Week Five - Topic 1b: Moderation in collaborative sites

When collaborative sites have moderation functions to prevent a ‘free for all’, does this defeat the purpose?

Bruns reading: page 4

Bruns suggests: “If sites are seen as being controlled by a closed in-group of participants, they are unlikely to attract new produsers into the fold, as these are likely to feel alienated” and goes on to say that there is also the chance that without moderation, collaborative sites could loose structure and unity.
In response to this many sites have a hierarchical government where a group of certain people take a vote, or certain members are chosen randomly and given the right to moderate other produsers work.
I think that having moderators does kind of defeat the purpose of a ‘free for all’ concept as technically it is then not a free for all, but a moderated site. However, I think the term ‘free for all’ gives the undertone that anyone can write anything, and usually these collaborative sites do have a purpose about them. I think that some form of moderation is needed because if there was none then there’s a high chance of the site being flooded by inappropriate comments / articles or advertisements.
In this case, I would say that some form of moderation is needed, just not too strict or overpowering as this may put produsers off of using the site, and it is the produsers who create the content.