[Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
59 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Shani Evenstein
Dear all,

I should have mentioned that we are working on a formal response regarding
the request to ban subscribers from the list.This is an issue that has been
raised during this discussion and we are carefully considering our thoughts
on the matter, as we did for the 4 points that we already requested
comments on. We are close to reaching a consensus and will hopefully be
able to release it soon, but we are in different time zones, so please bear
with us. Our response will sum up our view regarding the points raised in
the list re banning, as well as suggest a proper procedure.

We thank you all for your patience, and again, urge you to take a step
back, not focus on individual cases and respond constructively to the 4
points that were raised in John's original mail.

Shani.

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am
> disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an
> uncrossable line here.
>
> Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly
> responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me.
> It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue.  It is of course in
> the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to
> claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is no
> reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing.  The content of the
> message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue.  Some people may see this
> as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a
> slippery slope.  Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might not
> be the case for the next victim.  Will the poster in question decide that I
> am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?
>
> Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US
> government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a
> grant recipient.   Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry
> that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting
> their employment.   (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential
> administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including
> myself, in the past.)  If participants on this list are allowed to engage
> in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that my
> chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on this
> list due to the risk to their livelihoods.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedia-l,
> >
> > Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
> > been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are
> reasonable,
> > respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it
> is
> > important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of
> > "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
> > next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
> >
> > In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific
> > individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay
> on
> > problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and
> objectively
> > participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for
> posting
> > to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically
> fix
> > all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
> > reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
> > intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its
> > course.
> >
> > Best,
> > Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
> >> length less than a year ago?
> >>
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri
> >> odic_survey_prototype
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned
> from
> >> the
> >> > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
> regarding
> >> > why they will not do so.
> >> >
> >> > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
> >> > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
> >> contacting
> >> > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
> >> that my
> >> >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
> >> >>
> >> >> And I stand by them.
> >> >>
> >> >> Seddon
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Joseph
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.
> >> I
> >> >> said
> >> >> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
> >> To
> >> >> the
> >> >> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
> >> ask
> >> >> how
> >> >> > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason,
> >> you
> >> >> > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
> >> quibble
> >> >> over
> >> >> > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation,
> which I
> >> >> > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to
> make
> >> >> about
> >> >> > the handling of personal information, please do so.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
> >> the
> >> >> > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
> >> posting,
> >> >> and
> >> >> > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
> >> >> Alternatively,
> >> >> > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this
> is
> >> the
> >> >> > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public
> forum.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Reginald
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask
> your
> >> >> > > pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
> >> pseudonymous
> >> >> > > individual.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Seddon
> >> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> >> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> >> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> >> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> >> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
> >> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> >> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsu
> >> bscribe>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> >> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> >> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> >> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
> >> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> >> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=
> unsubscribe>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Seddon
> >> >>
> >> >> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> >> >> *Wikimedia Foundation*
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Wikimedia-l
> >> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Kingsindian WP
In reply to this post by Shani Evenstein
Hello Shani,

I lurk here, but don't really post. I am a regular poster at Wikipediocracy
where I saw a discussion of this thread. I'll make one specific comment and
one general comment.

When I read the RfC and I got to proposal #4, I thought that it might just
as well have been written specifically with Rogol in mind. And I am pretty
sure I was not the only person who thought so. Seeing this proposal, Rogol
would definitely have felt that a bulls-eye was painted on their back,
which might have contributed to the flare-up. My thoughts on the flare-up
itself are available at Wikipediocracy for those who want to look; I don't
wish to derail the thread here.

Now, I come to the broader issues. Obviously, this is a moderated list, and
the moderators have discretion. I would like to make two points. They are
not original or Earth-shaking, just relevant.

1. The Wikimedia "community", such as it exists, is very diverse: not only
in makeup, but also in viewpoints.
2. Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects have a lot of influence on the
world.

Therefore, one should err on the side of allowing more open discussion.
Nobody here is forced to read or respond to Rogol's posts. I am sure people
here know how to configure their email clients to filter messages.

