Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
But please, not on this list. This list is fine as it is. Says who? Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: But please, not on this list. This list is fine as it is. Says who? Presumably whoever wrote that statement. But I'd like to clarify it. I think we could use more active administrators, who actively participate in the discussions to helps form them into more useful ones. The part that I'm saying is fine is the lack of formal structured posting rules. It'd be nice if an admin would step into this thread and clarify how much discussion s/he'd like on the topic, what the goals are that we're trying to reach with this thread, etc, rather than come in 5 days later and lock the thread or throw down the ban hammer. Ideally we need people people actively facilitating discussion, and these people need to have the power to enforce things in the rare case that need be (mainly because otherwise we get discussions like this one where some people say one thing and some people say the opposite, and it's impossible to please everyone). Setting rules on how many words/times/whatever you can post isn't going to take the place of an active facilitator. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
Fine for whom? Fine for you? It comes as no surprise to me and probably to anybody else that you are fine with the lack of formal structured posting rules. You made 77 posts to this list last month, surpassed only by Thomas Dalton at 98. Compare 3rd and 4th place: 57 for GerardM and 40 for Greg Maxwell. That 20 post difference between you and GerardM is what is making people notice you and I think also one of the reasons people want change on this list. Mark On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: But please, not on this list. This list is fine as it is. Says who? Presumably whoever wrote that statement. But I'd like to clarify it. I think we could use more active administrators, who actively participate in the discussions to helps form them into more useful ones. The part that I'm saying is fine is the lack of formal structured posting rules. It'd be nice if an admin would step into this thread and clarify how much discussion s/he'd like on the topic, what the goals are that we're trying to reach with this thread, etc, rather than come in 5 days later and lock the thread or throw down the ban hammer. Ideally we need people people actively facilitating discussion, and these people need to have the power to enforce things in the rare case that need be (mainly because otherwise we get discussions like this one where some people say one thing and some people say the opposite, and it's impossible to please everyone). Setting rules on how many words/times/whatever you can post isn't going to take the place of an active facilitator. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
Pavlo Shevelo wrote: Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I Yes it might be the way, but far not universal way. And it should be the last (ultimate) in moderator toolkit, far not the first to be used. Sure. And in these situations a short-term block (perhaps 24 hours) can be more effective and constructive than a long-term banishment. As necessary, repeat the short-term black, and eventually the message will get across. Long-term blocks are more punitive than remedial; they only serve to build resentment and inspire future enemies. Super-nanny does not recommend sending children to the naughty chair for extended periods of time, but she has no problem with sending them there as often as circumstances require. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I admit, it might be not the nicest or even not the most efficient way, but still? A bit of an aside: One of the best ideas I've seen in a collaborative tool in the past 10 years was in a project called H2O that came out of the Berkman Center in its early days. The idea? People could only post once a day. It's built-in, self-moderation that encourages cleaner discourse and fewer flame wars. It's reminiscent of letter writing back when instantaneous communication wasn't an option. Simple constraints encourage useful behavior. Wikis are great examples of this (a single, largely anonymized common space that helps depoliticize conversation and encourages convergence). Microblogging is another (140 character limit, plus the ability to see who's listening). In general, I don't think tool developers have experimented enough with these types of constraints. Facilitators use tricks like this all the time. Impose time constraints. Use only three words. Put people in a circle. When you pay careful attention to space and time, moderation (or active facilitation) is less necessary. Just some additional food for thought for folks thinking about developing other alternative discussion tools. :-) In the meantime, I think what Andrew is doing with LiquidThreads is pretty cool, and we're planning on testbedding it on strategy.wikimedia.org when it's ready. =Eugene -- == Eugene Eric Kim http://xri.net/=eekim Blue Oxen Associates http://www.blueoxen.com/ == ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Eugene Eric Kim ee...@blueoxen.com wrote: A bit of an aside: One of the best ideas I've seen in a collaborative tool in the past 10 years was in a project called H2O that came out of the Berkman Center in its early days. The idea? People could only post once a day. It's built-in, self-moderation that encourages cleaner discourse and fewer flame wars. It's reminiscent of letter writing back when instantaneous communication wasn't an option. :) The only problem with such approach is that it would be impossible to follow discussions. If I want to comment on five emails during that day, I would make ~100kB long email with all comments on various topics. However, it may be useful per topic. However, again, various topics may fork another topics and that possibility may be abused. Wiki approach is very good: Article about geography of Italy is not the right place for talking about political history of Italy, so, please don't use this talk page for that purpose... And, finally, I think that Google Wave will give to us such tools. Simple constraints encourage useful behavior. Wikis are great examples of this (a single, largely anonymized common space that helps depoliticize conversation and encourages convergence). Microblogging is another (140 character limit, plus the ability to see who's listening). In general, I don't think tool developers have experimented enough with these types of constraints. Facilitators use tricks like this all the time. Impose time constraints. Use only three words. Put people in a circle. When you pay careful attention to space and time, moderation (or active facilitation) is less necessary. Technocratic approach made free software and open source projects. To be honest, social structures around those projects remind me on Ottoman Turkish bureaucracy, which has the important role in the contemporary Serbia. And I think that it really sucks. So, please, don't even think about giving right to developers to make policies :P Just some additional food for thought for folks thinking about developing other alternative discussion tools. :-) In the meantime, I think what Andrew is doing with LiquidThreads is pretty cool, and we're planning on testbedding it on strategy.wikimedia.org when it's ready. May you describe it in brief here? [[w:en:LiquidThreads]] article is deleted. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Eugene Eric Kim ee...@blueoxen.com wrote: A bit of an aside: One of the best ideas I've seen in a collaborative tool in the past 10 years was in a project called H2O that came out of the Berkman Center in its early days. The idea? People could only post once a day. It's built-in, self-moderation that encourages cleaner discourse and fewer flame wars. It's reminiscent of letter writing back when instantaneous communication wasn't an option. :) The only problem with such approach is that it would be impossible to follow discussions. If I want to comment on five emails during that day, I would make ~100kB long email with all comments on various topics. However, it may be useful per topic. However, again, various topics may fork another topics and that possibility may be abused. 1) One post per person per thread. That includes the initiator of the thread. 2) Responses in a thread must be in response to the original message. No responding to responses. 4) A person may initiate a maximum of two threads per week. Exception for foundation staff, board members, list administrator(s), and with permission of the list administrator(s). Responses per week are unlimited subject to rules 1 and 2. 5) Posts generally do not go through a moderation queue. Anyone breaking the rules will be put on moderation or unsubscribed at the discretion of the list administrator(s). But please, not on this list. This list is fine as it is. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Eugene Eric Kim ee...@blueoxen.com wrote: Just some additional food for thought for folks thinking about developing other alternative discussion tools. :-) In the meantime, I think what Andrew is doing with LiquidThreads is pretty cool, and we're planning on testbedding it on strategy.wikimedia.org when it's ready. May you describe it in brief here? [[w:en:LiquidThreads]] article is deleted. Regarding your technical thoughts: Happy to have that conversation with anyone elsewhere (perhaps on a Wiki). Probably not relevant here. Regarding LiquidThreads, check out: http://wiki.werdn.us/test/view/Talk:Main_Page Cool stuff. =Eugene -- == Eugene Eric Kim http://xri.net/=eekim Blue Oxen Associates http://www.blueoxen.com/ == ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: This is effectively the only cross-project list at the moment. And it is the canonical place to raise certain important issues and announcements. It has become popular to disparage this list as a poor place to have serious discussions about the foundation -- and to do the disparaging in private, where it can't possible lead to consensus to change this. Let's please stop doing that, and instead fix the list and its norms, or devise replacements and alternatives, so that we can all agree on where to have open, welcoming discussions -- that are comfortable for almost everyone, including non-native English speakers; that draw input from the core audience (people who care about Foundation issues). Please don't view this as a problem that someone else must identify and cope with. If you are reading this list, you can help fix it. A reminder that there's ongoing discussion on meta about what to do. Please add to it! http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
