W5 - Bruns (b): Do moderation functions on collaborative sites prevent a "free for all", and does this defeat the purpose?

A "collaborative website" is a broad term in itself. It can be an open publishing website such as Wikipedia, or a bulletin board/forum. The Bruns article concisely explains the way in which the Wikimedia Foundation have appointed groups of moderators. Looking from the perspective of a forum, an entirely unmoderated community would be a bleak one. Users could post whatever they liked and abuse each other to their hearts content. With moderators in place, such behaviour can be stopped, and inappropriate posts can be removed.

Where there is a free-for-all, there is no community because the users can run riot. Moderators tie a community together and keep everyone in check while not restricting freedom of speech. If there is an issue amongst the users, it can be nipped in the bud before it escalates. In a free-for-all, there is no opportunity for this. From personal experience, it is up the users to choose a group of people to moderate the community and it can be successful. However if a moderator goes on a power-trip and starts imposing restrictions on freedom of speech, this is where moderation becomes negative.

In short, moderation certainly does not defeat the purpose of a free-for-all. A moderated group of users can produce raise far more relevant points and achieve greater discussion than an unmoderated mob who will most likely be fighting with spambots, trolls and trashers.