I would agree with that 'solution' if I would agree with the "delete and ignore" solution, which is, imho, not a solution at all. That is a bit the problem :) And I literally meant scare btw.

2009/11/7 wjhonson@aol.com

That's right, thats the position of the two sides of this discussion. I don't know if "scare" is the right word however. I think the argument is something along the lines of "annoy" or "frustrate". Mr Dalton put the counter-argument pretty well when it said, it only takes a second to delete an email. I don't know why you want to go over this again.

There are people on both sides of the issue. We should just allow this part of the discussion to die. That's my perspective. Don't you agree?

<<The whole point of this discussion is that some people say "dont complain because you can ignore" and others say "you are making this list less useful and you scare people off with your emails". >>

-----Original Message----- From: effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com To: WJhonson@aol.com Cc: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Nov 6, 2009 2:20 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing?

without wanting to repeat things I just cant state it much more clearly, so let me quote birgitte, who started this specific thread:

"Maybe you would have a point if this was and email list targeted at people who spend every waking hour plugged into the internet. I realize some of come close to that. But that is not the target audience of this email list. Nor the Wikimedia movement. And if those of you who have the temperment and lifestyle for such participation do not control yourselves enough so that this forum might succeed in included more than just those participants similar to yourselves, Wikimedia will be sorrier for it."

The whole point of this discussion is that some people say "dont complain because you can ignore" and others say "you are making this list less useful and you scare people off with your emails".

eia

2009/11/6 WJhonson@aol.com

...

In a message dated 11/6/2009 6:28:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, effeietsanders@gmail.com writes:

except that this happens in many threads and is a general problem coming back allt he time.>>

At the point at which any particular person is no longer interested in reading a thread, they should stop reading it. Then the thread can die a natural death, and no one needs to get upset at a few messages a day appearing in their mailbox. As you can see the thread died all by itself. On soc.genealogy.medieval, some of the vicious cat-calling threads go on and on for a few hundred postings, and get quite nasty. But they all die eventually. And these are between scholars (self-proclaimed at times).

Will

wjhonson@aol.com wrote:

Maybe you could explain a little more clearly, how people are "scared" by reading (or just seeing) ten messages on the same topic? How does that frighten people?

It's not simply the ten messages on one topic, it's the tone and content of the messages that is scaring them. But the ten messages in quick succession is a common characteristic among the discussions with that tone.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

2009/11/7 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com:

...

I would agree with that 'solution' if I would agree with the "delete and ignore" solution, which is, imho, not a solution at all. That is a bit the problem :) And I literally meant scare btw.

Could you explain why you think ignoring emails doesn't work? It works perfectly well for me.

People are scared because they experience an emotional response to the tone and content of the messages. Ignoring the message (that is, doing nothing after you've read it) is not a solution to that problem. The implicit rejoinder you're giving them is, "Don't have emotions." That doesn't work, because people are human.

--Michael Snow

Isn't it however Michael true that a plain text message conveys little to no "tone" I could say the above sentence with anger, with sarcasm, with hope and without emotion at all. You cannot tell how I'm inflecting it, simply by the words. Sometimes or even most-times people will add the tone. Some people's manner of address is direct, and that is read, in an email, by some, as a form of caustic speech I suppose. That doesn't however mean that that is the way it was intended to be understood.

-----Original Message----- From: Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Nov 6, 2009 7:09 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing?

wjhonson@aol.com wrote:

Maybe you could explain a little more clearly, how people are "scared" by

reading (or just seeing) ten messages on the same topic? How does that frighten people?

It's not simply the ten messages on one topic, it's the tone and content of the messages that is scaring them. But the ten messages in quick succession is a common characteristic among the discussions with that tone.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

2009/11/7 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com:

...

I would agree with that 'solution' if I would agree with the "delete and ignore" solution, which is, imho, not a solution at all. That is a bit the problem :) And I literally meant scare btw.

Could you explain why you think ignoring emails doesn't work? It works perfectly well for me.

People are scared because they experience an emotional response to the tone and content of the messages. Ignoring the message (that is, doing nothing after you've read it) is not a solution to that problem. The implicit rejoinder you're giving them is, "Don't have emotions." That doesn't work, because people are human.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hi, Thomas.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

Indeed. My standard advice for people on how to interpret my text-based messages is this: If in doubt, I don't mean any offence. If I want to offend you, I will leave you in no doubt.

