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 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 state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing?
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:27 PM, 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 state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing?
In a message dated 11/7/2009 9:13:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes: > And how do you answer them? Based on your experience of what is > usually accepted on the list in question? Who should I ask that has > more experience of these lists than I do?>> Ok I will begrudgingly accept the position of Supreme Knower of the Minds of List Participants. It's a difficult position, but I psychically feel my public clamoring for my expertise. So henceforth all list posters, must submit to me first, their postings and I will decide what's of interest to all, and what's not and act accordingly. There is no need to thank me for my magnaminity. P.S. I cannot help that some will read this message with "tone", where no such tone is implied or intended. Will Johnson ___ 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 11/7/2009 8:54:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, will...@scissor.com writes: > But as far as I know, they aren't actually imposing anything, in > that nobody is actually stopping the posts in question. So if there's > actual imposing going on, it's on the part of the posters.>> > That statement is false. If I impose on you to hear, and you impose on me to shut up, that is imposition on both sides. A gag in my mouth is just as much an imposition as making you wear earmuffs. 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?
2009/11/8 William Pietri : > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> So people would rather I decided what they are and aren't interested >> in? Surprising... most people I know like to make their own decisions >> about things like that... > > My guess is that people here want what pretty much anybody in a shared > context wants: consideration and respect for their experiences. People talk about "consideration and respect". What they usually mean is "agreeing with me". Disagreeing with someone is not being inconsiderate or disrespectful. > You > don't have to unilaterally decide what interests people; if you're > unsure, you can just ask. It is hardly practical to hold a vote before sending an email - that would take up even more of people's time. Anyway, what proportion would I need being interested in what I have to say before I say it? > Elsewhere on the Internet I moderate a couple of mailing lists, and I > frequently get questions like these: > > * I'm new to the group, and wondered if it would be ok to ask about X. > * Have I been talking too much about Y? People seem interested, but > it's a little off topic. > * I'm worried that thread Z has gone too long. Am I beating a dead > horse? And how do you answer them? Based on your experience of what is usually accepted on the list in question? Who should I ask that has more experience of these lists than I do? ___ 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?
2009/11/8 William Pietri : > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> Ignoring emails *is* easy. Anyone that says otherwise is wrong. I do >> not subscribe to this "everyone's opinion is equally valid" nonsense - >> sometimes people are just plain wrong. >> > > I am definitely not suggesting that all opinions are equally valid. But > personally I decline to accept as proof your assertion that your view is > correct. In my line of work, we prove these things with data. > > If you wanted to demonstrate that ignoring emails is indeed easy for all > people, using all email readers, and for all purposes with which people > approach their email reading, you would have a lot of research ahead of > you. You might start with Kuniavsky's book "Observing the User > Experience". My guess is that you'd find that it is easy for a > relatively small percentage of people. If someone gave a reason for it being difficult, then they might convince me. So far, no-one has tried. I think the burden of proof is on those say it is hard since, on the face of it, not doing something (in this case, reading an email) seems like an easy thing to do. >> Of course not sending emails is easy. There is more to something being >> burdensome than it being difficult. Not sending an email is >> sacrificing your freedom of expression for someone else - that is a >> definite burden. It is burden that is it sometimes appropriate to take >> on, but this isn't such a time. >> > > It's not clear to me that freedom of expression is a useful term here, > in that I see no government involvement. Could we instead look at is as > your desire, and perhaps the desire of others, to say something to this > group? If so, what do you think motivates that desire? I support the project and want to improve it. That's what motivates pretty much everything I do with respect to Wikimedia. (There is a secondary motivation - I enjoy doing it.) > And obviously, other people have different desires for the use of this > list. What do you think their motivations are? I'm not going to guess. It is up to them to tell me. >>> Part of the problem may be that people often don't like other people >>> imposing burdens on them. It's often read as an attempt of social >>> dominance, or as rude or contemptuous. So your unilateral placing of >>> burden may be interfering with your desire to move the conversation forward. >>> >> >> People telling me not to send the emails I want to is them >> unilaterally imposing a burden on me. How is that different? >> > > Yes, that was my point. You and a few others don't like others asking > for a change in behavior, so I was hoping you'd have some sympathy for > them. But as far as I know, they aren't actually imposing anything, in > that nobody is actually stopping the posts in question. So if there's > actual imposing going on, it's on the part of the posters. I'm not asking anyone to change their behaviour. I'm asking them to either put up with things as they are, or change their behaviour. It is their choice. >>> If you wanted to know, you could start by asking them. >> >> When I make a point during an argument I am always