Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing?

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

thomas.dalton at gmail

Nov 7, 2009, 1:37 PM

Post #26 of 35 (300 views)
Permalink

Re: The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing? [In reply to]

2009/11/7 Michael Snow <wikipedia[at]verizon.net>:
> This is not a matter of people's opinions being equally valid, it's a
> matter of their experiences being equally valid. Ignoring emails may be
> easy in that it does not require a lot of labor, which seems to be the
> focus of your argument. It is not necessarily easy in terms of the
> decisionmaking overhead of doing so, or the weight someone might feel
> accompanies the decision. Different people experience that differently,
> because they think, feel, and act differently. This is not something for
> us to call right or wrong, it is part of what we need to deal with in a
> society with people of diverse experiences. Otherwise we limit ourselves
> to the company of those who are exactly like us.

So people would rather I decided what they are and aren't interested
in? Surprising... most people I know like to make their own decisions
about things like that...

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

william at scissor

Nov 7, 2009, 8:54 PM

Post #27 of 35 (300 views)
Permalink

Re: The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing? [In reply to]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/11/7 William Pietri <william[at]scissor.com>:
>
>> Well, you perceive the burden as negligible for them. Have you asked
>> them? My impression was that you imagined it would be easy for them
>> because it would be easy for you. Personally, I'd imagine otherwise,
>> based partly on how easy it would be for me, and partly on a lot of time
>> spent observing people using software.
>>
>
> Ignoring emails *is* easy. Anyone that says otherwise is wrong. I do
> not subscribe to this "everyone's opinion is equally valid" nonsense -
> sometimes people are just plain wrong.
>

I am definitely not suggesting that all opinions are equally valid. But
personally I decline to accept as proof your assertion that your view is
correct. In my line of work, we prove these things with data.

If you wanted to demonstrate that ignoring emails is indeed easy for all
people, using all email readers, and for all purposes with which people
approach their email reading, you would have a lot of research ahead of
you. You might start with Kuniavsky's book "Observing the User
Experience". My guess is that you'd find that it is easy for a
relatively small percentage of people.

Until you want to do that, though, if you'd like the discussion to
proceed, you'll have to accept that there are differing opinions on the
topic. Not that you have to like them or agree with them, but I expect
you'd benefit by demonstrating respect for their holders.

> Of course not sending emails is easy. There is more to something being
> burdensome than it being difficult. Not sending an email is
> sacrificing your freedom of expression for someone else - that is a
> definite burden. It is burden that is it sometimes appropriate to take
> on, but this isn't such a time.
>

It's not clear to me that freedom of expression is a useful term here,
in that I see no government involvement. Could we instead look at is as
your desire, and perhaps the desire of others, to say something to this
group? If so, what do you think motivates that desire?

And obviously, other people have different desires for the use of this
list. What do you think their motivations are?

>> Part of the problem may be that people often don't like other people
>> imposing burdens on them. It's often read as an attempt of social
>> dominance, or as rude or contemptuous. So your unilateral placing of
>> burden may be interfering with your desire to move the conversation forward.
>>
>
> People telling me not to send the emails I want to is them
> unilaterally imposing a burden on me. How is that different?
>

Yes, that was my point. You and a few others don't like others asking
for a change in behavior, so I was hoping you'd have some sympathy for
them. But as far as I know, they aren't actually imposing anything, in
that nobody is actually stopping the posts in question. So if there's
actual imposing going on, it's on the part of the posters.

>> If you wanted to know, you could start by asking them.
>
> When I make a point during an argument I am always implicitly asking
> people that disagree to make a counter-point. That is how arguments
> work.
>

Well, that's how you want them to work. That used to be how I approached
them, too. But that's now how they work for a lot of people. And some
people would rather not have arguments at all, favoring discussions instead.

I tried to change my approach because I got feedback from friends that I
was coming across as "an annoying, argumentative jerk", lacking in
consideration for my conversational partners. That wasn't what was going
on in my head, but that was what plenty of people were perceiving.
Eventually I decided I was more interested in being effective than in
keeping my old behaviors.

I think of it as a cultural thing; different people have different
customs, and what's ok in one place is rude in another. Or one time and
another; I've been working my way through the Sherlock Holmes novels
recently, and I've been enjoying the Victorian approach to politeness
immensely.

William
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

william at scissor

Nov 7, 2009, 9:03 PM

Post #28 of 35 (299 views)
Permalink

Re: The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing? [In reply to]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> So people would rather I decided what they are and aren't interested
> in? Surprising... most people I know like to make their own decisions
> about things like that...

My guess is that people here want what pretty much anybody in a shared
context wants: consideration and respect for their experiences. You
don't have to unilaterally decide what interests people; if you're
unsure, you can just ask.

Elsewhere on the Internet I moderate a couple of mailing lists, and I
frequently get questions like these:

* I'm new to the group, and wondered if it would be ok to ask about X.
* Have I been talking too much about Y? People seem interested, but
it's a little off topic.
* I'm worried that thread Z has gone too long. Am I beating a dead
horse?

