On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:31, WereSpielChequers
<werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, I agree that we should post an answer after
San Francisco has had an
opportunity to consider things. In the unlikely event that no-one dissents
from it I'll post my original draft at about this time tomorrow.
It seems clear to me that anything involving multiple questions and with the
intent of finding out what people's views are on a range of things involves
research. However the originators described their consultation as a
referendum, even though it didn't actually include the question "Do you
support this proposal?". So we shouldn't be surprised that those who oppose
the idea in principle would like it treated as a referendum rather than a
consultation. One possible way out of this mess would be to acknowledge that
the last exercise was a consultation, attempt to code the thing in a way
that resolves as many of the objections as possible and then hold a
referendum when people can see how it would work.
It is probably too late for us to get involved in this project, but I think
someone needs to get involved in this sort of thing for the future, and I
don't see anyone more appropriate than us. I would like our remit to include
reviewing any questionnaire broadcast to the community or parts of the
community whether by watchlists, site notices, talkpages or the email user
function. On that basis this would be in our remit, whilst a referendum with
a single yes no question would not be.
WSC
PS to Milos, I've commented several times, but only after the thing was
announced - I didn't have a preview. Some of my comments have been about
ambiguities among the questions, others have been about the idea. My first
comment was about the inadvisability of describing a consultation as a
referendum....
I think that it is obvious that motives for the decision and then
"referendum" are political (in all senses). In such situation it is
not usual that politicians ask neutral research/scientific body for
advices; it is usual to delegate the job to the employees. In this
sense, I am far from being surprised that nobody consulted RCom.
If consulted, it wouldn't be likely that any suggestion in collision
to the politically-motivated idea would be adopted. That includes,
actually, Robert Harris' initial work, as well. One Canadian librarian
responded to Robert's questions [1]. However, nothing from the
presented facts about positioning of libraries were adopted, as the
idea was not to make compromise, but to push censorship to please some
people around WMF.
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Co…