3 ms·
It's easy to say "Oh, you shouldn't need moderators" but the reality is, you most certainly do need them. It's like saying "Wikipedia shouldn't need mods or adm
by mahranch 13y ago
It's easy to say "Oh, you shouldn't need moderators" but the reality is, you most certainly do need them. It's like saying "Wikipedia shouldn't need mods or admins". I couldn't see wikipedia existing without them. There are just too many people out there who aim to ruin it for everyone.
Without moderators the system is easier to game, communities will almost immediately go off-topic, and the lowest common denominator will win. It's naive to think that online anonymous internet forums can exist without moderation. It's even more naive to think that you can foster high-quality content without heavy-handed moderation. Subreddits like /r/Askscience just wouldn't exist without it.
When you plant a rose garden, you don't just let the garden grow wild. You prune it to your liking, and to keep the garden healthy. The garden must be meticulously pruned if you want it to look beautiful. Pruning content which break the rules is the same thing.
- thrillgore 13y agoYou certainly do need moderation as a community reaches exorbitant scale, and if there are standards requirements to enforce. Not every online community is Something Awful or Hacker News. I'm not singling out that Reddit is a flawed community because it has moderators. I am outlining that the behavior they are taking, within their own sense of unwritten standards and "internet points" reminds me of why I left Digg. This is all further compounded with the sheer number of moderators who are editing /r/news and on other subreddits, especially those that are specifically covering the NSA/GCHQ stories.