Re: [Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist

[Andy Mabbett]

On 27 August 2017 at 17:40, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

> One issue I have observed is that list members in their zeal to be helpful
> can sometimes obscure the issue.  For example, if one asks "What is the
> Foundations policy on X?", it is apt to start up a discussion about X, or
> about what the policy might be, or ought to be, or what English-language
> Wikipedians think of X, rather than what the WMF policy on X actually is.

In future, please address such questions to the WMF (assuming you have
searched for the answer on their wiki and cannot find it there). You
might usefully include with your question a request that they post
their answer on the wiki, if it is not already there.

That way the kind of diversions which you mention above will not
happen; and list members will not be troubled with requests not meant
for them.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Gerard

You raise some interesting points.  I quite agree that this list is a
useful venue where one can discuss overarching strategic issues and where
senior WMF staff and trustees are able to engage with community members
about those issues.  I myself have had some quite productive discussions
here along those lines.  I do hope that whatever arrangements are made for
reformulating the parameters of engagement here do not prejudice that
usefulness.

One issue I have observed is that list members in their zeal to be helpful
can sometimes obscure the issue.  For example, if one asks "What is the
Foundations policy on X?", it is apt to start up a discussion about X, or
about what the policy might be, or ought to be, or what English-language
Wikipedians think of X, rather than what the WMF policy on X actually is.
This can sometimes lead to confusion.  Perhaps new posting limits will help
to alleviate that.

Reid

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Natacha Rault  wrote:

> Hello, my short comment on this: the posts are lengthy, and from the
> outside it is hard to understand what it is all about. It would be great if
> at some point in long conversations, someone could resume the issues in a
> short paragraph.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Nattes à chat
> > Le 27 août 2017 à 11:17, Fæ  a écrit :
> >
> > Several emails on this topic have been essay length, including some from
> > list moderators. If post limits are halved, this may become more common.
> >
> > Many readers, especially those like me viewing on a phone when scanning
> > through emails, will skip essays which are several screens long. Please
> > consider the good practice of opening with a one paragraph precis, or
> TLDR
> > section, for any long post. This way, those who have tiny screens, or
> short
> > attention spans, can get the point and will be much more likely to return
> > to the essay later.
> >
> > Thanks, Fae (writing without a keyboard)
> >
> > On 27 Aug 2017 09:50, "Peter Southwood" 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hey, it is nearly the end of the month, I will expend another rationed
> > posting to agree with  Gerard on this point because I think it is vitally
> > important. He expresses my sentiments very closely on this point, and
> > although I may disapprove of his tone occasionally, I think he is a fine
> > example of someone who may not always echo the mainstream opinion, but I
> > have never doubted his good faith intentions to improve the Wikimedia
> > projects.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Sunday, 27 August 2017 8:25 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist
> >
> > Hoi,
> > I was invited to positively give my opinion about the Wikimedia
> mailinglist
> > and its use by one of the list managers.
> >
> > So the first thing to consider is what is the list for. This is largely a
> > given because of its name; it is to discuss things that are primarily
> > concerned with "Wikimedia" both as a movement and as an organisation. It
> is
> > not about Wikipedia in general, it has its own list; wikipedia-l, and
> there
> > are even lists for language specific Wikipedias.
> >
> > The topic of Wikimedia makes it very much a macro or high level. It
> follows
> > that many of the subjects that are not topical elsewhere have there
> proper
> > home on this list. When a post transcends a local list because there is a
> > high level consideration, Wikimedia-l is also the right venue.
> >
> > Some topics that are of interest to me and are high level are: the multi
> > linguality of our projects and its support. As a consequence the lack of
> > funding and interest in other languages. As a movement we agree on the
> need
> > to consider the gender gap. However there are other diversity issues that
> > do not get attention. When quality improvements are possible in multiple
> > projects, the discussion about this starts here.
> >
> > What I have found is that this whole notion of the purpose of this list
> is
> > lost. When a topic raised on the list is answered with high level
> > arguments, it is easily seen as "highjacking". That is normal because
> from
> > a sociological point of view, high level considerations and low level
> > considerations often work in different directions (think Coleman).
> >
> > Then there is another consideration; intent. The objective of this list
> is
> > to discuss ways whereby we can understand and improve what is happening
> in
> > our movement. For me it follows that when it is known for a list member
> to
> > actively undermine our foundation, he has no place here. That *is *the
> kind
> > of noise we can do without. When someone is punished for having a point
> of
> > view that aims to improve what we do but has a position that is not the
> > flavour of the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist

[Natacha Rault]

Hello, my short comment on this: the posts are lengthy, and from the outside it 
is hard to understand what it is all about. It would be great if at some point 
in long conversations, someone could resume the issues in a short paragraph. 