Kingsindian
(User: Kingsindian on en.wp)

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Shani Evenstein <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedia-l,
>
> Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
> been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are reasonable,
> respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it is
> important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of
> "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
> next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
>
> In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific
> individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay on
> problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and objectively
> participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for posting
> to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically fix
> all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
> reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
> intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its
> course.
>
> Best,
> Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
> > length less than a year ago?
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#
> > Periodic_survey_prototype
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from
> > the
> > > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
> regarding
> > > why they will not do so.
> > >
> > > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
> > > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
> > contacting
> > > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
> that
> > my
> > >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
> > >>
> > >> And I stand by them.
> > >>
> > >> Seddon
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > [hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Joseph
> > >> >
> > >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so
> too.  I
> > >> said
> > >> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
> To
> > >> the
> > >> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
> ask
> > >> how
> > >> > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason,
> > you
> > >> > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
> quibble
> > >> over
> > >> > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which
> I
> > >> > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to make
> > >> about
> > >> > the handling of personal information, please do so.
> > >> >
> > >> > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
> > the
> > >> > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
> posting,
> > >> and
> > >> > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
> > >> Alternatively,
> > >> > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is
> > the
> > >> > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum.
> > >> >
> > >> > Reginald
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask your
> > >> > > pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
> > pseudonymous
> > >> > > individual.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Seddon
> > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > >> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=
> > unsubscribe>
> > >> > >
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > >> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=
> unsubscribe>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Seddon
> > >>
> > >> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> > >> *Wikimedia Foundation*
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Andrew Lih
In reply to this post by Robert Fernandez
I'd like to second what Rob has expressed here. This list already suffers a
very poor reputation within our community, even as it is positioned as an
important part of our communications ecosystem.

Allowing participants to intimidate others and exact "in real life"
consequences should be dealt with in the most severe manner. If we do
not meatball:DefendEachOther, and deliver the basic safety needs of the
list membership, how can we in good conscience keep this list running and
encourage participation?

-Andrew


On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am
> disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an
> uncrossable line here.
>
> Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly
> responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me.
> It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue.  It is of course in
> the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to
> claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is no
> reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing.  The content of the
> message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue.  Some people may see this
> as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a
> slippery slope.  Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might not
> be the case for the next victim.  Will the poster in question decide that I
> am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?
>
> Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US
> government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a
> grant recipient.   Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry
> that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting
> their employment.   (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential
> administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including
> myself, in the past.)  If participants on this list are allowed to engage
> in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that my
> chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on this
> list due to the risk to their livelihoods.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedia-l,
> >
> > Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
> > been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are
> reasonable,
> > respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it
> is
> > important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of
> > "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
> > next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
> >
> > In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific
> > individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay
> on
> > problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and
> objectively
> > participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for
> posting
> > to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically
> fix
> > all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
> > reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
> > intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its
> > course.
> >
> > Best,
> > Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
> >> length less than a year ago?
> >>
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri
> >> odic_survey_prototype
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned
> from
> >> the
> >> > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
> regarding
> >> > why they will not do so.
> >> >
> >> > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
> >> > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
> >> contacting
> >> > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
> >> that my
> >> >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
> >> >>
> >> >> And I stand by them.
> >> >>
> >> >> Seddon
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Joseph
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.
> >> I
> >> >> said
> >> >> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
> >> To
> >> >> the
> >> >> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
> >> ask
> >> >> how
> >> >> > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason,
> >> you
> >> >> > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
> >> quibble
> >> >> over
> >> >> > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation,
> which I
> >> >> > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to
> make
> >> >> about
> >> >> > the handling of personal information, please do so.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
> >> the
> >> >> > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
> >> posting,
> >> >> and
> >> >> > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
> >> >> Alternatively,
> >> >> > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this
> is
> >> the
> >> >> > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public
> forum.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Reginald
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask
> your
> >> >> > > pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
> >> pseudonymous
> >> >> > > individual.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Seddon
> >> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> >> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> >> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> >> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> >> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
> >> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> >> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsu
> >> bscribe>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> >> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> >> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> >> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
> >> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> >> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=
> unsubscribe>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Seddon
> >> >>
> >> >> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> >> >> *Wikimedia Foundation*
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Wikimedia-l
> >> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Rich Farmbrough
While I would  (and have) strongly opposed both threats and actual
contacting of employerst of volunteers, I think the situation here is
somewhat different.

Firstly WMF employees are not subject to community sanction insofar as
their paid roles go.  Secondly it is perfectlying normal to have an
escalation path in case of difficulty in anthe public faxing role.

I am aware that the US has a culture far more prone to fire people first
and ask questions later, than the UK, but I would hope that the WMF does
not work like that.

