[Foundation-l] Use of moderation

[Austin Hair]

On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Seems to me that the mailing list is working just fine, despite a few
> people who complain far too much about the volume of traffic, or about
> the occasional tendency to irrelevant comments.  They need to exercise a
> little more patience and tolerance.  The situation is a classic case of
> "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

Sorry, Ray, but I (obviously) disagree.  The list has reached a sort
of equilibrium, it's true—it could continue operating as it does now
for the foreseeable future.  It's not particularly uncivil or violent,
but neither is it particularly useful for its intended purpose.

For every one of the "few people" who complain, I'll bet money that
there are at least ten who don't speak up on the list, because other
people are championing the cause already; for every one of those
there's probably another who unsubscribed or stopped paying attention
because, well, it's just not worth it for them anymore.

I have no doubt that many of the current active contributors are
perfectly content with the status quo, and I understand that.  Plenty
of meaningful discussion takes place here, and I don't mean to demean
that or any of its contributors in any way.  I do, however, believe
that we should have a forum that's more than just ten busybodies
talking about WMF matters amongst themselves.

A friend of mine, Charles Matthews, was for a time (I'm not sure if he
still is) the single most prolific contributor to the English
Wikipedia (behind Rambot, that is).  He's a retired academic, and has
the time to edit Wikipedia for several hours a day.  This is a
terrific thing for Wikipedia, since he's a smart guy and makes
careful, intelligent edits which only enrich the project.

A mailing list, however, is different.  A mailing list is a
conversation.  Everyone's been in a conversation where a single person
dominated, and no matter how smart or charismatic or entertaining he
may be, dominating a conversation minimizes the chance for other
people to contribute and makes it less useful.

I've personally met some of the most prolific posters to Foundation-l,
and not one I can think of is the type to dominate a conversation in
person.  On the contrary, most of them are fairly quiet in real life,
and take the time to consider their points and formulate their
responses.  The difference is that, because of the nature of a mailing
list, those who can afford a few hours per day can compose those
well-thought-out responses to *every single thread on the list*.
Others don't have that, or aren't willing to commit that, and the
unfortunate end result is the same as the loudmouth you hate at dinner
parties.

I'm encouraged by how the discussion's progressed thus far, and I see
promise in some of the proposals (such as moving to a different
medium), but at the very minimum there seems to be consensus for
limiting the number of posts per-user on a periodic basis.  It's a
simplistic answer to a complicated problem, but I think it's a good
start—maybe we can get people contributing again if they're not so
intimidated by the volume and cliquishness.

Austin