Seriously, guys.
We're all pretty easy-going; for years we shied away from moderating people on Foundation-l, only falling back to that as a last resort. Since this is the list you take Foundation matters to, in the past people have exercised a certain level of self-control, lest they not be taken seriously. I won't say that there weren't occasional flames, but it was more or less self-moderating.
Now, however, it's gotten out of control. Board members and WMF executives alike have told me that they don't give much heed to Foundation-l; Mike Godwin unsubscribed for a time, and in a post to this list Jimmy described it as a "sewer." Something has to change.
If people want their input to make a difference, they'll have to maintain a forum that people actually pay attention to.
Michael and I pledged a couple of months ago to maintain closer supervision of Foundation-l, and in that time quite a few people have seen themselves moderated. Lately, we've taken the extraordinary step of killing entire threads; I just killed once twice over, not without a few angry e-mails.
Please, please do your best to be civil and on-topic. Everyone shares the goal of an open forum for reasonable discussion of Foundation matters, but this isn't helped by posts attacking Egyptians as hating gays and joking about U.S. genocide of American Indians.
tl;dr be nice or b&.
Austin
My advice as someone who may well be part of the problem: Don't make general complaints and put people on moderation with vague accusations. When someone sends an email that you don't think should have been sent, reply to that email off-list explaining your why not. Keep it specific and you'll get a better response.
On 02/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
My advice as someone who may well be part of the problem: Don't make general complaints and put people on moderation with vague accusations. When someone sends an email that you don't think should have been sent, reply to that email off-list explaining your why not. Keep it specific and you'll get a better response.
Further: attempting to kill a thread will lead to accusatons of trying to suppress dissent. In the recent case (problems with Wikimania in Egypt, which the people running the event were conspicuously absent from), such accusations appeared justified. It's a really stupid thing to do. Don't do that.
- d.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 1:52 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
My advice as someone who may well be part of the problem: Don't make general complaints and put people on moderation with vague accusations. When someone sends an email that you don't think should have been sent, reply to that email off-list explaining your why not. Keep it specific and you'll get a better response.
Further: attempting to kill a thread will lead to accusatons of trying to suppress dissent. In the recent case (problems with Wikimania in Egypt, which the people running the event were conspicuously absent from), such accusations appeared justified. It's a really stupid thing to do. Don't do that.
Um, yes, point taken. I saw that Gregory Maxwell started a new thread on the situation and I really hope that we can have this discussion in a serious, on-topic and civil manner. Keep your fingers crossed...
Michael
On 3/2/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
My advice as someone who may well be part of the problem: Don't make general complaints and put people on moderation with vague accusations. When someone sends an email that you don't think should have been sent, reply to that email off-list explaining your why not. Keep it specific and you'll get a better response.
My advice as a Usenet veteran who has seen it all, done it all and whose T-shirt is moth-eaten, is to take a page from the playbook of [[James D. Nicoll]], (and no, I don't mean precipitating a "Nicoll event", just to be crystal clear), and either pledge openly or by cunning subterfuge, to start "not-stupid" thoughtful threads regularly. I think Mike Godwin will still remember this, and confirm my recollection, if need be.
A historical recap to explain what I am referring to above; James D. Nicoll is known (among other things) for saving the Science Fiction related newsgroups from collapsing under the weight of dross, by making a public (what became known as a "Nicoll Pledge") promis to begin from time to time, threads that would be conducive to intelligent and thoughtful posts; thereby raising the tenor of discussion in the channel, and specifically giving people the chance to choose to participate in valuable threads rather than the ones which were essentially trivial.
For my own part, I think I will attempt to do my best to start some discussions at least that have the potential to become thoughtful. (I think I have made some such tries before, but not yet with much success, and of course, I am as guilty as anyone of responding with trivial non-bon-mots, when the spirit moves me)
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
My experience with this list is not as much that threads start trivial, I am perfectly able to filter those out visually. The problem comes when people drift away from the original topic. When people continue to nag about things when all arguments have been said. When people just want to have the final word. That is what is the most frustrating. It stops serious additions to the discussion, and it stops people from reading those discussions. If an argument has been mentioned, you do not need to repeat it endless times. Sometimes we should just agree to disagree and move on. Sometimes you might have to accept your loss in a discussion, and should not nag on about something. (note this is not personal to you, Cimon, but the very general "you" to everyone posting on this list.)
There are few people who stay most of the time on topic, and bring in constantly new arguments. Maybe we should also just stop to want to give our input on every single issue.
Best regards,
Effe
2008/3/2, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
On 3/2/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
My advice as someone who may well be part of the problem: Don't make general complaints and put people on moderation with vague accusations. When someone sends an email that you don't think should have been sent, reply to that email off-list explaining your why not. Keep it specific and you'll get a better response.
My advice as a Usenet veteran who has seen it all, done it all and whose T-shirt is moth-eaten, is to take a page from the playbook of [[James D. Nicoll]], (and no, I don't mean precipitating a "Nicoll event", just to be crystal clear), and either pledge openly or by cunning subterfuge, to start "not-stupid" thoughtful threads regularly. I think Mike Godwin will still remember this, and confirm my recollection, if need be.
A historical recap to explain what I am referring to above; James D. Nicoll is known (among other things) for saving the Science Fiction related newsgroups from collapsing under the weight of dross, by making a public (what became known as a "Nicoll Pledge") promis to begin from time to time, threads that would be conducive to intelligent and thoughtful posts; thereby raising the tenor of discussion in the channel, and specifically giving people the chance to choose to participate in valuable threads rather than the ones which were essentially trivial.
For my own part, I think I will attempt to do my best to start some discussions at least that have the potential to become thoughtful. (I think I have made some such tries before, but not yet with much success, and of course, I am as guilty as anyone of responding with trivial non-bon-mots, when the spirit moves me)
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
thanks, Austin. I hope I can start reading this list again now.
Lodewijk
2008/3/2, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com:
Seriously, guys.
We're all pretty easy-going; for years we shied away from moderating people on Foundation-l, only falling back to that as a last resort. Since this is the list you take Foundation matters to, in the past people have exercised a certain level of self-control, lest they not be taken seriously. I won't say that there weren't occasional flames, but it was more or less self-moderating.
Now, however, it's gotten out of control. Board members and WMF executives alike have told me that they don't give much heed to Foundation-l; Mike Godwin unsubscribed for a time, and in a post to this list Jimmy described it as a "sewer." Something has to change.
If people want their input to make a difference, they'll have to maintain a forum that people actually pay attention to.
Michael and I pledged a couple of months ago to maintain closer supervision of Foundation-l, and in that time quite a few people have seen themselves moderated. Lately, we've taken the extraordinary step of killing entire threads; I just killed once twice over, not without a few angry e-mails.
Please, please do your best to be civil and on-topic. Everyone shares the goal of an open forum for reasonable discussion of Foundation matters, but this isn't helped by posts attacking Egyptians as hating gays and joking about U.S. genocide of American Indians.
tl;dr be nice or b&.
Austin
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org