topic was: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Andreas K. jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:19 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Whether to add a media file to an article or not is always a cost/benefit not is always a cost/benefit question. It does not make sense to argue that any benefit, however small and superficial, outweighs any cost, however large and substantive.
Agreed. I'm not arguing that.
Your replies seem indicative of a belief that my position is "Let's include every illustrative image, no matter what." That isn't so. My point is merely that we aren't bound by others' decisions.
David Levy
David,
I think we've reached about as much agreement in this stimulating exchange as we're likely to. I don't actually know what your position in any specific dispute around illustration would be; I don't think we've ever met in one of those on-wiki. I don't assume that we'd necessarily be far apart.
Does that mean this stimulating exchange is over!? ;-) If not, could you both continue this discussion over on Meta, Wikipedia or in a private email.
There was a 30 post per person monthly "soft" limit on foundation-l. Is that still in place? (if its changed, please update [[meta:foundation-l]])
Jayen, you're winning this month at 42 already ;-)
Thomas Morton is coming second with 35.
Jussi-Ville, Nemo, David, Kim, you're at 27, 27, 25 and 25 respectively.
The stats are here
http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/foundation-l.html (thanks Erik Zachte)
Somehow David Gerard, Milos Rancic, Kim and Tobias Oelgarte made it to 96, 95, 89 and 83 posts last month. Last month Thomas Dalton, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen and I posted 39, 37 and 35 times respectively, and everyone else was under the 30 post soft limit.
Could the mods please enforce this a bit more. I think it has been detrimental to the list to allow so few people to dominate the discussions here.
-- John Vandenberg
IIRC, They said that the "soft limit" would simply mean that they'd make sure any post beyond 30 were at least somewhat useful. The impression I got was that if you wanted to send 100 at least semi-constructive emails, you'd get through. If you want to flame and flame and flame ... you'd get cut at 30.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 19:19, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
topic was: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Andreas K. jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:19 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com
wrote:
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Whether to add a media file to an article or not is always a cost/benefit not is always a cost/benefit question. It does not make sense to argue that any benefit, however small and superficial, outweighs any cost, however large and substantive.
Agreed. I'm not arguing that.
Your replies seem indicative of a belief that my position is "Let's include every illustrative image, no matter what." That isn't so. My point is merely that we aren't bound by others' decisions.
David Levy
David,
I think we've reached about as much agreement in this stimulating
exchange
as we're likely to. I don't actually know what your position in any
specific
dispute around illustration would be; I don't think we've ever met in one
of
those on-wiki. I don't assume that we'd necessarily be far apart.
Does that mean this stimulating exchange is over!? ;-) If not, could you both continue this discussion over on Meta, Wikipedia or in a private email.
There was a 30 post per person monthly "soft" limit on foundation-l. Is that still in place? (if its changed, please update [[meta:foundation-l]])
Jayen, you're winning this month at 42 already ;-)
Thomas Morton is coming second with 35.
Jussi-Ville, Nemo, David, Kim, you're at 27, 27, 25 and 25 respectively.
The stats are here
http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/foundation-l.html (thanks Erik Zachte)
Somehow David Gerard, Milos Rancic, Kim and Tobias Oelgarte made it to 96, 95, 89 and 83 posts last month. Last month Thomas Dalton, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen and I posted 39, 37 and 35 times respectively, and everyone else was under the 30 post soft limit.
Could the mods please enforce this a bit more. I think it has been detrimental to the list to allow so few people to dominate the discussions here.
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jon Davis wiki@konsoletek.com wrote:
IIRC, They said that the "soft limit" would simply mean that they'd make sure any post beyond 30 were at least somewhat useful. The impression I got was that if you wanted to send 100 at least semi-constructive emails, you'd get through. If you want to flame and flame and flame ... you'd get cut at 30.
The mods should be put voluminous posters on moderation. If the moderators want to approve the extra 70 emails, that's their decision.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056032.html
"Second, we're adding a "soft post limit" that, for the time being, will kick in at 30 posts per month. At that point, we will, at our discretion, place members on moderation for the remainder of the month, and will approve posts only where we feel they are useful and add significantly to the discussion."
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:34 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jon Davis wiki@konsoletek.com wrote:
IIRC, They said that the "soft limit" would simply mean that they'd make sure any post beyond 30 were at least somewhat useful. The impression I
got
was that if you wanted to send 100 at least semi-constructive emails,
you'd
get through. If you want to flame and flame and flame ... you'd get cut
at
The mods should be put voluminous posters on moderation. If the moderators want to approve the extra 70 emails, that's their decision.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056032.html
"Second, we're adding a "soft post limit" that, for the time being, will kick in at 30 posts per month. At that point, we will, at our discretion, place members on moderation for the remainder of the month, and will approve posts only where we feel they are useful and add significantly to the discussion."
"... at our discretion..."
Kirill
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:34 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jon Davis wiki@konsoletek.com wrote:
IIRC, They said that the "soft limit" would simply mean that they'd make sure any post beyond 30 were at least somewhat useful. The impression I
got
was that if you wanted to send 100 at least semi-constructive emails,
you'd
get through. If you want to flame and flame and flame ... you'd get cut
at
The mods should be put voluminous posters on moderation. If the moderators want to approve the extra 70 emails, that's their decision.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056032.html
"Second, we're adding a "soft post limit" that, for the time being, will kick in at 30 posts per month. At that point, we will, at our discretion, place members on moderation for the remainder of the month, and will approve posts only where we feel they are useful and add significantly to the discussion."
