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" <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> --- 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
