Posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2002, at 20:32:04
In reply to Re: take a poll if someone should be blocked! - NO, posted by Jane D on January 13, 2002, at 16:09:50
> Over on the Silicon Investor Newsgroup,
> you should see the complete and utter disregard
> of courteousy shown towards others. Yet many of the
> groups are well monitored using a DEMOCRATIC process
> whereby the users of the group vote whether or not
> to ban someone fom posting from the newsgroup.
>
> JohnX2There are multiple groups there, some with complete and utter disregard of courtesy, but others that are well-monitored? And the former don't have that democratic system, but the latter do? So it's the system that makes the difference?
I've wondered about a more democratic system, but there are a couple issues:
1. How would it work, practically speaking? Someone would "nominate" someone for blocking? There would be a page to vote at? People wouldn't be able to vote more than once? The page would take votes for a set period of time?
What about people with more than one posting name? What about people who register just to vote?
2. I also have a division-of-labor philosophy. If members of the community focus on support, and I focus on administration, both the support and the administration will be better. This is something I tried to say in that article:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/research.html
3. Is the issue that these boards aren't monitored well, or that they're not monitored democratically?
--------
> The majority may be better off, but who will protect the minority? This site is also supposed to be supportive for those people who don't necessarily subscribe to the majority view. Currently it is.
>
> DinahWhen I was looking around for that "eternal vigilance" quote, I came upon another:
> I believe ... that the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest, breaks up the foundations of society; that action ... by representatives chosen immediately and removable by [citizens], constitutes the essence of a republic... These, my friend, are the essentials in which you and I agree; however, in our zeal for their maintenance, we may be perplexed and divaricate as to the structure of society most likely to secure them. --Thomas Jefferson, 1816
> http://www.britannica.com/elections/pri/Q00073.htmlI do worry that a majority might "abuse its strength". Since I'm not removable, this might not qualify as a republic, but I guess we can still be perplexed and divaricate. :-)
--------
> As I understand clinical research, when patients are chosen to participate in a study, first they must meet certain criteria in order to be considered as possible candidates. Once they meet those criteria, however, shouldn't anyone who meets those criteria be allowed to participate, regardless of their point of view? I understand that you cannot eliminate people from a clinical study just because you fear they might cause the results to be skewed in a particular way. Dr. Bob, are you eliminating clinical subjects/deleting posts that will cause an outcome that is opposite to the one you are counting on or hoping for? Are you manipulating the data?
>
> Bekka H.That's a good question. I think it depends on what's being studied.
For example, say drug A is known to have a particular side effect, but drug B is known to reduce that side effect. So you might want to study using them together. Is it manipulating the data to allow the use of drug B? If you're just studying drug A, it would be, but not if you're studying the combination.
A separate, though IMO also relevant, issue is that you wouldn't want to endanger people by just letting them have side effects...
So, to return to the board, this isn't a study of a free-for-all community, it's a study of a community that's hosted in a certain way. And its results won't be applicable to free-for-all communities, or even necessarily to communities in general. Does that make sense?
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:2646
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20011216/msgs/2650.html