Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

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

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

birgitte_sb at yahoo

Nov 3, 2009, 6:56 PM

Post #1 of 35 (1989 views)
Permalink

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

--- On Mon, 11/2/09, wjhonson [at] aol <wjhonson [at] aol> wrote:

> From: wjhonson [at] aol <wjhonson [at] aol>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
> To: foundation-l [at] lists
> Date: Monday, November 2, 2009, 4:55 PM
> Personally, I process about two or
> three hundred emails per day (yes per day), so the small
> amount of noise the Foundation list creates is negligible to
> me.
>
> If someone is so annoyed by a thread, that they can't even
> bother to DWR (delete without reading) based merely on the
> subject title, I would think we need to question whether
> that person has the right temperament for the internet
> whatsoever. I delete at least two or three dozen
> emails every day without reading them, if I already know the
> subject is not going to be of "interest" to me.
>
> I would submit the real issue here, is not that people are
> doing that or could, but rather that they have a compulsion
> to *keep reading* the thread. Sort of a, "I don't want
> to be left out, or I want to keep watching the train wreck"
> or something. I'm not a psychologist. I do know
> however, that the entire issue of "let's close this thread",
> "let's moderated these people", " this is too noisy" and so
> on, is endemic to the entire email world. Not merely
> this list.
>
> I can't think of any list I'm on (and I'm on a few dozen),
> where the issue does not come up with regularity. It
> is merely part of the way internetlife is, in my opinion.
>

"The right temperment for the interner?"

Maybe you would have a point if this was and email list targeted at people who spend every waking hour plugged into the internet. I realize some of come close to that. But that is not the target audience of this email list. Nor the Wikimedia movement. And if those of you who have the temperment and lifestyle for such participation do not control yourselves enough so that this forum might succeed in included more than just those participants similar to yourselves, Wikimedia will be sorrier for it.

On a personal note, last week I have gone to having the responsibilities of three people jobs, instead of only those two I have been handling for most of the past year. Maybe I will resubscribe when I can hire people again. Good luck with making sure this list is worth re-subscribing too. I truly hope you all succeed with that.

Birgitte SB

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

phoebe.wiki at gmail

Nov 4, 2009, 9:00 AM

Post #2 of 35 (1922 views)
Permalink

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

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb [at] yahoo> wrote:
>
>
> --- On Mon, 11/2/09, wjhonson [at] aol <wjhonson [at] aol> wrote:
>
>> From: wjhonson [at] aol <wjhonson [at] aol>
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
>> To: foundation-l [at] lists
>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2009, 4:55 PM
>> Personally, I process about two or
>> three hundred emails per day (yes per day), so the small
>> amount of noise the Foundation list creates is negligible to
>> me.
>>
>> If someone is so annoyed by a thread, that they can't even
>> bother to DWR (delete without reading) based merely on the
>> subject title, I would think we need to question whether
>> that person has the right temperament for the internet
>> whatsoever. I delete at least two or three dozen
>> emails every day without reading them, if I already know the
>> subject is not going to be of "interest" to me.
>>
>> I would submit the real issue here, is not that people are
>> doing that or could, but rather that they have a compulsion
>> to *keep reading* the thread. Sort of a, "I don't want
>> to be left out, or I want to keep watching the train wreck"
>> or something. I'm not a psychologist. I do know
>> however, that the entire issue of "let's close this thread",
>> "let's moderated these people", " this is too noisy" and so
>> on, is endemic to the entire email world. Not merely
>> this list.
>>
>> I can't think of any list I'm on (and I'm on a few dozen),
>> where the issue does not come up with regularity. It
>> is merely part of the way internetlife is, in my opinion.
>>
>
>
> "The right temperment for the interner?"
>
> Maybe you would have a point if this was and email list targeted at people who spend every waking hour plugged into the internet. I realize some of come close to that. But that is not the target audience of this email list. Nor the Wikimedia movement. And if those of you who have the temperment and lifestyle for such participation do not control yourselves enough so that this forum might succeed in included more than just those participants similar to yourselves, Wikimedia will be sorrier for it.
>
> On a personal note, last week I have gone to having the responsibilities of three people jobs, instead of only those two I have been handling for most of the past year. Maybe I will resubscribe when I can hire people again. Good luck with making sure this list is worth re-subscribing too. I truly hope you all succeed with that.
>
> Birgitte SB