A proposal from me that I have entered on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l Wikiinfrastructure to support and ease moderation -All users on foundation-l must have an User account on Meta, with automatic mailsignal when discussion page is changed -Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia (wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc) -Warn unwanted behavior on the users discussion page (gives tracebility) -Block user when the bad behavior does not stop after warnings -(and keep pages like this on meta to be a place for discussion on processes etc of foundation-l, ie keep them away from the list itself) Anders ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
Fully agreed with Ray: If someone doesn't know how to use delete button, then such person is not quite competent to use mailing lists. It reminds me on criticism toward wikis: Ah, someone may change my edits! I don't want to use that system anymore! On 2009-09-11, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: This is effectively the only cross-project list at the moment. And it is the canonical place to raise certain important issues and announcements. It has become popular to disparage this list as a poor place to have serious discussions about the foundation -- and to do the disparaging in private, where it can't possible lead to consensus to change this. Let's please stop doing that, and instead fix the list and its norms, or devise replacements and alternatives, so that we can all agree on where to have open, welcoming discussions -- that are comfortable for almost everyone, including non-native English speakers; that draw input from the core audience (people who care about Foundation issues). Please don't view this as a problem that someone else must identify and cope with. If you are reading this list, you can help fix it. A reminder that there's ongoing discussion on meta about what to do. Please add to it! http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Sent from my mobile device ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
Hoi, I think the discussion is about making foundation-l more inclusive. We know that there is a large group of people who will not contribute to foundation-l because they find the tone damaging. When this is reduced to being able to use the delete button you forget that the damage is already done. when the mail is read. Even members of the WMF staff fear to use the foundation-l, we have people who argue that their skills of English are not sufficient to contribute to our list. We find that much information is now hidden away in internal mailing lists because they are more friendly. We find no understanding when people in other countries DO want to come together in meat space to talk and work on creating a new chapter. We find people who only spout negativity and state that they no longer contribute to our projects setting the tone. Really, there are valid reasons why we need a channel for information. As it is, much of what is posted on the foundation list does no longer have tone or a positive effect. Much of the news that used to go to this list now ends up on blogs or internal lists and as a consequence we become more insular and less of a community. Thanks, GerardM 2009/9/11 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com Fully agreed with Ray: If someone doesn't know how to use delete button, then such person is not quite competent to use mailing lists. It reminds me on criticism toward wikis: Ah, someone may change my edits! I don't want to use that system anymore! On 2009-09-11, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: This is effectively the only cross-project list at the moment. And it is the canonical place to raise certain important issues and announcements. It has become popular to disparage this list as a poor place to have serious discussions about the foundation -- and to do the disparaging in private, where it can't possible lead to consensus to change this. Let's please stop doing that, and instead fix the list and its norms, or devise replacements and alternatives, so that we can all agree on where to have open, welcoming discussions -- that are comfortable for almost everyone, including non-native English speakers; that draw input from the core audience (people who care about Foundation issues). Please don't view this as a problem that someone else must identify and cope with. If you are reading this list, you can help fix it. A reminder that there's ongoing discussion on meta about what to do. Please add to it! http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Sent from my mobile device ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
I think we're talking about two groups of people and thinking here: 1) a group of people who have the principle be bold in their coat of arms and love to say anything that comes to mind, no matter whether that might be rude or not. 2) the people who see discussion more as a social process which is helped by involving more people. At an IRL meeting, one of these two groups sets the atmosphere. Either the bold group can discuss loudly and the social people feel not at home and they leave. Either the social people are nice and are disturbed by the rude behaviour of the bold people, and tell them to be nice or shut up. I tend to prefer the second group, since I sincerely believe that it is important and even crucial to allow people to discuss, and allow many people to discuss. By telling that people who don't like the shouting even though they have a delete button, by saying that people should just grow a thick skin, you clearly say that you belong to the first group, and you are not interested enough in their opinion to change your behaviour, even though you don't even have a clou how big that group is and who's in it. I would even go as far as to say I find that quite asocial and rude, and strikes me in the same way as when I go to a cafe, people spit on me and shout at me, and if I complain about that, I'm just told that I should go home and not bother, because that is just the way they behave in that cafe... Lodewijk 2009/9/11 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com Fully agreed with Ray: If someone doesn't know how to use delete button, then such person is not quite competent to use mailing lists. It reminds me on criticism toward wikis: Ah, someone may change my edits! I don't want to use that system anymore! On 2009-09-11, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: This is effectively the only cross-project list at the moment. And it is the canonical place to raise certain important issues and announcements. It has become popular to disparage this list as a poor place to have serious discussions about the foundation -- and to do the disparaging in private, where it can't possible lead to consensus to change this. Let's please stop doing that, and instead fix the list and its norms, or devise replacements and alternatives, so that we can all agree on where to have open, welcoming discussions -- that are comfortable for almost everyone, including non-native English speakers; that draw input from the core audience (people who care about Foundation issues). Please don't view this as a problem that someone else must identify and cope with. If you are reading this list, you can help fix it. A reminder that there's ongoing discussion on meta about what to do. Please add to it! http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Sent from my mobile device ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
-All users on foundation-l must have an User account on Meta, with automatic mailsignal when discussion page is changed If I'm not mistaken it (implicitly) suggests that all mail signatures should contain a reference to that account (and/or SUL). I would support that and I never did it yet presuming that it might :) be obvious that if my mail address says Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shev...@... so my SUL should be (and it is) Pavlo Shevelo :) I've noticed that some signatures on this list do contain account/SUL information, but seemingly those are in minority (much less than 50%) On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Anders Wennersten anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com wrote: A proposal from me that I have entered on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l Wikiinfrastructure to support and ease moderation -All users on foundation-l must have an User account on Meta, with automatic mailsignal when discussion page is changed -Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia (wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc) -Warn unwanted behavior on the users discussion page (gives tracebility) -Block user when the bad behavior does not stop after warnings -(and keep pages like this on meta to be a place for discussion on processes etc of foundation-l, ie keep them away from the list itself) Anders ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
