NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/physics/22249

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-07 | 2.6 KB

Xref: sparky sci.physics:22249 news.groups:25142 sci.misc:1955
Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!agate!matt
From: [e-mail] (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,sci.misc
Subject: sci.physics.research: proposed moderation guidelines
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:00:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Lines: 41
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu

Sci.physics.research is to be a newsgroup for discussions related to
current physics research.

This newsgroup is to be "lightly" moderated---that is, the moderators
will only reject clearly inappropriate postings, and will accept any
that has serious physics content or that is likely to be of interest
to an audience of professional physicists.  Clearly inappropriate
postings include:
    (1) Personal attacks;
    (2) Discussion that isn't about or related to physics;
    (3) Multiple responses that all say the same things; and
    (4) Crackpot postings that are "not even wrong."

An article that is rejected will be sent back to the author, perhaps
with the suggestion of a more appropriate newsgroup, or a suggestion
of how to revise it to make it acceptable.

Note that, in certain cases, articles about politics or philosophy are
appropriate to this group; for example, WHAT'S NEW is appropriate.
Such subjects, however, can easily drift into more general political
or philosophical discussions that have nothing to do with physics,
and, when this happens, the moderators will redirect the discussion to
a more appropriate group.

Note also that this newsgroup is not a peer reviewed journal; the
moderators are not referees or editors, and they do not have the time
to check whether the physics (or the grammar!) in each posting is
actually correct.  As long as an article is readable, and isn't
blatantly nonsensical, it's fine.

Finally, brief requests for facts are fine, so long as they aren't
already answered in the "frequently asked questions" (FAQ) list.
Replies to requests for information will be accepted if they (1) may
be of general interest, (2) don't become repetitive, and (3) don't
impose unacceptably heavy message traffic on the group.  Otherwise,
replies will be redirected to e-mail.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
[phone]                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
[e-mail]                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
[e-mail]         solutions, become a part of the problem!