Hear hear. And even people who do spend a heck of a lot of their time
on Wikimedia might not want to spend it all reading F-l. And no, they
don't have to -- but if you want to keep up with general discussion
about the Foundation, you actually *do*. This is the main forum.
Dominating it is as rude as being that guy in a classroom who won't
shut up, to the detriment of all the other students who can't get a
word in edgewise; only in this case, there's no professor to maintain
order. If you're that guy, it's not like you're more brilliant than
everyone else; you're just more talkative and don't have any social
skills, and you are adversely affecting everyone else that has to
share the space with you.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l is still up but
hasn't gotten any new traffic in the last few weeks. Suggestions
included:
* starting a forum
* starting an announcements list
* limiting posting

others?
-- phoebe

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

saintonge at telus

Nov 4, 2009, 10:24 AM

Post #3 of 35 (1928 views)
Permalink

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

phoebe ayers wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l is still up but
> hasn't gotten any new traffic in the last few weeks. Suggestions
> included:
> * starting a forum
> * starting an announcements list
> * limiting posting
>
>
Looking at that discussion's history I see the following number of postings:
Sept 9: 17
Sept.10: 13
Sept.11: 12
Sept.12: 0
Sept.13: 1
Sept.14: 1
Sept.15: 0
Sept.16: 2
Sept.17: 1
...and nothing since

So it seems that after three days the discussion had essentially run its
course, much in the way of many mailing list threads, including
controversial or even inflammatory threads. An analysis of more threads
or wiki discussions in a similar way could be interesting. I also not
that the 9th was a Wednesday, and that the drop in list traffic on
weekends may itself have a dampening effect on the life of threads in
that list.

I would also suggest that any suggestion of moderation or other
throttling strategy during the life helps to extend the life of an
otherwise exhausted thread. Perhaps that should be a mailing list
corollary to Godwin's law.

Ec

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

WJhonson at aol

Nov 4, 2009, 11:52 AM

Post #4 of 35 (1930 views)
Permalink

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

"Dominating it" Phoebe? We're talking about *a* single thread. One
thread. That you can delete on sight without reading. And yet you keep reading
it, and you keep complaining about reading it. Doesn't that seem a bit
counter-productive.

Just... stop... reading.. that one thread. Just say no. I have faith.

Will

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

wikimail at inbox

Nov 4, 2009, 4:41 PM

Post #5 of 35 (1928 views)
Permalink

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

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:00 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:
> only in this case, there's no professor to maintain order.

This list has moderators. Complain to them if you think they're doing
a bad job.

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

wjhonson at aol

Nov 4, 2009, 4:46 PM

Post #6 of 35 (1928 views)
Permalink

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

Reasonable people in general have a natural tendency to maintain order without the need for police action. We all live in communities where chaos is not rampant. The application of excessive force is not conducive to a well-ordered society.

Somewhere on my site, I quote Jimmy Wales where he states that he, when he was a list moderator, allowed conversations to simply run their course. In my opinion, that is always the most civil thing to do.

Will Johnson

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

nawrich at gmail

Nov 4, 2009, 5:25 PM

Post #7 of 35 (1931 views)
Permalink

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

Wikimedia draws a disproportionate number of two types of people:
those with some antisocial tendencies, and those with an unusual
belief in various notions of "freedom." People being people, anyone in
both groups will tend to use the second trait to reinforce the first.
We've developed the basics of a legal system and a convoluted set of
policies on the English 'pedia to attempt to address this particular
problem, but as most know we're a ways from doing that well. Some
folks are convinced that their rights to a forum require others to
accommodate them; because they're clods and don't respond to social
pressure, most eventually vote with their metaphorical feet.

