On 23 August 2017 at 05:03, John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi list members,
>
> The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I, your
> humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent
> posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere some
> posters (some of them frequent) create.
>
> It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that more
> frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are due
> to the volume of messages rather than the content of the messages.
>
> We are floating some suggestions aimed specifically at reducing the
> volume, hopefully motivating frequent posters to self-moderate more,
> but these proposed limits are actually intending to increasing the
> quality of the discourse without heavy subjective moderation.
>
> The first proposal impacts all posters to this list, and the last
> three proposals are aimed at providing a more clear framework within
> which criticism and whistle-blowing are permitted, but that critics
> are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth that
> will be given to critics should be established in advance, reducing
> need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to the
> volume will often achieve the same result.
...
>
> The RFC is at 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/wikimedia-l-post-limits
>
> However please also feel welcome to reply on-list if you wish to
> express explicit support or opposition to any of the four proposals
> above (please identify them by number, to ease counting).  We will
> count votes (here and on the meta RFC) after two weeks, and post a
> more refined final version back to this mailing list.
>
> The list administrators will default to *enacting* all four proposals,
> but will refrain from enacting any proposal receiving more opposition
> than support.
> --
> John Vandenberg

The RFC has yet to be closed, after being open for over five months.
Could someone close it or reject it?

In practical reality, the hardline talk about posting limits, seems to
have resulted in significantly reduced posts to this list. The
statistics are somewhat worrying, casting doubt on the long term
future of this list staying active or interesting.

The standard statistics [1] show participation is at a record low. My
sense of the list is that real content discussions are now minimal,
with announcements and thankspam outnumbering thoughtful observations
or critiques.

Picking out one trend to illustrate, here are comparative numbers for
last month against other Januarys in the last few years, which is a
simple way to compensate for seasonal variation:
  2018, 139 posts
  2017, 370 posts
  2016, 989 posts
  2015, 445 posts
  2014, 571 posts

Rather than increasing negative bureaucracy on the list to stop people
posting too much, perhaps the list moderators have some views on how
to positively encourage people to engage with the community here?

Links
1. https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to