implicitly asking >> people that disagree to make a counter-point. That is how arguments >> work. >> > > Well, that's how you want them to work. That used to be how I approached > them, too. But that's now how they work for a lot of people. And some > people would rather not have arguments at all, favoring discussions instead. "Argument" and "discussion" are largely synonymous. A lot of people have got it into their heads that arguments have to involve people shouting at each other - that isn't the case. Perhaps I should say "debate" instead? > I tried to change my approach because I got feedback from friends that I > was coming across as "an annoying, argumentative jerk", lacking in > consideration for my conversational partners. That wasn't what was going > on in my head, but that was what plenty of people were perceiving. > Eventually I decided I was more interested in being effective than in > keeping my old behaviors. I've gone through those thought processes too, but in my experience the alternative isn't more effective. The alternative involves never actually putting across your point of view so you'll never convince anyone. There is a compromise position - you argue about things that really matter to you and shut up the rest of the time (the "pick your battles" approach). That is my choice, the challenge comes in working out where to draw the line. ___ 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?
Thomas Dalton wrote: > So people would rather I decided what they are and aren't interested > in? Surprising... most people I know like to make their own decisions > about things like that... My guess is that people here want what pretty much anybody in a shared context wants: consideration and respect for their experiences. You don't have to unilaterally decide what interests people; if you're unsure, you can just ask. Elsewhere on the Internet I moderate a couple of mailing lists, and I frequently get questions like these: * I'm new to the group, and wondered if it would be ok to ask about X. * Have I been talking too much about Y? People seem interested, but it's a little off topic. * I'm worried that thread Z has gone too long. Am I beating a dead horse? William ___ 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?
Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/11/7 William Pietri : > >> Well, you perceive the burden as negligible for them. Have you asked >> them? My impression was that you imagined it would be easy for them >> because it would be easy for you. Personally, I'd imagine otherwise, >> based partly on how easy it would be for me, and partly on a lot of time >> spent observing people using software. >> > > Ignoring emails *is* easy. Anyone that says otherwise is wrong. I do > not subscribe to this "everyone's opinion is equally valid" nonsense - > sometimes people are just plain wrong. > I am definitely not suggesting that all opinions are equally valid. But personally I decline to accept as proof your assertion that your view is correct. In my line of work, we prove these things with data. If you wanted to demonstrate that ignoring emails is indeed easy for all people, using all email readers, and for all purposes with which people approach their email reading, you would have a lot of research ahead of you. You might start with Kuniavsky's book "Observing the User Experience". My guess is that you'd find that it is easy for a relatively small percentage of people. Until you want to do that, though, if you'd like the discussion to proceed, you'll have to accept that there are differing opinions on the topic. Not that you have to like them or agree with them, but I expect you'd benefit by demonstrating respect for their holders. > Of course not sending emails is easy. There is more to something being > burdensome than it being difficult. Not sending an email is > sacrificing your freedom of expression for someone else - that is a > definite burden. It is burden that is it sometimes appropriate to take > on, but this isn't such a time. > It's not clear to me that freedom of expression is a useful term here, in that I see no government involvement. Could we instead look at is as your desire, and perhaps the desire of others, to say something to this group? If so, what do you think motivates that desire? And obviously, other people have different desires for the use of this list. What do you think their motivations are? >> Part of the problem may be that people often don't like other people >> imposing burdens on them. It's often read as an attempt of social >> dominance, or as rude or contemptuous. So your unilateral placing of >> burden may be interfering with your desire to move the conversation forward. >> > > People telling me not to send the emails I want to is them > unilaterally imposing a burden on me. How is that different? > Yes, that was my point. You and a few others don't like others asking for a change in behavior, so I was hoping you'd have some sympathy for them. But as far as I know, they aren't actually imposing anything, in that nobody is actually stopping the posts in question. So if there's actual imposing going on, it's on the part of the posters. >> If you wanted to know, you could start by asking them. > > When I make a point during an argument I am always implicitly asking > people that disagree to make a counter-point. That is how arguments > work. > Well, that's how you want them to work. That used to be how I approached them, too. But that's now how they work for a lot of people. And some people would rather not have arguments at all, favoring discussions instead. I tried to change my approach because I got feedback from friends that I was coming across as "an annoying, argumentative jerk", lacking in consideration for my conversational partners. That wasn't what was going on in my head, but that was what plenty of people were perceiving. Eventually I decided I was more interested in being effective than in keeping my old behaviors. I think of it as a cultural thing; different people have different customs, and what's ok in one place is rude in another. Or one time and another; I've been working my way through the Sherlock Holmes novels recently, and I've been enjoying the Victorian approach to politeness immensely. William ___ 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?
