[Foundation-l] Use of moderation

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Austin Hair wrote:
> 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.
>   
I think this is key. If the hound-dog won't hunt no more, it
ain't no good.
> 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 very much identify with this description of people who
don't speak up because other people are saying what
needs to be said, better than I could say those things.
> 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 think all of the above is precisely how I would characterize
things in all fairness, if I but had your facility with words
and considered thought. So count this as one instance of
me speaking out when I thought somebody was saying
precisely what I thought needed to be said.
> 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.
>   
However,... (   ;- )   )  ...here I have to  record a very minor
note of disagreement.  Perhaps it comes as no surprise
that it comes on a issue that would penalize the precise
kind of strategy of discourse I personally pursue on the
list ;-)

The first instance where the issue of large volume of
postings was brought to my attention was when a
certain poster brought to my attention that I had
recently been among one of the 20 most voluminous
posters. At that time I was so taken aback by this
revelation that I went back in time in the mailing
list stats and found out that at that time I had in
a very short time posted a larger amount of postings
than in the previous lifetime of my subscription to
that particular mailing list. So my voluminous
posting _at that point in time_ was highly not
characteristic of my general volume of postings; but
was on an issue that I personally thought of high
significance, and worthy of discussing in depth.

This is the pattern that I have since followed. There
are long stretches of time when I don't bother to
reply to hardly any posts, because I tend to wait
and see if anyone more eloquent will reply making
the point that needs to be made, or because I will
credit the intelligence of readers to not be confused
by a comment too silly to bear credence to.

But when there are issues of foundational importance
or issues where I have some personal insight (for instance
stemming from being a speaker of a minor language
group) that otherwise might not be presented at all or
badly on the mailing list, I will not shy from being as
verbose as need be to communicate all I can share.

It is clear that this kind of engagement would be
badly hobbled by a *per period* posting throttle.
Quite unashamedly I consequently don't consider
it an idea that is all that good ;-)

To be clear, my objection is that the throttle would
hurt worst those who do not post steadily at all
times, but only on those issues which they care
deeply about or are specifically knowledgeable
about. I know I am not the only poster here who
"comes out of the woodwork" when issues where
they have a special competence, are broached.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen