Careless Consideration Considered Harmful

I've been getting less and less comfortable with the way people have been considering nodes of late, so I thought I'd speak up. As far as I'm concerned, there are two good reasons to consider a node (modulo legal reasons, which almost never come up for real): retitling a poorly-named node and deleting a true duplicate.

Retitling Nodes

If you're going to consider a root node for a change of title, please suggest a better title. If you can't come up with something better, you probably shouldn't hit the "moderate" button.

I've found a couple of good discussions of "good" titles:

Deleting True Dupes

If you're going to consider a duplicate for deletion, please make sure that:

it's a real duplicate, and not just a similar node by the same person, perhaps rephrased slightly. Not everyone notices that they can edit SoPWs the first time they post, and deleting their "better" nodes isn't exactly a pleasant thing to do. (Not that I've noticed this happening all that much, but IMO deletion is a pretty extreme response to having "clutter" nodes floating around.)
you post a link to the duplicated node. [id:// is your friend. Examining the duplicated node will also help you ensure that:
the duplicated node hasn't already been considered.

Other Considerations

As far as I'm concerned, consideration is a heavyweight tool for content control, and should be used sparingly. Changing or obscuring the author's words is not something that I'm comfortable with under the best of circumstances (insert typical free-speech++ screed here). I think we're pretty conscious of the dangers, and whenever I vote "keep" on a "DELETE: violates community standards" consideration I see a lot of other "keep" votes.

I have no great problem with "move to (foo)" considerations, but I haven't seen any recently.

There are a number of great nodes on the subject:

Finally: If you're wondering whether or not to consider something, please don't. If you're wondering how to vote on a considered node, please don't vote. As far as I can tell, not considering a deserving node is much less harmful than considering an undeserving one.

-- F o x t r o t U n i f o r m Found a typo in this node? /msg me % man 3 strfry

Comment on Careless Consideration Considered Harmful Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Careless Consideration Considered Harmful by etcshadow (Priest) on Jun 16, 2004 at 21:43 UTC
At the very, very least, I'll add one more reason nodes should be considered: <pre> tags that need changed into <code> tags. Oh... and did anyone else think of considering this node, just for the irony of it? (Just kidding!!!) `------------ :Wq Not an editor command: Wq` [download]	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Careless Consideration Considered Harmful by diotalevi (Canon) on Jun 16, 2004 at 22:00 UTC
From previous messages with FoxtrotUniform I am lead to believe that at least part of this is in reaction to my consideration "An abusive post regarding moderation. Delete it." to Arunbear's Re: Seven good reasons for Perl. I am of the opinion that abusive nodes are to be removed. In my opinion, the valid discussion to have would be on whether or not something is or is not abusive. Once classified as such, Arunbear's response should have been deleted with no further comment. I still think that abusive things ought not to be kept. I also get the impression that people somehow thought that my consideration of Arunbear's response was actually a consideration of the imposter Wassercrat's root node. It wasn't. I didn't consider the root node and didn't really care about it.	[reply]
Re^2: Careless Consideration Considered Harmful (abusive?) by tye (Sage) on Jun 17, 2004 at 02:19 UTC
I have almost no idea what you mean by "abusive". If you apply that term to that node, then it doesn't come close to meaning something that I think should be grounds for reaping. I find that node slightly unpleasant. If we can't stomach that, then we have very weak stomachs. When I try to come up with things I'd call 'abusive', the use of moderation to reap a rude node fits. That is an abuse of power. It should require very clear justification to do something as extreme as reaping, hiding away someone's words. Whether something is 'abusive' or not seems a good example of a criteria that is quite unclear. I don't look forward to repeated debates about whether this or that node qualifies. But I also think it shouldn't matter. Why should such a minor lack of courtesy be banned? I don't want to encourage lack of courtesy. If you don't want to either, then downvote it, /msg the author, and/or reply. Using reaping on minor infractions like poorly constructed questions or nodes that are rude makes our community look childish, IMO. I've been sick of it for a long time. I'd rather the node's author look childish. - tye Update: Replaced an ambiguous "it".	[reply]
Re^2: Careless Consideration Considered Harmful by demerphq (Chancellor) on Jun 17, 2004 at 00:24 UTC
All told I kinda agree with Arunbears comment. I dont think that was abusive so much as reactionary. And heaven knows we've all be that at one point. In fact in a sense I read Arunbears comment much as your own reply to his was. He was asking the community whether we really wanted to deal with a BS node. Personally I think he should have just considered it but whatever. --- demerphq _{First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi}	[reply]
Re: Careless Consideration Considered Harmful by Hanamaki (Chaplain) on Jun 17, 2004 at 08:56 UTC
One topic which is also important did not come up in this thread. The question, wether to restore nodes which were deleted by the original author. We had a lot of this kind of nodes in the "nodes to consider". In my opinion, this is legally a quite difficult field involving authors right vs. "publisher rights". So in this case before consideration is possible, a clear political decission has to be made. IMHO, this means the rules must be clearly stated in some easy accessible document.	[reply]
Re: Careless Consideration Considered Harmful by coreolyn (Parson) on Jun 17, 2004 at 14:44 UTC
Just for clarification as I was the one that put that node under consideration. The node was looking like it was taking off down an abusive non-productive path. Like kicking an ant hill it just seemed we should consider not kicking it. Personally, while I've now bookmarked Remember, before you consider, please, Please, PLEASE:, I think consideration is just that. As my consideration was overridden by concensus I'd say the system works. coreolyn	[reply]
Re: Careless Consideration Considered Harmful by EdwardG (Vicar) on Jun 17, 2004 at 12:26 UTC
Consideration? You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. Consideration is the process of giving careful thought to something, not at all heavy handed. Let us not censure consideration, for it too is part of our freedom here.	[reply]
Re^2: Careless Consideration Considered Harmful by FoxtrotUniform (Prior) on Jun 17, 2004 at 23:36 UTC
Consideration is the process of giving careful thought to something, not at all heavy handed. What is consideration? I'm talking about a pattern in the use of Perl Monks' consideration system, not the word "consideration" or the concept it defines. Perhaps I didn't make myself sufficiently clear. While "consideration" may not be heavy handed, any system that allows editors to effectively re-write a bit of history (with a certain degree of consensus, of course) can't help but be heavy handed. In editorial cases, it can -- and should -- be a method of last resort. For the most part, we seem to be able to use consideration responsibly and moderately; I'd like it to stay that way. Let us not censure consideration, for it too is part of our freedom here. I have not attacked the consideration system; I've merely tried to point out (again; kudra did an excellent job a while ago) that the system needs to be used with care. Please keep in mind that not every criticism of a component of a system is an attack on the system itself. `-- F o x t r o t U n i f o r m Found a typo in this node? /msg me % man 3 strfry`	[reply]