the use of foundation-l

[Gerard Meijssen-3]

Hoi,
I am at the Commons usability conference in Paris. I am not on any internal
mailing lists. It has become painfully obvious that as a consequence of a
refusal to any longer post on the foundation-l by several people present at
this conference, the use of foundation-l has been severely diminished.

There have been frequent threads and pleas on this list to moderate the
output of opinions, restated opinions, and the people who are asked to do so
are adamant that it is their "democratic right" or whatever to state what
they have to say, that the onus of selecting what thread to read is on the
reader.

The consequence for me has been that the frequency that I post on this list
has decreased a lot. I now blog and this has proven to be more effective.
However for the issue at hand at this conference, there is little likelihood
that it will be discussed on this list. It will not be because several of
the key people refuse to. For me to keep informed, I will have to get access
to the internal list or I will find that much of what is happening will pass
me by.

The argument about "democratic right" to be heard is balanced with the
argument for our "democratic right" to be informed. We are not informed and
will not be informed because of the verbal diarrhoea by some and their
unrepentant claim that they are not responsible for the results. As I
indicated earlier I have no solution. The only solution I see is moderation.
Moderation preferably by the people involved but I would like us to consider
the moderation by moderators whereby people can be in extremis be completely
removed from the list.

Let us be clear, the value of foundation-l has a direct relation to the
quality of the discussions. The signal to noise ratio has devalued this
list. It is however the only mailing list that qualifies. Maybe and probably
mail is not the best technology for the existing unbridled discussion,
Google Wave has more potential but that is not the technology that is
currently available to us.

Please read it as an appeal to reply to foundation-l in moderation. Please
read it as an appeal to post liberally to this list as we do not have an
alternative.
Thanks,
      GerardM
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:28:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
gerard.meijssen@... writes:


> Please read it as an appeal to reply to foundation-l in moderation.
> Please
> read it as an appeal to post liberally to this list as we do not have an
> alternative.>>
> -------------------
>
>

Speaking of self-moderation., a google search on
Foundation-l "gerard meijssen" shows

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&
rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=7zN&num=50&q=foundation-l+%22gerard+Meijssen%22&lr=&
aq=f&oq=&aqi=

33,000 pages

Is there a way to create a chart showing how many messages each poster has
posted to the list?  Also Gerard I think if you're going to use an argument
about the value of those people who *aren't* posting, we need to know who
they are.  Perhaps we don't want them to post either.

Until we get some hard facts on the issue, how is any decision supposed to
be able to be reached?

W.J.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Mark Williamson-4]

There is already a statistics page,
http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Index.html
skype: node.ue


On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:13 AM, <WJhonson@...> wrote:

> In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:28:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> gerard.meijssen@... writes:
>
>
> > Please read it as an appeal to reply to foundation-l in moderation.
> > Please
> > read it as an appeal to post liberally to this list as we do not have an
> > alternative.>>
> > -------------------
> >
> >
>
> Speaking of self-moderation., a google search on
> Foundation-l "gerard meijssen" shows
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&
>
> rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=7zN&num=50&q=foundation-l+%22gerard+Meijssen%22&lr=&
> aq=f&oq=&aqi=<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&%0Arls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=7zN&num=50&q=foundation-l+%22gerard+Meijssen%22&lr=&%0Aaq=f&oq=&aqi=>
>
> 33,000 pages
>
> Is there a way to create a chart showing how many messages each poster has
> posted to the list?  Also Gerard I think if you're going to use an argument
> about the value of those people who *aren't* posting, we need to know who
> they are.  Perhaps we don't want them to post either.
>
> Until we get some hard facts on the issue, how is any decision supposed to
> be able to be reached?
>
> W.J.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Gerard Meijssen-3]

Hoi,
If you want statistics, you do not have to google ... there are our own
statistics ...
http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/_PowerPosters.html I am a power
poster and that often does not feel good. However, it is beside the point.

