[Mailman-Developers] Advanced user reputation/moderation features

[Adam McGreggor]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 05:42:13PM -0600, Marlon Menezes wrote:
> Individuals with larger networks on sites such as facebook etc could be given a higher
> starting reputation score as opposed to a ID that has little or no prior
> history or network to back that person's identity. This will help reduce the
> possibility of fraudulent posts under freshly created IDs.

The "numbers game" concerns me slightly; I don't believe a large
amount of "friends" necessarily equates to a greater level of trust.

Perhaps this may best be highlighted with 'spammers' on Twitter, for
example (those following a large amount of people, compared with a
representatively small amount of followers); or, indeed, the myspace
"get as many 'friends' as you can" game.

Not much help, more of a dampener on things.

On the reverse, if one were to use (G|P)GP keys, and the amounts of
verifications/web-of-trust there: a lot of us are really quite lazy
when it comes to key-signing.

About the only site with a trustworthy reputation, I would suggest,
would have been LinkedIn, although, I'm not too sure I'd even stand-by
that these days, as it's changed rather a lot since when *I* signed
up to that.

Were there to be a scheme, I think *I* would tend to go with something
operating per-list, in the stack-overflow approach you're suggesting;
were something that complex to be introduced; I'm lazy, and think if
someone's wrong, they'll be shouted down; when people can 'prove'
they're not barking mad, they're set as unmoderated.

That said, for a majority of the lists I listmaster, it's a "you can
post to the list, once you join, until you annoy the list(master)".

And annoying the listmaster usually means spamming/posting
out-of-office messages to the list, or being *exceptionally* 
out of tune with the rest of the list.

(With MM3, I could see, perhaps, this maybe being useful as an optional
plugin, mind.)

-- 
``Of course we are not patronising women. We are just going to explain to
  them, in words of one syllable, what it is all about.'' (Olga Maitland)