Re: [Foundation-l] The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing?
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:27 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/7/2009 9:13:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes: Dudes. This thread. Case in point. (As I suppose it was fated to be, sigh). Yes, I am reading it, because I care about this issue. I posted a few months ago when it came up, I edited the meta page on the subject, and I posted (I admit, with some frustration), in response to Birgitte's initial post in this thread. In the three days since then, there's been 33 messages; 16 of them are from Thomas Dalton and Will Johnson. Many of these emails have a bit of a hostile tone (my original post included, mea culpa), and include sentences like Anyone that says otherwise is wrong, That statement is false and Get over it. Despite the fact that such language is upsetting -- each time I read such a message I get a little defensive, and feel a little hostile myself, and then a little upset at having such a reaction -- I have read (or at least skimmed past) all these messages, because I care about this thread, and this issue, and I can't easily ignore individual emails with Gmail's threading feature. And I'm quite happy that people are participating in discussion on a topic I care about; that's great. But I have to wonder -- what point did you have to make about the future of the mailing list that needed eight emails to make instead of, say, one or two? As far as I can tell everyone still has the same opinion they came to the discussion with, which is the same opinion that everyone who participated had a few weeks ago, and so this back and forth isn't really getting us anywhere. Which means that some of you posting out there must enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. So I think the main issue here is that some people enjoy back and forth chatter more than others; some participants find it perfectly tolerable and others find it migraine-inducing. So maybe we need one foundation list with posting limits and another for free-form discussion? The former could be like the announcements list previously suggested but with a bit more (but not much more) leeway for discussion. Or perhaps as has been suggested in the past (because this issue has been coming up at least since 2004, according to the archives) a Wikimedia-social list that could absorb people's desire for conversation and argument? And yes, in the meantime, I will keep reading -- even though at least one of you is no doubt poised and ready to tell me to grow a thicker skin, or to shut up myself, or how it's your given right to respond as much as you want to every one-line half-hearted argument that gets made on Foundation-l and I must hate personal freedom to even think about any alternative mode of dialog, or to give me advice on how to read email (I've been using it for 15 years), or to tell me to set up email filters already (I don't, because of LSS) -- despite this, I will keep reading, because as I said originally this is the main place to discuss the Foundation and the projects, and that's something I care about. regards, -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the use of foundation-l
In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:28:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, gerard.meijs...@gmail.com writes: Please read it as an appeal to reply to foundation-l in moderation. Please read it as an appeal to post liberally to this list as we do not have an alternative. --- Speaking of self-moderation., a google search on Foundation-l gerard meijssen shows http://www.google.com/search?hl=ensafe=offclient=firefox-a; rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficialhs=7zNnum=50q=foundation-l+%22gerard+Meijssen%22lr= aq=foq=aqi= 33,000 pages Is there a way to create a chart showing how many messages each poster has posted to the list? Also Gerard I think if you're going to use an argument about the value of those people who *aren't* posting, we need to know who they are. Perhaps we don't want them to post either. Until we get some hard facts on the issue, how is any decision supposed to be able to be reached? W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing?