2009/11/7 Michael Snow : > This is not a matter of people's opinions being equally valid, it's a > matter of their experiences being equally valid. Ignoring emails may be > easy in that it does not require a lot of labor, which seems to be the > focus of your argument. It is not necessarily easy in terms of the > decisionmaking overhead of doing so, or the weight someone might feel > accompanies the decision. Different people experience that differently, > because they think, feel, and act differently. This is not something for > us to call right or wrong, it is part of what we need to deal with in a > society with people of diverse experiences. Otherwise we limit ourselves > to the company of those who are exactly like us. So people would rather I decided what they are and aren't interested in? Surprising... most people I know like to make their own decisions about things like that... ___ 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?
Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/11/7 William Pietri : > >> Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >>> Yes, I am placing the burden on other people and I've explained why: >>> The burden is negligible for other people. It is significant for me. >>> >> Well, you perceive the burden as negligible for them. Have you asked >> them? My impression was that you imagined it would be easy for them >> because it would be easy for you. Personally, I'd imagine otherwise, >> based partly on how easy it would be for me, and partly on a lot of time >> spent observing people using software. >> > Ignoring emails *is* easy. Anyone that says otherwise is wrong. I do > not subscribe to this "everyone's opinion is equally valid" nonsense - > sometimes people are just plain wrong. > This is not a matter of people's opinions being equally valid, it's a matter of their experiences being equally valid. Ignoring emails may be easy in that it does not require a lot of labor, which seems to be the focus of your argument. It is not necessarily easy in terms of the decisionmaking overhead of doing so, or the weight someone might feel accompanies the decision. Different people experience that differently, because they think, feel, and act differently. This is not something for us to call right or wrong, it is part of what we need to deal with in a society with people of diverse experiences. Otherwise we limit ourselves to the company of those who are exactly like us. --Michael Snow ___ 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?
2009/11/7 William Pietri : > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> Yes, I am placing the burden on other people and I've explained why: >> The burden is negligible for other people. It is significant for me. >> > > Well, you perceive the burden as negligible for them. Have you asked > them? My impression was that you imagined it would be easy for them > because it would be easy for you. Personally, I'd imagine otherwise, > based partly on how easy it would be for me, and partly on a lot of time > spent observing people using software. Ignoring emails *is* easy. Anyone that says otherwise is wrong. I do not subscribe to this "everyone's opinion is equally valid" nonsense - sometimes people are just plain wrong. > A similar effect might apply the other way. Perhaps they see the > behavior they want as easy for you because it's easy for them? If so, > you could consider asking people to help you. Of course not sending emails is easy. There is more to something being burdensome than it being difficult. Not sending an email is sacrificing your freedom of expression for someone else - that is a definite burden. It is burden that is it sometimes appropriate to take on, but this isn't such a time. > Part of the problem may be that people often don't like other people > imposing burdens on them. It's often read as an attempt of social > dominance, or as rude or contemptuous. So your unilateral placing of > burden may be interfering with your desire to move the conversation forward. People telling me not to send the emails I want to is them unilaterally imposing a burden on me. How is that different? >> If someone would explain their criteria, this conversation could move >> forwards rather than round in circles... >> > > If you wanted to know, you could start by asking them. When I make a point during an argument I am always implicitly asking people that disagree to make a counter-point. That is how arguments work. ___ 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?