I've noticed that some signatures on this list do contain account/SUL information, but seemingly those are in minority (much less than 50%) Mine does not, and I am not planning to use another e-mail for this list. -Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia (wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc) What wikipedia? I have no idea what the en.wp rules are for discussions, and I do not wnat to be blocked on this list for not having this idea. On ru.wp, my home project, we may very well use different rules. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM, effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote: I think we're talking about two groups of people and thinking here: 1) a group of people who have the principle be bold in their coat of arms and love to say anything that comes to mind, no matter whether that might be rude or not. 2) the people who see discussion more as a social process which is helped by involving more people. At an IRL meeting, one of these two groups sets the atmosphere. Either the bold group can discuss loudly and the social people feel not at home and they leave. Either the social people are nice and are disturbed by the rude behaviour of the bold people, and tell them to be nice or shut up. I tend to prefer the second group, since I sincerely believe that it is important and even crucial to allow people to discuss, and allow many people to discuss. By telling that people who don't like the shouting even though they have a delete button, by saying that people should just grow a thick skin, you clearly say that you belong to the first group, and you are not interested enough in their opinion to change your behaviour, even though you don't even have a clou how big that group is and who's in it. I would even go as far as to say I find that quite asocial and rude, and strikes me in the same way as when I go to a cafe, people spit on me and shout at me, and if I complain about that, I'm just told that I should go home and not bother, because that is just the way they behave in that cafe... (Answering to Gerard's mail, too.) It is important to have calm atmosphere during discussions. But, it is important to have bold/impudent persons in the discussion, because it is more probable that they'd say to you what do they think and what do others think, but don't want to say. While they are constructive. And I may list a number of reasons why do I think that Antony, Thomas Dalton and even Gregory Kohs *are* constructive (if anyone wants, I'll make the list). There are no two groups, there are many different kinds of persons. Note, for example, that Gregory Kohs calmed down after the escalation, as well as he is not one of the major contributors to the foundation-l, which means that he is raising issues when he thinks that they are important. (BTW, some of his points from two threads are valid and those facts were new for me.) Living on Internet and, especially, living inside of one uber-multicultural virtual community, like Wikimedia is, means that you have to live with cultural differences; it means that we have to adapt to each other. And I expect much more adaptation from the side of highly involved Wikimedians than from the side of those who are less involved in multiproject, multilingual and multicultural issues. Another thing is related to the personal contacts. I was thinking to contact Gregory Kohs personally, but Birgitte (and, probably, others) already did it. When you have a problem with an insider, it is quite possible to solve it by talking personally with that person. If we bureaucratically impose rules which are related to behavior on lists, our mailing list (or whatever it is) will become more exclusive and we already have problems related to exclusivity. We need here persons who are long term contributors to Wikimedia projects, who are able to write in English (and who are not afraid of writing in English; because of that fact, for example, we have very small number of Japanese Wikimedians on this list), who have somewhat bigger picture about technological and cultural trends and so on. By imposing strictly rule that, for example, discourse like See this [...], I told you that members of WMF Board are liars!, you would exclude from communication a person who may point from time to time to some problem. Of course, nicely worded Calm down! should be said to that person, but such person shouldn't be instantly blocked after one or two emotional overreactions. And it is quite possible that we would have such situations if we strictly impose rules. BTW, while communication flows, I don't see that we have a problem here. Quality of communication may fluctuate, but we are conscious beings able to regulate it, like we are doing it now. Another question is related to the participation of people who don't like climate like foundation-l has. It is related to their perception of emails on mailing lists. It is not just noise which is exists on every mailing list, it is, also, about issues which are (ir)relevant to a person who is reading emails. I know just one Wikimedian for whom I may guarantee that reads all emails (and not just emails, but RCs of dozens of wikis, too) and reacts when he thinks that he may give a relevant contribution. The most of us don't do that; we are using more or less common algorithms to filter such messages. In that sense, I am ready to volunteer to teach WMF staff -- and other Wikimedians which are bothered by the tone and/or noise here -- how to
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I Yes it might be the way, but far not universal way. And it should be the last (ultimate) in moderator toolkit, far not the first to be used. --Pavlo Shevelo On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: By imposing strictly rule that, for example, discourse like See this [...], I told you that members of WMF Board are liars!, you would exclude from communication a person who may point from time to time to some problem. Of course, nicely worded Calm down! should be said to that person, but such person shouldn't be instantly blocked after one or two emotional overreactions. And it is quite possible that we would have such situations if we strictly impose rules. Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I admit, it might be not the nicest or even not the most efficient way, but still? Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shev...@gmail.com wrote: Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I Yes it might be the way, but far not universal way. And it should be the last (ultimate) in moderator toolkit, far not the first to be used. Yep. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
On 9/11/09 12:45 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote: Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I Yes it might be the way, but far not universal way. And it should be the last (ultimate) in moderator toolkit, far not the first to be used. The fundamental mechanism of moderation isn't to restrict posters from speaking, but to give them a chance to reconsider the tone of their message between hitting send and the time the post goes out to everyone, possibly aided by getting direct feedback from the moderator about the tone. Goodness knows I *wish* plenty of my posts had been moderated, after the fact! -- brion ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
--- On Fri, 9/11/09, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: From: Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, September 11, 2009, 1:49 PM On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM, effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote: I think we're talking about two groups of people and thinking here: 1) a group of people who have the principle be bold in their coat of arms and love to say anything that comes to mind, no matter whether that might be rude or not. 2) the people who see discussion more as a social process which is helped by involving more people. At an IRL meeting, one of these two groups sets the atmosphere. Either the bold group can discuss loudly and the social people feel not at home and they leave. Either the social people are nice and are disturbed by the rude behaviour of the bold people, and tell them to be nice or shut up. I tend to prefer the second group, since I sincerely believe that it is important and even crucial to allow people to discuss, and allow many people to discuss. By telling that people who don't like the shouting even though they have a delete button, by saying that people should just grow a thick skin, you clearly say that you belong to the first group, and you are not interested enough in their opinion to change your behaviour, even though you don't even have a clou how big that group is and who's in it. I would even go as far as to say I find that quite asocial and rude, and strikes me in the same way as when I go to a cafe, people spit on me and shout at me, and if I complain about that, I'm just told that I should go home and not bother, because that is just the way they behave in that cafe... (Answering to Gerard's mail, too.) It is important to have calm atmosphere during discussions. But, it is important to have bold/impudent persons in the discussion, because it is more probable that they'd say to you what do they think and what do others think, but don't want to say. While they are constructive. And I may list a number of reasons why do I think that Antony, Thomas Dalton and even Gregory Kohs *are* constructive (if anyone wants, I'll make the list). As someone who does not think heavy-moderation is a good answer to the problem, I think you are missing the point. These bold/imprudent sort of people have useful contributions in sharing their positions. It is the way they ridicule others who have different positions that is the problem. BTW this is not limited only to those generally critical of WMF, there are supporters of WMF that have the same problem. The end result of this behavior is that there less participation from people not comfortable with the ridicule. And the people who are less likely to participate because of this is not equally spread across cultures. So it hurts our outreach and it hurts our general purpose because we end up hearing thoughts from a much less diverse group than we might. Two examples of the tone I find to be such a problem http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054235.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054159.html I honestly believe that as long as this sort of tone continues to be a regular feature here; the overwhelming majority of participants here will be Western men. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: As someone who does not think heavy-moderation is a good answer to the problem, I think you are missing the point. These bold/imprudent sort of people have useful contributions in sharing their positions. It is the way they ridicule others who have different positions that is the problem. BTW this is not limited only to those generally critical of WMF, there are supporters of WMF that have the same problem. The end result of this behavior is that there less participation from people not comfortable with the ridicule. And the people who are less likely to participate because of this is not equally spread across cultures. So it hurts our outreach and it hurts our general purpose because we end up hearing thoughts from a much less diverse group than we might. Two examples of the tone I find to be such a problem http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054235.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054159.html I honestly believe that as long as this sort of tone continues to be a regular feature here; the overwhelming majority of participants here will be Western men. Yes. You are right about that. So, may we (insiders) promise not to have such discourse? :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
