Return to Answer

4. Bearing in mind that this site is about Christianity, but not a Christian site, how do you intend to remain as objective and non-biased as possible when evaluating the contributions of users?

4. Bearing in mind that this site is about Christianity, but not a Christian site, how do you intend to remain as objective and non-biased as possible when evaluating the contributions of users?

Given that answers/questions are not written in an argumentative/affrontive manner, I don't care who asks or answers. I believe that, in general, the voting system is effective, and eventually low-quality items will drift down while higher-quality will drift up. That being said, I don't think votes are enough per se to indicate the overall quality of a question/answer - but the ratio of down to up can be a better (though still weak) heuristic. And that all being said, if answers are given that are blatantly incorrect (for example, asking about Matthew Henry's views of Romans 7 and not quoting from his writings, but instead saying what you think he would've thought when it's demonstrably not), commenting, voting, and potentially voting to delete answers/questions is how mdoeration should be done.

Given that answers/questions are not written in an argumentative/affrontive manner, I don't care who asks or answers. I believe that, in general, the voting system is effective, and eventually low-quality items will drift down while higher-quality will drift up. That being said, I don't think votes are enough per se to indicate the overall quality of a question/answer - but the ratio of down to up can be a better (though still weak) heuristic. And that all being said, if answers are given that are blatantly incorrect (for example, asking about Matthew Henry's views of Romans 7 and not quoting from his writings, but instead saying what you think he would've thought when it's demonstrably not), commenting, voting, and potentially voting to delete answers/questions is how moderation should be done. I do not think a moderator, in general, should be the first to work towards a deletion (especially given that as a mod, there is not "vote to delete" option (thanks @Ryan Frame for the clarification)).

I have blogged about this topic from the workplace perspective, and I think it is well discussed in Robert Greene's book, Mastery (a review I wrote). I think that the blog, comments, chat, and one-on-one (or group-on-one) time should be given by existing moderators to new ones, and from moderators to non-moderators but who still have subsets of moderation power. We all have different ideas about "the best" way to do things, some of which are diametrically opposed to one another. However, we don't need "the best" - we need "good enough", and I think that maintaining and active group that shares thoughts, has meetings, works to create an environment of nurture, etc is vital. It's how my workplace has worked for the last 2.5 years, and I'd like to carry-over some of the mentoring aspects I have witnessed in various places herein.

I have blogged about this topic from the workplace perspective, and I think it is well discussed in Robert Greene's book, Mastery. I think that the blog, comments, chat, and one-on-one (or group-on-one) time should be given by existing moderators to new ones, and from moderators to non-moderators but who still have subsets of moderation power. We all have different ideas about "the best" way to do things, some of which are diametrically opposed to one another. However, we don't need "the best" - we need "good enough", and I think that maintaining and active group that shares thoughts, has meetings, works to create an environment of nurture, etc is vital. It's how my workplace has worked for the last 2.5 years, and I'd like to carry-over some of the mentoring aspects I have witnessed in various places herein.