Thomas Dalton wrote: > Yes, I am placing the burden on other people and I've explained why: > The burden is negligible for other people. It is significant for me. > Well, you perceive the burden as negligible for them. Have you asked them? My impression was that you imagined it would be easy for them because it would be easy for you. Personally, I'd imagine otherwise, based partly on how easy it would be for me, and partly on a lot of time spent observing people using software. A similar effect might apply the other way. Perhaps they see the behavior they want as easy for you because it's easy for them? If so, you could consider asking people to help you. Part of the problem may be that people often don't like other people imposing burdens on them. It's often read as an attempt of social dominance, or as rude or contemptuous. So your unilateral placing of burden may be interfering with your desire to move the conversation forward. >> You seem like a pretty sharp fellow, and so I'm sure your solution not >> only looks most rational to you, but has good odds of being so by some >> reasonable set of metrics. But other people may be using different >> criteria, and you're unlikely to get them to change something deep like >> that via an email or two, especially if they already feel frustration >> toward you. >> > > If someone would explain their criteria, this conversation could move > forwards rather than round in circles... > If you wanted to know, you could start by asking them. Perhaps even off list, as a conversation like that may be more easily held out of the glare of the spotlight, and certainly doesn't require all of us. That may take some work on both sides, though; a lot of people either don't know or aren't good at articulating their values, judgment criteria, and decision-making processes. As with, say, moving one's arms, a lot more people do it then know how it works. Beyond that, there's an ocean of material on how people think and decide, how groups work effectively together, and how people behave in relation to software and to on-line communities. If you'd like suggestions there, drop me a line off list with more info on what you're looking for, and I'm glad to rummage through my shelves. William ___ 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?
2009/11/7 William Pietri : > Hi, Thomas. > > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> Indeed. My standard advice for people on how to interpret my >> text-based messages is this: If in doubt, I don't mean any offence. If >> I want to offend you, I will leave you in no doubt. >> > > I think there's a common element in this and your "just ignore" proposal > that will lead to continued frustration on both sides. You're placing > the burden for solving a shared problem on other people, and quite a lot > of them. Yes, I am placing the burden on other people and I've explained why: The burden is negligible for other people. It is significant for me. > You seem like a pretty sharp fellow, and so I'm sure your solution not > only looks most rational to you, but has good odds of being so by some > reasonable set of metrics. But other people may be using different > criteria, and you're unlikely to get them to change something deep like > that via an email or two, especially if they already feel frustration > toward you. If someone would explain their criteria, this conversation could move forwards rather than round in circles... ___ 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?
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:14 PM, William Pietri wrote: > That's not to advocate for either side of this, really. If you really > want to change the email-use behavior of everybody on this list, there > are approaches for that. But absent that substantial amount of work, or > absent some other change, frustration is likely to continue. > > And personally, I find that frustrating, as not only do I like a > collegial working environment, but I think collegiality makes for more > effective group discussion and group action. How many people are subscribed to this list? What situations can you think of where that many people got together and had an effective group discussion? How was this accomplished? ___ 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?
Hi, Thomas. Thomas Dalton wrote: > Indeed. My standard advice for people on how to interpret my > text-based messages is this: If in doubt, I don't mean any offence. If > I want to offend you, I will leave you in no doubt. > I think there's a common element in this and your "just ignore" proposal that will lead to continued frustration on both sides. You're placing the burden for solving a shared problem on other people, and quite a lot of them. You seem like a pretty sharp fellow, and so I'm sure your solution not only looks most rational to you, but has good odds of being so by some reasonable set of metrics. But other people may be using different criteria, and you're unlikely to get them to change something deep like that via an email or two, especially if they already feel frustration toward you. As a software developer, I've struggled a lot with issues like this. Part of me wants the rational solution, but I also really like getting things done, which often leads me to solutions that have more to do with effectiveness and practicality. And what's most effective and practical when dealing with my fellow mutant chimps is poorly correlated with what I find most pleasing to my rational side. That's not to advocate for either side of this, really. If you really want to change the email-use behavior of everybody on this list, there are approaches for that. But absent that substantial amount of work, or absent some other change, frustration is likely to continue. And personally, I find that frustrating, as not only do I like a collegial working environment, but I think collegiality makes for more effective group discussion and group action. William ___ 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?
