http://original-research.blogspot.com/2007/11/wikien-l.html
Others have been saying this and I'm increasingly convinced. Time to write some harsher content rules, then start over with no-one joined until they expressly join.
Thoughts?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
http://original-research.blogspot.com/2007/11/wikien-l.html
Others have been saying this and I'm increasingly convinced. Time to write some harsher content rules, then start over with no-one joined until they expressly join.
Thoughts?
I'm all for trying something different. Of the dozen or so lists I actually follow, this one definitely has the worst signal-to-noise ratio.
We can't get away with hot-tubbing[1] here, alas. So I'd suggest we come up with a few different lists, at least some of which are very strict in purpose, with charters ruthlessly enforced.
Off the top of my head, I'd suggest these:
* wikien-interesting: A maximum of few posts a day of interesting things about or on Wikipedia. Heavily moderated, with the assumption that most posts are rejected. It would include interesting press mentions, new research, major activity on the site, or links to especially interesting blog posts about Wikipedia. No discussion, ever. Kinda like a Wikipedia-specific Boing Boing. * wikien-forum: A heavily moderated (or perhaps better put, curated) discussion list. Slow-paced, thoughtful discussion, limited in volume, and with a strong bias against rejecting rants, windmill-tilting, person-to-person argument, repetition, and points unlikely to lead anywhere interesting, and a mild bias against posts from frequent contributors. * wikien-open: The relatively open discussion that takes up much of the list now, with a bit more behavior-based moderation.
In some community contexts I'd lean toward something even more open, something like "wikien-open-sewer". But although it would be good to channel that energy away from the main lists, I suspect we're better off letting that happen somewhere else on the Internet.
I could also see a place for some topic-specific lists, but none come to mind right away.
William
[1] http://www.plocktau.com/writing/hottub.html
On Nov 15, 2007 9:09 PM, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
http://original-research.blogspot.com/2007/11/wikien-l.html
Others have been saying this and I'm increasingly convinced. Time to write some harsher content rules, then start over with no-one joined until they expressly join.
Thoughts?
I'm all for trying something different. Of the dozen or so lists I actually follow, this one definitely has the worst signal-to-noise ratio.
We can't get away with hot-tubbing[1] here, alas. So I'd suggest we come up with a few different lists, at least some of which are very strict in purpose, with charters ruthlessly enforced.
Off the top of my head, I'd suggest these:
- wikien-interesting: A maximum of few posts a day of interesting things about or on Wikipedia. Heavily moderated, with the assumption that most posts are rejected. It would include interesting press mentions, new research, major activity on the site, or links to especially interesting blog posts about Wikipedia. No discussion, ever. Kinda like a Wikipedia-specific Boing Boing.
- wikien-forum: A heavily moderated (or perhaps better put, curated) discussion list. Slow-paced, thoughtful discussion, limited in volume, and with a strong bias against rejecting rants, windmill-tilting, person-to-person argument, repetition, and points unlikely to lead anywhere interesting, and a mild bias against posts from frequent contributors.
- wikien-open: The relatively open discussion that takes up much of the list now, with a bit more behavior-based moderation.
In some community contexts I'd lean toward something even more open, something like "wikien-open-sewer". But although it would be good to channel that energy away from the main lists, I suspect we're better off letting that happen somewhere else on the Internet.
I could also see a place for some topic-specific lists, but none come to mind right away.
William
I agree, a nice theory. I'd support
Phoenix-wiki
Phoenix wiki wrote:
I agree, a nice theory. I'd support
A nice theory, perhaps, but I suspect that in practice everyone will just post to wikien-open and largely ignore the other lists. We already have Signpost filling the role of Wikien-interesting, and IMO a "thoughtful and insightful posts only" rule for wikien-forum would either strangle discussion or be permissive enough that the list would be a near duplicate of wikien-open. A middle ground would be extremely hard to find in practice.
Personally, I don't see what's so horrendously wrong with wikien-l that it's best to abandon it. Most modern browsers have threading built into them, making it easy to ignore unproductive discussion threads. The occasional extremely disruptive poster makes enough trouble that they get kicked off, perhaps tweak the threshold for that downward a bit?
