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 diminishe
In a message dated 11/7/2009 9:13:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dal...@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 begrudgi
In a message dated 11/7/2009 8:54:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
will...@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.>>
>
2009/11/8 William Pietri :
> 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
2009/11/8 William Pietri :
> 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 e
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 r
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/11/7 William Pietri :
>
>> 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 i
I regret having been so unclear as to not have made it obvious that
the established forms referred to the Wikipedia formal channels of
DR, AfD, and the like. I have sen too many justified complaints
rejected and the people placing them attacked and humiliated for not
following the correct details
In a message dated 11/7/2009 12:44:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
andreeng...@gmail.com writes:
> No, we don't. We need forces to help the encyclopedia get further. We
> don't need a force of people who stop people who are helping creating
> it, and we don't need a force of people who support peop
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:05 AM, David Goodman wrote:
> We
> need, thus, the influence of community opinion--expressed opinion,
> expressed without fear of rejection for not following the established
> forms.
Surely the established forms are quite limited, the wiki and the
internet in general bei
As I interpret what André says, I agree with him:
We need, as does every voluntary society, the involvement of many
ordinary members in each aspect of the government of the society. We
need, thus, the influence of community opinion--expressed opinion,
expressed without fear of rejection for not
2009/11/7 Michael Snow :
> 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
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/11/7 William Pietri :
>
>> 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
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:33 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 11/7/2009 10:56:27 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> andreeng...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>> We tried that on nl: (although with 1 week rather than 24 hours
>> minimum). The effect of this is that _each and every block_ will get
>> the whole wiki
2009/11/7 William Pietri :
> 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 tha
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 f
In a message dated 11/7/2009 10:56:27 AM Pacific Standard Time,
andreeng...@gmail.com writes:
> We tried that on nl: (although with 1 week rather than 24 hours
> minimum). The effect of this is that _each and every block_ will get
> the whole wiki in flames for a week.>>
I would submit that thi
2009/11/7 William Pietri :
> 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
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:14 PM, William Pietri 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 chang
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" propo
Peter Jacobi wrote:
>> The problem I see most, is Wikipedia articles becoming stale. No
>> corrections to defects, even those already been identified on talk
>> pages and in maintenance templates. The worst 20% of Wikipedia just
>> doesn't get better. Perhaps the entire worse half of Wikipedia.
It
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:51 AM, wrote:
> How about this one. Every arrest (read block for 24 hours or longer) must be
> approved by an "Admin Supervisor" (let's just call it for now). That Admin
> Supervisor, must use a Real Name and be Verified.
>
> That by itself, would greatly cut down on
The problem I see most, is Wikipedia articles becoming stale. No
corrections to defects, even those already been identified on talk
pages and in maintenance templates. The worst 20% of Wikipedia just
doesn't get better. Perhaps the entire worse half of Wikipedia.
__
2009/11/7 :
>
>
> 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
What I'm suggesting is not more bureaucracy. Let me put it this way.
Right now we have a system where you are either a worker or a policeman.
There is no group who are advocates for the workers against the policemen.
That is, there are no defense lawyers, there are no judges.
The police patrol the
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.
Oct. 16-31:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS/foundation-l-archives/2009_October_16-31
and a reminder that these are also posted (for lss2rss) at identi.ca:
http://identi.ca/listsummaryservice
regards,
phoebe
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-
27 matches
Mail list logo