Nathan

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

effeietsanders at gmail

Nov 6, 2009, 6:27 AM

Post #8 of 35 (1900 views)
Permalink

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

except that this happens in many threads and is a general problem coming
back allt he time.

eia

2009/11/4 <WJhonson [at] aol>

> "Dominating it" Phoebe? We're talking about *a* single thread. One
> thread. That you can delete on sight without reading. And yet you keep
> reading
> it, and you keep complaining about reading it. Doesn't that seem a bit
> counter-productive.
>
> Just... stop... reading.. that one thread. Just say no. I have faith.
>
> Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

WJhonson at aol

Nov 6, 2009, 12:02 PM

Post #9 of 35 (1897 views)
Permalink

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

In a message dated 11/6/2009 6:28:20 AM Pacific Standard Time,
effeietsanders [at] gmail writes:

> except that this happens in many threads and is a general problem coming
> back allt he time.>>

At the point at which any particular person is no longer interested in
reading a thread, they should stop reading it. Then the thread can die a
natural death, and no one needs to get upset at a few messages a day appearing in
their mailbox. As you can see the thread died all by itself. On
soc.genealogy.medieval, some of the vicious cat-calling threads go on and on for a few
hundred postings, and get quite nasty. But they all die eventually. And
these are between scholars (self-proclaimed at times).

Will

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

effeietsanders at gmail

Nov 6, 2009, 2:20 PM

Post #10 of 35 (1901 views)
Permalink

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

without wanting to repeat things I just cant state it much more clearly, so
let me quote birgitte, who started this specific thread:

"Maybe you would have a point if this was and email list targeted at people
who spend every waking hour plugged into the internet. I realize some of
come close to that. But that is not the target audience of this email list.
Nor the Wikimedia movement. And if those of you who have the temperment
and lifestyle for such participation do not control yourselves enough so
that this forum might succeed in included more than just those participants
similar to yourselves, Wikimedia will be sorrier for it."

The whole point of this discussion is that some people say "dont complain
because you can ignore" and others say "you are making this list less useful
and you scare people off with your emails".

eia

2009/11/6 <WJhonson [at] aol>

> In a message dated 11/6/2009 6:28:20 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> effeietsanders [at] gmail writes:
>
>
> except that this happens in many threads and is a general problem coming
> back allt he time.>>
>
>
>
> At the point at which any particular person is no longer interested in
> reading a thread, they should stop reading it. Then the thread can die a
> natural death, and no one needs to get upset at a few messages a day
> appearing in their mailbox. As you can see the thread died all by itself.
> On soc.genealogy.medieval, some of the vicious cat-calling threads go on and
> on for a few hundred postings, and get quite nasty. But they all die
> eventually. And these are between scholars (self-proclaimed at times).
>
> Will
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wjhonson at aol

Nov 6, 2009, 3:42 PM

Post #11 of 35 (1895 views)
Permalink

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

That's right, thats the position of the two sides of this discussion.
I don't know if "scare" is the right word however. I think the argument is something along the lines of "annoy" or "frustrate". Mr Dalton put the counter-argument pretty well when it said, it only takes a second to delete an email. I don't know why you want to go over this again.

There are people on both sides of the issue. We should just allow this part of the discussion to die. That's my perspective. Don't you agree?

<<The whole point of this discussion is that some people say "dont complain because you can ignore" and others say "you are making this list less useful and you scare people off with your emails". >>

-----Original Message-----
From: effe iets anders <effeietsanders [at] gmail>
To: WJhonson [at] aol
Cc: foundation-l [at] lists
Sent: Fri, Nov 6, 2009 2:20 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing?

without wanting to repeat things I just cant state it much more clearly, so let me quote birgitte, who started this specific thread:

"Maybe you would have a point if this was and email list targeted at people who spend every waking hour plugged into the internet. I realize some of come close to that. But that is not the target audience of this email list. Nor the Wikimedia movement. And if those of you who have the temperment and lifestyle for such participation do not control yourselves enough so that this forum might succeed in included more than just those participants similar to yourselves, Wikimedia will be sorrier for it."

The whole point of this discussion is that some people say "dont complain because you can ignore" and others say "you are making this list less useful and you scare people off with your emails".

eia

2009/11/6 <WJhonson [at] aol>

In a message dated 11/6/2009 6:28:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, effeietsanders [at] gmail writes:

except that this happens in many threads and is a general problem coming

back allt he time.>>

At the point at which any particular person is no longer interested in reading a thread, they should stop reading it. Then the thread can die a natural death, and no one needs to get upset at a few messages a day appearing in their mailbox. As you can see the thread died all by itself. On soc.genealogy.medieval, some of the vicious cat-calling threads go on and on for a few hundred postings, and get quite nasty. But they all die eventually. And these are between scholars (self-proclaimed at times).

