[Foundation-l] spamming of the english wikipedia users detected

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 7/3/07, Matthew Britton <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
> Something doesn't have to be "totally ridiculous" to be spam.
>
> An "unpleasant" and "unwanted" message copied to hundreds of users
> without their consent counts as spam, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> I think the sender of these messages should be informed that it is not
> acceptable.

The message is no mystery, I posted it in advance on wikien-l.
Unfortunately many people don't see posts on the lists.

Oscar, I find it amusing that you've quoted it so selectively and
imply that the rest of the body reflects your selection. It doesn't of
course, but that would weaken your argument.   It also amuses me that
there would be any question about who sent it: All, save a few, went
out with my name on them. And all would have told you who sent them by
simply looking for the username that sent the message.

For those who care to see the actual message rather than a
misrepresentation, you can see it at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/076652.html

The message I sent in email just had a slightly personalized into
sentence, the rest was pretty much the same.

It's been an interesting cultural experiment, if nothing else.

I've received over a hundred positive responses, messages spanning
from casual "thanks" to some which absolutely glowed with praise.

I've hand held easily a dozen people through the voting process...
Some who would have been otherwise unable to vote because of mistakes
we made.   The email uncovered numerous process errors, for example: A
great many, potentially a majority of, currently active En Wikipedians
couldn't see the site notice and were totally unaware of the election.

I have received a grand total of clearly four negative responses, all
from people I would have considered usual suspects... people I've had
past disagreements with, and would have excluded from the mailing if I
hadn't considered it important to avoid allowing my personal choices
to bias the selection.

The facts are that:

 1) That under 5% of the recently active eligible English Wikipedians
had participated in the election thus far. (My email said 'under 16%'
but I was trying to be conservative as there is room to argue over
what constitutes recently, and the real numbers are just far too
embarrassing).

2) The board appointed election com.  has made several serious and
impacting errors in the handling of the election which has resulted in
low turnout.  Some of these errors have discriminated against the
English Wikipedia community although no doubt unintentionally so. I
have personally, found the election com. to be unable to address most
issues because they are over worked.

3) As mentioned above, the responses have been overwhelming and
intensely positive.

As such, I am convinced that my actions were correct. They were my
actions alone, made with no one's permission, assistance, or advice
but my own, so if you'd like to yell at me and tell me that I can't do
it... that is your decision. But I will not care what you think. My
reply will be that you are misinformed, because a small angry group on
a malling list does not carry more truth than hundreds of personal
messages.