Hi,
Many of you will be aware that there has been a bit of flak about the referendum/plebiscite/consultation about the image filter.
John Vandenburg posted this http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/067889.html... the Foundation mailing list.
Unless anyone has a better response to make, I'll post that RCOM collectively was not consulted, though I don't know if any individual RCOM members were consulted about those questions.
Cheers
WereSpielChequers
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 01:39:54 +0100, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Many of you will be aware that there has been a bit of flak about the referendum/plebiscite/consultation about the image filter.
John Vandenburg posted this
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/067889.html...
the Foundation mailing list.
Unless anyone has a better response to make, I'll post that RCOM collectively was not consulted, though I don't know if any individual
RCOM
members were consulted about those questions.
Cheers
WereSpielChequers
I agree, and I thinbk it is important to do it quickly, nobody would get interested in a week. May be just to wait till RCom member in California have a chance to read this message later in the (European) afternoon.
Another question to discuss would be whether we should have been consulted. I am not sure. This is not really research, this was supposed to be a vote.
Cheers Yaroslav
I agree, and I thinbk it is important to do it quickly, nobody would get interested in a week. May be just to wait till RCom member in California have a chance to read this message later in the (European) afternoon.
Another question to discuss would be whether we should have been consulted. I am not sure. This is not really research, this was supposed
to
be a vote.
Needs to read: members from California (meaning Pacific time).
Cheers Yaroslav
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....
On 6 September 2011 09:28, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
I agree, and I thinbk it is important to do it quickly, nobody would get interested in a week. May be just to wait till RCom member in California have a chance to read this message later in the (European) afternoon.
Another question to discuss would be whether we should have been consulted. I am not sure. This is not really research, this was supposed
to
be a vote.
Needs to read: members from California (meaning Pacific time).
Cheers Yaroslav
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:31, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@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_Con...
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:52, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Wrong wording: However, nothing from the presented facts about positioning of libraries were adopted, as the idea was not to follow the principles, but to reach political consensus.
Milos, though we are on opposite sides in the image filter debate, I understand what you are saying - those who formulate a consultation survey with a view to getting a particular result are unlikely to want neutral input into the wording of the questions. But there are exceptions. I have seen research surveys that seemed to me slanted and intended to get a desired result, and also consultation exercises where those doing the consultation didn't care which side won providing that both sides saw them as fair and neutral.
In any event if I simply reply to John Vanderburg's question with "RCOM collectively was not consulted, though I don't know if any individual RCOM members were consulted about those questions." it is then up to others whether they encourage those doing similar similar exercises in the future to involve us first.
WSC
On 6 September 2011 10:54, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:52, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Wrong wording: However, nothing from the presented facts about positioning of libraries were adopted, as the idea was not to follow the principles, but to reach political consensus.
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 15:01, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, though we are on opposite sides in the image filter debate, I understand what you are saying - those who formulate a consultation survey with a view to getting a particular result are unlikely to want neutral input into the wording of the questions. But there are exceptions. I have seen research surveys that seemed to me slanted and intended to get a desired result, and also consultation exercises where those doing the consultation didn't care which side won providing that both sides saw them as fair and neutral.
The main problem here, no matter of the position of any of us, is scientific integrity, as we here stand here behind our decisions professionally. It is hard that we wouldn't note that the right name for that poll is "survey", not "referendum". It is also likely that we would suggest that if the readers are target, readers should be attracted, not editors with small number of edits. Both of those things would drive the issue beyond political decision: that it should be perceived as referendum.
In any event if I simply reply to John Vanderburg's question with "RCOM collectively was not consulted, though I don't know if any individual RCOM members were consulted about those questions." it is then up to others whether they encourage those doing similar similar exercises in the future to involve us first.
I am in favor of making joint statement on the line that we are willing to be asked about similar things.
BTW, I haven't noticed that any of us said that he or she was asked about the questions. (While I suppose that Dario and Steven could be asked as employees.)
I agree with Yaroslav, this doesn't sound like an area of interest for RCom – we were not solicited to participate as a committee, only as individual community members. I don't think we need to signal that we were not consulted unless any of you considers that we should have been.