Will

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

effeietsanders at gmail

Nov 6, 2009, 4:31 PM

Post #12 of 35 (1889 views)
Permalink

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

I would agree with that 'solution' if I would agree with the "delete and
ignore" solution, which is, imho, not a solution at all. That is a bit the
problem :) And I literally meant scare btw.

2009/11/7 <wjhonson [at] aol>

> That's right, thats the position of the two sides of this discussion.
> I don't know if "scare" is the right word however. I think the argument is
> something along the lines of "annoy" or "frustrate". Mr Dalton put the
> counter-argument pretty well when it said, it only takes a second to delete
> an email. I don't know why you want to go over this again.
>
> There are people on both sides of the issue. We should just allow this
> part of the discussion to die. That's my perspective. Don't you agree?
>
> <<The whole point of this discussion is that some people say "dont
> complain because you can ignore" and others say "you are making this list
> less useful and you scare people off with your emails". >>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: effe iets anders <effeietsanders [at] gmail>
> To: WJhonson [at] aol
> Cc: foundation-l [at] lists
> Sent: Fri, Nov 6, 2009 2:20 pm
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent
> firing?
>
> without wanting to repeat things I just cant state it much more clearly,
> so let me quote birgitte, who started this specific thread:
>
> "Maybe you would have a point if this was and email list targeted at
> people who spend every waking hour plugged into the internet. I realize
> some of come close to that. But that is not the target audience of this
> email list. Nor the Wikimedia movement. And if those of you who have the
> temperment and lifestyle for such participation do not control yourselves
> enough so that this forum might succeed in included more than just those
> participants similar to yourselves, Wikimedia will be sorrier for it."
>
> The whole point of this discussion is that some people say "dont complain
> because you can ignore" and others say "you are making this list less useful
> and you scare people off with your emails".
>
> eia
>
> 2009/11/6 <WJhonson [at] aol>
>
>> In a message dated 11/6/2009 6:28:20 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>> effeietsanders [at] gmail writes:
>>
>>
>> except that this happens in many threads and is a general problem coming
>> back allt he time.>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At the point at which any particular person is no longer interested in
>> reading a thread, they should stop reading it. Then the thread can die a
>> natural death, and no one needs to get upset at a few messages a day
>> appearing in their mailbox. As you can see the thread died all by itself.
>> On soc.genealogy.medieval, some of the vicious cat-calling threads go on and
>> on for a few hundred postings, and get quite nasty. But they all die
>> eventually. And these are between scholars (self-proclaimed at times).
>>
>> Will
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wjhonson at aol

Nov 6, 2009, 5:01 PM

Post #13 of 35 (1898 views)
Permalink

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

Maybe you could explain a little more clearly, how people are "scared" by reading (or just seeing) ten messages on the same topic? How does that frighten people?

-----Original Message-----
From: effe iets anders <effeietsanders [at] gmail>
To: wjhonson [at] aol
Cc: foundation-l [at] lists
Sent: Fri, Nov 6, 2009 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing?

I would agree with that 'solution' if I would agree with the "delete and ignore" solution, which is, imho, not a solution at all. That is a bit the problem :) And I literally meant scare btw.

2009/11/7 <wjhonson [at] aol>

That's right, thats the position of the two sides of this discussion.

I don't know if "scare" is the right word however. I think the argument is something along the lines of "annoy" or "frustrate". Mr Dalton put the counter-argument pretty well when it said, it only takes a second to delete an email. I don't know why you want to go over this again.

There are people on both sides of the issue. We should just allow this part of the discussion to die. That's my perspective. Don't you agree?

<<The whole point of this discussion is that some people say "dont complain because you can ignore" and others say "you are making this list less useful and you scare people off with your emails". >>

-----Original Message-----

From: effe iets anders <effeietsanders [at] gmail>

To: WJhonson [at] aol

Cc: foundation-l [at] lists

Sent: Fri, Nov 6, 2009 2:20 pm

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

without wanting to repeat things I just cant state it much more clearly, so let me quote birgitte, who started this specific thread:

"Maybe you would have a point if this was and email list targeted at people who spend every waking hour plugged into the internet. I realize some of come close to that. But that is not the target audience of this email list. Nor the Wikimedia movement. And if those of you who have the temperment and lifestyle for such participation do not control yourselves enough so that this forum might succeed in included more than just those participants similar to yourselves, Wikimedia will be sorrier for it."

