Stephen,
Does the Foundation intend to ever propose any actions in the interest of the projects or their editors for community approval?
James,
As a community member I think the SOPA discussion and more global discussions after that made it quite clear that actions should be incredibly rare and that, generally, it's better for them to come from the community rather then from suggestions that the Foundation makes. I'm sure that the legal staff will make suggestions that they think need to be made but they should do so incredibly judiciously, community members on this list should not feel themselves so restrained.
My general understanding of this list from the start was as more of a space for community members (including at times staff members, but in their role as community members) to discuss and isolate ideas that rang true and needed more input or action from the community. If none of them are emerging, it's a clear sign that the community isn't comfortable creating an action out of them.
James
James Alexander Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:09 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Stephen,
Does the Foundation intend to ever propose any actions in the interest of the projects or their editors for community approval?
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 15/02/13 11:44 AM, James Alexander wrote:
James,
As a community member I think the SOPA discussion and more global discussions after that made it quite clear that actions should be incredibly rare and that, generally, it's better for them to come from the community rather then from suggestions that the Foundation makes. I'm sure that the legal staff will make suggestions that they think need to be made but they should do so incredibly judiciously, community members on this list should not feel themselves so restrained.
My general understanding of this list from the start was as more of a space for community members (including at times staff members, but in their role as community members) to discuss and isolate ideas that rang true and needed more input or action from the community. If none of them are emerging, it's a clear sign that the community isn't comfortable creating an action out of them.
James
James Alexander Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
This statement in a nutshell: "This isn't working, or it's a filter to prevent action (in which case it's working great.)"
Amgine
James S.,
It is certainly a possibility--the criteria for are available here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Polic...
However, I hope this list can also serve a more general purpose, as a venue to share and discuss the legal and policy questions that are relevant to our mission. Personally, I find it useful to hear about issues that are important to Wikimedians around the world. Wikimedians have a lot of expertise and knowledge on issues like copyright, and this list is open so that can be shared.
Ideally, if/when the WMF or any community member needs to consult on a potential advocacy proposal, this list will already discussing the topic and can provide useful feedback.
Best, Stephen
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:44 PM, James Alexander jalexander@wikimedia.orgwrote:
James,
As a community member I think the SOPA discussion and more global discussions after that made it quite clear that actions should be incredibly rare and that, generally, it's better for them to come from the community rather then from suggestions that the Foundation makes. I'm sure that the legal staff will make suggestions that they think need to be made but they should do so incredibly judiciously, community members on this list should not feel themselves so restrained.
My general understanding of this list from the start was as more of a space for community members (including at times staff members, but in their role as community members) to discuss and isolate ideas that rang true and needed more input or action from the community. If none of them are emerging, it's a clear sign that the community isn't comfortable creating an action out of them.
James
James Alexander Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:09 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.comwrote:
Stephen,
Does the Foundation intend to ever propose any actions in the interest of the projects or their editors for community approval?
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org wrote:
James S.,
It is certainly a possibility--the criteria for are available here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Polic...
Stephen,
That says, "Policy and political issues include public support for or against proposed laws and executive actions, online backing for political initiatives, and partnerships with organizations to promote shared policy and political positions.... [examples include] Collaborative Advocacy / We collaborate with another organization to take action on a particular policy or political question."
Am I correct in saying that there have not been any such actions since that Foundation Policy was approved?
I propose that the Foundation survey the community asking about how often they expect such actions to take place. I am sure there will be a wide range of opinion. Some such as myself would support formal proposal and consideration rather frequently, and plenty of people think that they should never occur.
Will you perform such a survey?
Sincerely, James Salsman
However, I hope this list can also serve a more general purpose, as a venue to share and discuss the legal and policy questions that are relevant to our mission. Personally, I find it useful to hear about issues that are important to Wikimedians around the world. Wikimedians have a lot of expertise and knowledge on issues like copyright, and this list is open so that can be shared.
Ideally, if/when the WMF or any community member needs to consult on a potential advocacy proposal, this list will already discussing the topic and can provide useful feedback.
Best, Stephen
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:44 PM, James Alexander jalexander@wikimedia.org wrote:
James,
As a community member I think the SOPA discussion and more global discussions after that made it quite clear that actions should be incredibly rare and that, generally, it's better for them to come from the community rather then from suggestions that the Foundation makes. I'm sure that the legal staff will make suggestions that they think need to be made but they should do so incredibly judiciously, community members on this list should not feel themselves so restrained.
