Re: Moderation vs. non-moderation posted by Mr. Sanjeev

["Prof. R. Jagadiswara Rao" <rvp_org80@hotmail.com>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Postings not related to the writing of the Manifesto or policy chapters
are likely to be summarily rejected. Thanks for your understanding. IPI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I subscribed to IPI on 22nd December 1998. Although I contributed only
once for the debate, I have been spending several hours studying the
material in the IPI web site. Thanks to the contributions made by some
dedicated workers, the debate has been kept alive. In order for the
debate to deliver the intended results, it is however necessary for the
IPI to make certain revisions in its policies. It should remove
misunderstandings in a section of its subscribers and make people from
all over the world, including India, to participate in the debates in a
big way.

The purpose of moderation is to improve the quality of debate, to
attract the best brains of India for whom bandwidth is a problem, and
edit some messages for deleting objectionable words and useless
appendages of repetitive nature. Besides, there is need for outright
deletion of messages carrying advertisements, carbon copies of some
irrelevant news-items, and irrelevant mail sent inadvertently. As IPI
has no full-time moderator, many of the debates screened still carry
objectionable/unnecessary material. Some debaters do not like their
material being edited or rejected by the moderator. The best thing would
be to discontinue moderation at the initial level and publish all the
messages without any screening. It may be noted that there are a number
of high-quality discussions going in the other web sites without the
intervention of a moderator and still they are being run successfully.

The procedure followed presently is such that a subscriber has no need
to visit the IPI web site at all. Debates are posted directly into the
subscribers' mailboxes, while subscribers send their messages directly
from their mail boxes. This should be discontinued. This method does not
help to increase the traffic to the web site, which is necessary to
attract advertisements. After all for the free service rendered by the
host, he should get some return. In the IPI web site, there should be a
page for publishing all the recently received messages. To initiate or
reply to a debate, the box for composing should also be in the same web
page. If this method is practiced, the material presently found as a
header to each message (i.e., routing information useful for tracing
messages only) can be completely avoided. The signature of the sender,
which in some cases occupying a few lines, will also get avoided. In the
new procedure, the chances of inadvertent mail being posted are
minimized. As soon as it is discovered, the moderator can delete a
published message carrying an advertisement or objectionable\irrelevant
material. There will be then transparency in the work of the moderator.

The moderator can post a weekly letter to the subscribers' mailboxes
giving a gist of the debating material received during that week.
Viewers from India who earlier unsubscribed to the debate because of
bandwidth problem would then be happy to once again subscribe.  Based on
the information posted by the moderator, the subscribers will visit the
web site to read or participate in the web sites. Others who cannot wait
for the moderator's letter can visit the web site, as many times they
want. There is no doubt that moderators have a great role to play for
IPI to succeed in its mission. But at the same time, IPI should strive
to avert any class war among the debaters.

Under the present conditions, the participants to any web-based debate
will be mostly from developed countries where facilities are available
to browse the web for long hours. Such a facility is there only to some
extent in about 30 cities in India, where only one can be connected to
the Internet by paying local telephone charges. Even there, only a few
can afford the luxury of browsing the web for long hours. In  the rest
of  India, the quality of service is still worse and, as one has to pay
long-distance charges, the cost of web browsing is prohibitively high.
People stationed in India can hope to participate in a web-based debate
if only privatization and healthy competition provide low cost access to
Internet on a large scale. This may never take place or take place in a
few years time depending on the policies pursued by the Government of
India.

Thanks

Jagadiswara Rao






______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------