Yes. You are right about that. So, may we (insiders) promise not to have such discourse? :) It's a problem with mailing versus face to face meeting: it's impossible to see whether you crossed your heart or crossed you fingers while writing that :-P [Disclaimer: It's just Friday evening joke, sorry if somebody minds/objects] On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: As someone who does not think heavy-moderation is a good answer to the problem, I think you are missing the point. These bold/imprudent sort of people have useful contributions in sharing their positions. It is the way they ridicule others who have different positions that is the problem. BTW this is not limited only to those generally critical of WMF, there are supporters of WMF that have the same problem. The end result of this behavior is that there less participation from people not comfortable with the ridicule. And the people who are less likely to participate because of this is not equally spread across cultures. So it hurts our outreach and it hurts our general purpose because we end up hearing thoughts from a much less diverse group than we might. Two examples of the tone I find to be such a problem http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054235.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054159.html I honestly believe that as long as this sort of tone continues to be a regular feature here; the overwhelming majority of participants here will be Western men. Yes. You are right about that. So, may we (insiders) promise not to have such discourse? :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
-Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia (wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc) What wikipedia? I have no idea what the en.wp rules are for discussions, and I do not wnat to be blocked on this list for not having this idea. On ru.wp, my home project, we may very well use different rules. I believe what was meant by this is that we should codify policies the same way that all large Wikipedias have codified policies, NOT that we should adopt the same policies as en.wp or any other for that matter. Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
I believe what was meant by this is that we should codify policies the same way that all large Wikipedias have codified policies, NOT that we should adopt the same policies as en.wp or any other for that matter. If we're talking about Wikipedias - yes. But if we are talking about moderation policies for this particular mailing list (what was and still is the context - if I'm not mistaken) codification will not work: moderator will ban me (it's only mind game I do hope :) ) according to en:WP rules, I will appeal according to uk:WP rules and, say, Yaroslav will object my appeal according to ru:WP rules while you will support my appeal according to some other rules. Or you mean 'codification' as 'put all rules systematically/structured and in written'? If so it's exactly the basic proposal of Anders Wennersten: -Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia (wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc) and perhaps Yaroslav just missed in the same way as and understood that as proposal to adopt en:WP rules without any adaptation to multicultured (did I used the proper word?) community of this mailing list and/or Meta On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: -Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia (wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc) What wikipedia? I have no idea what the en.wp rules are for discussions, and I do not wnat to be blocked on this list for not having this idea. On ru.wp, my home project, we may very well use different rules. I believe what was meant by this is that we should codify policies the same way that all large Wikipedias have codified policies, NOT that we should adopt the same policies as en.wp or any other for that matter. Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shev...@gmail.com wrote: Or you mean 'codification' as 'put all rules systematically/structured and in written'? If so it's exactly the basic proposal of Anders Wennersten: That's usually what codification means :-) Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
That's usually what codification means :-) Ah-ha! Many thanks! :) On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shev...@gmail.com wrote: Or you mean 'codification' as 'put all rules systematically/structured and in written'? If so it's exactly the basic proposal of Anders Wennersten: That's usually what codification means :-) Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:46:36 -0400 From: Anthony wikim...@inbox.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list There needs to be place for dozens of back-and-forth-over-minor-details discussion. Long detailed emails have their place, but after they are posted there needs to be room for a question and answer session. Limiting these QA sessions so that each person can merely make a single comment and then receive a single response severely limits the ability of people to engage in useful discussion, and forcing people to have any back and forth discussions off-list severely limits the usefulness of the list for brainstorming and for refining ideas. If you want a separate list for long, well-thought-out emails, I'm fine with that. But we need a place for brainstorming and refining ideas. We need a place for back-and-forth discussion. Am I in the minority in believing that? This issue of moderation comes up with great regularity, though not always about the same individuals. Anthony and Thomas have well-established credentials as pains in the ass ... so too has a shot of penicillin. I have frequently disagreed with them, but even when my personal opinion has been that they have reached their most idiotic I have never sought to throttle them. I have a much easier option: the delete key on my keyboard. To those who consider them trolls: Why are you feeding them with requests for moderation? Has that oft repeated simple advice never had any effect upon you? If you view them as part of the problem, must you too become a part of the problem by promoting an equally inane series of messages about moderation? The protection of free speech does not begin with laws on the matter, but with our own personal responses to what we regard as objectionable. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
The problem becomes more serious when several people tell me that they either unsubscribe from this list or do not dare any more to give input in discussions because of these people (not defining anybory, but more in general the group of people being harsh and posting a lot). That is currently the case and a complaint I have heard several times. To me, that means we crossed some lines which we should not have. I'm confident you have a thick skin and can handle it all, but please realize that not everybody is as experienced as you are, not everybody is as fluent in English and not everybody is as bold to speak up. Some people need a somewhat more stimulating and constructive environment for that. -- Lodewijk 2009/9/10 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:46:36 -0400 From: Anthony wikim...@inbox.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list There needs to be place for dozens of back-and-forth-over-minor-details discussion. Long detailed emails have their place, but after they are posted there needs to be room for a question and answer session. Limiting these QA sessions so that each person can merely make a single comment and then receive a single response severely limits the ability of people to engage in useful discussion, and forcing people to have any back and forth discussions off-list severely limits the usefulness of the list for brainstorming and for refining ideas. If you want a separate list for long, well-thought-out emails, I'm fine with that. But we need a place for brainstorming and refining ideas. We need a place for back-and-forth discussion. Am I in the minority in believing that? This issue of moderation comes up with great regularity, though not always about the same individuals. Anthony and Thomas have well-established credentials as pains in the ass ... so too has a shot of penicillin. I have frequently disagreed with them, but even when my personal opinion has been that they have reached their most idiotic I have never sought to throttle them. I have a much easier option: the delete key on my keyboard. To those who consider them trolls: Why are you feeding them with requests for moderation? Has that oft repeated simple advice never had any effect upon you? If you view them as part of the problem, must you too become a part of the problem by promoting an equally inane series of messages about moderation? The protection of free speech does not begin with laws on the matter, but with our own personal responses to what we regard as objectionable. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
This is effectively the only cross-project list at the moment. And it is the canonical place to raise certain important issues and announcements. It has become popular to disparage this list as a poor place to have serious discussions about the foundation -- and to do the disparaging in private, where it can't possible lead to consensus to change this. Let's please stop doing that, and instead fix the list and its norms, or devise replacements and alternatives, so that we can all agree on where to have open, welcoming discussions -- that are comfortable for almost everyone, including non-native English speakers; that draw input from the core audience (people who care about Foundation issues). Please don't view this as a problem that someone else must identify and cope with. If you are reading this list, you can help fix it. SJ (Who has also received off-list comments recently, from people who aren't native english speakers and have never posted here, about how this is not an effective place for them to take part in important Wikimedia or foundation discussions.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: I've been telling you what I would like you to do. That's quite different. True, telling me what I need to do is much more useful. But if you care to continue this let's please take it off list. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