On 25 Aug 2017 19:23, "Andrew Lih" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'd like to second what Rob has expressed here. This list already suffers a
> very poor reputation within our community, even as it is positioned as an
> important part of our communications ecosystem.
>
> Allowing participants to intimidate others and exact "in real life"
> consequences should be dealt with in the most severe manner. If we do
> not meatball:DefendEachOther, and deliver the basic safety needs of the
> list membership, how can we in good conscience keep this list running and
> encourage participation?
>
> -Andrew
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am
> > disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an
> > uncrossable line here.
> >
> > Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly
> > responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me.
> > It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue.  It is of course in
> > the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to
> > claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is
> no
> > reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing.  The content of the
> > message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue.  Some people may see
> this
> > as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a
> > slippery slope.  Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might
> not
> > be the case for the next victim.  Will the poster in question decide
> that I
> > am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?
> >
> > Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US
> > government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a
> > grant recipient.   Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry
> > that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting
> > their employment.   (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential
> > administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including
> > myself, in the past.)  If participants on this list are allowed to engage
> > in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that
> my
> > chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on
> this
> > list due to the risk to their livelihoods.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Wikimedia-l,
> > >
> > > Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision
> has
> > > been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are
> > reasonable,
> > > respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that
> it
> > is
> > > important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those
> of
> > > "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
> > > next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
> > >
> > > In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on
> specific
> > > individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay
> > on
> > > problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and
> > objectively
> > > participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for
> > posting
> > > to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically
> > fix
> > > all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
> > > reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
> > > intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run
> its
> > > course.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
> > >> length less than a year ago?
> > >>
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri
> > >> odic_survey_prototype
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
> > >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned
> > from
> > >> the
> > >> > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
> > regarding
> > >> > why they will not do so.
> > >> >
> > >> > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect
> on
> > >> > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
> > >> contacting
> > >> > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
> > >> that my
> > >> >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> And I stand by them.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Seddon
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > >> [hidden email]>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Joseph
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so
> too.
> > >> I
> > >> >> said
> > >> >> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life
> identity
> > >> To
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable
> to
> > >> ask
> > >> >> how
> > >> >> > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some
> reason,
> > >> you
> > >> >> > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
> > >> quibble
> > >> >> over
> > >> >> > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation,
> > which I
> > >> >> > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to
> > make
> > >> >> about
> > >> >> > the handling of personal information, please do so.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise
> to
> > >> the
> > >> >> > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
> > >> posting,
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
> > >> >> Alternatively,
> > >> >> > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this
> > is
> > >> the
> > >> >> > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public
> > forum.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Reginald
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
> > >> [hidden email]>
> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask
> > your
> > >> >> > > pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
> > >> pseudonymous
> > >> >> > > individual.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Seddon
> > >> >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >> >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> >> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> >> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> >> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > >> >> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
> > >> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >> >> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsu
> > >> bscribe>
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> >> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> >> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> >> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > >> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
> > >> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >> >> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=
> > unsubscribe>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Seddon
> > >> >>
> > >> >> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> > >> >> *Wikimedia Foundation*
> > >> >> _______________________________________________
> > >> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=
> unsubscribe>
> > >> >>
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/Wikimedia-l
> > >> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Shani Evenstein
In reply to this post by Shani Evenstein
Dear Wikimedia-l subscribers,

Throughout this discussion several requests have been made regarding
banning of users from the list.

Since we do not have an official banning policy approved by the community,
we have drafted our thoughts on the matter, as well as a proposed procedure
for your consideration. We are adding it as a 5th point in our “Request for
Comments” in our journey towards a healthier community.

You are welcome to support it, oppose it, explicitly ask that it be left to
the admins’ decision (which is arguably status quo), or propose an entirely
new option that we haven’t thought about.

Best,

The Wikimedia-l admin team.

------------------------------

The list is a tool for the community and it exists to serve the community.
The ability to express dissenting opinions and to criticize is important in
any movement, and is particularly cherished in our movement, which empowers
individuals to an uncommon degree. But dissenting opinions should not mean
a carte blanche to express it in offensive, threatening, or menacing ways.
And critics have no immunity from criticism.  Individuals’ behavior can
reduce the usefulness of the list, either intentionally (trolling) or
unintentionally. Our proposals seek to minimize individuals’ ability to
reduce the usefulness of the list, without targeting specific individuals.

It is important to note that attempts to limit or ban individuals who
express criticism *and* misbehave are sometimes interpreted as “silencing
of criticism” and as an abuse of power. We cannot avoid these
interpretations. Our duty as admins is to ensure that if a subscriber is
banned, it would not be criticism alone that caused the ban; that the
request to ban is not made by just one or few individuals, but rather a
decision of the list community at large; and that the community decides
based on clear criteria.

Some of the opposition votes on the list, Meta & Facebook thus far
suggested that removing individuals would work better than adding rules. In
general, and on many Wikipedias, it is considered unacceptable to approach
a contributor's boss to complain about something that contributor said
on-wiki. More than one member alluded to this norm in calling for a ban of
a member based on his complaining about a WMF employee who is active on the
list. However, it seems to us that specifically for Foundation (or
chapters) employees, whose day jobs are in service of this community, it
should be permissible to escalate a concern about an employee's conduct to
their manager. This should of course be a last resort and executed with
caution and discretion.

