It would be good to conclusively and definitively close the RFC, but I'm
not sure I agree with the notion that less posts is a *bad* thing.  In some
months we've had quite a lot of traffic on this list, a lot of which has
been very low quality and only of interest to a small number of people.  I
do not see that the utility of this list can be measured accurately by
looking solely at volume metrics like the number of posts or the size of
the posts.

Plus, I would also add that a look at the history of the list shows that
posting amounts vary widely anyway.  There were more than twice as many
posts in October 2017 as compared to October 2016, for instance.


On 7 February 2018 at 22:01, Fæ <> wrote:

> On 23 August 2017 at 05:03, John Mark Vandenberg <> 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
> 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.
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to