The whole point of this discussion is that some people say "dont complain because you can ignore" and others say "you are making this list less useful and you scare people off with your emails".

eia

2009/11/6 <WJhonson [at] aol>

In a message dated 11/6/2009 6:28:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, effeietsanders [at] gmail writes:

except that this happens in many threads and is a general problem coming

back allt he time.>>

At the point at which any particular person is no longer interested in reading a thread, they should stop reading it. Then the thread can die a natural death, and no one needs to get upset at a few messages a day appearing in their mailbox. As you can see the thread died all by itself. On soc.genealogy.medieval, some of the vicious cat-calling threads go on and on for a few hundred postings, and get quite nasty. But they all die eventually. And these are between scholars (self-proclaimed at times).

Will

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

wikimail at inbox

Nov 6, 2009, 5:11 PM

Post #14 of 35 (1894 views)
Permalink

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

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 6:42 PM, <wjhonson [at] aol> wrote:
> Mr Dalton put the counter-argument pretty well when it said, it only takes a second to delete an email.

Much less than a second, and it takes no time at all to not read it in
the first place. If you don't have time to read all the messages on
the list, don't read them. You don't have to read every single email
that comes into your inbox, and with the proper filters the emails
won't even literally appear in your inbox in the first place.

All mailing list emails I get go to my "mailing lists" folder.
Sometimes I go weeks without reading any of them. Sometimes I skip
them altogether when I get back. Sometimes I skim the subjects.

It would be great if we could subscribe to a mailing list and get only
the emails we are interested in, and absolutely nothing else. But it
just doesn't work with that way. Get over it.

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

thomas.dalton at gmail

Nov 6, 2009, 5:11 PM

Post #15 of 35 (1891 views)
Permalink

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

2009/11/7 effe iets anders <effeietsanders [at] gmail>:
> I would agree with that 'solution' if I would agree with the "delete and
> ignore" solution, which is, imho, not a solution at all. That is a bit the
> problem :) And I literally meant scare btw.

Could you explain why you think ignoring emails doesn't work? It works
perfectly well for me.

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

wikipedia at verizon

Nov 6, 2009, 7:09 PM

Post #16 of 35 (1890 views)
Permalink

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

wjhonson [at] aol wrote:
> Maybe you could explain a little more clearly, how people are "scared" by reading (or just seeing) ten messages on the same topic? How does that frighten people?
>
It's not simply the ten messages on one topic, it's the tone and content
of the messages that is scaring them. But the ten messages in quick
succession is a common characteristic among the discussions with that tone.

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/11/7 effe iets anders <effeietsanders [at] gmail>:
>
>> I would agree with that 'solution' if I would agree with the "delete and
>> ignore" solution, which is, imho, not a solution at all. That is a bit the
>> problem :) And I literally meant scare btw.
>>
> Could you explain why you think ignoring emails doesn't work? It works
> perfectly well for me.
People are scared because they experience an emotional response to the
tone and content of the messages. Ignoring the message (that is, doing
nothing after you've read it) is not a solution to that problem. The
implicit rejoinder you're giving them is, "Don't have emotions." That
doesn't work, because people are human.

--Michael Snow

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

thomas.dalton at gmail

Nov 6, 2009, 7:24 PM

Post #17 of 35 (1890 views)
Permalink

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

2009/11/7 Michael Snow <wikipedia [at] verizon>:
>> Could you explain why you think ignoring emails doesn't work? It works
>> perfectly well for me.
> People are scared because they experience an emotional response to the
> tone and content of the messages. Ignoring the message (that is, doing
> nothing after you've read it) is not a solution to that problem. The
> implicit rejoinder you're giving them is, "Don't have emotions." That
> doesn't work, because people are human.

That's not ignoring, that's reading. Ignoring the message means not
reading it. You look at the subject line, you see that it is part of a
thread you are either not interested in or have lost interest in and
you don't read it. (You can delete it if you want, personally I just
leave it sitting in my gmail inbox - I currently have 9992
conversations with unread emails in them in my inbox, they just sit
there forever doing nothing. They do no harm if I never click on
them.)