I think there's a common element in this and your "just ignore" proposal that will lead to continued frustration on both sides. You're placing the burden for solving a shared problem on other people, and quite a lot of them.

You seem like a pretty sharp fellow, and so I'm sure your solution not only looks most rational to you, but has good odds of being so by some reasonable set of metrics. But other people may be using different criteria, and you're unlikely to get them to change something deep like that via an email or two, especially if they already feel frustration toward you.

As a software developer, I've struggled a lot with issues like this. Part of me wants the rational solution, but I also really like getting things done, which often leads me to solutions that have more to do with effectiveness and practicality. And what's most effective and practical when dealing with my fellow mutant chimps is poorly correlated with what I find most pleasing to my rational side.

That's not to advocate for either side of this, really. If you really want to change the email-use behavior of everybody on this list, there are approaches for that. But absent that substantial amount of work, or absent some other change, frustration is likely to continue.

And personally, I find that frustrating, as not only do I like a collegial working environment, but I think collegiality makes for more effective group discussion and group action.

William

2009/11/7 William Pietri william@scissor.com:

Hi, Thomas.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

Indeed. My standard advice for people on how to interpret my text-based messages is this: If in doubt, I don't mean any offence. If I want to offend you, I will leave you in no doubt.

I think there's a common element in this and your "just ignore" proposal that will lead to continued frustration on both sides. You're placing the burden for solving a shared problem on other people, and quite a lot of them.

Yes, I am placing the burden on other people and I've explained why: The burden is negligible for other people. It is significant for me.

You seem like a pretty sharp fellow, and so I'm sure your solution not only looks most rational to you, but has good odds of being so by some reasonable set of metrics. But other people may be using different criteria, and you're unlikely to get them to change something deep like that via an email or two, especially if they already feel frustration toward you.

If someone would explain their criteria, this conversation could move forwards rather than round in circles...

2009/11/7 William Pietri william@scissor.com:

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

Yes, I am placing the burden on other people and I've explained why: The burden is negligible for other people. It is significant for me.

Well, you perceive the burden as negligible for them. Have you asked them? My impression was that you imagined it would be easy for them because it would be easy for you. Personally, I'd imagine otherwise, based partly on how easy it would be for me, and partly on a lot of time spent observing people using software.

Ignoring emails *is* easy. Anyone that says otherwise is wrong. I do not subscribe to this "everyone's opinion is equally valid" nonsense - sometimes people are just plain wrong.

A similar effect might apply the other way. Perhaps they see the behavior they want as easy for you because it's easy for them? If so, you could consider asking people to help you.

Of course not sending emails is easy. There is more to something being burdensome than it being difficult. Not sending an email is sacrificing your freedom of expression for someone else - that is a definite burden. It is burden that is it sometimes appropriate to take on, but this isn't such a time.

Part of the problem may be that people often don't like other people imposing burdens on them. It's often read as an attempt of social dominance, or as rude or contemptuous. So your unilateral placing of burden may be interfering with your desire to move the conversation forward.

People telling me not to send the emails I want to is them unilaterally imposing a burden on me. How is that different?

...

If someone would explain their criteria, this conversation could move forwards rather than round in circles...

If you wanted to know, you could start by asking them.

When I make a point during an argument I am always implicitly asking people that disagree to make a counter-point. That is how arguments work.

2009/11/7 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:

This is not a matter of people's opinions being equally valid, it's a matter of their experiences being equally valid. Ignoring emails may be easy in that it does not require a lot of labor, which seems to be the focus of your argument. It is not necessarily easy in terms of the decisionmaking overhead of doing so, or the weight someone might feel accompanies the decision. Different people experience that differently, because they think, feel, and act differently. This is not something for us to call right or wrong, it is part of what we need to deal with in a society with people of diverse experiences. Otherwise we limit ourselves to the company of those who are exactly like us.

So people would rather I decided what they are and aren't interested in? Surprising... most people I know like to make their own decisions about things like that...

2009/11/8 William Pietri william@scissor.com:

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

So people would rather I decided what they are and aren't interested in? Surprising... most people I know like to make their own decisions about things like that...

My guess is that people here want what pretty much anybody in a shared context wants: consideration and respect for their experiences.

People talk about "consideration and respect". What they usually mean is "agreeing with me". Disagreeing with someone is not being inconsiderate or disrespectful.

You don't have to unilaterally decide what interests people; if you're unsure, you can just ask.

It is hardly practical to hold a vote before sending an email - that would take up even more of people's time. Anyway, what proportion would I need being interested in what I have to say before I say it?