My general understanding of this list from the start was as more of a space for community members (including at times staff members, but in their role as community members) to discuss and isolate ideas that rang true and needed more input or action from the community. If none of them are emerging, it's a clear sign that the community isn't comfortable creating an action out of them.
James
James Alexander Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:09 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Stephen,
Does the Foundation intend to ever propose any actions in the interest of the projects or their editors for community approval?
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:07 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Stephen,
That says, "Policy and political issues include public support for or against proposed laws and executive actions, online backing for political initiatives, and partnerships with organizations to promote shared policy and political positions.... [examples include] Collaborative Advocacy / We collaborate with another organization to take action on a particular policy or political question."
Am I correct in saying that there have not been any such actions since that Foundation Policy was approved?
Yes, that is correct. Please note that this is an internal guideline, as opposed to a formal Foundation policy.
I propose that the Foundation survey the community asking about how often they expect such actions to take place. I am sure there will be a wide range of opinion. Some such as myself would support formal proposal and consideration rather frequently, and plenty of people think that they should never occur.
Will you perform such a survey?
It is unlikely that we will have the opportunity to perform a direct survey on the topic. However, if you want to participate in more frequent advocacy, I would be happy to recommend some dedicated advocacy organizations for relevant issues (such as the Center for Democracy and Technology, Public Knowledge, etc).
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:07 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
... I propose that the Foundation survey the community asking about how often they expect such actions to take place. I am sure there will be a wide range of opinion. Some such as myself would support formal proposal and consideration rather frequently, and plenty of people think that they should never occur.
Will you perform such a survey?
It is unlikely that we will have the opportunity to perform a direct survey on the topic.
Would you please say why? What do you see as advantages and disadvantages of learning the community's expectations about the frequency of actions taken in support of editors?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 15/02/13 08:34 PM, James Salsman wrote:
Would you please say why? What do you see as advantages and disadvantages of learning the community's expectations about the frequency of actions taken in support of editors?
Stepping in here as devil's advocate: can you suggest a reasonable methodology for sampling and weighting the diverse communities which make up the WMF's projects, donors, and non-active readers? My experience with population survey research suggests this would be a non-trivial task at the macro level. Perhaps such a survey might be conducted in a given community, but if so that community should be the source of the survey (or at least the impetus for its development.)
As someone occasionally involved in population research, there are a number of questions I would have about learning the community's expectations regarding frequency of actions, including what instrument would be used, where/how it was normed, and the reasoning suggesting the instrument would have sufficient validity and reliability, as well as sensitivity and specificity, when applied to WMF communities.
The above basically means creating and running a survey is not as simple as "Hey, I wonder what people think about X, let's ask 'em!". It also isn't really a topic regarding advocacy.
Amgine
Amgine wrote:
... can you suggest a reasonable methodology for sampling and weighting the diverse communities which make up the WMF's projects, donors, and non-active readers?
Select them at random and send them an email. I know from experience that inactive admins respond at about a 15% response rate, so it would be easy to get a statistically significant number of editors to respond. Recent donors respond at a greater rate.
(I doubt that the Foundation should try to survey readers who do not edit about advocacy actions, because I don't think there should be actions on behalf of the reader-only community. Having said that, I think the Foundation most certainly should be taking actions in support of the broad editor community, not just Foundation staff.)
As someone occasionally involved in population research, there are a number of questions I would have about learning the community's expectations regarding frequency of actions, including what instrument would be used, where/how it was normed, and the reasoning suggesting the instrument would have sufficient validity and reliability, as well as sensitivity and specificity, when applied to WMF communities.
What questions, in particular?
I'm growing increasingly concerned that there is a whole class of information that Foundation staff will actively try to prevent learning, especially when the answers might be embarrassing. At first I thought it was isolated to the proportion of impoverished long-term volunteers. The reactions to my survey attempting to determine the answer were positively shameful, including repeated false allegations by Foundation staff that I had violated policies including one that they knew had never been approved. But now I'm not so sure it is isolated: The Foundation apparently does not want to know the opinion of donors and the community as to whether staff should be paid competitive salaries (my preliminary survey suggest that those opinions are very much opposed to the status quo) and now it seems there is no interest in determining how offen the community thinks advocacy actions should occur.
It would not take very much time, effort, or money to learn the answers to these questions. Who would have thought that the Foundation would be opposed to finding them?
Sincerely, James Salsman
As I don't think the list is interested in sampling methodology, I'll address that off-list.
On 17/02/13 08:11 PM, James Salsman wrote:
... and now it seems there is no interest in determining how offen the community thinks advocacy actions should occur. It would not take very much time, effort, or money to learn the answers to these questions.
Well, I am not exactly an expert on this topic, but I believe you are simply wrong on all three points in your final sentence. To get useful data does take time, consideration, and usually that implies money as well - or social capital in enlisting expert volunteers whose efforts might be better spent on topics other than satisfying a single user's curiosity.
Assuming you're wrong in those points, why-ever would anyone assume you're correct on any of the others?
Amgine
I've been working as a professional statistician for most of the past two decades, in applied fields where problems result in immediate failures of various algorithms. These opinion questions aren't sophisticated. People will answer when they are asked. What do you think makes sampling so difficult, in the case, for instance, of how often advocacy actions should be proposed?
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Amgine amgine@wikimedians.ca wrote:
As I don't think the list is interested in sampling methodology, I'll address that off-list.
On 17/02/13 08:11 PM, James Salsman wrote:
... and now it seems there is no interest in determining how offen the community thinks advocacy actions should occur. It would not take very much time, effort, or money to learn the answers to these questions.
Well, I am not exactly an expert on this topic, but I believe you are simply wrong on all three points in your final sentence. To get useful data does take time, consideration, and usually that implies money as well - or social capital in enlisting expert volunteers whose efforts might be better spent on topics other than satisfying a single user's curiosity.
Assuming you're wrong in those points, why-ever would anyone assume you're correct on any of the others?
Amgine
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
On 17/02/13 09:18 PM, James Salsman wrote:
I've been working as a professional statistician for most of the past two decades, in applied fields where problems result in immediate failures of various algorithms. These opinion questions aren't sophisticated. People will answer when they are asked. What do you think makes sampling so difficult, in the case, for instance, of how often advocacy actions should be proposed?
Well, as a simple issue of weighting, should geographic weighting be applied based on size of a given language speaking population? e.g. Should the sample of English speaking respondents from India be relevant to the region's weight in English as a language, it's population as a portion of humanity, its estimated online population, or some other global-relative weighting?
Or how about projects: are all project populations to be the same size?
I'd be very interested in what field you are a professional statistician; my area is health sciences, particularly public health.
Amgine
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Amgine amgine@wikimedians.ca wrote:
On 17/02/13 09:18 PM, James Salsman wrote:
I've been working as a professional statistician for most of the past two decades, in applied fields where problems result in immediate failures of various algorithms. These opinion questions aren't sophisticated. People will answer when they are asked. What do you think makes sampling so difficult, in the case, for instance, of how often advocacy actions should be proposed?
Well, as a simple issue of weighting, should geographic weighting be applied based on size of a given language speaking population? e.g. Should the sample of English speaking respondents from India be relevant to the region's weight in English as a language, it's population as a portion of humanity, its estimated online population, or some other global-relative weighting?
No, randomly selecting editors with email registered from those who have edited on any project a certain number of times in the past month, say five times to use one of the Foundation's definitions for active editors, and asking them their opinion in their primary language as determined by the project they have edited most frequently over that period, will result in an answer which reflects the geographic distribution of the editor community.
Or how about projects: are all project populations to be the same size?
No, but their number of active editors reflects the proportion in which the Foundation should reasonably weight their editors' opinions of, in this instance, how often advocacy actions should take place.
I'd be very interested in what field you are a professional statistician; my area is health sciences, particularly public health.
My most recent professional publication is https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B73LgocyHQnfS0g5ZEw1aFNKT2s/edit but the bulk of my income over the past year has been from work done for commodities futures traders.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:12 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
My most recent professional publication is https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B73LgocyHQnfS0g5ZEw1aFNKT2s/edit but the bulk of my income over the past year has been from work done for commodities futures traders.
Interesting reading. Where was it published?
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org