In a message dated 11/8/2009 12:12:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, phoebe.w...@gmail.com writes: Many of these emails have a bit of a hostile tone (my original post included, mea culpa), and include sentences like Anyone that says otherwise is wrong, That statement is false and Get over it. That statement is false is not hostile. It's a direct factual statement imho. That you read it as hostile is the issue. Read each email as if spoken by a robot with no emotions whatsoever. Then you won't feel defensive. Will ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the use of foundation-l
There is already a statistics page, http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Index.html skype: node.ue On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:13 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:28:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, gerard.meijs...@gmail.com writes: Please read it as an appeal to reply to foundation-l in moderation. Please read it as an appeal to post liberally to this list as we do not have an alternative. --- Speaking of self-moderation., a google search on Foundation-l gerard meijssen shows http://www.google.com/search?hl=ensafe=offclient=firefox-a; rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficialhs=7zNnum=50q=foundation-l+%22gerard+Meijssen%22lr= aq=foq=aqi=http://www.google.com/search?hl=ensafe=offclient=firefox-a%0Arls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficialhs=7zNnum=50q=foundation-l+%22gerard+Meijssen%22lr=%0Aaq=foq=aqi= 33,000 pages Is there a way to create a chart showing how many messages each poster has posted to the list? Also Gerard I think if you're going to use an argument about the value of those people who *aren't* posting, we need to know who they are. Perhaps we don't want them to post either. Until we get some hard facts on the issue, how is any decision supposed to be able to be reached? W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the use of foundation-l
Hoi, If you want statistics, you do not have to google ... there are our own statistics ... http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/_PowerPosters.html I am a power poster and that often does not feel good. However, it is beside the point. I am on a conference and it is from people who are essential to this conference that I have this information. Now if you think that you need to pass judgement on this, you have a self centred world. That is very much part of the issue. The issue is that the context of the issue IS clear from my original post. I will not damage these people by naming them. Thanks, GerardM 2009/11/8 wjhon...@aol.com In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:28:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, gerard.meijs...@gmail.com writes: Please read it as an appeal to reply to foundation-l in moderation. Please read it as an appeal to post liberally to this list as we do not have an alternative. --- Speaking of self-moderation., a google search on Foundation-l gerard meijssen shows http://www.google.com/search?hl=ensafe=offclient=firefox-a; rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficialhs=7zNnum=50q=foundation-l+%22gerard+Meijssen%22lr= aq=foq=aqi=http://www.google.com/search?hl=ensafe=offclient=firefox-a%0Arls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficialhs=7zNnum=50q=foundation-l+%22gerard+Meijssen%22lr=%0Aaq=foq=aqi= 33,000 pages Is there a way to create a chart showing how many messages each poster has posted to the list? Also Gerard I think if you're going to use an argument about the value of those people who *aren't* posting, we need to know who they are. Perhaps we don't want them to post either. Until we get some hard facts on the issue, how is any decision supposed to be able to be reached? W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the use of foundation-l
In a message dated 11/8/2009 12:30:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, gerard.meijs...@gmail.com writes: Now if you think that you need to pass judgement on this, you have a self centred world. That is very much part of the issue. The issue is that the context of the issue IS clear from my original post. I will not damage these people by naming them. You're passing judgement on others, while protesting that others (you think) are passing judgement on you. You're a power poster, but you want others to not be power posters. People will always leave email lists and people will always join. Let's see statistics on the number who've left and the number who've joined. Do we really want 3000 readers with 10 speakers? Or maybe 1000 readers with 100 speakers? I don't see a lot of lurkers as being exactly what we'd aim for. You're free to convince me but of course that would require posting more messages while asking for people to stop posting more messages. In my mind the more active a list is, the more input you get, and the broader community is drawn to the list, instead of a select few. That seems closer to what we'd want. Will ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the use of foundation-l