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 23:02 -0700, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Personally, I don't see what's so horrendously wrong with wikien-l that it's best to abandon it. Most modern browsers have threading built into
For a start? I don't look forward to coming back to your computer after less than 24 hours away and finding about 100 messages (nearly 200 yesterday), repeat daily. There is threading in my email client, but it's for all or nothing, and I don't want threading in the other email folders I have. And because people reply to digest, change subject etc., even threading doesn't do much good. So the only option I'm left with is keep sorting by new messages / date / subject back and forth to skip to topic I might be interested in.
On 16/11/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Personally, I don't see what's so horrendously wrong with wikien-l that it's best to abandon it. Most modern browsers have threading built into them, making it easy to ignore unproductive discussion threads. The occasional extremely disruptive poster makes enough trouble that they get kicked off, perhaps tweak the threshold for that downward a bit?
The poisoned atmosphere.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 16/11/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Personally, I don't see what's so horrendously wrong with wikien-l that it's best to abandon it.
The poisoned atmosphere.
Haven't noticed it, not even sure exactly what you mean.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
[...] IMO a "thoughtful and insightful posts only" rule for wikien-forum would either strangle discussion or be permissive enough that the list would be a near duplicate of wikien-open. A middle ground would be extremely hard to find in practice.
Here's my proposal for making that work.
We find a collection of people who are willing to moderate wikien-forum. Say, a half-dozen to a dozen.
People write in proposing new threads. If any moderator thinks the topic is interesting or important, they can volunteer to curate the thread. They may not participate in a thread they curate, and should curate in an NPOV way.
The thread's curator sends out the initial post. Any further comment on the topic is evaluated by the curator on quality, novelty, and tone, with a bias toward rejection. Posts that can stand on their own are heavily favored over point-by-point replies, especially argumentative ones. Replies that are thematically related are edited together into one message.
People who want to have back-and-forth discussions are encouraged to do that directly, and are asked to report back at the conclusion of the discussion. Similarly, sufficiently interesting threads on wikien-open may be summarized at their conclusion on wikien-forum.
The lists moderators are encouraged to give one another feedback on thread curation, with a focus on maximizing reader benefit. Readers are also encouraged to let the moderators know how they are doing. All of that takes place off-list.
The notion is to extract the interesting content from the argument. Right now the burden for that is on the thousands of readers, rather than the dozens of posters or the handful of moderators. This approach wouldn't work with a lot of communities, but since we already have plenty of people skilled in NPOV summarization, I think we could pull it off.
William
I would say that the easiest ways to improve the experience (if not that atmosphere) here is to
a. as a reader, use a dedicated Gmail account (threads discussions, lets you ignore threads you don't want), and b. as a poster, use more descriptive titles
Only read the threads that look interesting. Comment less often. Edit the things you quote from so people don't have to skim two pages of discussion to find what you said.
While we obviously need to moderate people more, I strongly disagree with the idea of banning people from here who are banned from Wikipedia. In my early days here I learned a lot from Pete (Skyring) - despite the fact that he was on a long-term ban, he certainly had interesting things to say. This isn't the place to rant against "the system" or admins, or whomever you feel like ranting against (if you want to rant, you can always start a blog. If you say something interesting, David will find your blog and tell the list about it). I don't like the idea of splitting the list further - that would only mean having to either subscribe to more lists (each of which will eventually grow into monstrosities like this one, or they will die), or losing touch even more with what's going on in the world of the project.
The useful thing about this list is that it gives you a chance to say on top of a lot of things with minimum effort. Sometimes you don't even need to read the thread - just look at the topic, and see how many people have replied to it. I gave up on the ANs and VPs long ago. Of course, I say that as someone who has largely gotten over their addiction to the list. I only read things with really interesting subject lines. Which is how I read this.
William Pietri wrote:
Here's my proposal for making that work.
We find a collection of people who are willing to moderate wikien-forum. Say, a half-dozen to a dozen.
People write in proposing new threads. If any moderator thinks the topic is interesting or important, they can volunteer to curate the thread. They may not participate in a thread they curate, and should curate in an NPOV way.
(Long description removed)
You must be kidding?! =-O
I think the only effect of this would be to give people more things to argue about, not to mention giving those moderators a quick ticket to the asylum.
At one time it was considered virtuous to factor repetitive talk pages. I tried it on one or two, and soon discovered that it was a difficult task that did not yield much benefit in proportion to that difficulty.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
William Pietri wrote:
Here's my proposal for making that work.
We find a collection of people who are willing to moderate wikien-forum. Say, a half-dozen to a dozen.
People write in proposing new threads. If any moderator thinks the topic is interesting or important, they can volunteer to curate the thread.
(Long description removed)
You must be kidding?! =-O
I think the only effect of this would be to give people more things to argue about, not to mention giving those moderators a quick ticket to the asylum.
Nope. Possibly wrong, possibly crazy. But serious.
Upon reflection, I still think it's workable. I think slowing things down would lower the temperature quite a bit. And the moderator burden is designed to be self-limiting; a moderator will only allow a thread to start if they're feeling like it's worth the effort.
As to the question of argumentation, the list I'm talking about ("wikien-forum" in my proposal) would be specifically biased against argumentation and direct replies to individual points. Most contributions would have to be able to stand on their own: thematically related to the thread, but no quoting, ranting, or kvetching. People who want to have direct discussions would be encouraged to do so, just not on the list.
Personally, I'd be willing to curate the occasional thread, which is what made me think this is workable. Even if it's twice or three times as much work to curate a thread as to follow it, I'd still come out ahead if the other threads were all carefully edited to maximize reader value.
William
As to the question of argumentation, the list I'm talking about ("wikien-forum" in my proposal) would be specifically biased against argumentation and direct replies to individual points. Most contributions would have to be able to stand on their own: thematically related to the thread, but no quoting, ranting, or kvetching. People who want to have direct discussions would be encouraged to do so, just not on the list.
How does that work? All conversation pretty much falls into two categories - informative and argumentative. Informative takes the form of question and answer, argumentative takes the form of point-counterpoint. Either way involves each email being a reply to a previous email. A dialogue does not consist of a sequence of monologues, and mailing lists are intending for dialogues (or polylogues, or whatever you call multi-way conversations). If people want to post monologues, they can start blogs.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
As to the question of argumentation, the list I'm talking about ("wikien-forum" in my proposal) would be specifically biased against argumentation and direct replies to individual points. Most contributions would have to be able to stand on their own: thematically related to the thread, but no quoting, ranting, or kvetching. People who want to have direct discussions would be encouraged to do so, just not on the list.
How does that work? All conversation pretty much falls into two categories - informative and argumentative. Informative takes the form of question and answer, argumentative takes the form of point-counterpoint. Either way involves each email being a reply to a previous email. A dialogue does not consist of a sequence of monologues, and mailing lists are intending for dialogues (or polylogues, or whatever you call multi-way conversations). If people want to post monologues, they can start blogs.
Mailing lists are intended for whatever people intend them for.
I'm suggesting we split our current one into a version that continues to be a relatively open dialog ("wikien-open") and one that is heavily edited by volunteer moderators ("wikien-forum"). Some threads would be purely in the edited list. Interesting threads on the open list (or wherever) could be summed up or excerpted to the edited list.
How it actually develops would be determined by moderator experimentation and reader feedback, and I'm pretty open to what that would be. The flavor I'd personally aim for is something between a moderated panel discussion and a well-edited interview.
My theory here is that many people are interested in the results of discussions on this list, but very few care to read the long arguments, the tit-for-tat replies, or the seven thousandth post on some issue that we will never settle. So we take turns editing that out.
If you have an improvement or an alternate proposal, please bring it up. As Jussi-Ville Heiskanen pointed out, constructive comments are a lot more useful than purely negative ones.
