"Example is not just another way to teach. It's the only way." -- attributed to Albert Einstein.
Hello fellow Wikipedia-users,
Earlier: ... Am I the only one here annoyed with such messages? Why
can't we be more cordial and polite towards one another? It's gotten to the point where I may unsubscribe ...
Peter Blaise responds:
No. But, I suggest that we all use our down-arrow or delete keys, instead of using all those other keys to show our objections. There's noise, and then there's echo, and if the noise bothers us, echoing that noise in the form of objecting to that noise is not helping reduce the noise much.
I put it to you: what's the alternative?
Banning?
And in who's hand?
A moderator? Voted in, or self-appointed?
And who gets banned?
Vandals and spammers?
Seems simple enough.
How about off topic contributions?
Occasional or extended off topic contributors?
Who decides?
In my experience, the more powers we give to an arbitrary moderator, the more we then ask that moderator to do our thinking and censoring for us. And for what? The convenience of avoiding the pain of cleaning our own inbox, of scrolling our own down-arrow keys by ourselves?
And then the moderator starts reading content on their own, and deleting or banning based on their own sensibilities of what they think is personally offensive.
Then the criteria migrates even further to reviewing content for what the moderator thinks is constructive, or in line with their philosophy, culture, or whatever personal whims.
It becomes the moderator's blog, and that's NOT the purpose of someone tasked with supporting the community as a whole. The moderator themselves become the destructive force within the community.
Power corrupts.
Absolute power (to ban) corrupts absolutely.
So, I suggest that if we object to noise, then we ourselves set an example of low-noise contribution, and merely scroll on past whatever we personally think is noise.
Democracy is messy. Patience, tolerance, acceptance, and equivalent consideration are tough virtues to attain, but I think, worth goals to ascend to. Why not here? Why not now?
Earlier: ... contributing to Wikipedia. Why bother anymore? I still
like the ideals behind the project and wish to continue, but would really like it if we can please tone down the drama and be more civil and cordial towards one another? If people can't control themselves, then maybe this list could use moderation. Though if the moderator is engaging such language, that's not good ...
Peter Blaise responds:
I vote for all avenues of contribution to be:
- free and open for all - multiple co-moderators - no banning
I hope my contributions set an example, and I'll scroll past other's contributions if they are not a good match for my interests at the moment. But I do not desire that anyone get banned because they contribute something I don't like. I can control my own inbox, just as I control what I toss when my physical mail arrives at home. I don't cry and wail when I get junk mail and unsolicited crap in my physical mail at home, so why do so on the Internet?
Love and hugs, Peter Blaise
On 8/29/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
Power corrupts. Absolute power (to ban) corrupts absolutely.
We're talking about moderating a mailing list here. Let's cut the hyperbole.
Personally I struggle to maintain interest in this list, with its obsessive interest in issues tangential to Wikipedia. As Wikipedia has grown, so has traffic on the list. I'd really like to see it split somehow:
How about this: wikien-l-content: Discussion of the content of specific pages, policies that affect content etc wikien-l-personalities: Discussion of people, who should be banned or unbanned, whether X is a troll or not wikien-l-general: Everything else
I'll happily subscribe to wikien-l-content and give the other two a miss.
Steve (listmod)
on 8/29/07 3:08 AM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/29/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
Power corrupts.
Absolute power (to ban) corrupts absolutely.
We're talking about moderating a mailing list here. Let's cut the hyperbole.
Personally I struggle to maintain interest in this list, with its obsessive interest in issues tangential to Wikipedia. As Wikipedia has grown, so has traffic on the list. I'd really like to see it split somehow:
How about this: wikien-l-content: Discussion of the content of specific pages, policies that affect content etc wikien-l-personalities: Discussion of people, who should be banned or unbanned, whether X is a troll or not wikien-l-general: Everything else
I'll happily subscribe to wikien-l-content and give the other two a miss.
And I'm going to go with wikien-l-personalities: Discussion of people. Because without them, the first couldn't exist.
Marc
On 8/29/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
contribute something I don't like. I can control my own inbox, just as I control what I toss when my physical mail arrives at home. I don't cry and wail when I get junk mail and unsolicited crap in my physical mail at home, so why do so on the Internet?
When there is noise on a discussion list, the list itself suffers. Not just the people who have to read it.
Steve
On 8/29/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
contribute something I don't like. I can control my own inbox, just as I control what I toss when my physical mail arrives at home. I don't cry and wail when I get junk mail and unsolicited crap in my physical mail at home, so why do so on the Internet?
on 8/29/07 3:10 AM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
When there is noise on a discussion list, the list itself suffers. Not just the people who have to read it.
Steve,
One person's "noise" is another person's music; especially if the song is about the people.
Lists, like encyclopedias, don't suffer; just the persons who are placed in secondary importance to them. It is like the Pharaohs building the pyramids at the expense of hundreds of thousands of anonymous lives.
Priorities! Priorities!
Marc
On 29/08/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 8/29/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
contribute something I don't like. I can control my own inbox, just as I control what I toss when my physical mail arrives at home. I don't cry and wail when I get junk mail and unsolicited crap in my physical mail at home, so why do so on the Internet?
on 8/29/07 3:10 AM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
When there is noise on a discussion list, the list itself suffers. Not just the people who have to read it.
Steve,
One person's "noise" is another person's music; especially if the song is about the people.
Lists, like encyclopedias, don't suffer; just the persons who are placed in secondary importance to them. It is like the Pharaohs building the pyramids at the expense of hundreds of thousands of anonymous lives.
Priorities! Priorities!
Marc
Yes, I agree with this Humanist message! Thank you! *hug*