I am on a conference and it is from people who are essential to this
conference that I have this information. Now if you think that you need to
pass judgement on this, you have a self centred world. That is very much
part of the issue. The issue is that the context of the issue IS clear from
my original post. I will not damage these people by naming them.
Thanks,
     GerardM

2009/11/8 <WJhonson@...>

> In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:28:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> gerard.meijssen@... writes:
>
>
> > Please read it as an appeal to reply to foundation-l in moderation.
> > Please
> > read it as an appeal to post liberally to this list as we do not have an
> > alternative.>>
> > -------------------
> >
> >
>
> Speaking of self-moderation., a google search on
> Foundation-l "gerard meijssen" shows
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&
>
> rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=7zN&num=50&q=foundation-l+%22gerard+Meijssen%22&lr=&
> aq=f&oq=&aqi=<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&%0Arls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=7zN&num=50&q=foundation-l+%22gerard+Meijssen%22&lr=&%0Aaq=f&oq=&aqi=>
>
> 33,000 pages
>
> Is there a way to create a chart showing how many messages each poster has
> posted to the list?  Also Gerard I think if you're going to use an argument
> about the value of those people who *aren't* posting, we need to know who
> they are.  Perhaps we don't want them to post either.
>
> Until we get some hard facts on the issue, how is any decision supposed to
> be able to be reached?
>
> W.J.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 11/8/2009 12:30:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
gerard.meijssen@... writes:


> Now if you think that you need to
> pass judgement on this, you have a self centred world. That is very much
> part of the issue. The issue is that the context of the issue IS clear
> from
> my original post. I will not damage these people by naming them.>>

You're passing judgement on others, while protesting that others (you
think) are passing judgement on you.  You're a power poster, but you want others
to not be power posters.

People will always leave email lists and people will always join.  Let's
see statistics on the number who've left and the number who've joined.  Do we
really want 3000 readers with 10 speakers?  Or maybe 1000 readers with 100
speakers?

I don't see a lot of lurkers as being exactly what we'd aim for.  You're
free to convince me but of course that would require posting more messages
while asking for people to stop posting more messages.

In my mind the more active a list is, the more input you get, and the
broader community is drawn to the list, instead of a select few.  That seems
closer to what we'd want.

Will

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Mark Williamson-4]

Gerard may post quite a bit, but in general his posts serve a purpose. Many
people on this list seem to write just to see their words, that is to say,
they seem repeat information and attempt to reply to every e-mail. This is
not constructive and it is not conducive to the expansion of knowledge.

To be on the Power Poster list is a bad thing for some, but it is not a
shameful thing by itself certainly. If you have a lot of useful things to
say, that's not so bad.

Mark

skype: node.ue


On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@...>wrote:

> Hoi,
> If you want statistics, you do not have to google ... there are our own
> statistics ...
> http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/_PowerPosters.html I am a
> power
> poster and that often does not feel good. However, it is beside the point.
>
> I am on a conference and it is from people who are essential to this
> conference that I have this information. Now if you think that you need to
> pass judgement on this, you have a self centred world. That is very much
> part of the issue. The issue is that the context of the issue IS clear from
> my original post. I will not damage these people by naming them.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> 2009/11/8 <WJhonson@...>
>
> > In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:28:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > gerard.meijssen@... writes:
> >
> >
> > > Please read it as an appeal to reply to foundation-l in moderation.
> > > Please
> > > read it as an appeal to post liberally to this list as we do not have
> an
> > > alternative.>>
> > > -------------------
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Speaking of self-moderation., a google search on
> > Foundation-l "gerard meijssen" shows
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&
> >
> >
> rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=7zN&num=50&q=foundation-l+%22gerard+Meijssen%22&lr=&
> > aq=f&oq=&aqi=<
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&%0Arls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=7zN&num=50&q=foundation-l+%22gerard+Meijssen%22&lr=&%0Aaq=f&oq=&aqi=
> >
> >
> > 33,000 pages
> >
> > Is there a way to create a chart showing how many messages each poster
> has
> > posted to the list?  Also Gerard I think if you're going to use an
> argument
> > about the value of those people who *aren't* posting, we need to know who
> > they are.  Perhaps we don't want them to post either.
> >
> > Until we get some hard facts on the issue, how is any decision supposed
> to
> > be able to be reached?
> >
> > W.J.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@...
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[WJhonson]

I will in the next few days, create a list which shows who, each month, has
posted the most messages to the list.  Or perhaps the top few.  I was
surprised, seeing the statistics page, at how few active participants there are.  
Really just a handful, and it's been that way, for quite a long time, not a
recent event.  Which puts into perspective the implication that anything
has changed in this regard recently.

I did notice already some very surprising people who are the most
talkative.  Once we have the hard facts, then perhaps there could be a scientific
discussion of how to address it.  I don't personally like discussions based on
personal belief or experience alone.  They tend, in my opinion, to be
skewed.

By the way, when new potential-power-users appear, they should at the
minimum be given the same leeway, in number of posts, as any other user.  That is
apparently, by the examples we see in the statitics, something like 120
messages per month!  That's a lot!