Gerard may post quite a bit, but in general his posts serve a purpose. Many people on this list seem to write just to see their words, that is to say, they seem repeat information and attempt to reply to every e-mail. This is not constructive and it is not conducive to the expansion of knowledge. To be on the Power Poster list is a bad thing for some, but it is not a shameful thing by itself certainly. If you have a lot of useful things to say, that's not so bad. Mark skype: node.ue On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, If you want statistics, you do not have to google ... there are our own statistics ... http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/_PowerPosters.html I am a power poster and that often does not feel good. However, it is beside the point. I am on a conference and it is from people who are essential to this conference that I have this information. Now if you think that you need to pass judgement on this, you have a self centred world. That is very much part of the issue. The issue is that the context of the issue IS clear from my original post. I will not damage these people by naming them. Thanks, GerardM 2009/11/8 wjhon...@aol.com In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:28:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, gerard.meijs...@gmail.com writes: Please read it as an appeal to reply to foundation-l in moderation. Please read it as an appeal to post liberally to this list as we do not have an alternative. --- Speaking of self-moderation., a google search on Foundation-l gerard meijssen shows http://www.google.com/search?hl=ensafe=offclient=firefox-a; rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficialhs=7zNnum=50q=foundation-l+%22gerard+Meijssen%22lr= aq=foq=aqi= http://www.google.com/search?hl=ensafe=offclient=firefox-a%0Arls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficialhs=7zNnum=50q=foundation-l+%22gerard+Meijssen%22lr=%0Aaq=foq=aqi= 33,000 pages Is there a way to create a chart showing how many messages each poster has posted to the list? Also Gerard I think if you're going to use an argument about the value of those people who *aren't* posting, we need to know who they are. Perhaps we don't want them to post either. Until we get some hard facts on the issue, how is any decision supposed to be able to be reached? W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the use of foundation-l
I will in the next few days, create a list which shows who, each month, has posted the most messages to the list. Or perhaps the top few. I was surprised, seeing the statistics page, at how few active participants there are. Really just a handful, and it's been that way, for quite a long time, not a recent event. Which puts into perspective the implication that anything has changed in this regard recently. I did notice already some very surprising people who are the most talkative. Once we have the hard facts, then perhaps there could be a scientific discussion of how to address it. I don't personally like discussions based on personal belief or experience alone. They tend, in my opinion, to be skewed. By the way, when new potential-power-users appear, they should at the minimum be given the same leeway, in number of posts, as any other user. That is apparently, by the examples we see in the statitics, something like 120 messages per month! That's a lot! Will ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the use of foundation-l
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:13 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Is there a way to create a chart showing how many messages each poster has posted to the list? Also Gerard I think if you're going to use an argument about the value of those people who *aren't* posting, we need to know who they are. Perhaps we don't want them to post either. who *aren't* posting? Well... we have a language barrier which makes everyone who does not feel comfortable with their level of English do not participate as much as they wanted. (myself included) There are also people who do not have time to read mails so long as many here like to write. And many are tired of reading childish and sterile discussions and call this list a useless troll's nest. Some change is needed. -- △ ℱajro △ Obstinacy and vehemency in opinion are the surest proofs of stupidity. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the use of foundation-l
Hoi, Please do your research.. but do not expect that people did not look at the numbers before. So the person that most needs to be convinced is yourself. Your notion that you deserve at least as much room to experiment as the worst of us is a fallacy. You have been made aware that there is an issue and that relevant people refuse to post on the foundation list. You have been made that this is because of the inconsiderate posting that you claim a right to. When you learn from your research that we have a problem, you only confirm what is already known. The only question I have is, will this make a difference to you? Thanks, GerardM 2009/11/8 wjhon...@aol.com I will in the next few days, create a list which shows who, each month, has posted the most messages to the list. Or perhaps the top few. I was surprised, seeing the statistics page, at how few active participants there are. Really just a handful, and it's been that way, for quite a long time, not a recent event. Which puts into perspective the implication that anything has changed in this regard recently. I did notice already some very surprising people who are the most talkative. Once we have the hard facts, then perhaps there could be a scientific discussion of how to address it. I don't personally like discussions based on personal belief or experience alone. They tend, in my opinion, to be skewed. By the way, when new potential-power-users appear, they should at the minimum be given the same leeway, in number of posts, as any other user. That is apparently, by the examples we see in the statitics, something like 120 messages per month! That's a lot! Will ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the use of foundation-l
In a message dated 11/8/2009 2:06:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, gerard.meijs...@gmail.com writes: When you learn from your research that we have a problem, you only confirm what is already known. The only question I have is, will this make a difference to you? No personal attacks Gerard. The number of postings to this list by me, as shown by the statistics is insignificant. You and everyone else can see that clearly for themselves. Will ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the use of foundation-l
