I’m on a large number of mailing lists that cover a wide range of topics including open source software, web technologies, spam filtering, dns, networking and a range of other topics.
Nearly all of the lists show who the message poster is and allow them to include their own email signature.
Only very rarely does any of the list content get “out of hand”.
Unfortunately not all lists are made equal.
The Enterprise Ireland eBusiness list is not equal by any stretch of the imagination.
Why?
All messages to the list are moderated, so any hopes of a “conversation” or “discussion” are doomed to failure.
If you post a message at 9am in reply to a message that appeared at 8.45 am it may not make it to the list until hours later.
The moderation of the list also includes the headers and all other “normal” content associated with emails.
If the poster has included a signature this “may” be included, but there is no guarantee. (On the plus side the twenty line signatures favoured by some people are banished)
For example, this morning someone posted the following:
Hi
Have any members got any ideas on a practical eBusiness project for an eBusiness course?
Any ideas welcome.
Thanks
So who is asking the question?
How can you respond to them?
“Dear Anonymous”??
On other mailing lists you are “laid bare”.
If your posts are seen to contribute positively then any messages from you will be viewed with a higher level of respect than those from a “newbie”.
That’s how peer networks tend to work.
You become a “trusted” source and your opinion increases in value.
Anonymous lists are a bit like anonymous comments on blogs.
They lend little value to the “web”.
It could be argued that forums lend a degree of anonymity, however they generally encourage the development of an online identity that is as identifiable as a person’s “real” name.
Well done Michele. I sent an email to Eoin O’Siochru at the ebusiness support unit of EI with a similar outline and was told that it would be passed on to the moderator. I will also send him a link to this post.
Don’t they get it? This is Web 2+, “anon” is plain annoying and so last decade.
Chris.
Chris
I think they’re scared to death of allowing “free” speech on the list for fear of being sued. Unfortunately in choosing to use moderation they actually kill a lot of the self-moderation that most lists use.
Post a spammy message to Spam-L and see what happens 🙂
Michele
Hi Michele
I never knew you felt so strongly about this issue before I read it on your blog…
Anyway, as they say, I totally defend your right to hold your opinion, even if I vehemently disagree (with aspects of it).
As one of the people charged with moderating Enterprise Ireland’s eBusiness Discussion, you, perhaps more than many, will appreacite that it’s a semi-state organisation and, rightly, they should make every effort to avoid being sued.
However, I have to totally disagree that free speech is denied. I know as one of the moderators that this couldn’t be further from day to day reality. I also know how far we go to allow people to say what they want, when they want, about anything they want, with the proviso that it’s pertinent to eBusiness and it isn’t going to defame, be derogatory or injure a third party in the process. FWIW I can’t recall the last time we simply deleted a message on the grounds I referred to earlier. To me much of moderation is about making common sense judgements. Of course, I readily accept that it makes for a fine balancing act and it doesn’t always work as you’d hope 100% of the time.
I did discuss your criticism with Eoin at the eBusiness Unit and I believe it’s important to recognise (as I’m pretty sure you do) that EI actually has a fairly onerous duty of responsibility to maintain a high level of impartiality etc etc. As a closed mailing list aimed specifically at business managers who want/need to understand issues around ICT and ebusiness, EI and its moderators are expected to be diligent in monitoring the nature of content posted, but we make every effort to avoid editing content unless it’s absolutely necessary — other than obvious bad grammar. But it’s also important to be clear — this is not the open internet.
Whilst I agree with your views in relation to open web fora, such as the open list or boards.ie, for the reasons mentioned, this is in no way part of that same environment. It’s safe to say, without some level of monitoring of postings, there would be no eBusiness Discussion supported by Enterprise Ireland at all, and for SMEs who use the service today, on balance, they’d be the poorer for it.
On anonymity…. Why?
1. Email scrapers is one reason, for those who reserve the right to minimise their identity getting nabbed and used to spam them. But…
2. Bottom line, this discussion sometimes has members who are posting queries that may have commercial repercussions. In seeking advice from others, they choose to maintain anonymity for commercial or other reasons. We may not always like that option when exercised, but just as I defend your right to hold your views, I also defend the right to anonymity for those who feel they need to exercise it.
We do not encourage anonymous posts. In fact, quite the opposite. We are more comfortable if people indentify themselves, if only with their own name, rather than company and/or email details. But if that would be the dealbreaker for some, in asking an important question, then they have the option.
We operate within an imperfect world, but we try to make the best of it we can…
I hope that sheds a little light on the inner machinations of the moderator’s art…
All the best
Ralph
Ralph
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
While I appreciate why EI may run things in a certain manner I still find the large number of anonymous posts annoying. I can understand that in some circumstances it may suit the poster to maintain their identity anonymous, however I do feel that knowing who is posting can enrich much more than cause any harm.
