"We should concentrate on factual data for research" in a long email
about how everything is ruined forever because a moderator couldn't
find anything of value in an uncited claim that Jan-Bart actively
drove people away?
This must be what people mean by "mixed methods" ;)
On 4 June 2015 at 18:29, Juergen Fenn <jfenn(a)gmx.net> wrote:
Am 04.06.2015 um 19:11 schrieb Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>om>:
Reduced
traffic on Wikimedia-l is mostly due to list moderation.
That's plausible. "Most" people on wikimedia-l are moderated by now; I and
others unsubscribed due to tyrannical moderation, too.
Well, not exactly tyrannical, as there obviously is a plan behind it not to let anything
critical sound on a list that no longer serves the community, but that is just another
tool for corporate communication.
Of course, I also unsubscribed from the list, and I will read it from the archive only
because I don't subscribe to corporate communication lists.
I agree to Aaron that we should concentrate on factual data for research. However,
I'd like to give you an idea of what nowadays is no longer possible on Wikimedia-l
because this also serves as an indicator for the "health" of Wikipedia.
The text of my censored email read: "Jan-Bart, you might be aware that it was you
that drove many "talented candidates" out of the movement last year. So, no more
comment."
And the moderator gave this comment for his decision: "I could not find anything
positive in your message. How would it help the goals of the Wikimedia movement? Regards,
Richard."
That's the way Wikipedia works in 2015. So, no more comments about "community
health" or whoever's health. I'm off.
Best,
Jürgen.
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l