I think it's relative (like everything, anyway)
When we were discussing about image filter I remember over one hundred-mails. It was a
good discussion. It would be hilarious if someone speak ''Hey everybody, we exceed
the thirty messages soft limit, let's end this discussion right now.'' :P
Some debates are big and the consensus doesn't come easy, what could we do? Suddenly
stop?
A ''soft'' limit is always great, but in some cases is not applicable.
_____________________
MateusNobre
Wikimedia Brasil - MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
30440865
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:55:26 +0100
From: dgerard(a)gmail.com
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] moderation soft limit
On 25 October 2011 17:52, Andreas K. <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
For those interested, there is a current request
for arbitration on English
Wikipedia related to the board resolution on controversial content, which
contains some further views and discussion. I have summarised my view that
our illustrations, just like our texts, should follow good practice
established in reliable sources here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Ca…
And the AC summarised theirs: 0 accept, 6 decline. As tends to happen
when people go forum-shopping.
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l