Hi folks,
This past weekend, two people wrote me off-list to say they're planning to unsubscribe because they don't like the fightiness we've seen over the past week here. And a number of people have commented off-list and on, about how this list is normally more constructive than foundation-l. I have the impression that people appreciate the constructive tone, and would like to retain it.
So I wanted to say a couple of things about that.
One, this isn't my list, and I'm not going to moderate it. I did ask for this list to be created, and I've been really happy to see good, useful conversation here. But I created it for you, and it's up to you what kind of standards you want to have here.
Second: typically, the Wikimedia community is pretty hands-off when it comes to behavioural standards on its lists. Personally I think that's a mistake. We've seen how it's played out on for example foundation-l: over time, destructive behaviour, if unmoderated, tends to drive out constructive discussion. Maintaining a productive, collegial environment takes time and effort: people need to want it, and they need to be committed to achieving it.
A couple of months ago, I asked Sarah Stierch to help me administer this list. AFAIK, she's the only other list owner, at the moment. So I am going to leave this question in her hands, and in the hands of subscribers here. It's up to you, what kind of space you want this to be. I'd encourage you to talk about it :-)
Thanks, Sue
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:58:12 +0200, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
A couple of months ago, I asked Sarah Stierch to help me administer this list. AFAIK, she's the only other list owner, at the moment. So I am going to leave this question in her hands, and in the hands of subscribers here. It's up to you, what kind of space you want this to be. I'd encourage you to talk about it :-)
It's a list about a contentious topic, so there will inevitably be some conflict. "Moderation" will not help, but harm an open debate, as it creates unequal power relationships between the moderators and "ordinary members". I don't read foundation-l, but I find it problematic to call a discussion "destructive", especially, if one does not refer to specific instances. Such talk creates an uneasy atmosphere, particularly, when it comes from persons in the position of power and authority.
Thomas aka Fossa
Several women actually wrote me offlist to thank me for speaking up the way I did so.... You win or lose either way. Lady Lazarus and all that.
--Maggie
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Thomas Koenig fossa@gmx.li wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:58:12 +0200, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
A couple of months ago, I asked Sarah Stierch to help me administer this list. AFAIK, she's the only other list owner, at the moment. So I am going to leave this question in her hands, and in the hands of subscribers here. It's up to you, what kind of space you want this to be. I'd encourage you to talk about it :-)
It's a list about a contentious topic, so there will inevitably be some conflict. "Moderation" will not help, but harm an open debate, as it creates unequal power relationships between the moderators and "ordinary members". I don't read foundation-l, but I find it problematic to call a discussion "destructive", especially, if one does not refer to specific instances. Such talk creates an uneasy atmosphere, particularly, when it comes from persons in the position of power and authority.
Thomas aka Fossa
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I know that it is not typically stringently enforced on mailing lists, but I think that enforcing [[WP:CIVIL]] would be a good idea on this list. I can understand concerns over any form of moderation, but believe that for this list the benefits far outweigh the costs. An open atmosphere where everyone feels comfortable participating is necessary for this list to have any purpose - and [[WP:CIVIL]] enforcement would be a good first step towards establishing that.
I'm not, to be clear, suggesting the moderation of dissenting viewpoints. I’m just suggesting that because of the nature of this list it would be especially, extraordinarily, unusually counterproductive to allow a combative or uncivil environment to take root here.
I'm also tempted to just say that we should broadly defer to Sarah in moderation. I trust her judgment, and I cannot imagine her trying to censor viewpoints just because she disagrees with them.
---- Kevin Gorman
I know that it is not typically stringently enforced on mailing lists, but I think that enforcing [[WP:CIVIL]] would be a good idea on this list. I can understand concerns over any form of moderation, but believe that for this list the benefits far outweigh the costs. An open atmosphere where everyone feels comfortable participating is necessary for this list to have any purpose - and [[WP:CIVIL]] enforcement would be a good first step towards establishing that.
I'm not, to be clear, suggesting the moderation of dissenting viewpoints. Iâm just suggesting that because of the nature of this list it would be especially, extraordinarily, unusually counterproductive to allow a combative or uncivil environment to take root here.
I'm also tempted to just say that we should broadly defer to Sarah in moderation. I trust her judgment, and I cannot imagine her trying to censor viewpoints just because she disagrees with them.
Kevin Gorman
Enforcement of our civility rules on this list is inappropriate as it may be applied to women posters who may have grievances. Not that venting is appropriate.
Fred
All I can say is that lately, this list has been going the same way as Foundation-l in my mind: it's becoming a place where there's no way in hell I'm posting, because people are going to scream at me, abuse me, and attack my every word. There are a couple people here who seem to really, really not buy into the necessity of CIVIL, and I for one would very much like to see some moderation to enforce civility. Disagree with people, fine. Call them nasty names, send email after email attacking everything they say long after the argument has been belabored to death, accuse them of lying or stupidity? You lose me, my attention, and my respect. I think this is a reflection of the problem on both Wikipedia and Wikipedia mailing lists: some people love to attack, and some people love to keep beating a dead horse, and the people who love those things inevitably drown out the saner, calm people who would otherwise speak up as the voice of reason. I had hoped that this mailing list could be a safe haven from that sort of thing, but it's turning into just another place to avoid.
-Fluff
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I know that it is not typically stringently enforced on mailing lists, but I think that enforcing [[WP:CIVIL]] would be a good idea on this list. I can understand concerns over any form of moderation, but believe that for this list the benefits far outweigh the costs. An open atmosphere where everyone feels comfortable participating is necessary for this list to have any purpose - and [[WP:CIVIL]] enforcement would be a good first step towards establishing that.
