On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Andrew Garrett agarrett@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
This is very very meta. But in my own defence, I haven't posted anything for over a year. Mourning my dearly departed mother. I have said before that monthly limits are prejudicial against those that rarely post, but do post when the expletive hits the fan; and do so with the full force of conviction they are expressing the views of the community. Nuff said. Go ahead and moderate this, if you like.
It's all very well to say that you should be able to post as much as you like when something you feel really passionate about comes up.
If you were to research the record, you would find I have posited quite moderate views on the "issue" of filtering content, even being quite doubtful I was in the right. I don't think it is an "issue" as such to be passionate about wanting the wikimedia community to not tear itself to shreds. I think it is just a fundamental matter, not merely an "issue".
But if you can't get your point across in thirty posts over a month, maybe it's time to stop trying.
I think people who think have got the point, but we still have to "whack the mole" at trolls and endless griefers.
These discussions have gone in circles for a month now, and it's the same five or ten people (yes, I am again being rhetorical, please don't bother checking that number) arguing past each other and posting their entrenched positions again and again.
It isn't the number of posters that you have got wrong, though it may be imprecise. We aren't talking about months here. This is a Perennnial Proposal, that is an elephant graveyard for *years* not months.
There's no reason to think
that these loud people on foundation-l are representative of the community at large. There's no reason to think that any of them are likely to change their minds. And, as I say, at this point, they've probably made their arguments as well as they can. I don't think many people are even reading the discussion any more.
On that regard, the numbers are pretty much out. Loudness here is largely more representative, than a "referendum" that doesn't even ask the fundamental question.