[Moved from CrazyThingsThatMightSaveWiki]

(Nothing on this particular page was ever intended to comment on Wiki at all, so the page title is a misnomer, and the now-deleted responses that misunderstood that were just wildly inappropriate because of that. These were comments on Usenet, pure and simple.)

'''This''' paragraph was what triggered the discussion about Usenet. Note the word "any" and the lack of the word "wiki":

''Any form of control (except perhaps requiring a delay before content is duplicated) has no significant effect on content that relates to a controversial topic. The discussion will become dull and poorly-argued if you restrict either content or contributors.''

I would call that a consideration to watch out for, not an absolute rule. After all, ''moderated newsgroups on Usenet'' are (by and large) a counterexample.

''Can you be more specific, by giving a url where an interesting, well-argued, on-going discussion can be seen? . What happens to a contribution which is put forward in good faith, but simply wrong?''

* I experienced Usenet going to hell in a handbasket, and saw signal to noise become pure noise, and saw the rise of moderated groups. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, etc. Rising from the ashes were groups such as sci.physics.research. The moderators, while not perfect, allow naive questions and non-mainstream views, up to some fuzzy boundaries; ArchimedesPlutonium's views that the universe is a single plutonium atom don't get much discussion, being previously familiar to all participants. Jack Sarfatti posts were typically allowed last time I looked (he's a brilliant and highly mathematical physics guy who, to do him very mild injustice for the sake of brevity, is an alien abductee and future Star Trek crewman, and discusses highly opaque but clearly non-mainstream issues in theoretical physics in support of his delusions). Homework questions are rejected. Undergrad-level comments about the twin paradox are merely directed to the more appropriate group sci.physics.relativity, whether confused or accurate.
* The tolerance of dissenting views depends on the view and the group. Moderated e.g. women's, feminist, motss groups reject precisely the kinds of highly predictable dissenting views that you would expect and hope them to reject. Not every group has had benevolent moderators, of course; some people let the power go to their heads, which has certainly caused problems for particular groups. I'm not claiming Usenet is a paradise due to moderation, just that it has success stories. But it had problems even before the great unwashed masses went online.

WikiIsNotUsenet, certainly true. I was merely responding to the absolute statement above "Any form of control..." by pointing to Usenet moderation, which shows that it is not an absolute under all conditions. Some forms of control do not suffer the above critique. I'm not claiming Usenet-style moderation should be done on wiki, I'm only providing a counter-example, that's all.

The question was raised, what happens to dissenting views? "ArchimedesPlutonium" is insane, and that's not a matter of opinion, everyone who is familiar with him knows that, and he is screened out. That's an example of one kind - something that is not allowed.

Sarfatti is acknowledged '''by other physicists''' to be brilliant, and I have evaluated his work personally as well; I need not defend my assessment to people who have never even heard of him, nor does it even particularly matter much one way or the other. But he literally believes he is going to be a Star Trek crewman. Literally. I didn't say "fiction", I said "delusion". He's nuts. But at least some of his posts are allowed. That's merely another example, of something that is allowed.

Homework questions are disallowed by policy because it is nominally a '''research''' oriented group. The issue of homework questions on Usenet is also a very very old one with a lot of accompanying baggage, and such policies are beyond the critique of non-Usenet participants; you have to know the situation before you can judge what is appropriate. It is merely another example, something that is not allowed.

"I asked for a url"...I gave one (sci.physics.research), if you understand Usenet. The full URL, however, is news://sci.physics.research (this will not work for people who don't have their systems configured for Usenet, but nonetheless, that '''is''' the URL).  See http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=sci.physics.research for alternative access.

"it also encourages them to become cosy, exclusivist cliques" - if you don't know Usenet, you have no grounds for saying so. However, for the sake of the argument, let's say that Usenet moderated groups are, in fact, all of that. Whatever. The tiny point I was making doesn't depend on that either way.

[ArchimedesPlutonium was a well-known Usenet kook, er, personality who was often found on the physics newsgroups, spouting some rather novel theories about the Universe.  He was MostlyHarmless, and as such was generally tolerated (as an amusing diversion) by the real physicists who used those discussion groups.]
* This comment, which has been pointed out to contradict an earlier comment, was made by '''a different person''', so it's a matter of different view and phrasing, not me insanely contradicting myself. As it happens, the above comment is true of the pre-moderation phase of the physics newsgroups, and in later times, of the non-moderated groups. I personally do not recall any Plutonium posts ever being allowed into the moderated groups, although obviously there could have been some that I missed, unlikely as that seems.

* He was rather active in the unmoderated physics group(s).  The real physicists using those groups generally regarded Plutonium (who also went by the name Ludwig Plutonium; or maybe he's a ''different'' kook; I'm not sure) as a harmless crank; not much effort was expended on opposing his posts.  When moderation was put in place, Plutonium found himself excluded.  For more on AP (his point of view) see http://www.archimedesplutonium.com

Usenet moderators ''rightly'' reject posts when a newsgroup for ''members of the same sex'' receives posts from trolling heterosexuals, or newsgroups dedicated to ''women'' have men coming in to inflict their unwelcome presence, or the same with feminist newsgroups and rabid mysoginists.]
* Let me amplify this. There are rape victim recovery discussions, to which antisocial/clueless/insane people post rabid, frothing at the mouth, "women are all sluts and just begging to be raped" posts. These are inappropriate for that particular forum, there is no question but that they are inappropriate, and moderators screen them out. This is a success of moderation in the context of Usenet that brooks no counterargument whatsoever, regardless of other flaws in moderation.

However, I have not suggested using Usenet moderation for the wiki, so this is all completely tangential. I am merely contradicting the flat statement made above about control, and amplifying on my remarks as requested.

If someone wants to learn about Usenet, this probably is not the right page to do that, judging by what just happened.

I have already explained myself adequately. You don't know Usenet, so stop contradicting me on the topic; you simply don't know. I am not suggesting using Usenet moderation, so stop acting like I am. I shouldn't have to repeat that endlessly.

I already explained that I was merely contradicting one small absolute statement. That's all. The rest of this is unnecessary at best.

My only point was that it didn't always apply, and Usenet is a counter-illustration, and that's not "unreasonable" nor "extreme" to say so. I fail to see the problem with that.

I will happily allow for you not being a Usenet user if you will refrain from making authoritative statements about Usenet.