Comment under moderation:

"... A more likely explanation for the cellphone ban on planes is due to the networks not being able to handle several hundred clients moving at 800km/h in view of tenths maybe hundreds of base stations."

Moderation under Meta-Mod
+1 Interesting.

Interesting is a tough one to meta-mod, as what is interesting is very subjective. An in depth discussion on the seven styles of light-sabre fighting may be fascinating for some, it's tediously boring to me. What is interesting is that there is a Wikipedia page on the aforementioned seven styles. (Just as the existence of Goatse is more interesting than Goatse itself.)

When I disagree with a mod, I usually try and figure out how I would have modded that particular comment. In this case, I probably would not have modded it at all, so my test doesn't really help. However, assuming I had to moderate it, the three candidate options are "Interesting", "Informative", or "Insightful". All three have their strengths and weaknesses.

Insightful: This comment adds a new idea to the discussion.

Informative: This comment adds new facts to the discussion. The phrase "A more likely explanation..." suggests to me that there is no voice of authority here. It's more of an "I'm just throwing this out for discussion." feeling to it. Based on the lack of an authoritative voice, I have to reject "informative" as a mod.

There is a problem with this comment: It is dead wrong. The FAA wouldn't ban cellphones from airlines due to network problems. The FAA doesn't give a damn about the cellphone network. It's not their purview. The FCC might be interested in such a ban, but not the FAA. So we have to accept the ban as given, that cellphones could potentially interfere with the avionics. (That there is later evidence suggesting the interference is trivial can be ignored)

Ultimately, I have to reject insightful because of the blatant wrongness of the idea put forth. However, just because an idea is wrong, doesn't mean it's not interesting. This comment prompted me to think about the rules, and the bodies that create and enforce them before I rejected it.

Originally I was torn between meta-modding the "interesting" as either unfair or leaving it untouched. But after thinking about it for a while, this is a fair mod. The ideal mod would be "Interesting idea, but wrong."

Just a quick note on how I meta-moderate:
Informative: This comment adds new information to the discussion
Insightful: This comment adds a new insight to the discussion based on the existing facts. Insight requires analysis

These two are very often confused, and I've started to meta-mod incorrect uses as unfair.

Example from todays meta-mod:

"Just opened it now, in Beijing. Seems to be working fine. But of course, the Tiananmen Square Protest page is blocked, still. That's the keyword filter, still chugging along as usual."

The moderation I was given was "Insightful."
In no way was the post insightful. This post was simply confirmation of a fact -- That China had unblocked the English Wikipedia. Remember, I'm meta moderating here. I make no evaluation of the quality of the original post. That was a perfectly good post, and it was very informative to have boots on the ground in Beijing confirming the truth of a fact central to discussion. I would have moderated it "informative". I may even have given it an additional "Interesting" as well.

Insightful comments create a new debatable argument - Either by introducing a new theory or by re-arranging the facts at hand to create a new insight. If the only argument that can arise out of a post is a debate on the verity of the information, then it is not insightful. It is informative (Although, it could be dead wrong.) A debate that consists of "Yes it is", "No it isn't" belongs on The Flying Circus, not Slashdot.