Per the new posting limits < http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056032.html%..., each user is limited to 30 posts per month, after which they are put on moderation. Anthony has reached 30 posts. He has been placed on moderation for about the next 19 hours or so (until about Midnight UTC, or whenever one of us happens to be at a computer around that time).
Continued input on these policies, either publicly or privately, is always welcome.
Thanks, Ryan Lomonaco
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
Per the new posting limits < http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056032.html%..., each user is limited to 30 posts per month, after which they are put on moderation. Anthony has reached 30 posts. He has been placed on moderation for about the next 19 hours or so (until about Midnight UTC, or whenever one of us happens to be at a computer around that time).
Continued input on these policies, either publicly or privately, is always welcome.
As I have posts to burn, and less than a day to do it ... ;-)
Attaching a "cost" to each email helps me as a reader. I *want* to read every email in every thread, and understand the people who send them.
Since the limit has been imposed, I have found that I am paying more attention to the emails, esp. to emails from people like Anthony who previously sent a lot of emails that I would scan past without really reading.
As a result, I have found Anthony's input to be very valuable over the last month.
I think the limit of 30 posts per month is spot on.
-- John Vandenberg
I really hated the idea of posting limits at first, but must commend the list mods for implementing it. Now that there is a specific cost to replies, I have scaled back on the amount of emails I have sent and prioritized based on discussion. Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on replies to threads, e.g. 5 per thread per day.
________________________________ From: Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral315@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sun, November 29, 2009 9:57:12 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Housekeeping: One user on moderation today
Per the new posting limits < http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056032.html%..., each user is limited to 30 posts per month, after which they are put on moderation. Anthony has reached 30 posts. He has been placed on moderation for about the next 19 hours or so (until about Midnight UTC, or whenever one of us happens to be at a computer around that time).
Continued input on these policies, either publicly or privately, is always welcome.
Thanks, Ryan Lomonaco _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.comwrote:
I really hated the idea of posting limits at first, but must commend the list mods for implementing it. Now that there is a specific cost to replies, I have scaled back on the amount of emails I have sent and prioritized based on discussion. Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on replies to threads, e.g. 5 per thread per day.
That's something that I think might have merit, although it's one of those things that's tough to set as a hard-and-fast rule because of time zone differences.
Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.comwrote:
I really hated the idea of posting limits at first, but must commend the list mods for implementing it. Now that there is a specific cost to replies, I have scaled back on the amount of emails I have sent and prioritized based on discussion. Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on replies to threads, e.g. 5 per thread per day.
That's something that I think might have merit, although it's one of those things that's tough to set as a hard-and-fast rule because of time zone differences.
I think the better approach is what the moderators have occasionally done in the past, which is to kill a specific thread. And the rest of us can call out those threads as being worthless, as several people have done, or ignore them (Thomas Dalton is right about that at least). But I expect throttling threads would be counterproductive. The beneficial effect of the current moderation is that it creates space for a more inclusive discussion, by restraining "post-early-and-often" behavior. A per-thread throttle would create an incentive to encourage that behavior, by privileging those who are quickest to respond.
--Michael Snow
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.netwrote:
Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on replies to threads, e.g. 5 per thread per day.
That's something that I think might have merit, although it's one of
those
things that's tough to set as a hard-and-fast rule because of time zone differences.
I think the better approach is what the moderators have occasionally done in the past, which is to kill a specific thread. And the rest of us can call out those threads as being worthless, as several people have done, or ignore them (Thomas Dalton is right about that at least). But I expect throttling threads would be counterproductive. The beneficial effect of the current moderation is that it creates space for a more inclusive discussion, by restraining "post-early-and-often" behavior. A per-thread throttle would create an incentive to encourage that behavior, by privileging those who are quickest to respond.
--Michael Snow
My reading of it was X replies per person per day in each thread. I agree with you that there should not be a set limit per thread as a whole.
Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
My reading of it was X replies per person per day in each thread. I agree with you that there should not be a set limit per thread as a whole.
It might be interesting to combine that with a throttled number of replies from one individual to another. At least for me, the lowest-value messages are often ones where two people are arguing with one another, apparently forgetting the interests of the broader audience.
With either of those, before creating a firm limit, an interesting step might be notification. E.g.:
Dear X:
I notice that in the last 24 hours you've sent 5 messages on the topic "Pedophilia and the non-discrimination policy", with 4 of them replying to person Y. That might be more than the average list subscriber wants to read. Before you reply again, you might consider taking a break, moving the discussion off-list, or asking list moderators how valualbe they're finding the discussion.
Thanks,
The Foundation-L Robot
My theory here is that the problem may more be lack of awareness than intentional misbehavior, making feedback a reasonable substitute for control.
William
Thats a great idea! The exchanges were the biggest clog previously, and this seems like a reasonable warning to use.
________________________________ From: William Pietri william@scissor.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 11:57:21 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Housekeeping: One user on moderation today
Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
My reading of it was X replies per person per day in each thread. I agree with you that there should not be a set limit per thread as a whole.
It might be interesting to combine that with a throttled number of replies from one individual to another. At least for me, the lowest-value messages are often ones where two people are arguing with one another, apparently forgetting the interests of the broader audience.
With either of those, before creating a firm limit, an interesting step might be notification. E.g.:
Dear X:
I notice that in the last 24 hours you've sent 5 messages on the topic "Pedophilia and the non-discrimination policy", with 4 of them replying to person Y. That might be more than the average list subscriber wants to read. Before you reply again, you might consider taking a break, moving the discussion off-list, or asking list moderators how valualbe they're finding the discussion.
Thanks,
The Foundation-L Robot
My theory here is that the problem may more be lack of awareness than intentional misbehavior, making feedback a reasonable substitute for control.
William _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ryan,
You are correct. I apologize for the ambiguity of my suggestion. To restate, I was suggesting that users be restricted to a fixed or variable amount of posts per thread per day. It could also be done by percentages after a certain amount of time or posts, e.g. Post has 50 posts in a day, User X has made 26 of them.
Geoffrey
________________________________ From: Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral315@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 11:43:01 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Housekeeping: One user on moderation today
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.netwrote:
Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on replies to threads, e.g. 5 per thread per day.
That's something that I think might have merit, although it's one of
those
things that's tough to set as a hard-and-fast rule because of time zone differences.
I think the better approach is what the moderators have occasionally done in the past, which is to kill a specific thread. And the rest of us can call out those threads as being worthless, as several people have done, or ignore them (Thomas Dalton is right about that at least). But I expect throttling threads would be counterproductive. The beneficial effect of the current moderation is that it creates space for a more inclusive discussion, by restraining "post-early-and-often" behavior. A per-thread throttle would create an incentive to encourage that behavior, by privileging those who are quickest to respond.
--Michael Snow
My reading of it was X replies per person per day in each thread. I agree with you that there should not be a set limit per thread as a whole.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org