You are describing a different problem to the one we are suggesting
should be solved by ignoring emails. Ignoring emails solves the
problem of not everyone being interested in every email. The tone and
contents of emails are a different problem entirely and I haven't
suggested solving it by ignoring emails. What the solution is depends
on the kind of emails you are talking about. In some cases, it is just
people being too sensitive and they need to learn not to take offence
so easily. In other cases, it is people saying things that are
unacceptable, in which case the list moderators should step in with a
warning and pre-moderating their emails for persistent offenders.

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

wjhonson at aol

Nov 7, 2009, 1:20 AM

Post #18 of 35 (1888 views)
Permalink

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

Isn't it however Michael true that a plain text message conveys little to no "tone"
I could say the above sentence with anger, with sarcasm, with hope and without emotion at all.
You cannot tell how I'm inflecting it, simply by the words.
Sometimes or even most-times people will add the tone.
Some people's manner of address is direct, and that is read, in an email, by some, as a form of caustic speech I suppose. That doesn't however mean that that is the way it was intended to be understood.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Snow <wikipedia [at] verizon>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Fri, Nov 6, 2009 7:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing?

wjhonson [at] aol wrote:
> Maybe you could explain a little more clearly, how people are "scared" by
reading (or just seeing) ten messages on the same topic? How does that frighten
people?
>
It's not simply the ten messages on one topic, it's the tone and content
of the messages that is scaring them. But the ten messages in quick
succession is a common characteristic among the discussions with that tone.

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/11/7 effe iets anders <effeietsanders [at] gmail>:
>
>> I would agree with that 'solution' if I would agree with the "delete and
>> ignore" solution, which is, imho, not a solution at all. That is a bit the
>> problem :) And I literally meant scare btw.
>>
> Could you explain why you think ignoring emails doesn't work? It works
> perfectly well for me.
People are scared because they experience an emotional response to the
tone and content of the messages. Ignoring the message (that is, doing
nothing after you've read it) is not a solution to that problem. The
implicit rejoinder you're giving them is, "Don't have emotions." That
doesn't work, because people are human.

--Michael Snow

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

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

thomas.dalton at gmail

Nov 7, 2009, 9:45 AM

Post #19 of 35 (1869 views)
Permalink

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

2009/11/7 <wjhonson [at] aol>:
>
>
> Isn't it however Michael true that a plain text message conveys little to no "tone"
> I could say the above sentence with anger, with sarcasm, with hope and without emotion at all.
> You cannot tell how I'm inflecting it, simply by the words.
> Sometimes or even most-times people will add the tone.
> Some people's manner of address is direct, and that is read, in an email, by some, as a form of caustic speech I suppose. Â That doesn't however mean that that is the way it was intended to be understood.

Indeed. My standard advice for people on how to interpret my
text-based messages is this: If in doubt, I don't mean any offence. If
I want to offend you, I will leave you in no doubt.

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

william at scissor

Nov 7, 2009, 11:14 AM

Post #20 of 35 (1868 views)
Permalink

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

Hi, Thomas.

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Indeed. My standard advice for people on how to interpret my
> text-based messages is this: If in doubt, I don't mean any offence. If
> I want to offend you, I will leave you in no doubt.
>

I think there's a common element in this and your "just ignore" proposal
that will lead to continued frustration on both sides. You're placing
the burden for solving a shared problem on other people, and quite a lot
of them.

You seem like a pretty sharp fellow, and so I'm sure your solution not
only looks most rational to you, but has good odds of being so by some
reasonable set of metrics. But other people may be using different
criteria, and you're unlikely to get them to change something deep like
that via an email or two, especially if they already feel frustration
toward you.

As a software developer, I've struggled a lot with issues like this.
Part of me wants the rational solution, but I also really like getting
things done, which often leads me to solutions that have more to do with
effectiveness and practicality. And what's most effective and practical
when dealing with my fellow mutant chimps is poorly correlated with what
I find most pleasing to my rational side.

That's not to advocate for either side of this, really. If you really
want to change the email-use behavior of everybody on this list, there
are approaches for that. But absent that substantial amount of work, or
absent some other change, frustration is likely to continue.