My 2 cents,
Dario
On Sep 6, 2011, at 1:27 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 01:39:54 +0100, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Many of you will be aware that there has been a bit of flak about the referendum/plebiscite/consultation about the image filter.
John Vandenburg posted this
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/067889.html...
the Foundation mailing list.
Unless anyone has a better response to make, I'll post that RCOM collectively was not consulted, though I don't know if any individual
RCOM
members were consulted about those questions.
Cheers
WereSpielChequers
I agree, and I thinbk it is important to do it quickly, nobody would get interested in a week. May be just to wait till RCom member in California have a chance to read this message later in the (European) afternoon.
Another question to discuss would be whether we should have been consulted. I am not sure. This is not really research, this was supposed to be a vote.
Cheers Yaroslav
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
i.e. it's ok to let John know that this is a community consultation that is not of RCom competence
On Sep 6, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Dario Taraborelli wrote:
I agree with Yaroslav, this doesn't sound like an area of interest for RCom – we were not solicited to participate as a committee, only as individual community members. I don't think we need to signal that we were not consulted unless any of you considers that we should have been.
My 2 cents,
Dario
On Sep 6, 2011, at 1:27 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 01:39:54 +0100, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Many of you will be aware that there has been a bit of flak about the referendum/plebiscite/consultation about the image filter.
John Vandenburg posted this
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/067889.html...
the Foundation mailing list.
Unless anyone has a better response to make, I'll post that RCOM collectively was not consulted, though I don't know if any individual
RCOM
members were consulted about those questions.
Cheers
WereSpielChequers
I agree, and I thinbk it is important to do it quickly, nobody would get interested in a week. May be just to wait till RCom member in California have a chance to read this message later in the (European) afternoon.
Another question to discuss would be whether we should have been consulted. I am not sure. This is not really research, this was supposed to be a vote.
Cheers Yaroslav
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
Hi Dario,
The wording I was going to use was: "RCOM collectively was not consulted, though I don't know if any individual RCOM members were consulted about those questions."
That would have answered the original question, without us having to agree whether or not it would have been a good idea for us to be involved. There is already a lot of debate on the Foundation mailing list as to whether this was a referendum or a survey, and I doubt if it would be easy to get agreement on this list as to whether we should or should not have been involved. My view is that this was a survey that was broadcast to multiple Wikimedians via this site, so yes in hindsight it would have been preferable for us to be involved.
As for the second part, I think based on your comment "only as individual community members", do I need to reword that as "RCOM collectively was not consulted, though individual RCOM members may have been."
Regards
WereSpielChequers
On 7 September 2011 01:16, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.orgwrote:
i.e. it's ok to let John know that this is a community consultation that is not of RCom competence
On Sep 6, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Dario Taraborelli wrote:
I agree with Yaroslav, this doesn't sound like an area of interest for
RCom – we were not solicited to participate as a committee, only as individual community members.
I don't think we need to signal that we were not consulted unless any of
you considers that we should have been.
My 2 cents,
Dario
On Sep 6, 2011, at 1:27 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 01:39:54 +0100, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Many of you will be aware that there has been a bit of flak about the referendum/plebiscite/consultation about the image filter.
John Vandenburg posted this
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/067889.html...
the Foundation mailing list.
Unless anyone has a better response to make, I'll post that RCOM collectively was not consulted, though I don't know if any individual
RCOM
members were consulted about those questions.
Cheers
WereSpielChequers
I agree, and I thinbk it is important to do it quickly, nobody would get interested in a week. May be just to wait till RCom member in California have a chance to read this message later in the (European) afternoon.
Another question to discuss would be whether we should have been consulted. I am not sure. This is not really research, this was supposed
to
be a vote.
Cheers Yaroslav
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 02:39, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Many of you will be aware that there has been a bit of flak about the referendum/plebiscite/consultation about the image filter.
John Vandenburg posted this http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/067889.html on the Foundation mailing list.
Unless anyone has a better response to make, I'll post that RCOM collectively was not consulted, though I don't know if any individual RCOM members were consulted about those questions.
I suppose that I am the only non-staff member of RCom who is involved in this issue somehow. But, no, nobody asked me anything. I involuntarily offered participation in the Censorship committee (a year ago or so), but everybody, including myself, was obviously happy without myself in the committee.