In general, though, I think if we all put you on our personal block lists, I think that would probably reduce the amount you posted. I don't like that as an option though because like I said before, you do contribute good ideas to this list. Mark skype: node.ue On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Anthonywikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 6:05 PM, quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com wrote: I'd also be interested in how Birgitte's suggestion would work out, if adopted by everyone here: I wonder if no one responds to [...] for a month how much he will continue to post. It'd work fine - if no one is interested in discussing something with me I'm not going to discuss it. But that's not the case with the recent burst of messages. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
What I think I might do is come up with a list of individuals who I am going to limit my replies to or reply to privately, because either I rarely reach a consensus with them or we rarely discuss things that are interesting to anyone else. It's a fine line, though. Personally I don't see what's wrong with treating mailing lists a lot like IRC (or, to use a newfangled and even more maligned reference, twitter). I really think people need to get over the fact that they don't need to process every single e-mail which appears in their inbox when they come back from a week vacation. They need to pick certain high traffic mailing lists, and purge (or archive, if they're fortunate enough to have gmail-size storage). If there were a separate announcement list it might be easier for people to accept this fact of reality. Anyway, if anyone wants to *privately* send me a list of names of people they think I should limit my replies to, please do. You don't have to put Thomas on the list. I know how y'all feel about him already, which doesn't mean I agree with it (I haven't decided if he goes on the list or not). On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: In general, though, I think if we all put you on our personal block lists, I think that would probably reduce the amount you posted. I don't like that as an option though because like I said before, you do contribute good ideas to this list. Mark skype: node.ue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
If you're going to tell us what we need to do, may we tell you what you need to do as well? I have a few ideas. Mark On 8/31/09, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: What I think I might do is come up with a list of individuals who I am going to limit my replies to or reply to privately, because either I rarely reach a consensus with them or we rarely discuss things that are interesting to anyone else. It's a fine line, though. Personally I don't see what's wrong with treating mailing lists a lot like IRC (or, to use a newfangled and even more maligned reference, twitter). I really think people need to get over the fact that they don't need to process every single e-mail which appears in their inbox when they come back from a week vacation. They need to pick certain high traffic mailing lists, and purge (or archive, if they're fortunate enough to have gmail-size storage). If there were a separate announcement list it might be easier for people to accept this fact of reality. Anyway, if anyone wants to *privately* send me a list of names of people they think I should limit my replies to, please do. You don't have to put Thomas on the list. I know how y'all feel about him already, which doesn't mean I agree with it (I haven't decided if he goes on the list or not). On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: In general, though, I think if we all put you on our personal block lists, I think that would probably reduce the amount you posted. I don't like that as an option though because like I said before, you do contribute good ideas to this list. Mark skype: node.ue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- skype: node.ue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: If you're going to tell us what we need to do, may we tell you what you need to do as well? I have a few ideas. Mark Isn't that what you've been doing this entire thread? In any case, sure, feel free. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
I've been telling you what I would like you to do. That's quite different. On 8/31/09, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: If you're going to tell us what we need to do, may we tell you what you need to do as well? I have a few ideas. Mark Isn't that what you've been doing this entire thread? In any case, sure, feel free. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- skype: node.ue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
I'm sure all of you can figure out a way of setting up your email client so it can work for you. If not, the archives are available online. There's no reason you have to have this mailing list emailed to you in the first place. That's an interesting attitude you have there. You're going to just do whatever you like and if anybody requests that you modify your behavior, even if many people ask you to, well, it's their problem and not yours? I use Gmail, inbox-flooding isn't such an issue for me here. However, when I open a thread and begin to read and find there are 30 messages from you and Thomas Dalton, I tend to skip over them. It's not because you guys don't have anything valuable to say but rather because your wisdom is buried in so much text that I don't quite care to fish it out most of the time unless it's a topic I'm passionate about and want to be sure I got everything. You and Thomas are obviously very intelligent and often have good insights and definitely a lot to bring to conversations but when the signal-to-noise ratio reaches a certain point it is no longer valuable to me to wade through the swamp of e-mails. Of course, you're certainly not obliged to change your habits just so that I'll read what you write, but I suspect many people feel similarly. Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
2009/8/30 Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com: I'm sure all of you can figure out a way of setting up your email client so it can work for you. If not, the archives are available online. There's no reason you have to have this mailing list emailed to you in the first place. That's an interesting attitude you have there. You're going to just do whatever you like and if anybody requests that you modify your behavior, even if many people ask you to, well, it's their problem and not yours? If the problem can be solved either by someone changing their email client or by someone else not sending the emails they would like to send, I think the former is the better solution. I use Gmail, inbox-flooding isn't such an issue for me here. However, when I open a thread and begin to read and find there are 30 messages from you and Thomas Dalton, I tend to skip over them. It's not because you guys don't have anything valuable to say but rather because your wisdom is buried in so much text that I don't quite care to fish it out most of the time unless it's a topic I'm passionate about and want to be sure I got everything. You and Thomas are obviously very intelligent and often have good insights and definitely a lot to bring to conversations but when the signal-to-noise ratio reaches a certain point it is no longer valuable to me to wade through the swamp of e-mails. I don't see a problem with you skipping over emails. My emails are generally replies to previous emails, if you have found that a given exchange has lost interest for you you should stop reading it. If you weren't interested in one email you aren't likely to be interested in a reply to that email. I try to always give useful quotes of the emails I'm replying to, so you should be able to quickly find those emails of mine that are about something you find interesting and ignore the rest. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: I'm sure all of you can figure out a way of setting up your email client so it can work for you. If not, the archives are available online. There's no reason you have to have this mailing list emailed to you in the first place. That's an interesting attitude you have there. You're going to just do whatever you like and if anybody requests that you modify your behavior, even if many people ask you to, well, it's their problem and not yours? Depends on who the person is and what their demand is. If their demand is that I stop engaging in lots of discussion on a mailing list which is meant for discussion, chances are I'm not going to stop. If the administrators want to limit discussion on this list to X posts in Y days, they can do that, and I'll abide by it. But lacking such rules, I'm going to discuss. This is especially true if the main person complaining about the discussion has only been here for a month. It's like if I'm on a train, talking on my cell phone, and someone else sits down next to me and complains about my conversation. Sorry, I ain't getting off the phone for that person. Not unless there's a rule against cell phone conversations, anyway. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Anders Wennersten anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com wrote: I am for the moment active in some 15 wikimedia mailgroups. I have compared the working on foundation-l with internal-l for instance and find that almost the same topics are up with very much the same people and arguments, but where on internal a complicated issue can take 20-30 mails whereafter often some type a consensus is reached , I find on foundation-l some 200-300 mail in the same subject with no firm conclusion. I'm sure you'd find the same sort of thing if you compared a town hall meeting in North Korea with a town hall meeting in New Hampshire. I wouldn't take very much comfort in that. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Anders Wennersten anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com wrote: I am for the moment active in some 15 wikimedia mailgroups. I have compared the working on foundation-l with internal-l for instance and find that almost the same topics are up with very much the same people and arguments, but where on internal a complicated issue can take 20-30 mails whereafter often some type a consensus is reached , I find on foundation-l some 200-300 mail in the same subject with no firm conclusion. I'm sure you'd find the same sort of thing if you compared a town hall meeting in North Korea with a town hall meeting in New Hampshire. I wouldn't take very much comfort in that. By the way, now that you mentioned it, I have to ask. Did this little thread happen to be canvassed on that internal-l? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
By the way, now that you mentioned it, I have to ask. Did this little thread happen to be canvassed on that internal-l? No, Anthony, it wasn't discussed. This list doesn't play the central role it once did, partially because of incessant unproductive posting by a few people such as yourself. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
2009/8/30 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: By the way, now that you mentioned it, I have to ask. Did this little thread happen to be canvassed on that internal-l? I'm not on internal-l, but it seems unlikely. If there has been any canvassing (and I see no evidence of it) I expect it would be done in private. internal-l doesn't tend to concern itself with little old us, from what I know of it. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Anders Wennersten anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com wrote: I am for the moment active in some 15 wikimedia mailgroups. I have compared the working on foundation-l with internal-l for instance and find that almost the same topics are up with very much the same people and arguments, but where on internal a complicated issue can take 20-30 mails whereafter often some type a consensus is reached , I find on foundation-l some 200-300 mail in the same subject with no firm conclusion. I'm sure you'd find the same sort of thing if you compared a town hall meeting in North Korea with a town hall meeting in New Hampshire. I wouldn't take very much comfort in that. Anthony, I'm not sure they ever have community meetings of any sort in North Korea, but generally a New England town meeting is a lot like Wikipedia. People who have a long history of being unconstructive blowhards are generally ignored. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
Some people like to enumerate all the points, that other people might take to be assumable/implied/given. This might be disparagingly labeled as an amazing capacity for stating the blindingly obvious. It is a common symptom of various types of youth. I find the contributions of the two participants being discussed, plus Geoffrey, to be generally unhelpful in gaining a deeper understanding of any issue. Partially because they say nothing new, partially because they treat the discussion more like IRC/IM than email, partially for the other reasons already mentioned by others. I'm going to take this opportunity to attempt to setup the username filtering/blacklisting that many people have suggested, to see if that drastically improves the signal/noise ratio. I'd also be interested in how Birgitte's suggestion would work out, if adopted by everyone here: I wonder if no one responds to [...] for a month how much he will continue to post. Quiddity On 8/30/09, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Anders Wennersten anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com wrote: I am for the moment active in some 15 wikimedia mailgroups. I have compared the working on foundation-l with internal-l for instance and find that almost the same topics are up with very much the same people and arguments, but where on internal a complicated issue can take 20-30 mails whereafter often some type a consensus is reached , I find on foundation-l some 200-300 mail in the same subject with no firm conclusion. I'm sure you'd find the same sort of thing if you compared a town hall meeting in North Korea with a town hall meeting in New Hampshire. I wouldn't take very much comfort in that. Anthony, I'm not sure they ever have community meetings of any sort in North Korea, but generally a New England town meeting is a lot like Wikipedia. People who have a long history of being unconstructive blowhards are generally ignored. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 6:05 PM, quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com wrote: I'd also be interested in how Birgitte's suggestion would work out, if adopted by everyone here: I wonder if no one responds to [...] for a month how much he will continue to post. It'd work fine - if no one is interested in discussing something with me I'm not going to discuss it. But that's not the case with the recent burst of messages. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
Thomas Dalton wrote: 2009/8/28 Anders Wennersten anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com: I have only been on this list for a month, but I am confused over what I read. There are over 700 subscribers, but two, Anthony and Thoams Dalton is allowed, to generate more then a third of all entries and often just these two are driving a whole thread discussion. On Wikipedia we all work hard to work for consensus (all voices are welcome) and stop people dominating a subject. Why is it allowed for two persons to take over a list like it is done here? We haven't taken anything over. There is nothing stopping anyone else from contributing to the discussion as well. Other than good sense. (Contributing endless reams of text, that is.) Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
Exactly. If you write too many messages, you run the risk that the majority will start to habitually skip over (most of) your messages. Think of it this way (this is a very simplistic model I think, I'm not an economist): when the central bank of a country prints too much currency, this can cause the value of the currency to go down. Similarly, if there is a famous painter who only made 5 paintings, they will probably fetch a higher price than if s/he had made 500. It's fine if you always have something to say but I think we have all (the more prolific posters here) been guilty of posting two or three (or more) replies to the same thread at once without waiting for others when we could have consolidated into a single e-mail. Also, in my opinion (and yours may be different), although I do have an opinion on nearly every thread on this list, it is not always necessary for everybody to know what I think; this is after all a platform for discussion, not for people to come and find out how I feel about things. Mark skype: node.ue On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonav...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas Dalton wrote: 2009/8/28 Anders Wennersten anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com: I have only been on this list for a month, but I am confused over what I read. There are over 700 subscribers, but two, Anthony and Thoams Dalton is allowed, to generate more then a third of all entries and often just these two are driving a whole thread discussion. On Wikipedia we all work hard to work for consensus (all voices are welcome) and stop people dominating a subject. Why is it allowed for two persons to take over a list like it is done here? We haven't taken anything over. There is nothing stopping anyone else from contributing to the discussion as well. Other than good sense. (Contributing endless reams of text, that is.) Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
One idea could be to introduce a rule that each user should limit his/her entries to maximum one/day and thread I am sure this would lead to better quality, without stopping valuable input, and make the list much more comprehensive and useful. (With this rule last days 80 entires would probalbly been limited to something like 20) foundation-l is a resource that could be made to be of much use and importance if just the chattiness was limited Anders Mark Williamson skrev: Exactly. If you write too many messages, you run the risk that the majority will start to habitually skip over (most of) your messages. Think of it this way (this is a very simplistic model I think, I'm not an economist): when the central bank of a country prints too much currency, this can cause the value of the currency to go down. Similarly, if there is a famous painter who only made 5 paintings, they will probably fetch a higher price than if s/he had made 500. It's fine if you always have something to say but I think we have all (the more prolific posters here) been guilty of posting two or three (or more) replies to the same thread at once without waiting for others when we could have consolidated into a single e-mail. Also, in my opinion (and yours may be different), although I do have an opinion on nearly every thread on this list, it is not always necessary for everybody to know what I think; this is after all a platform for discussion, not for people to come and find out how I feel about things. Mark skype: node.ue On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonav...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas Dalton wrote: 2009/8/28 Anders Wennersten anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com: I have only been on this list for a month, but I am confused over what I read. There are over 700 subscribers, but two, Anthony and Thoams Dalton is allowed, to generate more then a third of all entries and often just these two are driving a whole thread discussion. On Wikipedia we all work hard to work for consensus (all voices are welcome) and stop people dominating a subject. Why is it allowed for two persons to take over a list like it is done here? We haven't taken anything over. There is nothing stopping anyone else from contributing to the discussion as well. Other than good sense. (Contributing endless reams of text, that is.) Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: Similarly, if there is a famous painter who only made 5 paintings, they will probably fetch a higher price than if s/he had made 500. And what if they're not selling their paintings? What if they just like to paint? I'm not here to sell my posts. I'm not here to try to convince anyone of anything. I'm here to discuss. If some people are participating in a discussion with me, I'm going to continue to have it, at whatever pace it goes. If some other people aren't interested, there are lots of tools available to filter out those conversations. I'm sure all of you can figure out a way of setting up your email client so it can work for you. If not, the archives are available online. There's no reason you have to have this mailing list emailed to you in the first place. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Anders Wennersten anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com wrote: One idea could be to introduce a rule that each user should limit his/her entries to maximum one/day and thread I am sure this would lead to better quality, without stopping valuable input, and make the list much more comprehensive and useful. (With this rule last days 80 entires would probalbly been limited to something like 20) I really don't understand what use you're trying to get out of this mailing list. You say On Wikipedia we all work hard to work for consensus (all voices are welcome) and stop people dominating a subject. Maybe what you want is a wiki, and not an unmoderated mailing list? Could you give an example of an unmoderated mailing list which has successfully imposed a rule such as the one you suggest? I don't think it's going to succeed in providing the usefulness you desire, and I'm sure it's going to destroy the usefulness that Thomas, myself, and many others on this list do desire. If you'd like to start a moderated foundation-l, in addition to the regular foundation-l, that might be useful. But it's considerably inappropriate for you to sign up for a mailing list that many of us have been enjoying for years and in one month decide you want to alter it to suit your tastes. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
Yes, I delete pages of messages every day, and some of the posters to Wikipedia lists are among them. They are just not worth the time it takes to open them. They are just never part of the solution. Fred Exactly. If you write too many messages, you run the risk that the majority will start to habitually skip over (most of) your messages. Think of it this way (this is a very simplistic model I think, I'm not an economist): when the central bank of a country prints too much currency, this can cause the value of the currency to go down. Similarly, if there is a famous painter who only made 5 paintings, they will probably fetch a higher price than if s/he had made 500. It's fine if you always have something to say but I think we have all (the more prolific posters here) been guilty of posting two or three (or more) replies to the same thread at once without waiting for others when we could have consolidated into a single e-mail. Also, in my opinion (and yours may be different), although I do have an opinion on nearly every thread on this list, it is not always necessary for everybody to know what I think; this is after all a platform for discussion, not for people to come and find out how I feel about things. Mark skype: node.ue On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonav...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas Dalton wrote: 2009/8/28 Anders Wennersten anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com: I have only been on this list for a month, but I am confused over what I read. There are over 700 subscribers, but two, Anthony and Thoams Dalton is allowed, to generate more then a third of all entries and often just these two are driving a whole thread discussion. On Wikipedia we all work hard to work for consensus (all voices are welcome) and stop people dominating a subject. Why is it allowed for two persons to take over a list like it is done here? We haven't taken anything over. There is nothing stopping anyone else from contributing to the discussion as well. Other than good sense. (Contributing endless reams of text, that is.) Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
2009/8/29 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: If you'd like to start a moderated foundation-l, in addition to the regular foundation-l, that might be useful. But it's considerably inappropriate for you to sign up for a mailing list that many of us have been enjoying for years and in one month decide you want to alter it to suit your tastes. Enjoying? Maybe more accurate for many of us is barely tolerating. I am with Anders. It is not just a matter of learning to use an email client properly. Considered posts are soon piled under dozens of back-and-forth-over-minor-details responses. But it doesn't seem the culture of foundation-l at this point would allow moderation to make it a more proportionate place. Which is a shame as in theory it is our main Wikimedia-wide channel of communication, and must be terribly off-putting for newcomers. Brianna -- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laug...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/29 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: If you'd like to start a moderated foundation-l, in addition to the regular foundation-l, that might be useful. But it's considerably inappropriate for you to sign up for a mailing list that many of us have been enjoying for years and in one month decide you want to alter it to suit your tastes. Enjoying? Maybe more accurate for many of us is barely tolerating. Why are you here, then? I don't mean that rudely, I'm honestly curious. Is there something provided by this list which is provided nowhere else which is so valuable to you that you're willing to tolerate these parts that you find so unenjoyable? I am with Anders. It is not just a matter of learning to use an email client properly. Considered posts are soon piled under dozens of back-and-forth-over-minor-details responses. There needs to be place for dozens of back-and-forth-over-minor-details discussion. Long detailed emails have their place, but after they are posted there needs to be room for a question and answer session. Limiting these QA sessions so that each person can merely make a single comment and then receive a single response severely limits the ability of people to engage in useful discussion, and forcing people to have any back and forth discussions off-list severely limits the usefulness of the list for brainstorming and for refining ideas. If you want a separate list for long, well-thought-out emails, I'm fine with that. But we need a place for brainstorming and refining ideas. We need a place for back-and-forth discussion. Am I in the minority in believing that? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: If you want a separate list for long, well-thought-out emails, I'm fine with that. But we need a place for brainstorming and refining ideas. We need a place for back-and-forth discussion. Am I in the minority in believing that? You wouldn't be if that was actually what happened. It isn't. Nitpicking, snide remarks and attempts to score cheap points != good faith attempts to refine ideas. It doesn't help that you and Thomas are impenetrable to criticism - you don't even acknowledge the possibility that some people might have a valid point when they criticize the volume and style of your posts. You dismiss them with Well, get a better e-mail client or just go away. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
There are too many emails in this thread since I last read it for me to reply to them separately, so will just post a general monologue and hopefully address most of the points made. Please excuse the length of this email. I consider this a discussion list, first and foremost. It is used for making announcements, for drawing attention to things going on elsewhere and various other purposes, but above all else it is here for discussion. Discussion is an exchange of ideas. While I do not find all of the ideas expressed useful or interesting, I strongly believe that any idea expressed with a genuine intention of furthering the goals of the Wikimedia movement should be allowed to be spoken (not necessarily here, there are better venues for some ideas, of course) and if that prompts someone else to have an idea they wish to express in response, they should be able to do so. To restrict people to one post a day would completely stop that exchange of ideas, all you would get is a sequence of monologues. People can start blogs if they wish to post monologues (I have recently been considering doing just that). I much prefer lists like this one to contain short messages in reply to other short messages with a quick back and forward of ideas building upon the ideas of others. It has been said that I post a lot. In terms of total number of emails that is certainly accurate, however if someone were to count the bytes posted (excluding quotes of previous messages) I suspect my contribution would be little different to that of many other active subscribers to this list. I don't generally write long messages (this one is an exception to that), I write short replies to the messages of others. I think this list fulfils its purpose far better through such messages. As long as people use modern email clients there is no real disadvantage to splitting things into lots of messages (if you are not using such an email client then that is your problem, not me - if it is your choice, then make a better one, if it is forced upon you then complain to the person doing that forcing, don't complain to me). It has been suggested that posting a lot diminishes the value of each post. I'm afraid those saying that simply don't have a good understanding of economics. There are two ways something can get value - from utility and from scarcity. I would hope my emails are valuable because they are useful. In this context, scarcity is pretty much irrelevant. Finally, I know from private conversations that there are people that read my emails and find them useful. I write for them. If you are not in that group, you are welcome to ignore me. You are even welcome to complain about me to anyone that will listen, but I reserve the right not to be in that group. Thank you for reaching the end of this email. I hope it has helped you understand my views on this subject. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
2009/8/28 Anders Wennersten anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com: I have only been on this list for a month, but I am confused over what I read. There are over 700 subscribers, but two, Anthony and Thoams Dalton is allowed, to generate more then a third of all entries and often just these two are driving a whole thread discussion. On Wikipedia we all work hard to work for consensus (all voices are welcome) and stop people dominating a subject. Why is it allowed for two persons to take over a list like it is done here? We haven't taken anything over. There is nothing stopping anyone else from contributing to the discussion as well. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
Hello, Some people are more active than other people on this list, but I don't see a problem with the both names you mention. Cheers, Huib -- Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Huib!abi...@forgotten-beauty.com wrote: Hello, Some people are more active than other people on this list, but I don't see a problem with the both names you mention. Cheers, Huib -- Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I'm going to second Huib on this one. Thomas and Anthony certainly are active posters, but they haven't done anything out of line that requires moderation. Depending on the thread, you can easily see other people seem to dominate. This is natural as some things are more interesting than others. There's times when I am one of the active posters; just not recently :) This list has really high traffic (depending on season, it fluctuates a bit) and it can be a bit overwhelming at times. Moderation isn't the answer though. The signal to noise ratio here remains fairly decent, so we wouldn't really gain anything through moderation (except some very tired mods!) -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
Chad wrote: This list has really high traffic (depending on season, it fluctuates a bit) and it can be a bit overwhelming at times. Moderation isn't the answer though. The signal to noise ratio here remains fairly decent, so we wouldn't really gain anything through moderation (except some very tired mods!) -Chad Yes, but keep in mind that active constructive. I agree with Anders in this meaning, no moderation is required but probably a call to the common sense of moderation (Est modus in rebus). Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
Maybe it would be enough to have someone to tell those people that they have expressed what is on their mind and should no longer bother the others. But, if that does not help, more measurements should be considered. To begin with, we should be more disciplined in order not to feed the trolls. Ziko 2009/8/28 Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com: Chad wrote: This list has really high traffic (depending on season, it fluctuates a bit) and it can be a bit overwhelming at times. Moderation isn't the answer though. The signal to noise ratio here remains fairly decent, so we wouldn't really gain anything through moderation (except some very tired mods!) -Chad Yes, but keep in mind that active constructive. I agree with Anders in this meaning, no moderation is required but probably a call to the common sense of moderation (Est modus in rebus). Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.comwrote: Maybe it would be enough to have someone to tell those people that they have expressed what is on their mind and should no longer bother the others. You could try that, but I have a feeling that those people, unlike those other people, know how to use their email filters. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
2009/8/28 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.comwrote: Maybe it would be enough to have someone to tell those people that they have expressed what is on their mind and should no longer bother the others. You could try that, but I have a feeling that those people, unlike those other people, know how to use their email filters. Personally, I use an email filter called my brain. I look at subject lines and I don't read emails that don't interest me. It has worked for years with great success. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/8/28 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote: Maybe it would be enough to have someone to tell those people that they have expressed what is on their mind and should no longer bother the others. You could try that, but I have a feeling that those people, unlike those other people, know how to use their email filters. Personally, I use an email filter called my brain. I look at subject lines and I don't read emails that don't interest me. It has worked for years with great success. Hmm... you must be interested in lots of things then ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/8/28 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com: Personally, I use an email filter called my brain. I look at subject lines and I don't read emails that don't interest me. It has worked for years with great success. Hmm... you must be interested in lots of things then You may want to go through the threads for the last month, say, and see what proportion of them I have contributed to. I have never actually counted, but I suspect it is a minority. I'm absolutely sure mine is a minority. There are a lot of important things going on right now. That's why Thomas and I have been so talkative lately. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
- Original Message - From: Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/8/28 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote: Maybe it would be enough to have someone to tell those people that they have expressed what is on their mind and should no longer bother the others. You could try that, but I have a feeling that those people, unlike those other people, know how to use their email filters. Personally, I use an email filter called my brain. I look at subject lines and I don't read emails that don't interest me. It has worked for years with great success. Hmm... you must be interested in lots of things then Which is all to the good, SFAICS. I ignore a lot more threads than Anthony or Dalton or Gerard and the other more active people here - but I know at least some experienced knowledgable people will be looking at every thread - possibly not the /same/ knowledgable active people, but someone from that pool of individuals, and I am glad they are available and have the time and energy to do so. I fail to see how this is an issue. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
This isn't just a recent thing: http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Anthony.html http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Thomas_Dalton.html Posting a lot isn't necessarily a bad thing though, although in my own experience, the less I talk the more people listen: http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Mark_Williamson.html I went from a high of 154 posts in February 2005, last month I made just 14. I'm still here, I still read most posts. In fact, I have made at least one post to this list in every month since September 2004 with only one exception (July 2007) but I expect that people who have been reading my posts from then until now would agree that I'm doing more with less. Mark On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Anthonywikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/8/28 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com: Personally, I use an email filter called my brain. I look at subject lines and I don't read emails that don't interest me. It has worked for years with great success. Hmm... you must be interested in lots of things then You may want to go through the threads for the last month, say, and see what proportion of them I have contributed to. I have never actually counted, but I suspect it is a minority. I'm absolutely sure mine is a minority. There are a lot of important things going on right now. That's why Thomas and I have been so talkative lately. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
A quick correction (at the risk of adding to my post count for this month (-;) I have not posted to this list every month since September 2004, I was including posts at Wikipedia-l. However, I think that's pretty reasonable considering that list is largely dormant and Foundation-l has widened in scope to absorb it. skype: node.ue On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Mark Williamsonnode...@gmail.com wrote: This isn't just a recent thing: http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Anthony.html http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Thomas_Dalton.html Posting a lot isn't necessarily a bad thing though, although in my own experience, the less I talk the more people listen: http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Mark_Williamson.html I went from a high of 154 posts in February 2005, last month I made just 14. I'm still here, I still read most posts. In fact, I have made at least one post to this list in every month since September 2004 with only one exception (July 2007) but I expect that people who have been reading my posts from then until now would agree that I'm doing more with less. Mark On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Anthonywikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/8/28 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com: Personally, I use an email filter called my brain. I look at subject lines and I don't read emails that don't interest me. It has worked for years with great success. Hmm... you must be interested in lots of things then You may want to go through the threads for the last month, say, and see what proportion of them I have contributed to. I have never actually counted, but I suspect it is a minority. I'm absolutely sure mine is a minority. There are a lot of important things going on right now. That's why Thomas and I have been so talkative lately. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