Michele
Well a lot of significant people in the Irish web industry have had problems with the EI list over the years. In the past, (before the current crop of moderators took over), there was at least one letter sent to EI. As a result of this crude moderation, the EI list lost a lot of the industy’s more clueful people. There is a considerable difference between merely rehashing a press release and being able to lucidly explain technical issues in an easily understood manner. That kind of knowledge base is the core of any specialist list. And over-moderation or simple deletion of important facts tends to put people off posting.
As for the anonymous nature of discussion, I really don’t think that Ralph or EI has a good grasp of how simply it could be solved for the EI list. If someone needs to be anonymous, then they should sign up using a free e-mail service and subscribe to the list. That way they can be, relatively, anonymous. The details on this should be put in the EI disclaimer. Naturally the list moderators can then edit the posts if they see fit. But this way, there is a more human nature to the posts. After all, how are we to know if it is merely the moderators planting posts on the list in an attempt to encourage discussion in that barren intellectual expanse?
The e-mail address argument is pathetic. Again any number of solutions are possible and I’m sure that Lyris even has an option or two that could reduce the problem. The list e-mails need not be published on the website – only to the list itself. The webmasters on the EI site could also block the e-mail scrapers from the EI website. Though in terms of traffic and e-mail address numbers, there probably isn’t enough to interest a spammer.
With a moderated list, the moderators are in effect editors. That makes anonymous posts a lot more dangerous because the moderators and list owners are responsible and there is no common-carrier defence.
The other problem with moderated lists is that there has to be confidence in the abilities and expertise of the moderators. Most moderated lists are meritocracies. The EI one is not. It is simply a commercial operation. It is, consequently, more difficult to have confidence in the abilities and expertise of anonymous moderators.
John
Whilst it’s quite easy to critique and cast aspersions from a position of ignorance of all the facts, you do make some cogent points, some of which we’ll try to take into account.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Ralph
Ralph
The issue here is that ENN competes with some of the members on the EI forum, a few of whom were not aware that you guys were behind the scenes moderating. Not cool. EI should have been more transparent and I am glad to see that we have some insight on the matter.
Chris Byrne
Ralph,
Most techies get rather irritated when they see important points cut from their posts or edited in such a way to be nearly useless. The techies posting on the EI list at the time were including their sigs and e-mails so they were writing from a position of credibility and providing their expertise free of charge. The clue factor on the EI list dropped so dramatically when your predecessors were over moderating the list that people just drifted away in frustration. There were even discussions about it on other lists and the general consensus was that posting on the EI list was a waste of time. But were you even around for all this?
Your (ENN’s) moderation has been a change for the better. The moderation of the EI list is not one based on a meritocracy as is it is on other industry and technical lists. EI awarded the contract and that’s why you are a moderator. The EI list even expanded and became more lively under ENN moderation but it is still very far from being the industry discussion list. Those are the facts. You can provide your view of them if you wish.
As for the issue of anonymity on the net, I don’t think that you and EI have an indepth understanding of it. If I recall correctly, you are just a technology journalist and EI hasn’t much in-house cryptographic expertise, has it?
Even the moderators of the list don’t seem to be that well hidden. The anonymised e-mails identities are all there but easy enough to figure out. The moderators are linked by the magic of Lyris to the posts they have moderated. So much for anonymous mailing lists. 🙂
The “about” link on the EI’s website shows at least some of the moderators:
http://news.enterprise-ireland.com/read/about/?forum=ebusiness_discussion
Hi Chris
“The issue here is that ENN competes with some of the members on the EI forum”
It’s never been a secret that EI outsources large quantities of its activities to contractors. So far, I think we are the third contractor to provide these services to EI’s eBusiness Discussion forum — a forum aimed at helping SMEs with limited knowledge of ICT and eBusiness matters, better understand how to make best use of technology in the operation of their businesses.
Does it change things to know that commercial operators, such as ourselves or Inspiration or others, have written most of the documentation and resources targetted at advising SMEs? Obviously, the best company in each instance was selected on merit atthe time.
We, along with a raft of other commercial operations, tendered for this particular piece of writing and moderation work for the eBusiness Unit and won it on the merits of our case at the time… no doubt much the same way Spinnakerpro might if it was tendering for work for which it has the relevant expertise, either with EI or any other semi-state body for that matter.
Obviously, we have to abide by strict guidelines laid down by EI and, were we to not observe these we’d be in material breach of our service agreement and likely to not see our tenure continue.
I also want to stress that, to the very best of my recollection, we have never used our trusted position to promote any of our corporate writing services to members of the eBusiness Discussion or via the fortnightly eBusiness Live newsletter. In fact, in practice most of our commercial writing activity is aimed at companies outside the SME sector, such as eircom, ICHEC and the like.