Will

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Fajro]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:13 AM,  <WJhonson@...> wrote:

> Is there a way to create a chart showing how many messages each poster has
> posted to the list?  Also Gerard I think if you're going to use an argument
> about the value of those people who *aren't* posting, we need to know who
> they are.  Perhaps we don't want them to post either.

who *aren't* posting?

Well... we have a language barrier which makes everyone who does not
feel comfortable with their level of English do not participate as
much as they wanted. (myself included)

There are also people who do not have time to read mails so long as
many here like to write.

And many are tired of reading childish and sterile discussions and
call this list "a useless troll's nest".

Some change is needed.

--
△ ℱajro △
"Obstinacy and vehemency in opinion are the surest proofs of stupidity."

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Gerard Meijssen-3]

Hoi,
Please do your research.. but do not expect that people did not look at the
numbers before. So the person that most needs to  be convinced is yourself.

Your notion that you "deserve" at least as much room to experiment as the
worst of us is a fallacy. You have been made aware that there is an issue
and that relevant people refuse to post on the foundation list. You have
been made that this is because of the inconsiderate posting that you claim a
right to.

When you learn from your research that we have a problem, you only confirm
what is already known. The only question I have is, will this make a
difference to you?
Thanks,
     GerardM


2009/11/8 <WJhonson@...>

> I will in the next few days, create a list which shows who, each month, has
> posted the most messages to the list.  Or perhaps the top few.  I was
> surprised, seeing the statistics page, at how few active participants there
> are.
> Really just a handful, and it's been that way, for quite a long time, not a
> recent event.  Which puts into perspective the implication that anything
> has changed in this regard recently.
>
> I did notice already some very surprising people who are the most
> talkative.  Once we have the hard facts, then perhaps there could be a
> scientific
> discussion of how to address it.  I don't personally like discussions based
> on
> personal belief or experience alone.  They tend, in my opinion, to be
> skewed.
>
> By the way, when new potential-power-users appear, they should at the
> minimum be given the same leeway, in number of posts, as any other user.
>  That is
> apparently, by the examples we see in the statitics, something like 120
> messages per month!  That's a lot!
>
> Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 11/8/2009 2:06:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
gerard.meijssen@... writes:


> When you learn from your research that we have a problem, you only
> confirm
> what is already known. The only question I have is, will this make a
> difference to you?>>

No personal attacks Gerard.
The number of postings to this list by me, as shown by the statistics is
insignificant.  You and everyone else can see that clearly for themselves.

Will

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Gerard Meijssen-3]

Hoi,
This was not meant as an attack. What I intended to do is rebut your
arguments. When this is considered as a personal attack, it means that it is
not possible to respond to you and reply to your arguments.
Thanks,
     GerardM

2009/11/8 <WJhonson@...>

> In a message dated 11/8/2009 2:06:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> gerard.meijssen@... writes:
>
>
> > When you learn from your research that we have a problem, you only
> > confirm
> > what is already known. The only question I have is, will this make a
> > difference to you?>>
>
> No personal attacks Gerard.
> The number of postings to this list by me, as shown by the statistics is
> insignificant.  You and everyone else can see that clearly for themselves.
>
> Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 11/8/2009 2:06:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
gerard.meijssen@... writes:


> Your notion that you "deserve" at least as much room to experiment as the
> worst of us is a fallacy. You have been made aware that there is an issue
> and that relevant people refuse to post on the foundation list. You have
> been made that this is because of the inconsiderate posting that you claim
> a
> right to.>>

The reason I asked for no personal attacks is because the above, by you,
sounds very much like : "You are the problem.  You are a problem."

To me that is a personal attack.  I'm working on an article to show that,
for example, you yourself, have been the most prolific poster at times in the
past, if not this month.  And others have been at other times.  There is no
difference between a new contributor creating 50 messages a month, and an
old one doing the exact same thing.  That a person has been contributing for
a year, doesn't give them an unchallengable right to do something that a new
person cannot do as well.

So if there is a problem, that *a* person generates a lot of messages in a
month, that problem has been here on this list for a very long time.  And
people who stay away because of volume, would have stayed away far earlier
than now.

This month, the number of postings so far, is far below the most we've ever
had.  This list in the past has generated 1200 messages in a single month.  
We're far short of anything like that so far.  So any belief that a large
number of postings rapidly is new, is not an accurate understanding of this
lists historical activity.

Will

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/11/8  <WJhonson@...>:

> The reason I asked for no personal attacks is because the above, by you,
> sounds very much like : "You are the problem.  You are a problem."


Actually, you are the problem. Your posts to foundation-l of late have
pretty much entirely been self-aggrandising noise and the meta-issues
around being called out on it. Please desist.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l