Tisza, this is very well put. On 9/11/09, Tisza Gergő <[email protected]> wrote:
> - the discussion space is divided by time, not by topic. What little > topic-based Yes. put another way, 'there is no natural namespace to fill and revise over time as all useful discussions are traversed' > - the moderation is not transparent: if someone claims being censured, there > is > - the moderation is binary, and consequently too soft: there is no way to > flag > - topics cannot be raised on multiple lists without splitting the discussion; I hadn't thought of some of these. > - it is hard to include new people (who where not subscribed before) into a > discussion bacause the way replying works. (This is actually solved by gmane, > - there is no way to see how many people are interested in a thread. > - there is no way to determine consensus (even approximately). With many > - it just doesn't scale well. Already everyone is complaining about the > traffic, > I always found it strange that Wikimedia, being one of the greatest > facilitators > of online collaboration, doesn't have its own cutting edge communication > tools. > Not only do the mailing lists suck, wiki talk pages are just as bad. I think > the > logical thing to do would be to take back most of the meta-project > communication to the wikis, eat our own dogfood, and develop a wiki-based > communication system that works (preferably in reverse order). I cannot but agree. > LiquidThreads was developed for that > purpose, but it seems to have been largely discarded, with no significant > interest from the community, the foundation or the usability team - why? This may be part of the solution, but there is more to your statement above. LiquidThreads is receiving more attention now; Erik probably has the latest status. > I think the foundation should invest into reviewing state of the art tools > for > large-scale constructive/informative discussion (slashdot, stackoverflow, > ideatorrent, uservoice come to mind) and adding whatever feature needed to > LiquidThreads to make it stick. I think opt-out moderation based on some sort > of collaborative scoring, some sort of voting or at least ranking method, and > thread summaries with a tag or category system are the norm nowadays, and > of course there would be need for a bidirectional email gateway. This would also make [[m:LSS]] much easier to compile :) > - set up a clone of foundation-l which is heavily moderated, and where all > - make better use of Nabble (or some opensource equivalent), which already > - make some of the private lists readable to everyone. If the only reason for > their existence is noise, it is enough to control write access strictly. > - set up a public waste bin where moderated mails can still be read (thus > avoiding the censorship debates) but do not pollute the discussion otherwise. +4. Is there a page describing the private lists we use? [[m:Mailing_lists/overview]] only lists oversight, stewards, and checkuser. SJ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
