Exactly. If you write too many messages, you run the risk that the majority will start to habitually skip over (most of) your messages.
Think of it this way (this is a very simplistic model I think, I'm not an economist): when the central bank of a country prints too much currency, this can cause the value of the currency to go down.
Similarly, if there is a famous painter who only made 5 paintings, they will probably fetch a higher price than if s/he had made 500. It's fine if you always have something to say but I think we have all (the more prolific posters here) been guilty of posting two or three (or more) replies to the same thread at once without waiting for others when we could have consolidated into a single e-mail.
Also, in my opinion (and yours may be different), although I do have an opinion on nearly every thread on this list, it is not always necessary for everybody to know what I think; this is after all a platform for discussion, not for people to come and find out how I feel about things.
Mark
skype: node.ue
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/8/28 Anders Wennersten anders.wennersten@bonetmail.com:
I have only been on this list for a month, but I am confused over what I read. There are over 700 subscribers, but two, Anthony and Thoams Dalton is allowed, to generate more then a third of all entries and often just these two are driving a whole thread discussion. On Wikipedia we all work hard to work for consensus (all voices are welcome) and stop people dominating a subject. Why is it allowed for two persons to take over a list like it is done here?
We haven't taken anything over. There is nothing stopping anyone else from contributing to the discussion as well.
Other than good sense. (Contributing endless reams of text, that is.)
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l