Kind regards

Nattes à chat
> Le 27 août 2017 à 11:17, Fæ  a écrit :
> 
> Several emails on this topic have been essay length, including some from
> list moderators. If post limits are halved, this may become more common.
> 
> Many readers, especially those like me viewing on a phone when scanning
> through emails, will skip essays which are several screens long. Please
> consider the good practice of opening with a one paragraph precis, or TLDR
> section, for any long post. This way, those who have tiny screens, or short
> attention spans, can get the point and will be much more likely to return
> to the essay later.
> 
> Thanks, Fae (writing without a keyboard)
> 
> On 27 Aug 2017 09:50, "Peter Southwood" 
> wrote:
> 
> Hey, it is nearly the end of the month, I will expend another rationed
> posting to agree with  Gerard on this point because I think it is vitally
> important. He expresses my sentiments very closely on this point, and
> although I may disapprove of his tone occasionally, I think he is a fine
> example of someone who may not always echo the mainstream opinion, but I
> have never doubted his good faith intentions to improve the Wikimedia
> projects.
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Sunday, 27 August 2017 8:25 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist
> 
> Hoi,
> I was invited to positively give my opinion about the Wikimedia mailinglist
> and its use by one of the list managers.
> 
> So the first thing to consider is what is the list for. This is largely a
> given because of its name; it is to discuss things that are primarily
> concerned with "Wikimedia" both as a movement and as an organisation. It is
> not about Wikipedia in general, it has its own list; wikipedia-l, and there
> are even lists for language specific Wikipedias.
> 
> The topic of Wikimedia makes it very much a macro or high level. It follows
> that many of the subjects that are not topical elsewhere have there proper
> home on this list. When a post transcends a local list because there is a
> high level consideration, Wikimedia-l is also the right venue.
> 
> Some topics that are of interest to me and are high level are: the multi
> linguality of our projects and its support. As a consequence the lack of
> funding and interest in other languages. As a movement we agree on the need
> to consider the gender gap. However there are other diversity issues that
> do not get attention. When quality improvements are possible in multiple
> projects, the discussion about this starts here.
> 
> What I have found is that this whole notion of the purpose of this list is
> lost. When a topic raised on the list is answered with high level
> arguments, it is easily seen as "highjacking". That is normal because from
> a sociological point of view, high level considerations and low level
> considerations often work in different directions (think Coleman).
> 
> Then there is another consideration; intent. The objective of this list is
> to discuss ways whereby we can understand and improve what is happening in
> our movement. For me it follows that when it is known for a list member to
> actively undermine our foundation, he has no place here. That *is *the kind
> of noise we can do without. When someone is punished for having a point of
> view that aims to improve what we do but has a position that is not the
> flavour of the month, it is a different story. The list itself has a
> problem when these to considerations are not part of the management of the
> list.
> 
> The current proposals will not improve the Wikimedia-l because it is
> restrictive in its approach. It is what some people may want, a lower
> volume. But others like myself have weaned themselves of Meta because it is
> such a time sink. There are at this time other platforms as well where
> people obstruct (imho) probably with good intentions but without
> understanding of the arguments that it has become virtually impossible to
> come to a consensus anyway. Floating arguments on Wikimedia-l is one way to
> get a traction, actively working towards the hoped for outcome and blogging
> makes it complete for me.
> 
> With the current restrictions proposed, I do not feel safe. There is no
> longer room to reflect on arguments. There is no longer room to reply
> because of this arbitrary limitation to post.
> 
> Remember, this list is to make a positive difference for our movement. Few
> posts only allow for making statements and not for discussions. Many of the
> arguments put forward are arguably wrong even 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Read Coleman, they are called unintended consequences.. You cannot please
everyone.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 27 August 2017 at 11:17, Fæ  wrote:

> Several emails on this topic have been essay length, including some from
> list moderators. If post limits are halved, this may become more common.
>
> Many readers, especially those like me viewing on a phone when scanning
> through emails, will skip essays which are several screens long. Please
> consider the good practice of opening with a one paragraph precis, or TLDR
> section, for any long post. This way, those who have tiny screens, or short
> attention spans, can get the point and will be much more likely to return
> to the essay later.
>
> Thanks, Fae (writing without a keyboard)
>
> On 27 Aug 2017 09:50, "Peter Southwood" 
> wrote:
>
> Hey, it is nearly the end of the month, I will expend another rationed
> posting to agree with  Gerard on this point because I think it is vitally
> important. He expresses my sentiments very closely on this point, and
> although I may disapprove of his tone occasionally, I think he is a fine
> example of someone who may not always echo the mainstream opinion, but I
> have never doubted his good faith intentions to improve the Wikimedia
> projects.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Sunday, 27 August 2017 8:25 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist
>
> Hoi,
> I was invited to positively give my opinion about the Wikimedia mailinglist
> and its use by one of the list managers.
>
> So the first thing to consider is what is the list for. This is largely a
> given because of its name; it is to discuss things that are primarily
> concerned with "Wikimedia" both as a movement and as an organisation. It is
> not about Wikipedia in general, it has its own list; wikipedia-l, and there
> are even lists for language specific Wikipedias.
>
> The topic of Wikimedia makes it very much a macro or high level. It follows
> that many of the subjects that are not topical elsewhere have there proper
> home on this list. When a post transcends a local list because there is a
> high level consideration, Wikimedia-l is also the right venue.
>
> Some topics that are of interest to me and are high level are: the multi
> linguality of our projects and its support. As a consequence the lack of
> funding and interest in other languages. As a movement we agree on the need
> to consider the gender gap. However there are other diversity issues that
> do not get attention. When quality improvements are possible in multiple
> projects, the discussion about this starts here.
>
> What I have found is that this whole notion of the purpose of this list is
> lost. When a topic raised on the list is answered with high level
> arguments, it is easily seen as "highjacking". That is normal because from
> a sociological point of view, high level considerations and low level
> considerations often work in different directions (think Coleman).
>
> Then there is another consideration; intent. The objective of this list is
> to discuss ways whereby we can understand and improve what is happening in
> our movement. For me it follows that when it is known for a list member to
> actively undermine our foundation, he has no place here. That *is *the kind
> of noise we can do without. When someone is punished for having a point of
> view that aims to improve what we do but has a position that is not the
> flavour of the month, it is a different story. The list itself has a
> problem when these to considerations are not part of the management of the
> list.
>
> The current proposals will not improve the Wikimedia-l because it is
> restrictive in its approach. It is what some people may want, a lower
> volume. But others like myself have weaned themselves of Meta because it is
> such a time sink. There are at this time other platforms as well where
> people obstruct (imho) probably with good intentions but without
> understanding of the arguments that it has become virtually impossible to
> come to a consensus anyway. Floating arguments on Wikimedia-l is one way to
> get a traction, actively working towards the hoped for outcome and blogging
> makes it complete for me.
>
> With the current restrictions proposed, I do not feel safe. There is no
> longer room to reflect on arguments. There is no longer room to reply
> because of this arbitrary limitation to post.
>
> Remember, this list is to make a positive difference for our movement. Few
> posts only allow for making statements and not for discussions. Many of the
> arguments put forward are arguably wrong even detrimental to what we do.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist

[Fæ]

Several emails on this topic have been essay length, including some from
list moderators. If post limits are halved, this may become more common.

Many readers, especially those like me viewing on a phone when scanning
through emails, will skip essays which are several screens long. Please
consider the good practice of opening with a one paragraph precis, or TLDR
section, for any long post. This way, those who have tiny screens, or short
attention spans, can get the point and will be much more likely to return
to the essay later.

Thanks, Fae (writing without a keyboard)

On 27 Aug 2017 09:50, "Peter Southwood" 
wrote:

Hey, it is nearly the end of the month, I will expend another rationed
posting to agree with  Gerard on this point because I think it is vitally
important. He expresses my sentiments very closely on this point, and
although I may disapprove of his tone occasionally, I think he is a fine
example of someone who may not always echo the mainstream opinion, but I
have never doubted his good faith intentions to improve the Wikimedia
projects.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Sunday, 27 August 2017 8:25 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist

Hoi,
I was invited to positively give my opinion about the Wikimedia mailinglist
and its use by one of the list managers.

So the first thing to consider is what is the list for. This is largely a
given because of its name; it is to discuss things that are primarily
concerned with "Wikimedia" both as a movement and as an organisation. It is
not about Wikipedia in general, it has its own list; wikipedia-l, and there
are even lists for language specific Wikipedias.

The topic of Wikimedia makes it very much a macro or high level. It follows
that many of the subjects that are not topical elsewhere have there proper
home on this list. When a post transcends a local list because there is a
high level consideration, Wikimedia-l is also the right venue.