No doubt, some people may abuse this and file fake or trolling complaints.
It should be up to the managers at WMF to apply their judgment (and seek
guidance from their own managers, if necessary) in reviewing such
complaints. We recognize that the risk of being complained about may deter
some employees from engaging on the list, and that would be unfortunate.
However, it would be absurd to make criticism of employee conduct the one
topic the community is not allowed to discuss or complain about. Working
for pay for this movement entails being open to community scrutiny and
accepting the fact one may be held accountable by one's manager based on
input from the community. Foundation staff also have the benefit of a
reporting structure and a Human Resources department, both of which can
support them in the face of the occasional unjustified or trolling
complaint. It is up to all of us to express criticism fairly and calmly, to
speak up for and not only against, and to prefer discussion to attack.

It is possible that the community would find an individual so disruptive
and so draining, that the community moves to ban that individual. The list
admins would execute such a ban if and when there is clear evidence of
significant community support for such a move. An individual request to ban
a subscriber of the list will not constitute such evidence. But if the
community of this mailing list so chooses, it can organize a demonstration
of its wishes and the list admins would act on it.

Finally, we would like to observe that the negative atmosphere on the list
is greatly amplified by the relative shortage of constructive conversation.
This is no doubt the result of years of frustration, but it is also a
vicious cycle. Borrowing from Gandhi, we call upon everyone reading this
with an interest in reviving the list as a useful discussion space to “be
the conversation you would like to see in the list”. A flourishing of
constructive, collegial conversation would do much to reduce the relative
significance of problematic or unpleasant contributors.

Sincerely,

The Wikimedia-l admin team.

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Shani Evenstein <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I should have mentioned that we are working on a formal response regarding
> the request to ban subscribers from the list.This is an issue that has been
> raised during this discussion and we are carefully considering our thoughts
> on the matter, as we did for the 4 points that we already requested
> comments on. We are close to reaching a consensus and will hopefully be
> able to release it soon, but we are in different time zones, so please bear
> with us. Our response will sum up our view regarding the points raised in
> the list re banning, as well as suggest a proper procedure.
>
> We thank you all for your patience, and again, urge you to take a step
> back, not focus on individual cases and respond constructively to the 4
> points that were raised in John's original mail.
>
> Shani.
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am
>> disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an
>> uncrossable line here.
>>
>> Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly
>> responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me.
>> It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue.  It is of course in
>> the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to
>> claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is no
>> reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing.  The content of the
>> message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue.  Some people may see
>> this
>> as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a
>> slippery slope.  Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might not
>> be the case for the next victim.  Will the poster in question decide that
>> I
>> am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?
>>
>> Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US
>> government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a
>> grant recipient.   Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry
>> that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting
>> their employment.   (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential
>> administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including
>> myself, in the past.)  If participants on this list are allowed to engage
>> in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that my
>> chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on this
>> list due to the risk to their livelihoods.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Wikimedia-l,
>> >
>> > Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision
>> has
>> > been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are
>> reasonable,
>> > respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that
>> it is
>> > important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of
>> > "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
>> > next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
>> >
>> > In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific
>> > individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay
>> on
>> > problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and
>> objectively
>> > participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for
>> posting
>> > to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically
>> fix
>> > all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
>> > reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
>> > intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its
>> > course.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
>> >> length less than a year ago?
>> >>
>> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri
>> >> odic_survey_prototype
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
>> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned
>> from
>> >> the
>> >> > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
>> regarding
>> >> > why they will not do so.
>> >> >
>> >> > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect
>> on
>> >> > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
>> >> contacting
>> >> > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
>> >> that my
>> >> >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And I stand by them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Seddon
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
>> >> [hidden email]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Joseph
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so
>> too.
>> >> I
>> >> >> said
>> >> >> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
>> >> To
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
>> >> ask
>> >> >> how
>> >> >> > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some
>> reason,
>> >> you
>> >> >> > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
>> >> quibble
>> >> >> over
>> >> >> > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation,
>> which I
>> >> >> > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to
>> make
>> >> >> about
>> >> >> > the handling of personal information, please do so.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise
>> to
>> >> the
>> >> >> > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
>> >> posting,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
>> >> >> Alternatively,
>> >> >> > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this
>> is
>> >> the
>> >> >> > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public
>> forum.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Reginald
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
>> >> [hidden email]>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask
>> your
>> >> >> > > pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
>> >> pseudonymous
>> >> >> > > individual.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Seddon
>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> >> >> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> >> >> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> >> >> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
>> >> >> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
>> >> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> >> >> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsu
>> >> bscribe>
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> >> >> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> >> >> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> >> >> > New messages to: [hidden email]
>> >> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
>> >> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> >> >> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsu
>> bscribe>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Seddon
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
>> >> >> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> >> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> >> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> >> >> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
>> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> >> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsu
>> bscribe>
>> >> >>
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> >> i/Wikimedia-l
>> >> > New messages to: [hidden email]
>> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
>> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> >> i/Wikimedia-l
>> >> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Strainu
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
Hi,

