn't want the endless
debates that had little reference to real kids and personal
situations. We found that requiring a clear parenting connection
allowed us to reject the polemics, essays, advocacy statements, and
political manifestos that swamped misc.kids in the name of being
"about children," yet addressed kids only by implication. For
instance, this standard enables us to reject posts characteristic of
the endless "circ debates," while still allowing posts in which
parents ask particular questions about circumcision in their own
family situation.
2. Just because a post mentions "children" or "parents" doesn't
automatically make it relevant to "parenting."
Every once in a while, we'll get a post that's off-topic -- often
with a political or advocacy bent -- that begins or ends with "Parents
should know about this because it affects our children" or even "My
kid asked me my opinions on XYZ, and here's what I said" (and then
proceed to detail the opinion without further reference to the child).
We recognized that adding such references didn't in itself make the
posts parenting-related, and so we have treated them based on their
substance, regardless of the passing "kid" reference.
3. "Parenting content" doesn't mean "anything a parent might be
interested in."
"Parents" are also "humans," and so might be interested in any
topic in Usenet. If someone who is interested in golf also happens to
be a parent, that does not make a post about golfing a
parenting-related post. Of course, a post in which a parent says "I'd
like to teach my child to play golf" and asks for advice on getting
lessons would indeed be parenting-related.
Most of the calls we make on these grounds are pretty straightforward.
The "60 Minutes II" post was not. It read as follows:
<<Did anybody else see the part about the autistic kids and the
teaching methods that a Indian woman is using with them? It was
fascinating. The kids were able to communicate and should a lot of
understanding of things around them. When one boy was asked how he
learned to spell and do math he told them he had been listening.>>
This post mentions kids. It's about a condition that affects some
children. And it would probably be of interest to parents of autistic
kids. This seems like the kind of post that would be right for mkm.
On the other hand, we would not normally accept a generic
informational post about a health issue that might affect children
that doesn't refer to parental decisions or responses. Nor would we
accept a post about an educational program or method that speaks only
about the program or method, without any reference to how parents fit
in. (That applies to initial posts only; it would be different if
there were already a discussion going on about the topic.) When we
looked at this post, we realized we don't have a guideline that could
divide "a post about an issue that will probably have clear parenting
implications for certain parents" from "a post about an issue that, in
itself, is not necessarily parenting-related" -- at least not without
also opening the barn door to a bunch of stuff our readers have, in
the past, said they *don't* want to see.
There will always be some posts that guidelines just can't address.
And there will always be some inconsistency in the moderation
decisions made over time, as the 'group's character and reader
preferences adjust and develop. We might have just shrugged and said,
"Never mind that it doesn't quite meet our rules, this is the sort of
thing that feels OK." But we also feel it's important that as we find
ourselves fine-tuning our policies, we touch base with readers to make
sure we're doing what you folks want.
So, if you've read this far, we'd like some feedback on a few
questions:
1. Is the above post one that you think is appropriate for mkm? Why or
why not?
2. If you think it's OK, can you propose a way to distinguish a post
like this one from a similar one that you consider off-topic? In
general, what we're looking for is a rule of thumb we can use to apply
to new examples as they arise.
3. Alternatively, in cases where a post "feels OK" but doesn't
technically meet the standards, would you rather that the moderators
accept it anyway, even if that means "bending the rules" in some
cases? If so, are you willing to accept the occasional inconsistencies
that result? This question, in effect, asks for your preference on a
"thinking" or a "feeling" approach to moderation: whether you'd rather
we make our decisions based on criteria we can enumerate and explain,
or whether you'd like us to rely a bit more on personal judgment for
the sake of handling the occasional borderline post.
We look forward to your opinions, either here on the 'group or
directly to us at .
--The moderators
our standards for "parenting content" in posts.
Mkm was established as a forum for parenting-related topics, and from
the start, the moderation team has used the question "does it relate
to parenting?" as one of its criteria for acceptable posts. A couple
of years ago, in response to reader request, we loosened this standard
so that this rule would apply primarily to posts that *begin* threads.
(Threads that drift into non-parenting-related topics are now usually
left to run their course, unless the off-topic drift develops into a
completely new line of discussion.) This loosened standard has, we
think, worked pretty well. As it stands, we reject posts for "no
parenting content" less than once a month on average.
Readers have said they like the high signal-to-noise ratio and
topicality of mkm, and we consider the focus on parenting content a
cornerstone of mkm's character. We don't intend to eliminate that
criterion. However, we would like to get your opinions on exactly how
we determine what qualifies as "parenting content" on initial posts.
As with our other charter-based criteria -- e.g. civility, quotations,
etc. -- we've developed internal guidelines that that help us draw the
line between what's acceptable and what's not. We based these "rules
of thumb" on the examples we had to work with: the posts that were
appearing in misc.kids. For the most part, the rules have stood up
well, in that they've allowed us to reject the types of posts that the
first users of mkm said they did *not* want to see on the new 'group,
while still allowing for the things people *did* want.