2009/11/7 : > > > Isn't it however Michael true that a plain text message conveys little to no > "tone" > I could say the above sentence with anger, with sarcasm, with hope and > without emotion at all. > You cannot tell how I'm inflecting it, simply by the words. > Sometimes or even most-times people will add the tone. > Some people's manner of address is direct, and that is read, in an email, by > some, as a form of caustic speech I suppose. That doesn't however mean that > that is the way it was intended to be understood. Indeed. My standard advice for people on how to interpret my text-based messages is this: If in doubt, I don't mean any offence. If I want to offend you, I will leave you in no doubt. ___ 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?
Isn't it however Michael true that a plain text message conveys little to no "tone" I could say the above sentence with anger, with sarcasm, with hope and without emotion at all. You cannot tell how I'm inflecting it, simply by the words. Sometimes or even most-times people will add the tone. Some people's manner of address is direct, and that is read, in an email, by some, as a form of caustic speech I suppose. That doesn't however mean that that is the way it was intended to be understood. -Original Message- From: Michael Snow To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Fri, Nov 6, 2009 7:09 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing? wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > Maybe you could explain a little more clearly, how people are "scared" by reading (or just seeing) ten messages on the same topic? How does that frighten people? > It's not simply the ten messages on one topic, it's the tone and content of the messages that is scaring them. But the ten messages in quick succession is a common characteristic among the discussions with that tone. Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/11/7 effe iets anders : > >> I would agree with that 'solution' if I would agree with the "delete and >> ignore" solution, which is, imho, not a solution at all. That is a bit the >> problem :) And I literally meant scare btw. >> > Could you explain why you think ignoring emails doesn't work? It works > perfectly well for me. People are scared because they experience an emotional response to the tone and content of the messages. Ignoring the message (that is, doing nothing after you've read it) is not a solution to that problem. The implicit rejoinder you're giving them is, "Don't have emotions." That doesn't work, because people are human. --Michael Snow ___ 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 state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing?
"Dominating it" Phoebe? We're talking about *a* single thread. One thread. That you can delete on sight without reading. And yet you keep reading it, and you keep complaining about reading it. Doesn't that seem a bit counter-productive. Just... stop... reading.. that one thread. Just say no. I have faith. 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?
phoebe ayers wrote: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l is still up but > hasn't gotten any new traffic in the last few weeks. Suggestions > included: > * starting a forum > * starting an announcements list > * limiting posting > > Looking at that discussion's history I see the following number of postings: Sept 9: 17 Sept.10: 13 Sept.11: 12 Sept.12: 0 Sept.13: 1 Sept.14: 1 Sept.15: 0 Sept.16: 2 Sept.17: 1 ...and nothing since So it seems that after three days the discussion had essentially run its course, much in the way of many mailing list threads, including controversial or even inflammatory threads. An analysis of more threads or wiki discussions in a similar way could be interesting. I also not that the 9th was a Wednesday, and that the drop in list traffic on weekends may itself have a dampening effect on the life of threads in that list. I would also suggest that any suggestion of moderation or other throttling strategy during the life helps to extend the life of an otherwise exhausted thread. Perhaps that should be a mailing list corollary to Godwin's law. Ec ___ 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?
