Moderation policy and process
We don’t want to hinder any conversations that are taking place on the AGIMO blog. The moderation process helps ensure that spam or comments that breach the terms of use are not published. We aim to publish most comments immediately. To help us do this, please make sure:
- Your comments are relevant or on-topic
- Your comments are not inflammatory, unreasonable or obscene
- You are civil and respectful of others and their opinions (including not impersonating anyone and not posting someone’s personal information without their permission)
- Your behaviour is in line with relevant laws
This blog uses a post-moderation process: your comment is basically published immediately – after going through some automated system checks.
The first is a human verification step to deter spam bots: when you submit a comment, you are asked to include a user name and an email address. You don’t have to include your actual details; you may post under a pseudonym.
Offensive language is automatically checked by the system and comments with many links in them may be automatically held for moderation (links being a major part of most comment spam). Comments being held in the system are manually checked by a moderator to determine if the comment should be published, edited or deleted. The same manual process is applied to a published comment found to have breached the terms of use. If a comment is edited, we will include a reference so you can tell.
In most cases, we’ll close comments on posts after a month or so. This is primarily to block spam comments from appearing on older posts; if you wish to provide feedback on or discuss an older post, please let us know.
If we make a mistake, again please let us know and we will deal with it as quickly as we can.
loading...
Subscribe via RSS
Chapter 1 Lesson 1 – Moderation and brevity expectations.
My natural instincts are to deal with the topic of moderation comprehensively.
Yet I am learning fast through my blogging experimentation on one arena and another that chunking is better appreciated and that a comprehensive approach is not always an engagement strategy that is always appreciated or rewarded.
I am on a steep learning curve and the jury is still out as to whether I am best suited to the world of “blogging.”
I can’t quite bring myself to accept that the official role of the Gov2 Taskforce is done and that all I can rely upon is historical data and my newfound but short-lived familiarity with the Gov2 Taskforce pages and arrangement of data is no longer accessible to me.
Elsewhere I will express my thanks to the Taskforce for what they have achieved.
At the same time I will herald in the role ...
... of those who will be working towards active engagement with stakeholders such as myself, from diverse backgrounds and motivational standpoints.
I have already said a little about moderation policies during my brief blogging experience to date since 1 April 2010.
I was too late for early engagement, but plan, subject to the meeting of my own expectations, to stick around for a while and get to know those at the Australian Information Management Office (AGIMO), who will undertake the task of exploring how real-life engagement with stakeholders may be able to assist Government.
I am particularly interested in interpretation and implementation of moderation policy, so have headed here as a first stop.
The Gov2 website and those responsible for moderation policies were lenient with me as one not naturally given to brevity.
This alone may be behind many decisions to moderate or withhold commentary.
It is left to be seen whether I will measure up to expectation on this and other blogging sites on the issue of brevity alone.
They say we are all, to some extent, captive to the restraints or our own personalities and expressive styles. Experts believe that to some extent mere directives to deliver other than what comes naturally may not be realistic.
Besides the issues of brevity, I suspect that those like myself, who seems to have much to say – and may have said quite a bit of it already in one arena or another – apparently to no avail – may feel compelled to try again, repeating at considerable length what seems to have been unheard by so many for so long.
This situation in itself contributes towards attempts to reiterate and reinforce in the process of engagement.
There are blog sites who struggle with blogs longer than four paragraphs. Some cope with considerable less before moderation policies kick in. These are not the blog sites in which I feel comfortable.
Yet I have much to say and would prefer to say it transparently, consistent with my commitment to the principles of transparency.
If it should be the case that what I have to say cannot be accommodated within the word count constraints of the AGIMO parameters, please give me alternative off-line opportunities to make my point.
I am yet to work out how I can make acceptable link references, embedded links and attachments.
I need to spend time learning the technical processes involved in achieving this – something that has deterred me from actively participating in the OpenAustralia website.
Remember that I am seeking deeper engagement than the vast majority of external stakeholders; that I consider myself to be individualistic and largely unapologetic for who and what I am and my own style and approach.
One has to feel comfortable in one’s one skin and with the constraints of one’s personality.
I like to think that I can accept who and what I am – and that if I do not meet the expectations of others or the fit into the boxes that I am expected to occupy I am ready to move on to where I can be a better fit.
This attitude may be perceived as arrogant. Yet I am merely exploring engagement opportunities to which I am best suited.
My 37 days of blogging experience is not long enough for me to know how best I may fit the expectations of those seeking to engagement of citizens and other stakeholders; or for that matter whether their expectations are consistent withy my own needs and approaches.
The experiment therefore has to be a tentative one of exploration and mutual tolerance, and should be treated in general terms in relation to all such efforts to engage with the community in much the same way as any new relationship.
We need to test the waters; find out what is acceptable; explore each other’s perceptions of acceptable approaches and to a large extent, subject to definite exclusions of defamatory or abuse behaviour or off-topic approaches make room for a variety of styles and approaches.
In that context I ask for some tolerance generally.