And personally, I find that frustrating, as not only do I like a
collegial working environment, but I think collegiality makes for more
effective group discussion and group action.

William

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

wikimail at inbox

Nov 7, 2009, 11:25 AM

Post #21 of 35 (1878 views)
Permalink

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

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:14 PM, William Pietri <william [at] scissor> wrote:
> That's not to advocate for either side of this, really. If you really
> want to change the email-use behavior of everybody on this list, there
> are approaches for that. But absent that substantial amount of work, or
> absent some other change, frustration is likely to continue.
>
> And personally, I find that frustrating, as not only do I like a
> collegial working environment, but I think collegiality makes for more
> effective group discussion and group action.

How many people are subscribed to this list? What situations can you
think of where that many people got together and had an effective
group discussion? How was this accomplished?

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

thomas.dalton at gmail

Nov 7, 2009, 11:26 AM

Post #22 of 35 (1877 views)
Permalink

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

2009/11/7 William Pietri <william [at] scissor>:
> Hi, Thomas.
>
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Indeed. My standard advice for people on how to interpret my
>> text-based messages is this: If in doubt, I don't mean any offence. If
>> I want to offend you, I will leave you in no doubt.
>>
>
> I think there's a common element in this and your "just ignore" proposal
> that will lead to continued frustration on both sides. You're placing
> the burden for solving a shared problem on other people, and quite a lot
> of them.

Yes, I am placing the burden on other people and I've explained why:
The burden is negligible for other people. It is significant for me.

> You seem like a pretty sharp fellow, and so I'm sure your solution not
> only looks most rational to you, but has good odds of being so by some
> reasonable set of metrics. But other people may be using different
> criteria, and you're unlikely to get them to change something deep like
> that via an email or two, especially if they already feel frustration
> toward you.

If someone would explain their criteria, this conversation could move
forwards rather than round in circles...

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

william at scissor

Nov 7, 2009, 12:14 PM

Post #23 of 35 (1874 views)
Permalink

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

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Yes, I am placing the burden on other people and I've explained why:
> The burden is negligible for other people. It is significant for me.
>

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.

A similar effect might apply the other way. Perhaps they see the
behavior they want as easy for you because it's easy for them? If so,
you could consider asking people to help you.

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.

>> You seem like a pretty sharp fellow, and so I'm sure your solution not
>> only looks most rational to you, but has good odds of being so by some
>> reasonable set of metrics. But other people may be using different
>> criteria, and you're unlikely to get them to change something deep like
>> that via an email or two, especially if they already feel frustration
>> toward you.
>>
>
> If someone would explain their criteria, this conversation could move
> forwards rather than round in circles...
>

If you wanted to know, you could start by asking them. Perhaps even off
list, as a conversation like that may be more easily held out of the
glare of the spotlight, and certainly doesn't require all of us. That
may take some work on both sides, though; a lot of people either don't
know or aren't good at articulating their values, judgment criteria, and
decision-making processes. As with, say, moving one's arms, a lot more
people do it then know how it works.

Beyond that, there's an ocean of material on how people think and
decide, how groups work effectively together, and how people behave in
relation to software and to on-line communities. If you'd like
suggestions there, drop me a line off list with more info on what you're
looking for, and I'm glad to rummage through my shelves.

William

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

thomas.dalton at gmail

Nov 7, 2009, 12:43 PM

Post #24 of 35 (1865 views)
Permalink

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

2009/11/7 William Pietri <william [at] scissor>:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Yes, I am placing the burden on other people and I've explained why:
>> The burden is negligible for other people. It is significant for me.
>>
>
> 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.

> A similar effect might apply the other way. Perhaps they see the
> behavior they want as easy for you because it's easy for them? If so,
> you could consider asking people to help you.

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.

> 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?

>> If someone would explain their criteria, this conversation could move
>> forwards rather than round in circles...
>>
>
> 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.

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

wikipedia at verizon

Nov 7, 2009, 1:05 PM

Post #25 of 35 (1868 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>:
>
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I am placing the burden on other people and I've explained why:
>>> The burden is negligible for other people. It is significant for me.
>>>
>> 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.
>
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.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
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 Gossamer Threads