Some topics that are of interest to me and are high level are: the multi
linguality of our projects and its support. As a consequence the lack of
funding and interest in other languages. As a movement we agree on the need
to consider the gender gap. However there are other diversity issues that
do not get attention. When quality improvements are possible in multiple
projects, the discussion about this starts here.

What I have found is that this whole notion of the purpose of this list is
lost. When a topic raised on the list is answered with high level
arguments, it is easily seen as "highjacking". That is normal because from
a sociological point of view, high level considerations and low level
considerations often work in different directions (think Coleman).

Then there is another consideration; intent. The objective of this list is
to discuss ways whereby we can understand and improve what is happening in
our movement. For me it follows that when it is known for a list member to
actively undermine our foundation, he has no place here. That *is *the kind
of noise we can do without. When someone is punished for having a point of
view that aims to improve what we do but has a position that is not the
flavour of the month, it is a different story. The list itself has a
problem when these to considerations are not part of the management of the
list.

The current proposals will not improve the Wikimedia-l because it is
restrictive in its approach. It is what some people may want, a lower
volume. But others like myself have weaned themselves of Meta because it is
such a time sink. There are at this time other platforms as well where
people obstruct (imho) probably with good intentions but without
understanding of the arguments that it has become virtually impossible to
come to a consensus anyway. Floating arguments on Wikimedia-l is one way to
get a traction, actively working towards the hoped for outcome and blogging
makes it complete for me.

With the current restrictions proposed, I do not feel safe. There is no
longer room to reflect on arguments. There is no longer room to reply
because of this arbitrary limitation to post.

Remember, this list is to make a positive difference for our movement. Few
posts only allow for making statements and not for discussions. Many of the
arguments put forward are arguably wrong even detrimental to what we do.
Thanks,
  GerardM
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist

[Peter Southwood]

Hey, it is nearly the end of the month, I will expend another rationed posting 
to agree with  Gerard on this point because I think it is vitally important. He 
expresses my sentiments very closely on this point, and although I may 
disapprove of his tone occasionally, I think he is a fine example of someone 
who may not always echo the mainstream opinion, but I have never doubted his 
good faith intentions to improve the Wikimedia projects.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Sunday, 27 August 2017 8:25 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist

Hoi,
I was invited to positively give my opinion about the Wikimedia mailinglist and 
its use by one of the list managers.

So the first thing to consider is what is the list for. This is largely a given 
because of its name; it is to discuss things that are primarily concerned with 
"Wikimedia" both as a movement and as an organisation. It is not about 
Wikipedia in general, it has its own list; wikipedia-l, and there are even 
lists for language specific Wikipedias.

The topic of Wikimedia makes it very much a macro or high level. It follows 
that many of the subjects that are not topical elsewhere have there proper home 
on this list. When a post transcends a local list because there is a high level 
consideration, Wikimedia-l is also the right venue.

Some topics that are of interest to me and are high level are: the multi 
linguality of our projects and its support. As a consequence the lack of 
funding and interest in other languages. As a movement we agree on the need to 
consider the gender gap. However there are other diversity issues that do not 
get attention. When quality improvements are possible in multiple projects, the 
discussion about this starts here.

What I have found is that this whole notion of the purpose of this list is 
lost. When a topic raised on the list is answered with high level arguments, it 
is easily seen as "highjacking". That is normal because from a sociological 
point of view, high level considerations and low level considerations often 
work in different directions (think Coleman).

Then there is another consideration; intent. The objective of this list is to 
discuss ways whereby we can understand and improve what is happening in our 
movement. For me it follows that when it is known for a list member to actively 
undermine our foundation, he has no place here. That *is *the kind of noise we 
can do without. When someone is punished for having a point of view that aims 
to improve what we do but has a position that is not the flavour of the month, 
it is a different story. The list itself has a problem when these to 
considerations are not part of the management of the list.

The current proposals will not improve the Wikimedia-l because it is 
restrictive in its approach. It is what some people may want, a lower volume. 
But others like myself have weaned themselves of Meta because it is such a time 
sink. There are at this time other platforms as well where people obstruct 
(imho) probably with good intentions but without understanding of the arguments 
that it has become virtually impossible to come to a consensus anyway. Floating 
arguments on Wikimedia-l is one way to get a traction, actively working towards 
the hoped for outcome and blogging makes it complete for me.

With the current restrictions proposed, I do not feel safe. There is no longer 
room to reflect on arguments. There is no longer room to reply because of this 
arbitrary limitation to post.

Remember, this list is to make a positive difference for our movement. Few 
posts only allow for making statements and not for discussions. Many of the 
arguments put forward are arguably wrong even detrimental to what we do.
Thanks,
  GerardM
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,