2017-08-23 7:03 GMT+03:00 John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>:
> Hi list members,
>
> Proposal #1: Monthly 'soft quota' reduced from 30 to 15

The problem with this system is, IMO, not the quota, but the 'soft'
part. There is obviously a thin line between not wanting to break the
discussion and allowing it to be hijacked.

If a quota system is needed (as opposed to considering the moderators
"benevolent dictators" that can use moderation whenever needed), may I
suggest we keep the current quota and add an additional per-thread
soft quota of 1 message/day and a hard quota of 2 messages per day?
"Hard quota" would mean being put on moderation *immediately* after
sending the 3rd message, for increasing periods, just like blocks on
wiki. I think this would further limit the ability of target users to
hijack threads, while discouraging other types of disrupting posting,
such as bikeshedding or back-and-forth exchanges between a couple of
users. The soft limit would also discourage one-liners and encourage
to-the-point emails considering all the points expressed so far.

> --
>
> Proposal #2: Posts by globally banned people not permitted

Definitely agree.

> --
>
> Proposal #3: Identity of an account locked / blocked / banned by two
> Wikimedia communities limited to five (5) posts per month
>

Agree in principle, but with the same note as on Proposal #4

> --
>
> Proposal #4: Undisclosed alternative identities limited to five (5)
> posts per month
>

This is a risky proposal and I would not support it without further
data to justify it. List maintainers should not become checkusers or
do real-life police work.

Strainu

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

John Erling Blad
1. The list gets popular
2. The list attracts people
3. The people sends emails
4. Other people reads emails with opinions
5. Other people don't want to read about other peoples opinions
6. Other people want to limit other peoples opinions
7. Admins starts to wonder how to limit emails
8. Admins starts to limit people
9. Admins makes list unpopular



This has no simple solution, and it can easily turn a living forum into a
dead forum.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Asaf Bartov-2
Your thesis implies admin actions made this list unpopular. I think it is
plain to see this *wasn't* the case with this list. Indeed, some opinions
voiced in this thread indicate people want *more* admin action.

   A.

On Aug 26, 2017 6:30 PM, "John Erling Blad" <[hidden email]> wrote:

1. The list gets popular
2. The list attracts people
3. The people sends emails
4. Other people reads emails with opinions
5. Other people don't want to read about other peoples opinions
6. Other people want to limit other peoples opinions
7. Admins starts to wonder how to limit emails
8. Admins starts to limit people
9. Admins makes list unpopular



This has no simple solution, and it can easily turn a living forum into a
dead forum.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

John Erling Blad
I've seen this in other forums, but note that correlation isn't causality.
Still trying to throttle a forum because someone think it has to much
postings (it is to popular) is dangerous. It can be to quiet… ;)

But hey, I have only a "45" on the popularity rank! [1] I have a long way
to go! =D

[1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Your thesis implies admin actions made this list unpopular. I think it is
> plain to see this *wasn't* the case with this list. Indeed, some opinions
> voiced in this thread indicate people want *more* admin action.
>
>    A.
>
> On Aug 26, 2017 6:30 PM, "John Erling Blad" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 1. The list gets popular
> 2. The list attracts people
> 3. The people sends emails
> 4. Other people reads emails with opinions
> 5. Other people don't want to read about other peoples opinions
> 6. Other people want to limit other peoples opinions
> 7. Admins starts to wonder how to limit emails
> 8. Admins starts to limit people
> 9. Admins makes list unpopular
>
> …
>
> This has no simple solution, and it can easily turn a living forum into a
> dead forum.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by John Erling Blad
At the cost of using up one of my limited number of permitted posts for the month, I agree with this.
Cheers,
peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John Erling Blad
Sent: Saturday, 26 August 2017 6:30 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

1. The list gets popular
2. The list attracts people
3. The people sends emails
4. Other people reads emails with opinions 5. Other people don't want to read about other peoples opinions 6. Other people want to limit other peoples opinions 7. Admins starts to wonder how to limit emails 8. Admins starts to limit people 9. Admins makes list unpopular