I'm not, to be clear, suggesting the moderation of dissenting viewpoints. I’m just suggesting that because of the nature of this list it would be especially, extraordinarily, unusually counterproductive to allow a combative or uncivil environment to take root here.
I'm also tempted to just say that we should broadly defer to Sarah in moderation. I trust her judgment, and I cannot imagine her trying to censor viewpoints just because she disagrees with them.
Kevin Gorman
Enforcement of our civility rules on this list is inappropriate as it may be applied to women posters who may have grievances. Not that venting is appropriate.
Fred
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I'm rather reluctant to speak out for the same reason. This list *needs*moderation, because it combines sex and politics, a volatile mixture.
From, Emily
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:14 PM, ChaoticFluffy chaoticfluffy@gmail.comwrote:
All I can say is that lately, this list has been going the same way as Foundation-l in my mind: it's becoming a place where there's no way in hell I'm posting, because people are going to scream at me, abuse me, and attack my every word. There are a couple people here who seem to really, really not buy into the necessity of CIVIL, and I for one would very much like to see some moderation to enforce civility. Disagree with people, fine. Call them nasty names, send email after email attacking everything they say long after the argument has been belabored to death, accuse them of lying or stupidity? You lose me, my attention, and my respect. I think this is a reflection of the problem on both Wikipedia and Wikipedia mailing lists: some people love to attack, and some people love to keep beating a dead horse, and the people who love those things inevitably drown out the saner, calm people who would otherwise speak up as the voice of reason. I had hoped that this mailing list could be a safe haven from that sort of thing, but it's turning into just another place to avoid.
-Fluff
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.netwrote:
I know that it is not typically stringently enforced on mailing lists, but I think that enforcing [[WP:CIVIL]] would be a good idea on this list.
I
can understand concerns over any form of moderation, but believe that
for
this list the benefits far outweigh the costs. An open atmosphere where everyone feels comfortable participating is necessary for this list to have any purpose - and [[WP:CIVIL]] enforcement would be a good first step towards establishing that.
I'm not, to be clear, suggesting the moderation of dissenting
viewpoints.
I’m just suggesting that because of the nature of this list it would
be
especially, extraordinarily, unusually counterproductive to allow a combative or uncivil environment to take root here.
I'm also tempted to just say that we should broadly defer to Sarah in moderation. I trust her judgment, and I cannot imagine her trying to censor viewpoints just because she disagrees with them.
Kevin Gorman
Enforcement of our civility rules on this list is inappropriate as it may be applied to women posters who may have grievances. Not that venting is appropriate.
Fred
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I agree that several posts recently should have resulted in some sort of moderation. I'm not sure [[WP:CIVIL]] is the answer... That's an English Wikipedia policy, and applying en.wp policies to non-en.wp venues generally gets a strong reaction from non en.wp'ers :-P
Maybe create our own civility guidelines?
From, Emily
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that several posts recently should have resulted in some sort of moderation. I'm not sure [[WP:CIVIL]] is the answer... That's an English Wikipedia policy, and applying en.wp policies to non-en.wp venues generally gets a strong reaction from non en.wp'ers :-P
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
So that everyone is on the same frequency; what exactly is meant by "moderation" when it comes to a discussion/conversation/debate? And what, exactly, is a "moderator" expected to do"
Marc Riddell
on 10/3/11 6:56 PM, Nathan at nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that several posts recently should have resulted in some sort of moderation. I'm not sure [[WP:CIVIL]] is the answer... That's an English Wikipedia policy, and applying en.wp policies to non-en.wp venues generally gets a strong reaction from non en.wp'ers :-P
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Ideal moderation, for me (and perhaps this isn't even possible; I'm not sure how the backends of these mailing lists work) would be directed at users, not individual emails. I wouldn't expect a moderator to approve every post, or to edit posts, or anything like that. But I would expect them to enforce the idea of "if you can't engage calmly and without attacking your colleagues, you don't get to engage here." A cool-down timeout if someone just seems to have gotten out of hand temporarily; permanent removal from the list if the person persistently cannot behave in a collegial manner.
Yes, this puts me pretty strongly on the side of the evil "Civility Police." So be it.
-Fluff
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
So that everyone is on the same frequency; what exactly is meant by "moderation" when it comes to a discussion/conversation/debate? And what, exactly, is a "moderator" expected to do"
Marc Riddell
on 10/3/11 6:56 PM, Nathan at nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that several posts recently should have resulted in some sort of moderation. I'm not sure [[WP:CIVIL]] is the answer... That's an English Wikipedia policy, and applying en.wp policies to non-en.wp venues generally gets a strong reaction from non en.wp'ers :-P
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Yeah, I'm with Fluff.
From, Emily
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:15 PM, ChaoticFluffy chaoticfluffy@gmail.comwrote:
Ideal moderation, for me (and perhaps this isn't even possible; I'm not sure how the backends of these mailing lists work) would be directed at users, not individual emails. I wouldn't expect a moderator to approve every post, or to edit posts, or anything like that. But I would expect them to enforce the idea of "if you can't engage calmly and without attacking your colleagues, you don't get to engage here." A cool-down timeout if someone just seems to have gotten out of hand temporarily; permanent removal from the list if the person persistently cannot behave in a collegial manner.
Yes, this puts me pretty strongly on the side of the evil "Civility Police." So be it.
-Fluff
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
So that everyone is on the same frequency; what exactly is meant by "moderation" when it comes to a discussion/conversation/debate? And what, exactly, is a "moderator" expected to do"
Marc Riddell
on 10/3/11 6:56 PM, Nathan at nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that several posts recently should have resulted in some sort of moderation. I'm not sure [[WP:CIVIL]] is the answer... That's an English Wikipedia policy, and applying en.wp policies to non-en.wp venues generally gets a strong reaction from non en.wp'ers :-P
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap