[Foundation-l] moderation soft limit

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Andrew Garrett <agarrett at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> <cimonavaro at 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.



-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]