This has no simple solution, and it can easily turn a living forum into a dead forum.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

rupert THURNER-2
In reply to this post by John Erling Blad
i do agree with john erling blad, peter southwood and others. this list is
15 years old, and has less traffic nowadays. see
https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html. years ago it had
between 400 and 600 mails a month, nowadays it is approaching half of it,

imo a list admin should make a list attracting and interesting. this means
i would find guidelines on how to write good emails, how often to write,
how much time it takes to write one, how to communicate effectively would
be something i'd love to see. why can we not revert to a positive way of
dealing with mails, picking out real life examples, dissect them and make
the community grow around them? how to handle new members vs old members?
when to repeat what without leaving the old ones annoyed, and the new ones
clueless?

instead of having a childish discussion about posting limits to be honest
...

rupert

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 11:45 PM, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've seen this in other forums, but note that correlation isn't causality.
> Still trying to throttle a forum because someone think it has to much
> postings (it is to popular) is dangerous. It can be to quiet… ;)
>
> But hey, I have only a "45" on the popularity rank! [1] I have a long way
> to go! =D
>
> [1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html
>
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Your thesis implies admin actions made this list unpopular. I think it is
> > plain to see this *wasn't* the case with this list. Indeed, some opinions
> > voiced in this thread indicate people want *more* admin action.
> >
> >    A.
> >
> > On Aug 26, 2017 6:30 PM, "John Erling Blad" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > 1. The list gets popular
> > 2. The list attracts people
> > 3. The people sends emails
> > 4. Other people reads emails with opinions
> > 5. Other people don't want to read about other peoples opinions
> > 6. Other people want to limit other peoples opinions
> > 7. Admins starts to wonder how to limit emails
> > 8. Admins starts to limit people
> > 9. Admins makes list unpopular
> >
> > …
> >
> > This has no simple solution, and it can easily turn a living forum into a
> > dead forum.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Fæ
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
On 23 August 2017 at 05:03, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi list members,
>
> The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I, your
> humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent
> posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere some
> posters (some of them frequent) create.
>
> It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that more
> frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are due
> to the volume of messages rather than the content of the messages.
>
> We are floating some suggestions aimed specifically at reducing the
> volume, hopefully motivating frequent posters to self-moderate more,
> but these proposed limits are actually intending to increasing the
> quality of the discourse without heavy subjective moderation.
>
> The first proposal impacts all posters to this list, and the last
> three proposals are aimed at providing a more clear framework within
> which criticism and whistle-blowing are permitted, but that critics
> are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth that
> will be given to critics should be established in advance, reducing
> need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to the
> volume will often achieve the same result.
...

>
> The RFC is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/wikimedia-l-post-limits
>
> However please also feel welcome to reply on-list if you wish to
> express explicit support or opposition to any of the four proposals
> above (please identify them by number, to ease counting).  We will
> count votes (here and on the meta RFC) after two weeks, and post a
> more refined final version back to this mailing list.
>
> The list administrators will default to *enacting* all four proposals,
> but will refrain from enacting any proposal receiving more opposition
> than support.
> --
> John Vandenberg

The RFC has yet to be closed, after being open for over five months.
Could someone close it or reject it?

In practical reality, the hardline talk about posting limits, seems to
have resulted in significantly reduced posts to this list. The
statistics are somewhat worrying, casting doubt on the long term
future of this list staying active or interesting.

The standard statistics [1] show participation is at a record low. My
sense of the list is that real content discussions are now minimal,
with announcements and thankspam outnumbering thoughtful observations
or critiques.

Picking out one trend to illustrate, here are comparative numbers for
last month against other Januarys in the last few years, which is a
simple way to compensate for seasonal variation:
  2018, 139 posts
  2017, 370 posts
  2016, 989 posts
  2015, 445 posts
  2014, 571 posts

Rather than increasing negative bureaucracy on the list to stop people
posting too much, perhaps the list moderators have some views on how
to positively encourage people to engage with the community here?

Links
1. https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html

Thanks,
Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Chris Koerner
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
Hey Fae,
Let me make sure I understand.

*You believe suggesting posting limits resulted in less posts because
people were afraid of the post limits
*This makes you feel doubt about the health of the mailing list
*The count of posts is low year-over-year for the last few years
*This is indicative of community health
*You feel the content of the list is low on substantive conversation
*You would like feedback on these ideas.

Correlation does not equal causation, so I think it’s not as clear (or
black and white) as I interpret your writing on why we've seen less
participation. Nor do I find any lack of quality in the conversations
that do happen here.

Of course, who's to say that those past years and corresponding
numbers are indicative of a healthy community? :) I remember this
mailing list to have a great number more posts in early 2016, but many
remember that period of time as not such a healthy time for the
movement. If the goal is more posts at the cost of more drama - I'll
take a hard pass.

Do you feel that the mailing list content is less healthy or perhaps
just less noisy? Noisy in the sense of distractions. You mention
criticism and thoughtful conversation. Is it possible that is
happening in other more friendly (technologically accessible and
civil) venues? Perhaps one where familiar usernames are not given such
court to create more distraction?

As for the usefulness of this mailing list I can only speak for
myself. I work remotely. I have conditioned into me from previous
experiences not to send frivolous single-sentence replies. However in
my experience within the movement, these sort of of “hey I acknowledge
you exist, saw your message, but have nothing to add” messages are
helpful for remaining connected to colleagues who are physically
distant, but frequently encountered (and sometimes sadly not) in
online spaces. It’s part of the reason I find the Thanks extension
helpful on-wiki. So that is to say, this is a hearty +1 to the current
state of things. In my opinion, I'm fine. We're fine.

I hope this is a somewhat thoughtful observation and not too spammy. :)

Thanks,
Chris K.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

mathieu lovato stumpf guntz


Le 09/02/2018 à 22:57, Chris Koerner a écrit :

> As for the usefulness of this mailing list I can only speak for
> myself. I work remotely. I have conditioned into me from previous
> experiences not to send frivolous single-sentence replies. However in
> my experience within the movement, these sort of of “hey I acknowledge
> you exist, saw your message, but have nothing to add” messages are
> helpful for remaining connected to colleagues who are physically
> distant, but frequently encountered (and sometimes sadly not) in
> online spaces. It’s part of the reason I find the Thanks extension
> helpful on-wiki. So that is to say, this is a hearty +1 to the current
> state of things. In my opinion, I'm fine. We're fine.
Maybe a mailling list equivalent could be developed, for example
indicating a link to thank the person at the end of the email, which
both email this person and add some data for the mailling-list statitics.

Cheers
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Pine W
For some time there have been periodic mentions of the idea of moving
Wikimedia-l to Discourse. [0]

I am considering establishing a Discourse installation myself and offering
it to host Wikimedia-l or its successor, which in addition to potential
usability improvements from Discourse would have the added benefit that it
would not be hosted on a WMF server and therefore would be somewhat
insulated from governance controversies at WMF such as we have experienced
in the past and such as the one recently experienced by WMFR. However, I am
concerned that I would be unable to provide sufficient legal protections
for the privacy of the list and its members, so I have not initiated this
project.

I think that a good first order of business would be for someone to close
the existing RfC on Meta. After that RfC is closed I think that we should
have further discussions about how we might like to continue to adjust our
communications on Wikimedia-l or its successor.

I am currently limiting myself to approximately 15 posts per month until
the RfC is closed.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_(software)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Joseph Seddon-6
The question is, does it need a successor?

Seddon


On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> For some time there have been periodic mentions of the idea of moving
> Wikimedia-l to Discourse. [0]
>
> I am considering establishing a Discourse installation myself and offering
> it to host Wikimedia-l or its successor, which in addition to potential
> usability improvements from Discourse would have the added benefit that it
> would not be hosted on a WMF server and therefore would be somewhat
> insulated from governance controversies at WMF such as we have experienced
> in the past and such as the one recently experienced by WMFR. However, I am
> concerned that I would be unable to provide sufficient legal protections
> for the privacy of the list and its members, so I have not initiated this
> project.
>
> I think that a good first order of business would be for someone to close
> the existing RfC on Meta. After that RfC is closed I think that we should
> have further discussions about how we might like to continue to adjust our
> communications on Wikimedia-l or its successor.
>
> I am currently limiting myself to approximately 15 posts per month until
> the RfC is closed.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_(software)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Seddon

*Community and Audience Engagement Associate*
*Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation*
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Leila Zia
[writing at personal capacity.]

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> The question is, does it need a successor?
>

Whether mailing list is a good option for the kind of discussions we have
in wikimedia-l is not clear to me, however, the list is serving some
purposes and we need to make decisions about how those purposes will be
served if the list is removed. On a personal and professional level, this
list has helped me:

* find a social side to Wikimedia: When I joined WMF as a staff member four
years ago, I pretty much knew no one. Keeping an eye on this list has
helped me over the years to find a base beyond WMF staff that I know and I
can have volunteer, staff, or personal relations with. This is invaluable.
:)

* learn about Wikimedia's governance: again, for a newcomer like myself, it
was invaluable to be exposed to many different voices, opinions,
backgrounds, perspectives, etc. in one place.

* learn about the different projects going on around the Movement.

* find people who are interested to work with me in the research projects I
do at staff time.

This being said, I'm all for rethinking how we as a Movement communicate,
for what purpose, and what kind of technologies can help us do that more
efficiently and effectively.

Leila



>
> Seddon
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > For some time there have been periodic mentions of the idea of moving
> > Wikimedia-l to Discourse. [0]
> >
> > I am considering establishing a Discourse installation myself and
> offering
> > it to host Wikimedia-l or its successor, which in addition to potential
> > usability improvements from Discourse would have the added benefit that
> it
> > would not be hosted on a WMF server and therefore would be somewhat
> > insulated from governance controversies at WMF such as we have
> experienced
> > in the past and such as the one recently experienced by WMFR. However, I
> am
> > concerned that I would be unable to provide sufficient legal protections
> > for the privacy of the list and its members, so I have not initiated this
> > project.
> >
> > I think that a good first order of business would be for someone to close
> > the existing RfC on Meta. After that RfC is closed I think that we should
> > have further discussions about how we might like to continue to adjust
> our
> > communications on Wikimedia-l or its successor.
> >
> > I am currently limiting myself to approximately 15 posts per month until
> > the RfC is closed.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> > [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_(software)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Community and Audience Engagement Associate*
> *Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation*
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Craig Franklin
In reply to this post by Fæ
It would be good to conclusively and definitively close the RFC, but I'm
not sure I agree with the notion that less posts is a *bad* thing.  In some
months we've had quite a lot of traffic on this list, a lot of which has
been very low quality and only of interest to a small number of people.  I
do not see that the utility of this list can be measured accurately by
looking solely at volume metrics like the number of posts or the size of
the posts.

Plus, I would also add that a look at the history of the list shows that
posting amounts vary widely anyway.  There were more than twice as many
posts in October 2017 as compared to October 2016, for instance.

Cheers,
Craig

On 7 February 2018 at 22:01, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 23 August 2017 at 05:03, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi list members,
> >
> > The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I, your
> > humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent
> > posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere some
> > posters (some of them frequent) create.
> >
> > It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that more
> > frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are due
> > to the volume of messages rather than the content of the messages.
> >
> > We are floating some suggestions aimed specifically at reducing the
> > volume, hopefully motivating frequent posters to self-moderate more,
> > but these proposed limits are actually intending to increasing the
> > quality of the discourse without heavy subjective moderation.
> >
> > The first proposal impacts all posters to this list, and the last
> > three proposals are aimed at providing a more clear framework within
> > which criticism and whistle-blowing are permitted, but that critics
> > are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth that
> > will be given to critics should be established in advance, reducing
> > need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to the
> > volume will often achieve the same result.
> ...
> >
> > The RFC is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/
> wikimedia-l-post-limits
> >
> > However please also feel welcome to reply on-list if you wish to
> > express explicit support or opposition to any of the four proposals
> > above (please identify them by number, to ease counting).  We will
> > count votes (here and on the meta RFC) after two weeks, and post a
> > more refined final version back to this mailing list.
> >
> > The list administrators will default to *enacting* all four proposals,
> > but will refrain from enacting any proposal receiving more opposition
> > than support.
> > --
> > John Vandenberg
>
> The RFC has yet to be closed, after being open for over five months.
> Could someone close it or reject it?
>
> In practical reality, the hardline talk about posting limits, seems to
> have resulted in significantly reduced posts to this list. The
> statistics are somewhat worrying, casting doubt on the long term
> future of this list staying active or interesting.
>
> The standard statistics [1] show participation is at a record low. My
> sense of the list is that real content discussions are now minimal,
> with announcements and thankspam outnumbering thoughtful observations
> or critiques.
>
> Picking out one trend to illustrate, here are comparative numbers for
> last month against other Januarys in the last few years, which is a
> simple way to compensate for seasonal variation:
>   2018, 139 posts
>   2017, 370 posts
>   2016, 989 posts
>   2015, 445 posts
>   2014, 571 posts
>
> Rather than increasing negative bureaucracy on the list to stop people
> posting too much, perhaps the list moderators have some views on how
> to positively encourage people to engage with the community here?
>
> Links
> 1. https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Gergo Tisza
In reply to this post by Pine W
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am considering establishing a Discourse installation myself and offering
> it to host Wikimedia-l or its successor


There are already two experimental Discourse instances:
https://discourse.wmflabs.org/ for trialing Discourse as a mailing list
alternative (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Discourse )
https://discourse-mediawiki.wmflabs.org/ for trialing it as a developer
support channel (see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Discourse )
The latter has more movement these days (it's seen as a more pressing
problem to solve, also it's a semi-official WMF project) but in any case
the technology side of introducing Discourse is well covered; it's the
social side (finding a small or new mailing list, convince them to move to
Discourse, collect feedback) that needs work.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
123