William
On Nov 18, 2007 4:06 AM, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
As to the question of argumentation, the list I'm talking about ("wikien-forum" in my proposal) would be specifically biased against argumentation and direct replies to individual points. Most contributions would have to be able to stand on their own: thematically related to the thread, but no quoting, ranting, or kvetching. People who want to have direct discussions would be encouraged to do so, just not on the list.
How does that work? All conversation pretty much falls into two categories - informative and argumentative. Informative takes the form of question and answer, argumentative takes the form of point-counterpoint. Either way involves each email being a reply to a previous email. A dialogue does not consist of a sequence of monologues, and mailing lists are intending for dialogues (or polylogues, or whatever you call multi-way conversations). If people want to post monologues, they can start blogs.
Mailing lists are intended for whatever people intend them for.
I'm suggesting we split our current one into a version that continues to be a relatively open dialog ("wikien-open") and one that is heavily edited by volunteer moderators ("wikien-forum"). Some threads would be purely in the edited list. Interesting threads on the open list (or wherever) could be summed up or excerpted to the edited list.
How it actually develops would be determined by moderator experimentation and reader feedback, and I'm pretty open to what that would be. The flavor I'd personally aim for is something between a moderated panel discussion and a well-edited interview.
My theory here is that many people are interested in the results of discussions on this list, but very few care to read the long arguments, the tit-for-tat replies, or the seven thousandth post on some issue that we will never settle. So we take turns editing that out.
If you have an improvement or an alternate proposal, please bring it up. As Jussi-Ville Heiskanen pointed out, constructive comments are a lot more useful than purely negative ones.
Amusing that you got that from what I posted, but not my basic point, which is that the _right_ way to drown out noise is by increasing signal not just in this discussion, but in the mailing list as a whole. Dividing will conquer no mailing list.
There is a universal dynamic of discussion forums, and no matter how one names them, they will obey that (as the silly possums found out when they tried to reform wikimedia related IRC-channels). There are people who will feed any thread by commenting on it, no matter how slly (EC are you reading this?), there are people who will comment when they (narcissistically) think they have something witty or insightful to add and then there are people (like me) who will only add to the conversation if they feel they have a contribution to make that they feel most people will not figure out for themselves anyway (trusting the intelligence of the readership is one large chunk of not feeding trolls).
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Mailing lists are intended for whatever people intend them for.
I'm suggesting we split our current one into a version that continues to be a relatively open dialog ("wikien-open") and one that is heavily edited by volunteer moderators ("wikien-forum"). Some threads would be purely in the edited list. Interesting threads on the open list (or wherever) could be summed up or excerpted to the edited list.
I don't think a mailing list is the best way to hold such discussions, although I'm not sure of a better way. To be honest, I can't see the basic concept working, for the reasons I gave.
How it actually develops would be determined by moderator experimentation and reader feedback, and I'm pretty open to what that would be. The flavor I'd personally aim for is something between a moderated panel discussion and a well-edited interview.
Both those have a key feature - the people talking are preselected by some criteria (basically, that they have an interesting viewpoint). You're never going to get that kind of flavour with a public mailing list, even with heavy moderation. People watch panel discussions and read interviews because they think the people involved might be interesting. The same can't really be said for a public mailing list. Panel discussions and interviews are done for the benefit of spectators, mailing lists exist (in most cases) for the benefit of participants.
That said, inviting a few interesting people from inside and outside the enwiki community to take part in a panel discussion on an interesting subject would be quite good fun. It would probably work best on IRC (with published transcripts), rather than a mailing list, though.
My theory here is that many people are interested in the results of discussions on this list, but very few care to read the long arguments, the tit-for-tat replies, or the seven thousandth post on some issue that we will never settle. So we take turns editing that out.
Probably true. I'd say the solution is summaries posted on wiki of recent discussions - perhaps as a column in Signpost.
If you have an improvement or an alternate proposal, please bring it up. As Jussi-Ville Heiskanen pointed out, constructive comments are a lot more useful than purely negative ones.
Purely negative comments can still be constructive, as long as they point out specific problems and explain why they are problems. Requiring people to have a solution before they can point out a problem just means it takes longer to recognise problems.
The other issue is this - so much of this mailing list is clogged up by incredibly tedious and repetitive arguments over the same bloody topic: attack sites. Could we perhaps declare a moratorium? Create a separate mailing list? Please, before the sanity of those of us who don't care collapses?
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:44:21 +0000 From: dgerard@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org; wikien-l-owner@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Time to reboot wikien-l
http://original-research.blogspot.com/2007/11/wikien-l.html
Others have been saying this and I'm increasingly convinced. Time to write some harsher content rules, then start over with no-one joined until they expressly join.
Thoughts?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ 100’s of Music vouchers to be won with MSN Music https://www.musicmashup.co.uk
We all gotta talk less. Not dogpile every hot-button issue. Not say the same things over and over again. Not shunt every thread back to our pet peeves. Not write long, florid essays when a few short sentences will do.
My proposal:
If a user is banned from enwiki, they should be automatically banned from wikien-l (as soon as they are identified as the same person, of course). We have unblock-en-l for banned users that want to make their case, wikien-l needs to stop being a soapbox for banned users.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
wikien-l needs to stop being a soapbox for banned users.
My proposal: Do not feed the trolls.
(Seriously. I bet there's ten times the traffic on this list by regular users responding to banned users, or debating topics brought up by banned users, as there is by banned users.)
Steve Summit wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
wikien-l needs to stop being a soapbox for banned users.
My proposal: Do not feed the trolls.
(Seriously. I bet there's ten times the traffic on this list by regular users responding to banned users, or debating topics brought up by banned users, as there is by banned users.)
Indeed, many of the banned users don't even post here once.
The problem threads involve one or two persons who decide to take a severe stand, then defending that stand as though they were the only thing between civilization and a horde of barbarians.
This naturally irritates those who would prefer a more nuanced approach to the problem. The banned user himself becomes nothing more than a name around which to coalesce arguments. What is most needed from the hardliner is a spirit of collaboration, and of trust that the people who would prefer a softer approach do so with the best interests of the project in mind. A little movement in one's position can sometimes go a long way.
Ec
On Nov 15, 2007 10:44 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://original-research.blogspot.com/2007/11/wikien-l.html
Others have been saying this and I'm increasingly convinced. Time to write some harsher content rules, then start over with no-one joined until they expressly join.
Thoughts?
- d.
As a veteran of Usenet, you will be well aqcuainted with the name of James D. Nicoll, and all facets of his reputation.
The way to improve the S/N ratio of this newsgroup is for people who begin threads, to think long and hard about how their threads can be hijacked by trolls, and never start threads that are vulnerabel to such.
Make a pledge (within your own mind) to only start threads that are substantial, constructive, and not vulnerable to hijacking by trolls.
In short, drown out the chaff by adding wheat.
I will add that the "Nicoll Pledge" only worked, becuase he was willing to think of significant issues to discuss on the Usenet newsgroup. I don't think there is a lack of genuine topics of interest on the English wikipedia whic ahre totally invulnerable to troll hijacking.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
The way to improve the S/N ratio of this newsgroup is for people who begin threads, to think long and hard about how their threads can be hijacked by trolls, and never start threads that are vulnerabel to such.
Make a pledge (within your own mind) to only start threads that are substantial, constructive, and not vulnerable to hijacking by trolls.
We would end up with a completely silent mailing list. A competent troll can hijack any thread...
On Nov 17, 2007 5:20 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The way to improve the S/N ratio of this newsgroup is for people who begin threads, to think long and hard about how their threads can be hijacked by trolls, and never start threads that are vulnerabel to such.
Make a pledge (within your own mind) to only start threads that are substantial, constructive, and not vulnerable to hijacking by trolls.
We would end up with a completely silent mailing list. A competent troll can hijack any thread...
Thank you for the constructive comment.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:44:21 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://original-research.blogspot.com/2007/11/wikien-l.html Others have been saying this and I'm increasingly convinced. Time to write some harsher content rules, then start over with no-one joined until they expressly join.
I think that membership should not require explicit approval, but pre-moderation of the first few posts would be reasonable. Inability to post-moderate is a problem, but that needs new software.