Where I do hot meet the brevity standards, perhaps we can consider sways in which a more in-depth off-line dialogue will be acceptable.
I have already engaged positively with some Government agencies who are prepared to accommodate my style and overlook shortcomings.
For that reason I will be undertaking an interstate journey soon to meet with those with whom engagement has already been possible to achieve through digital means. It is not that face-to-face dialogue is essential – it is a nicety that most can manage without, and indeed must.
But given the limited opportunities for face-to-face dialogue; and also the degree of disenchantment that many stakeholders may feel after sustained dialogue in formal consultative arena, some adjustment must be made to expectations of brevity.
Most of us regard this digital engagement opportunity as a clean slate attempt to achieve effective dialogue.
Those like me who have for several years attempted to engage with Government at various levels virtually have to start from the beginning in explaining perceptions and opinions of what and why things do not seem to be working.
We cannot rely on implicit understanding since the dialogue and players are new to each other. We have to create a new history in a new relationship.
The rules need to be most flexible but we need to be honest with each other about what does and does not work.
No relationship can work without such trust and honesty.
I am willing to give this try.
Perhaps we can work out the ground rules together.
In a future blog perhaps we can work on a new sub-topic – what may be considered non-inflammatory and reasonable.
These are subjective terms and perhaps their mention under Moderation Policies as already posted does not go
Finally I ask that if moderation prohibits publication, perhaps an emailed notification can be made to identify what has led to a decision to withhold publication and what can be done to enquire publication.
For example I expect to call a spade a spade. I expect top identify policies that are entirely unacceptable and do not appear to be working.
I remain quite unclear about what may be considered acceptable and non-inflammatory, I may risk being too circumspect and therefore may not receive the clarification I require before making the next tentative step towards achieving a more meaningful relationship.
Perhaps I should leave it there for now as there seems to be enough to digest in this blog – which in any case must have exceeded the unwritten terms of word-count.
Cheers
Madeleine Kingston
Citizen Stakeholder
loading...
Madeleine, in our experience moderation policies need to be as simple and flexible as possible. So we’ve tried to strike a balance between having a policy which is not overly complicated for users and still gives us the discretion to remove inflammatory comments. For example, one of our concerns is with trolls – people who deliberately try to derail online conversation. Attempts at legalistic approaches to community governance may actually attract trolls, as finding loopholes and engaging in complicated arguments is often considered a game in itself.
In terms of what counts as “inflammatory”, robust, passionate and constructive comments and debate are fine, but we do want to ensure that users are able to contribute without fear of abuse, harassment or exposure to offensive or inappropriate content. Whether a comment crosses this line will be decided on a case-by-case basis.
The team also expects that in most cases when a ...
... comment is removed we will email the author, explain the reasons for removal, and give them the opportunity to resubmit a new version.
In terms of word counts, we won’t block or remove a comment because of length, although you may find that longer comments get caught in the automated spam filter and will need to be manually released on our end. We can’t control this, and in fact the filter is necessary to keep out the spam which the blog attracts.
loading...
Hi Mark
Thank you so much for confirming moderation policies.
I am pleased to hear of the current approach to leave things flexible and user-friendly whilst discouraging inappropriate behaviour and trolling etc.
I have made some lengthy posts on this page and on Does our Blog Need a User Guide (8-10 May 2010) to start off a dialogue and provide some initial thoughts.
Steve Davies has kindly offered to chat offline also to clarify a few matters, so I will write to him directly also soon.
The spam filters exist for a good reason and I have no problem with that. Nor do I have problems with short delays with posting online to facilitate manual moderation.
Some private blog sites have fairly strict word count expectations – say three paragraphs and do not encourage the more in-depth reciprocal dialogue that I am seeking with Government about policies and community expectations.
It may well be that for certain ...
... issues it would be practical to combine online dialogue with individual offline correspondence to those working on Gov2 policies and guidelines, especially if the costs of using digital space are factors in considering blog length, or for other reasons.
Though not given to brevity, and still learning the ropes of online blogging dialogue, I am keen to continue my participation as I seek more creative ways in which I may be able to engage with Government – which is what attracted me to the Govspace concept in the first place.
I would also like to explore how embedded links, attachments and other material may be accommodated; whether these strategies would be undertaken elsewhere such as OpenAustralia, and how best I can utilize the opportunities being created for transparent dialogue that may benefit other stakeholders.
If ever an edit function is considered that would be a real asset. For some it is harder to work in small boxes and one tends to make more mistakes.
I am exploring the APS Ozloop facility and will digest the terms and conditions before registering.
Issues of engagement and reciprocal dialogue are separate to mere moderation, and I believe there is room for the options to be further explored.
Cheers
Madeleine
loading...
Have re-tweeted webgeeks’ excellent quote from W. Somerset Maugham as follows:
Webgeek said “Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit.” W. Somerset Maugham
2 minutes ago via web as Skylark100
Thanks webgeek for your deep philosophical reflections – love them
Cheers
Madeleine Kingston
loading...