"... at our discretion..."
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.
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.
But if you can't get your point across in thirty posts over a month, maybe it's time to stop trying.
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. 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 21 October 2011 16:02, Andrew Garrett agarrett@wikimedia.org wrote:
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.
I'm not sure that's true. There were 1382 posts to foundation-l in September (more than double the average for the few months before). The 7 of us that posted more than 30 times (I was surprised to see myself back on a frequent posters list - I'd been doing so well!) accounted for 474 of those (34% of the total).
In August, the top 7 posters (different people) accounted for 158 out of 614 posts (26%). In July, it was 161 out of 489 (33%). (Feel free to check those numbers, I worked them out very quickly and may have made mistakes.)
It seems that the distribution of posts between posters was about the same in September as it was in previous months, it's just that everyone was posting more. Perhaps the soft limit should be the greater of 30 and 5% of the total posts so far that month (for most months in the last year, those would be about the same).
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.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 04:19, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Somehow David Gerard, Milos Rancic, Kim and Tobias Oelgarte made it to 96, 95, 89 and 83 posts last month. Last month Thomas Dalton, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen and I posted 39, 37 and 35 times respectively, and everyone else was under the 30 post soft limit.
Could the mods please enforce this a bit more. I think it has been detrimental to the list to allow so few people to dominate the discussions here.
I think that the decision (if any?) not to impose soft limit is related to the hot topic (image filter) which is still ongoing. Complaining about image filter is better than complaining about image filter and moderation. So, I suppose that the limit will be imposed again after the drama about image filter vanish.
BTW, although I am among the top posters from time to time, I fully support the limit, but I also think that the limit is impractical during the times of hot substantial debates. To solve the problem, we need to have less unsolvable issues. (And, according to the last Board's email and Phoebe's interpretation, I suppose that the Board is on the right way to fix image filter issue.)
There was a 30 post per person monthly "soft" limit on foundation-l.
My apologies; I was unaware of this soft limit.
Happy to abide by it :) and I hope others will too! And, so, this should be my last post for this month. FWIW I entirely agree that less vocal posters may be put off by large volume of email by the same individuals.
Is there an easy way to keep an eye on our own volume of mail?
I think people who think have got the point, but we still have to "whack
the mole" at trolls and endless griefers.
I'm also annoyed at being characterised in this way by someone who has maintained only the barest level of civility in their postings. So I am not inclined to "troll" or "grief" further anyway.
My apologies to everyone else.
Cheers, Tom
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
I think people who think have got the point, but we still have to "whack
the mole" at trolls and endless griefers.
I'm also annoyed at being characterised in this way by someone who has maintained only the barest level of civility in their postings. So I am not inclined to "troll" or "grief" further anyway.
I regret you feel the shoe fit you personally. My feeling has been that there have been wise and civil responses from both side of the issue but in the absolute the issue is pretty much a dead horse. I personally think my level of civility on the issue is pretty much consistent on the height of feeling on this issue from the community side. You are free to disagree.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com
wrote:
There was a 30 post per person monthly "soft" limit on foundation-l.
My apologies; I was unaware of this soft limit.
Happy to abide by it :) and I hope others will too! And, so, this should be my last post for this month. FWIW I entirely agree that less vocal posters may be put off by large volume of email by the same individuals.
Is there an easy way to keep an eye on our own volume of mail?
I think people who think have got the point, but we still have to "whack
the mole" at trolls and endless griefers.
I'm also annoyed at being characterised in this way by someone who has maintained only the barest level of civility in their postings. So I am not inclined to "troll" or "grief" further anyway.
My apologies to everyone else.
Likewise, my apologies to anyone who resented the long dialogue between myself and David Levy here on this list. David and I have continued to discuss this in private mail.
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/Cas...
As John Vandenberg pointed out in his comment at the arbitration request, the board's resolution on biographies of living people led to several community RfCs on en:WP last year. Wikipedia may need a similar community process to discuss the implications of the board resolution on controversial content, and the principle of least astonishment.
Andreas
On 25 October 2011 17:52, Andreas K. jayen466@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/Cas...
And the AC summarised theirs: 0 accept, 6 decline. As tends to happen when people go forum-shopping.
- d.
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@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] moderation soft limit
On 25 October 2011 17:52, Andreas K. jayen466@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/Cas...
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:55 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 October 2011 17:52, Andreas K. jayen466@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/Cas...
And the AC summarised theirs: 0 accept, 6 decline. As tends to happen when people go forum-shopping.
Do you have a problem with it if our approach to illustration matches that of our sources?
Because the committee's reluctance to rule on this case has nothing to do with that question, but with the fact that, as framed by the editor who raised the request, it is a content rather than user conduct question (related to a longstanding dispute about image use in the pregnancy and Muhammad articles). The committee is quite rightly reluctant to rule on content, or write policy.
As several arbitrators have said, it's still a discussion that needs to be had though. And for the avoidance of doubt, I did not raise that arbitration request, as I'm sure you know very well.
Regards, Andreas
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org