It would be interesting to find out why this list is so much less active and useful than it was; I get the impression most of the drama and foolishness has been transferred to the wiki, which is not necessarily good.
Guy (JzG)
I think that membership should not require explicit approval, but pre-moderation of the first few posts would be reasonable. Inability to post-moderate is a problem, but that needs new software.
I believe all new members *are* moderated until one of the moderators explicitly decides they can be trusted (which usually only takes one or two good messages, I think). If by "post-moderate" you mean removing bad emails without requiring all emails to be pre-approved, that's impossible, with any software, since it would involve deleting emails off mail servers around the world...
On 17/11/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I believe all new members *are* moderated until one of the moderators explicitly decides they can be trusted (which usually only takes one or two good messages, I think).
First message in almost all cases.
If by "post-moderate" you mean removing bad emails without requiring all emails to be pre-approved, that's impossible, with any software, since it would involve deleting emails off mail servers around the world...
If every single message were required to be moderated, that'd be *way* too much like work. The reason wikien-l keeps needing new mods is that it's a bit much like work for not terribly much payoff and considerable flak. (I'm occasionally amazed at the powers people presume I have here, for instance.)
- d.
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 20:42:08 +0000, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think that membership should not require explicit approval, but pre-moderation of the first few posts would be reasonable. Inability to post-moderate is a problem, but that needs new software.
I believe all new members *are* moderated until one of the moderators explicitly decides they can be trusted (which usually only takes one or two good messages, I think). If by "post-moderate" you mean removing bad emails without requiring all emails to be pre-approved, that's impossible, with any software, since it would involve deleting emails off mail servers around the world...
It means using forum software not a list manager. Which is a fundamental change.
Believe it or not, as the lead administrator of a global mail network for a Fortune 500 company I *do* know how email works ;o)
Guy (JzG)
On 17/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
It means using forum software not a list manager. Which is a fundamental change.
All bulletin board software is a poor approximation of Usenet, as far as I can tell.
Hopefully LiquidThreads will be in a fit state to consider serious use of on Wikimedia sites soon (I understand it's in heavy development as we speak - Erik?).
- d.
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:20:29 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
All bulletin board software is a poor approximation of Usenet, as far as I can tell.
Which is a fair point. Maybe we could run the list as nntp?
Guy (JzG)
On 17/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:20:29 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
All bulletin board software is a poor approximation of Usenet, as far as I can tell.
Which is a fair point. Maybe we could run the list as nntp?
*shudder* Yeah, that's just what we need, is a Usenet social environment.
(There's actually a Usenet group for Wikipedia. Does anyone here actually read it?)
- d.
On 17/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:20:29 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
All bulletin board software is a poor approximation of Usenet, as far as I can tell.
Which is a fair point. Maybe we could run the list as nntp?
*shudder* Yeah, that's just what we need, is a Usenet social environment.
(There's actually a Usenet group for Wikipedia. Does anyone here actually read it?)
For all wikis in general, actually.
I read it, but it's pretty dead.
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:42:47PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
On 17/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:20:29 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
All bulletin board software is a poor approximation of Usenet, as far as I can tell.
Which is a fair point. Maybe we could run the list as nntp?
*shudder* Yeah, that's just what we need, is a Usenet social environment.
(There's actually a Usenet group for Wikipedia. Does anyone here actually read it?)
What is it called? I can not find iton my usenet server. usenet is particularly bad right now with many groups totally swamped by nonsnese about a MI5 conspiracy or something - it is difficult to tell.
Brian.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 18/11/2007, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:42:47PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
On 17/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:20:29 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
All bulletin board software is a poor approximation of Usenet, as far as I can tell.
Which is a fair point. Maybe we could run the list as nntp?
*shudder* Yeah, that's just what we need, is a Usenet social environment.
(There's actually a Usenet group for Wikipedia. Does anyone here actually read it?)
What is it called? I can not find iton my usenet server. usenet is particularly bad right now with many groups totally swamped by nonsnese about a MI5 conspiracy or something - it is difficult to tell.
comp.internet.services.wiki