User blog comment:Cristina7/Introducing Discussions, a New Platform For Engaging Your Community/@comment-452-20160919170829

It's been mentioned that moderating/policing/monitoring Discussions means extra work - some people have suggested "just make new moderators". Since enabling the New Forums, I've had a near-constantly highlighted thread asking for moderators, with no interest from existing users, with occasional first-poster volunteering and never editing again, so I have no reason to think Discussions would be any different.

One response occasionally used as a rebuttal to the "extra work" complaint is that "Discussions is a separate thing" and that in lieu of policing it, it would be okay to just ignore it because "it's separate from the wiki".


 * As an aside, I think that saying "Discussions is a separate thing" which is a con rather than a pro, as it makes it really obvious that it's a "tacked-on" feature rather than an integrated feature. Having features which appear obviously "tacked-on" indicates poor quality software.

But it's not a separate thing. It's still part of the wiki, and anything that happens in a discussions section of the wiki still reflects on the wiki has a whole.

If Discussions becomes full of trolls, then the public perception is that the wiki is full of trolls.

If Discussions has people spouting false information and giving incorrect answers to questions, then the public perception is that the wiki is full of false information and incorrect answers.

Some communities work hard to improve the inherently negative opinion of wikis - "Anyone can edit them, therefore everything is lies" - so that the public can regard it as a reliable place to get answers. Having Discussions forced on them opens an unmonitored avenue for false information.

(I read back through the last 9 pages, but did not see this specific point made.)