William

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

thomas.dalton at gmail

Nov 7, 2009, 9:08 PM

Post #29 of 35 (299 views)
Permalink

Re: The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing? [In reply to]

2009/11/8 William Pietri <william[at]scissor.com>:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Ignoring emails *is* easy. Anyone that says otherwise is wrong. I do
>> not subscribe to this "everyone's opinion is equally valid" nonsense -
>> sometimes people are just plain wrong.
>>
>
> I am definitely not suggesting that all opinions are equally valid. But
> personally I decline to accept as proof your assertion that your view is
> correct. In my line of work, we prove these things with data.
>
> If you wanted to demonstrate that ignoring emails is indeed easy for all
> people, using all email readers, and for all purposes with which people
> approach their email reading, you would have a lot of research ahead of
> you. You might start with Kuniavsky's book "Observing the User
> Experience". My guess is that you'd find that it is easy for a
> relatively small percentage of people.

If someone gave a reason for it being difficult, then they might
convince me. So far, no-one has tried. I think the burden of proof is
on those say it is hard since, on the face of it, not doing something
(in this case, reading an email) seems like an easy thing to do.

>> Of course not sending emails is easy. There is more to something being
>> burdensome than it being difficult. Not sending an email is
>> sacrificing your freedom of expression for someone else - that is a
>> definite burden. It is burden that is it sometimes appropriate to take
>> on, but this isn't such a time.
>>
>
> It's not clear to me that freedom of expression is a useful term here,
> in that I see no government involvement. Could we instead look at is as
> your desire, and perhaps the desire of others, to say something to this
> group? If so, what do you think motivates that desire?

I support the project and want to improve it. That's what motivates
pretty much everything I do with respect to Wikimedia. (There is a
secondary motivation - I enjoy doing it.)

> And obviously, other people have different desires for the use of this
> list. What do you think their motivations are?

I'm not going to guess. It is up to them to tell me.

>>> Part of the problem may be that people often don't like other people
>>> imposing burdens on them. It's often read as an attempt of social
>>> dominance, or as rude or contemptuous. So your unilateral placing of
>>> burden may be interfering with your desire to move the conversation forward.
>>>
>>
>> People telling me not to send the emails I want to is them
>> unilaterally imposing a burden on me. How is that different?
>>
>
> Yes, that was my point. You and a few others don't like others asking
> for a change in behavior, so I was hoping you'd have some sympathy for
> them. But as far as I know, they aren't actually imposing anything, in
> that nobody is actually stopping the posts in question. So if there's
> actual imposing going on, it's on the part of the posters.

I'm not asking anyone to change their behaviour. I'm asking them to
either put up with things as they are, or change their behaviour. It
is their choice.

>>> If you wanted to know, you could start by asking them.
>>
>> When I make a point during an argument I am always implicitly asking
>> people that disagree to make a counter-point. That is how arguments
>> work.
>>
>
> Well, that's how you want them to work. That used to be how I approached
> them, too. But that's now how they work for a lot of people. And some
> people would rather not have arguments at all, favoring discussions instead.

"Argument" and "discussion" are largely synonymous. A lot of people
have got it into their heads that arguments have to involve people
shouting at each other - that isn't the case. Perhaps I should say
"debate" instead?

> I tried to change my approach because I got feedback from friends that I
> was coming across as "an annoying, argumentative jerk", lacking in
> consideration for my conversational partners. That wasn't what was going
> on in my head, but that was what plenty of people were perceiving.
> Eventually I decided I was more interested in being effective than in
> keeping my old behaviors.

I've gone through those thought processes too, but in my experience
the alternative isn't more effective. The alternative involves never
actually putting across your point of view so you'll never convince
anyone. There is a compromise position - you argue about things that
really matter to you and shut up the rest of the time (the "pick your
battles" approach). That is my choice, the challenge comes in working
out where to draw the line.

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

thomas.dalton at gmail

Nov 7, 2009, 9:12 PM

Post #30 of 35 (300 views)
Permalink

Re: The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing? [In reply to]

2009/11/8 William Pietri <william[at]scissor.com>:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> So people would rather I decided what they are and aren't interested
>> in? Surprising... most people I know like to make their own decisions
>> about things like that...
>
> My guess is that people here want what pretty much anybody in a shared
> context wants: consideration and respect for their experiences.

People talk about "consideration and respect". What they usually mean
is "agreeing with me". Disagreeing with someone is not being
inconsiderate or disrespectful.

> You
> don't have to unilaterally decide what interests people; if you're
> unsure, you can just ask.

It is hardly practical to hold a vote before sending an email - that
would take up even more of people's time. Anyway, what proportion
would I need being interested in what I have to say before I say it?

> Elsewhere on the Internet I moderate a couple of mailing lists, and I
> frequently get questions like these:
>
> * I'm new to the group, and wondered if it would be ok to ask about X.
> * Have I been talking too much about Y? People seem interested, but
> it's a little off topic.
> * I'm worried that thread Z has gone too long. Am I beating a dead
> horse?