Hoi, This was not meant as an attack. What I intended to do is rebut your arguments. When this is considered as a personal attack, it means that it is not possible to respond to you and reply to your arguments. Thanks, GerardM 2009/11/8 wjhon...@aol.com In a message dated 11/8/2009 2:06:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, gerard.meijs...@gmail.com writes: When you learn from your research that we have a problem, you only confirm what is already known. The only question I have is, will this make a difference to you? No personal attacks Gerard. The number of postings to this list by me, as shown by the statistics is insignificant. You and everyone else can see that clearly for themselves. Will ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the use of foundation-l
In a message dated 11/8/2009 2:06:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, gerard.meijs...@gmail.com writes: Your notion that you deserve at least as much room to experiment as the worst of us is a fallacy. You have been made aware that there is an issue and that relevant people refuse to post on the foundation list. You have been made that this is because of the inconsiderate posting that you claim a right to. The reason I asked for no personal attacks is because the above, by you, sounds very much like : You are the problem. You are a problem. To me that is a personal attack. I'm working on an article to show that, for example, you yourself, have been the most prolific poster at times in the past, if not this month. And others have been at other times. There is no difference between a new contributor creating 50 messages a month, and an old one doing the exact same thing. That a person has been contributing for a year, doesn't give them an unchallengable right to do something that a new person cannot do as well. So if there is a problem, that *a* person generates a lot of messages in a month, that problem has been here on this list for a very long time. And people who stay away because of volume, would have stayed away far earlier than now. This month, the number of postings so far, is far below the most we've ever had. This list in the past has generated 1200 messages in a single month. We're far short of anything like that so far. So any belief that a large number of postings rapidly is new, is not an accurate understanding of this lists historical activity. Will ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing?
This thread should be an illustrative example in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect . - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the use of foundation-l
2009/11/8 wjhon...@aol.com: The reason I asked for no personal attacks is because the above, by you, sounds very much like : You are the problem. You are a problem. Actually, you are the problem. Your posts to foundation-l of late have pretty much entirely been self-aggrandising noise and the meta-issues around being called out on it. Please desist. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:05 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: We need, as does every voluntary society, the involvement of many ordinary members in each aspect of the government of the society. We need, thus, the influence of community opinion--expressed opinion, expressed without fear of rejection for not following the established forms. To the extent that we have special cadres, they will be self-perpetuating and excluding. To maintain coherence, we need a limitation in the numbers of people able to take the final action--as admins or arbs do--but not in the numbers of people who participate in making the decision. I'm sorry, but if that's where you agree with me, you _have_ misunderstood me. I stand for exactly the opposite. I think it is a terrible waste of energy to get the community involved in each and every blocking decision. To form a good opinion about a block will often cost considerable time (an hour or so) of reading in on the conflict. Because of that I don _not_ want each and every person doing that on each and every block. Instead, we appoint a few people that we trust to do this reading and decision-making in our place - read: the arbcom. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] List moderation
I'm taking the liberty of putting foundation-l on temporary moderation. Seriously, guys -- take the who's a bigger jerk threads offlist. The regular list mods may reconfigure any way they like once they wake up. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] List moderation
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com wrote: I'm taking the liberty of putting foundation-l on temporary moderation. Seriously, guys -- take the who's a bigger jerk threads offlist. The regular list mods may reconfigure any way they like once they wake up. I woke up to this a couple of hours ago, and since then I've concluded that everyone could probably use a breather. Expect foundation-l to be closed to traffic for the next day or so. In the meantime, I encourage everyone to take another look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l -- there was some great initial feedback, but we've just seen where trying to discuss this topic on the list got us. (Big surprise: generating more list traffic on the subject of too much list traffic is counterproductive.) It wouldn't be fair for me to say more when nobody else has the ability to respond, so I'll leave it there, but hopefully I'll see some of you on the wiki. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
