--- On Sat, 8/29/09, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Brianna Laugher
<brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 9:36 AM
2009/8/29 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
If you'd like to start a moderated
foundation-l, in
addition to the regular
foundation-l, that might be useful. But it's
considerably inappropriate for
you to sign up for a mailing list that many of us
have
been enjoying for
years and in one month decide you want to alter
it to
suit your tastes.
"Enjoying"? Maybe more accurate for many of us is "barely
tolerating".
I am with Anders. It is not just a matter of learning to
use an email
client properly. Considered posts are soon piled under
dozens of
back-and-forth-over-minor-details responses.
But it doesn't seem the culture of foundation-l at this
point would
allow moderation to make it a more proportionate place.
Which is a
shame as in theory it is our main Wikimedia-wide channel
of
communication, and must be terribly off-putting for
newcomers.
I am only still subscribed because I blacklist several people who I find excessive
(although not Anthony). But I don't think moderation as answer here. Who would dare
to take on the chore of moderator and what will be the result. Look at what happened the
last time someone was moderated; we had how many messages full of smears about the
moderation itself? I don't know exactly the number because I quickly adjusted my
blacklist to the poster's new email address. I wonder if no one responds to Thomas
Dalton for a month how much he will continue to post. I understand why people want
moderation, but I don't think it is practical. However, filters solve a majority of
the problem. The biggest help would be people resisting the urge to reply when someone is
obviously looking for a debate for debate's sake.
Birgitte SB