I’m not entirely clear why you see ENN as a competitor to companies on the discussion, given it’s aimed at SMEs? It is, after all, primarily intended as a source of knowledge for SMEs on eBusiness matters. It’s great that companies like yours, Michele’s and John’s are there to offer your ideas and undoubted expertise, as it’s only this that makes it the useful resource that it aims to be to such businesses.
If you’d like to discuss your concerns in detail I’d be more than happy to have a chat with you about these. I can be contacted on dublin 676 9995 or you’ll find me on skype at ralphaverbuch.
All the best
Ralph
Ralph>”a forum aimed at helping SMEs with limited knowledge of ICT and eBusiness matters, better understand how to make best use of technology in the operation of their businesses.”
I think that this is one of the things that may be wrong with the list – a lack of understanding of how the market has changed in the last ten years or so. Most SMEs are no longer that clueless when it comes to technology. The market has moved on and SMEs expect more than the stuff that was being served up in DotIE, WebIreland and NetIreland magazines years ago. The web has changed perceptions of how knowledge is obtained. In the early market phase, even the most clueless of individuals could call themselves a “technology journalist” and many did. The effect was that the market was flooded with publications. Few of them had any real understanding of the buiness or technology. People, and SMEs, were all scrambling for knowledge and scraps were eagerly devoured.
The current market is a mature one. Both DotIE, WebIreland and NetIreland are long gone as are many other cargo-cult magazines. Many people tend to trust blogs more than the magazines, TheRegister.co.uk more than ENN. And blogs are two way conversations unlike the magazines or news websites. Consequently, people are more likely to ask questions and expect answers rapidly. The moderated nature of the EI mailing list goes against the near immediacy of the web because it is dependent on the whim of the moderators to facilitate the discussion. When the moderators finish work, the list is finished. That’s no use to someone who needs a question answered quickly and perhaps after business hours. As has been pointed out earlier, the web is a 24 hour operation. And as the market has matured, people have come to understand that most technology journalists have no special knowledge of technology. Thus it is the core expertise of a mailing list that is important. Poor moderation tends to destroy that core. But above all it is the moderation delay that kills the list as a medium for conversation.
John
I respect your right to an opinion, even if not based on a particularly keen knowledge of the specific facts. It’s a bit like saying all lawyers are crooked because you’ve heard that at least some of them are.
All I’ll add is I disagree with parts of what you say.
Cheers
Ralph
Ok Ralph,
It doesn’t bother me. I don’t know about your negotiations with EI but I did read notice the tender and the conditions involved. It would have been easy to put together a team that was far superior to ENN’s on the tech journalism side of things and I do know that I could have put a far more experienced moderation panel together. However putting an operation of that quality together would probably have cost more than the tender was worth.
But what the EI contract really called for was a PR firm rather than a news organisation. The EI list is really just another avenue for PR and little more. It would be nice if noble aspirations such as free speech were part of things but the reality on the EI lis is, as we all know, different.
John
Thanks for your insights. Always deeply helpful.
R
I cannot believe Ralph Averbuch professionally espouses many of the viewpoints he posts here.
The Irish business community is being treated like a leper colony when some of its most lucid commentators are confined to anonymous postings.
I could understand if the idea of anonymity started with Enterprise Ireland because I’ve met some very gun-shy people inside EI. But it grates against me to know my tax money is being spent to feed moderators of an online business conversation when more dynamic online conversations have been occuring virtually throughout Ireland. As I have said since the start of the mailing list, the EI policy of anonymity for posts is misguided and misuse of resources.
Does the Minister for Enterprise and Employment know this?
Write to him 😉 there’s some sort of election coming up…
Hi Bernie
As a good writer you know that when someone commissions you to write a piece, you are often given certain paramaters under which you need to operate, depending on the publication, the target audience, etc., etc. No doubt there are certain rules you are required to abide by in your teaching roles too.
My personal views on the matter of anonymity, or those of any of the other moderators, past, present or future, are neither here nor there. We are charged with carrying out a role under a set of rules which were already in place at the time we took on the mantle of responsibility. We did not make these rules. However, unless those rules change we will continue to do our job the way we’ve been required to perform it.
We continue to discourage anonymous postings. Many postings people do see are no longer anonymous because we can and do ask those who have posted anonymously in the past, whether it is really necessary to do so. But, unless the rules change, the final arbiter on anonymity lies with the original poster.
If you’d like to discuss further, I’m more than happy to chat to you about it. I’m on skype as ralphaverbuch
Cheers
Ralph
Ralph
That’s nice, but you’ve effectively stopped all further discussion of the matter as I mentioned in my post this morning:
http://www.mneylon.com/blog/archives/2007/02/23/anonymous-posting-to-mailing-lists-sucks/
It’s all very well that you may be open to discussing this with myself or Bernie, but that EI are enforcing such silly policies is beyond my comprehension entirely.
Mailing lists work on many different levels, but the anonymous posting detracts from any value that a list can hold
Michele