Every once in a while, though, we hit a post that falls smack on the
borderline. The post we approved Saturday about "60 Minutes II" was
one of these. If we wanted to be consistent with our guidelines, we
would very likely have rejected the post. But many of the moderators
felt that this was not a post that our rules should require us to
reject. That left us in the awkward position of either accepting the
post and seeming inconsistent with our established standards, or
rejecting it even though it seemed reasonable for mkm.
Because our policy requires us to bias toward acceptance in borderline
cases, we accepted the post. But we also decided to use this
opportunity to ask you to help us determine whether our rules need any
adjustment, and if so, what kind.
Here are some of the guidelines we use for determining parenting
content.
1. Not all posts about "children's issues" are necessarily
parenting-related.
When mkm was first under discussion, many of the posts people
complained about on mk were on topics that somehow involved children
-- such as vaccines, circumcision, and education policy. Readers made
it clear that while they wanted to see posts about parents'
experiences with these and other topics, they didn't want the endless
debates that had little reference to real kids and personal
situations. We found that requiring a clear parenting connection
allowed us to reject the polemics, essays, advocacy statements, and
political manifestos that swamped misc.kids in the name of being
"about children," yet addressed kids only by implication. For
instance, this standard enables us to reject posts characteristic of
the endless "circ debates," while still allowing posts in which
parents ask particular questions about circumcision in their own
family situation.
2. Just because a post mentions "children" or "parents" doesn't
automatically make it relevant to "parenting."
Every once in a while, we'll get a post that's off-topic -- often
with a political or advocacy bent -- that begins or ends with "Parents
should know about this because it affects our children" or even "My
kid asked me my opinions on XYZ, and here's what I said" (and then
proceed to detail the opinion without further reference to the child).
We recognized that adding such references didn't in itself make the
posts parenting-related, and so we have treated them based on their
substance, regardless of the passing "kid" reference.
3. "Parenting content" doesn't mean "anything a parent might be
interested in."
"Parents" are also "humans," and so might be interested in any
topic in Usenet. If someone who is interested in golf also happens to
be a parent, that does not make a post about golfing a
parenting-related post. Of course, a post in which a parent says "I'd
like to teach my child to play golf" and asks for advice on getting
lessons would indeed be parenting-related.
Most of the calls we make on these grounds are pretty straightforward.
The "60 Minutes II" post was not. It read as follows:
<<Did anybody else see the part about the autistic kids and the
teaching methods that a Indian woman is using with them? It was
fascinating. The kids were able to communicate and should a lot of
understanding of things around them. When one boy was asked how he
learned to spell and do math he told them he had been listening.>>
This post mentions kids. It's about a condition that affects some
children. And it would probably be of interest to parents of autistic
kids. This seems like the kind of post that would be right for mkm.
On the other hand, we would not normally accept a generic
informational post about a health issue that might affect children
that doesn't refer to parental decisions or responses. Nor would we
accept a post about an educational program or method that speaks only
about the program or method, without any reference to how parents fit
in. (That applies to initial posts only; it would be different if
there were already a discussion going on about the topic.) When we
looked at this post, we realized we don't have a guideline that could
divide "a post about an issue that will probably have clear parenting
implications for certain parents" from "a post about an issue that, in
itself, is not necessarily parenting-related" -- at least not without
also opening the barn door to a bunch of stuff our readers have, in
the past, said they *don't* want to see.
There will always be some posts that guidelines just can't address.
And there will always be some inconsistency in the moderation
decisions made over time, as the 'group's character and reader
preferences adjust and develop. We might have just shrugged and said,
"Never mind that it doesn't quite meet our rules, this is the sort of
thing that feels OK." But we also feel it's important that as we find
ourselves fine-tuning our policies, we touch base with readers to make
sure we're doing what you folks want.
So, if you've read this far, we'd like some feedback on a few
questions:
1. Is the above post one that you think is appropriate for mkm? Why or
why not?
2. If you think it's OK, can you propose a way to distinguish a post
like this one from a similar one that you consider off-topic? In
general, what we're looking for is a rule of thumb we can use to apply
to new examples as they arise.
3. Alternatively, in cases where a post "feels OK" but doesn't
technically meet the standards, would you rather that the moderators
accept it anyway, even if that means "bending the rules" in some
cases? If so, are you willing to accept the occasional inconsistencies
that result? This question, in effect, asks for your preference on a
"thinking" or a "feeling" approach to moderation: whether you'd rather
we make our decisions based on criteria we can enumerate and explain,
or whether you'd like us to rely a bit more on personal judgment for
the sake of handling the occasional borderline post.
We look forward to your opinions, either here on the 'group or
directly to us at .
--The moderators