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Birgitte SB wrote: > > > --- On Mon, 11/2/09, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > >> From: wjhon...@aol.com >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing? >> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Date: Monday, November 2, 2009, 4:55 PM >> Personally, I process about two or >> three hundred emails per day (yes per day), so the small >> amount of noise the Foundation list creates is negligible to >> me. >> >> If someone is so annoyed by a thread, that they can't even >> bother to DWR (delete without reading) based merely on the >> subject title, I would think we need to question whether >> that person has the right temperament for the internet >> whatsoever. I delete at least two or three dozen >> emails every day without reading them, if I already know the >> subject is not going to be of "interest" to me. >> >> I would submit the real issue here, is not that people are >> doing that or could, but rather that they have a compulsion >> to *keep reading* the thread. Sort of a, "I don't want >> to be left out, or I want to keep watching the train wreck" >> or something. I'm not a psychologist. I do know >> however, that the entire issue of "let's close this thread", >> "let's moderated these people", " this is too noisy" and so >> on, is endemic to the entire email world. Not merely >> this list. >> >> I can't think of any list I'm on (and I'm on a few dozen), >> where the issue does not come up with regularity. It >> is merely part of the way internetlife is, in my opinion. >> > > > "The right temperment for the interner?" > > Maybe you would have a point if this was and email list targeted at people > who spend every waking hour plugged into the internet. I realize some of > come close to that. But that is not the target audience of this email list. > Nor the Wikimedia movement. And if those of you who have the temperment and > lifestyle for such participation do not control yourselves enough so that > this forum might succeed in included more than just those participants > similar to yourselves, Wikimedia will be sorrier for it. > > On a personal note, last week I have gone to having the responsibilities of > three people jobs, instead of only those two I have been handling for most of > the past year. Maybe I will resubscribe when I can hire people again. Good > luck with making sure this list is worth re-subscribing too. I truly hope > you all succeed with that. > > Birgitte SB Hear hear. And even people who do spend a heck of a lot of their time on Wikimedia might not want to spend it all reading F-l. And no, they don't have to -- but if you want to keep up with general discussion about the Foundation, you actually *do*. This is the main forum. Dominating it is as rude as being that guy in a classroom who won't shut up, to the detriment of all the other students who can't get a word in edgewise; only in this case, there's no professor to maintain order. If you're that guy, it's not like you're more brilliant than everyone else; you're just more talkative and don't have any social skills, and you are adversely affecting everyone else that has to share the space with you. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l is still up but hasn't gotten any new traffic in the last few weeks. Suggestions included: * starting a forum * starting an announcements list * limiting posting others? -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing?
--- On Mon, 11/2/09, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > From: wjhon...@aol.com > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing? > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Date: Monday, November 2, 2009, 4:55 PM > Personally, I process about two or > three hundred emails per day (yes per day), so the small > amount of noise the Foundation list creates is negligible to > me. > > If someone is so annoyed by a thread, that they can't even > bother to DWR (delete without reading) based merely on the > subject title, I would think we need to question whether > that person has the right temperament for the internet > whatsoever. I delete at least two or three dozen > emails every day without reading them, if I already know the > subject is not going to be of "interest" to me. > > I would submit the real issue here, is not that people are > doing that or could, but rather that they have a compulsion > to *keep reading* the thread. Sort of a, "I don't want > to be left out, or I want to keep watching the train wreck" > or something. I'm not a psychologist. I do know > however, that the entire issue of "let's close this thread", > "let's moderated these people", " this is too noisy" and so > on, is endemic to the entire email world. Not merely > this list. > > I can't think of any list I'm on (and I'm on a few dozen), > where the issue does not come up with regularity. It > is merely part of the way internetlife is, in my opinion. > "The right temperment for the interner?" Maybe you would have a point if this was and email list targeted at people who spend every waking hour plugged into the internet. I realize some of come close to that. But that is not the target audience of this email list. Nor the Wikimedia movement. And if those of you who have the temperment and lifestyle for such participation do not control yourselves enough so that this forum might succeed in included more than just those participants similar to yourselves, Wikimedia will be sorrier for it. On a personal note, last week I have gone to having the responsibilities of three people jobs, instead of only those two I have been handling for most of the past year. Maybe I will resubscribe when I can hire people again. Good luck with making sure this list is worth re-subscribing too. I truly hope you all succeed with that. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