And how do you answer them? Based on your experience of what is
usually accepted on the list in question? Who should I ask that has
more experience of these lists than I do?

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

WJhonson at aol

Nov 7, 2009, 10:19 PM

Post #31 of 35 (299 views)
Permalink

Re: The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing? [In reply to]

In a message dated 11/7/2009 8:54:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
william[at]scissor.com writes:

> But as far as I know, they aren't actually imposing anything, in
> that nobody is actually stopping the posts in question. So if there's
> actual imposing going on, it's on the part of the posters.>>
>

That statement is false.
If I impose on you to hear, and you impose on me to shut up, that is
imposition on both sides. A gag in my mouth is just as much an imposition as
making you wear earmuffs.

Will

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

WJhonson at aol

Nov 7, 2009, 10:27 PM

Post #32 of 35 (294 views)
Permalink

Re: The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing? [In reply to]

In a message dated 11/7/2009 9:13:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton[at]gmail.com writes:

> And how do you answer them? Based on your experience of what is
> usually accepted on the list in question? Who should I ask that has
> more experience of these lists than I do?>>

Ok I will begrudgingly accept the position of Supreme Knower of the Minds
of List Participants. It's a difficult position, but I psychically feel my
public clamoring for my expertise. So henceforth all list posters, must
submit to me first, their postings and I will decide what's of interest to all,
and what's not and act accordingly.

There is no need to thank me for my magnaminity.

P.S. I cannot help that some will read this message with "tone", where no
such tone is implied or intended.

Will Johnson
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

phoebe.wiki at gmail

Nov 8, 2009, 12:12 AM

Post #33 of 35 (295 views)
Permalink

Re: The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing? [In reply to]

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:27 PM, <WJhonson[at]aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 11/7/2009 9:13:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> thomas.dalton[at]gmail.com writes:

Dudes. This thread. Case in point. (As I suppose it was fated to be, sigh).

Yes, I am reading it, because I care about this issue. I posted a few
months ago when it came up, I edited the meta page on the subject, and
I posted (I admit, with some frustration), in response to Birgitte's
initial post in this thread.

In the three days since then, there's been 33 messages; 16 of them are
from Thomas Dalton and Will Johnson. Many of these emails have a bit
of a hostile tone (my original post included, mea culpa), and include
sentences like "Anyone that says otherwise is wrong", "That statement
is false" and "Get over it."

Despite the fact that such language is upsetting -- each time I read
such a message I get a little defensive, and feel a little hostile
myself, and then a little upset at having such a reaction -- I have
read (or at least skimmed past) all these messages, because I care
about this thread, and this issue, and I can't easily ignore
individual emails with Gmail's threading feature. And I'm quite happy
that people are participating in discussion on a topic I care about;
that's great.

But I have to wonder -- what point did you have to make about the
future of the mailing list that needed eight emails to make instead
of, say, one or two?

As far as I can tell everyone still has the same opinion they came to
the discussion with, which is the same opinion that everyone who
participated had a few weeks ago, and so this back and forth isn't
really getting us anywhere. Which means that some of you posting out
there must enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing.

So I think the main issue here is that some people enjoy back and
forth chatter more than others; some participants find it perfectly
tolerable and others find it migraine-inducing. So maybe we need one
foundation list with posting limits and another for free-form
discussion? The former could be like the announcements list previously
suggested but with a bit more (but not much more) leeway for
discussion. Or perhaps as has been suggested in the past (because this
issue has been coming up at least since 2004, according to the
archives) a Wikimedia-social list that could absorb people's desire
for conversation and argument?

And yes, in the meantime, I will keep reading -- even though at least
one of you is no doubt poised and ready to tell me to grow a thicker
skin, or to shut up myself, or how it's your given right to respond as
much as you want to every one-line half-hearted argument that gets
made on Foundation-l and I must hate personal freedom to even think
about any alternative mode of dialog, or to give me advice on how to
read email (I've been using it for 15 years), or to tell me to set up
email filters already (I don't, because of LSS) -- despite this, I
will keep reading, because as I said originally this is the main place
to discuss the Foundation and the projects, and that's something I
care about.

regards,
-- phoebe

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

WJhonson at aol

Nov 8, 2009, 12:15 AM

Post #34 of 35 (294 views)
Permalink

Re: The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing? [In reply to]

In a message dated 11/8/2009 12:12:51 AM Pacific Standard Time,
phoebe.wiki[at]gmail.com writes:

> Many of these emails have a bit
> of a hostile tone (my original post included, mea culpa), and include
> sentences like "Anyone that says otherwise is wrong", "That statement
> is false" and "Get over it.">>

"That statement is false" is not hostile. It's a direct factual statement
imho. That you read it as hostile is the issue. Read each email as if
spoken by a robot with no emotions whatsoever. Then you won't feel defensive.

Will

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

dgerard at gmail

Nov 8, 2009, 3:06 AM

Post #35 of 35 (290 views)
Permalink

Re: The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing? [In reply to]

This thread should be an illustrative example in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect .

- d.

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

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com