If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[META] Parenting content and reader expectations
The mkm moderation team would like to ask readers for some input on
our standards for "parenting content" in posts. Mkm was established as a forum for parenting-related topics, and from the start, the moderation team has used the question "does it relate to parenting?" as one of its criteria for acceptable posts. A couple of years ago, in response to reader request, we loosened this standard so that this rule would apply primarily to posts that *begin* threads. (Threads that drift into non-parenting-related topics are now usually left to run their course, unless the off-topic drift develops into a completely new line of discussion.) This loosened standard has, we think, worked pretty well. As it stands, we reject posts for "no parenting content" less than once a month on average. Readers have said they like the high signal-to-noise ratio and topicality of mkm, and we consider the focus on parenting content a cornerstone of mkm's character. We don't intend to eliminate that criterion. However, we would like to get your opinions on exactly how we determine what qualifies as "parenting content" on initial posts. As with our other charter-based criteria -- e.g. civility, quotations, etc. -- we've developed internal guidelines that that help us draw the line between what's acceptable and what's not. We based these "rules of thumb" on the examples we had to work with: the posts that were appearing in misc.kids. For the most part, the rules have stood up well, in that they've allowed us to reject the types of posts that the first users of mkm said they did *not* want to see on the new 'group, while still allowing for the things people *did* want. Every once in a while, though, we hit a post that falls smack on the borderline. The post we approved Saturday about "60 Minutes II" was one of these. If we wanted to be consistent with our guidelines, we would very likely have rejected the post. But many of the moderators felt that this was not a post that our rules should require us to reject. That left us in the awkward position of either accepting the post and seeming inconsistent with our established standards, or rejecting it even though it seemed reasonable for mkm. Because our policy requires us to bias toward acceptance in borderline cases, we accepted the post. But we also decided to use this opportunity to ask you to help us determine whether our rules need any adjustment, and if so, what kind. Here are some of the guidelines we use for determining parenting content. 1. Not all posts about "children's issues" are necessarily parenting-related. When mkm was first under discussion, many of the posts people complained about on mk were on topics that somehow involved children -- such as vaccines, circumcision, and education policy. Readers made it clear that while they wanted to see posts about parents' experiences with these and other topics, they didn't want the endless debates that had little reference to real kids and personal situations. We found that requiring a clear parenting connection allowed us to reject the polemics, essays, advocacy statements, and political manifestos that swamped misc.kids in the name of being "about children," yet addressed kids only by implication. For instance, this standard enables us to reject posts characteristic of the endless "circ debates," while still allowing posts in which parents ask particular questions about circumcision in their own family situation. 2. Just because a post mentions "children" or "parents" doesn't automatically make it relevant to "parenting." Every once in a while, we'll get a post that's off-topic -- often with a political or advocacy bent -- that begins or ends with "Parents should know about this because it affects our children" or even "My kid asked me my opinions on XYZ, and here's what I said" (and then proceed to detail the opinion without further reference to the child). We recognized that adding such references didn't in itself make the posts parenting-related, and so we have treated them based on their substance, regardless of the passing "kid" reference. 3. "Parenting content" doesn't mean "anything a parent might be interested in." "Parents" are also "humans," and so might be interested in any topic in Usenet. If someone who is interested in golf also happens to be a parent, that does not make a post about golfing a parenting-related post. Of course, a post in which a parent says "I'd like to teach my child to play golf" and asks for advice on getting lessons would indeed be parenting-related. Most of the calls we make on these grounds are pretty straightforward. The "60 Minutes II" post was not. It read as follows: Did anybody else see the part about the autistic kids and the teaching methods that a Indian woman is using with them? It was fascinating. The kids were able to communicate and should a lot of understanding of things around them. When one boy was asked how he learned to spell and do math he told them he had been listening. This post mentions kids. It's about a condition that affects some children. And it would probably be of interest to parents of autistic kids. This seems like the kind of post that would be right for mkm. On the other hand, we would not normally accept a generic informational post about a health issue that might affect children that doesn't refer to parental decisions or responses. Nor would we accept a post about an educational program or method that speaks only about the program or method, without any reference to how parents fit in. (That applies to initial posts only; it would be different if there were already a discussion going on about the topic.) When we looked at this post, we realized we don't have a guideline that could divide "a post about an issue that will probably have clear parenting implications for certain parents" from "a post about an issue that, in itself, is not necessarily parenting-related" -- at least not without also opening the barn door to a bunch of stuff our readers have, in the past, said they *don't* want to see. There will always be some posts that guidelines just can't address. And there will always be some inconsistency in the moderation decisions made over time, as the 'group's character and reader preferences adjust and develop. We might have just shrugged and said, "Never mind that it doesn't quite meet our rules, this is the sort of thing that feels OK." But we also feel it's important that as we find ourselves fine-tuning our policies, we touch base with readers to make sure we're doing what you folks want. So, if you've read this far, we'd like some feedback on a few questions: 1. Is the above post one that you think is appropriate for mkm? Why or why not? 2. If you think it's OK, can you propose a way to distinguish a post like this one from a similar one that you consider off-topic? In general, what we're looking for is a rule of thumb we can use to apply to new examples as they arise. 3. Alternatively, in cases where a post "feels OK" but doesn't technically meet the standards, would you rather that the moderators accept it anyway, even if that means "bending the rules" in some cases? If so, are you willing to accept the occasional inconsistencies that result? This question, in effect, asks for your preference on a "thinking" or a "feeling" approach to moderation: whether you'd rather we make our decisions based on criteria we can enumerate and explain, or whether you'd like us to rely a bit more on personal judgment for the sake of handling the occasional borderline post. We look forward to your opinions, either here on the 'group or directly to us at . --The moderators |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
[META] Parenting content and reader expectations
Robin wrote:
This post mentions kids. It's about a condition that affects some children. And it would probably be of interest to parents of autistic kids. This seems like the kind of post that would be right for mkm. On the other hand, we would not normally accept a generic informational post about a health issue that might affect children that doesn't refer to parental decisions or responses. Nor would we accept a post about an educational program or method that speaks only about the program or method, without any reference to how parents fit in. (That applies to initial posts only; it would be different if there were already a discussion going on about the topic.) When we looked at this post, we realized we don't have a guideline that could divide "a post about an issue that will probably have clear parenting implications for certain parents" from "a post about an issue that, in itself, is not necessarily parenting-related" -- at least not without also opening the barn door to a bunch of stuff our readers have, in the past, said they don't want to see. It looks like nobody else has responded to this post. I think the post about 60 minutes was OK, because it was opening up a discussion (even if no-one responded to the discussion). Most informational posts do not leave themselves open for discussion (unless someone disagrees): and hence I don't like them much. 3. Alternatively, in cases where a post "feels OK" but doesn't technically meet the standards, would you rather that the moderators accept it anyway, even if that means "bending the rules" in some cases? If so, are you willing to accept the occasional inconsistencies that result? This question, in effect, asks for your preference on a "thinking" or a "feeling" approach to moderation: whether you'd rather we make our decisions based on criteria we can enumerate and explain, or whether you'd like us to rely a bit more on personal judgment for the sake of handling the occasional borderline post. I have no objections to the mkm moderators using personal judgements to allow borderline posts a bit more (especially during quieter times) but then, I've always got on well with them. Maybe I'd feel differently if we clashed at times. -- Penny Gaines |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |