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
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
Gre
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Mark Williamson 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 discussion
> 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
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Eugene Eric Kim 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
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Eugene Eric Kim 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 LiquidThread
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Eugene Eric Kim
> 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 earl
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Eugene Eric Kim 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
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 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 th
> That's usually what codification means :-)
Ah-ha!
Many thanks! :)
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Pavlo Shevelo
> wrote:
>> Or you mean 'codification' as 'put all rules systematically/structured
>> and in written'?
>> If so it's exact
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Pavlo Shevelo 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
___
> 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
>>> -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 pro
> 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,
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Birgitte SB 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
--- On Fri, 9/11/09, Milos Rancic wrote:
> From: Milos Rancic
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Friday, September 11, 2009, 1:49 PM
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM, effe
> iets anders
>
>
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 moderati
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:45 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.
Yep.
__
> 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 wrote:
>> By i
> 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
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM, effe iets anders
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.
> 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
>> (
> -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 pre
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 i
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
don
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 wrote:
> On Thu, Se
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 rule
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Samuel Klein 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 discussio
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,
ybody is as bold to speak up. Some people need a somewhat more
stimulating and constructive environment for that.
-- Lodewijk
2009/9/10 Ray Saintonge
>
> > Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:46:36 -0400
> > From: Anthony
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
> >
> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:46:36 -0400
> From: Anthony
> 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 n
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Mark Williamson 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.
_
I've been telling you what I would like you to do. That's quite different.
On 8/31/09, Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Mark Williamson 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
>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Mark Williamson 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.
__
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 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
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 wr
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,
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 6:05 PM, quiddity 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
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 partici
> 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
2009/8/30 Anthony :
> 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. intern
> 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 yoursel
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony 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
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 sam
Anthony skrev:
> This is especially true if the main person complaining about the discussion
> has only been here for a month.
>
Just for the record as I will not pursue this issue any more.
I have used e-mails daily since 1984 (actually then introducing the
first mailsystem into a major Swedi
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Mark Williamson 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
>
2009/8/30 Mark Williamson :
>> 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 attitu
> 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
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
makin
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Anthony 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 wou
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Brianna Laugher wrote:
> 2009/8/29 Anthony :
> > 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
--- On Sat, 8/29/09, Brianna Laugher wrote:
> From: Brianna Laugher
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 9:36 AM
> 2009/8/29 Anthony :
> > If you'd like to start a m
2009/8/29 Anthony :
> 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 alt
Hoi,
When you are not here to convince but only their to talk, it is not
reasonable to abuse this mailing list where people want to inform, convince,
reach consensus. The generation of noise that you apparently consider ok for
this list wastes a lot of time. With so many words you say that your
con
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 t
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 m
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Mark Williamson 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
I think it's a bit tricky to impose such a specific limit. I think one
post a day is quite low for what is supposed to be a venue for
discussion - we simply don't have enough people here for that.
However, I think it would be quite reasonable to ask people to try to
moderate themselves. If you are
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 probalbl
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
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Anders Wennersten :
>
>> 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 a
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Liam Wyatt :
>>> 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
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 s
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.infodisi
- Original Message -
From: "Liam Wyatt"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
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
> wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/28 Anthony
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Liam Wyatt :
> >> 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 inte
2009/8/28 Liam Wyatt :
>> 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 thr
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Ziko van Dijk >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 ot
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Ziko van Dijk 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 peopl
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Ziko van Dijk 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,
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
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 v
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Huib! 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
>
>
>
> ___
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.
2009/8/28 Anders Wennersten :
> 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 discus
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 har
76 matches
Mail list logo