Elsewhere on the Internet I moderate a couple of mailing lists, and I frequently get questions like these:

* I'm new to the group, and wondered if it would be ok to ask about X.    * Have I been talking too much about Y? People seem interested, but      it's a little off topic.    * I'm worried that thread Z has gone too long. Am I beating a dead      horse?

And how do you answer them? Based on your experience of what is usually accepted on the list in question? Who should I ask that has more experience of these lists than I do?

2009/11/8 William Pietri william@scissor.com:

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

Ignoring emails *is* easy. Anyone that says otherwise is wrong. I do not subscribe to this "everyone's opinion is equally valid" nonsense - sometimes people are just plain wrong.

I am definitely not suggesting that all opinions are equally valid. But personally I decline to accept as proof your assertion that your view is correct. In my line of work, we prove these things with data.

If you wanted to demonstrate that ignoring emails is indeed easy for all people, using all email readers, and for all purposes with which people approach their email reading, you would have a lot of research ahead of you. You might start with Kuniavsky's book "Observing the User Experience". My guess is that you'd find that it is easy for a relatively small percentage of people.

If someone gave a reason for it being difficult, then they might convince me. So far, no-one has tried. I think the burden of proof is on those say it is hard since, on the face of it, not doing something (in this case, reading an email) seems like an easy thing to do.

...

Of course not sending emails is easy. There is more to something being burdensome than it being difficult. Not sending an email is sacrificing your freedom of expression for someone else - that is a definite burden. It is burden that is it sometimes appropriate to take on, but this isn't such a time.

It's not clear to me that freedom of expression is a useful term here, in that I see no government involvement. Could we instead look at is as your desire, and perhaps the desire of others, to say something to this group? If so, what do you think motivates that desire?

I support the project and want to improve it. That's what motivates pretty much everything I do with respect to Wikimedia. (There is a secondary motivation - I enjoy doing it.)

And obviously, other people have different desires for the use of this list. What do you think their motivations are?

I'm not going to guess. It is up to them to tell me.

...

...

Part of the problem may be that people often don't like other people imposing burdens on them. It's often read as an attempt of social dominance, or as rude or contemptuous. So your unilateral placing of burden may be interfering with your desire to move the conversation forward.

People telling me not to send the emails I want to is them unilaterally imposing a burden on me. How is that different?

Yes, that was my point. You and a few others don't like others asking for a change in behavior, so I was hoping you'd have some sympathy for them. But as far as I know, they aren't actually imposing anything, in that nobody is actually stopping the posts in question. So if there's actual imposing going on, it's on the part of the posters.

I'm not asking anyone to change their behaviour. I'm asking them to either put up with things as they are, or change their behaviour. It is their choice.

...

...

If you wanted to know, you could start by asking them.

When I make a point during an argument I am always implicitly asking people that disagree to make a counter-point. That is how arguments work.

Well, that's how you want them to work. That used to be how I approached them, too. But that's now how they work for a lot of people. And some people would rather not have arguments at all, favoring discussions instead.

"Argument" and "discussion" are largely synonymous. A lot of people have got it into their heads that arguments have to involve people shouting at each other - that isn't the case. Perhaps I should say "debate" instead?

I tried to change my approach because I got feedback from friends that I was coming across as "an annoying, argumentative jerk", lacking in consideration for my conversational partners. That wasn't what was going on in my head, but that was what plenty of people were perceiving. Eventually I decided I was more interested in being effective than in keeping my old behaviors.

I've gone through those thought processes too, but in my experience the alternative isn't more effective. The alternative involves never actually putting across your point of view so you'll never convince anyone. There is a compromise position - you argue about things that really matter to you and shut up the rest of the time (the "pick your battles" approach). That is my choice, the challenge comes in working out where to draw the line.

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 6:42 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:

Mr Dalton put the counter-argument pretty well when it said, it only takes a second to delete an email.

Much less than a second, and it takes no time at all to not read it in the first place. If you don't have time to read all the messages on the list, don't read them. You don't have to read every single email that comes into your inbox, and with the proper filters the emails won't even literally appear in your inbox in the first place.

All mailing list emails I get go to my "mailing lists" folder. Sometimes I go weeks without reading any of them. Sometimes I skip them altogether when I get back. Sometimes I skim the subjects.

It would be great if we could subscribe to a mailing list and get only the emails we are interested in, and absolutely nothing else. But it just doesn't work with that way. Get over it.