A Committee to Deal with Content Issues
Wikipedia does not seem to have any formal arbitration committee that deals
with content. I have been involved in a number of cases in which such a
committee would be exceedingly useful ( ADHD, Rorschach test, abortion,
etc.). Currently I am involved in a dispute regarding the interpretation of
the literature regarding Transcendental Meditation (TM) which has been going
on for years. There are about 5 editors who admit to being practitioner of
TM and only or mainly edit the subject area of TM. They have been using
Wikipedia to promote this organization / religion. As they have been
reasonably polite no actions were taken during the recent Arbitration case
and ArbCom stated that it does not feel they should / are able to address
content issues.
An RfC was filled with a couple of comments however the TMers felt that the
comments were uninformed, insufficiently numerous, and therefore not
relevant. An RfC is also not binding and has no method for enforcement.
These editors have been taking turns reverting changes they disagree with.
The question is should Wikipedia be written by those who are interested in
writing a well referenced work of knowledge or by special interests who wish
to push a particular point of view. Wikipedia currently does not have an
effective method to deal with these types of special interest groups who are
set on promotion or advertising. If Wikipedia is ever going to become well
respected by academia it needs effective measures to deal with these sort of
issue.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc.
On 8/11/10, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Abbas Mahmoud <abbasjnr(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Not only the Middle East, but the Muslim population at large will not dare
>> step into Israeli soil.
>
> Hey, isn't this already progress when they acknowledge the soil to be Israeli? :)
It is difficult to avoid politics, but we need to try. I am not sure
if a sarcastic or aggressive tone will be of help within the
discussion. Andrea was correct when he expressed his fears of posting
his email :)
M
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Israel is well aware of this situation, and offers the special
possibility of stamping not the passport but a separate page on entry
and exit, for any visitor that requests it (Westerners who work/travel
to countries like Iran will not want an Israeli stamp on their
passport).
As to visiting Israel being socially unacceptable in some societies,
or a good reason for being harassed by one's own government, this is a
very regrettable fact of Middle East politics, but totally not within
the organizing team's sphere of influence. The only thing we can do
about it is hand out "Don't photograph me" labels or anonymous name
tags to participants who want them, much like happened in WM2007 in
Taipei (for some visitors from the PR of China).
Harel Cain
Wikimania 2011 team
> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:26:09 +0300
> From: moushirah at gmail.com
> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Partecipation in Wikimania 2011
>
> Abbas: Let us not generalize; it is a complex and complicated matter
> about the will/ability to visit Israel if you happen to be a resident
> of an Arab or Muslim nation.
>
> I believe the "difficulty" of getting a visa varies from one country
> to another, but even with the help of the bidding team, an issue will
> remain unresolved, that is: Some countries do not allow persons with
> an Israeli stamp on their passports, to enter their borders. The list
> includes: Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, UAE, Turkey ..and other
> destinations. I am not sure if there are exceptions for this rule in
> those countries. It is a complicated situation on political and
> ethical levels.
> Maybe it remains a personal choice of the participant whether to make
> it Haifa or not.
>
> M
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
To address the comments made. The mediation committee does not have formal
means of enforcement. This is something maybe we should look at creating.
What is needed is a group of people who actively research the topic and come
to a tentative and enforceable conclusion. The mediation committee is
described as the counterpart to ArbCom but seems to be without teeth.
While my experience is mainly with the English Wikipedia the same issues
seem to arise in other languages. During the debate over including images
of the Rorschach ink blots on Wikipedia the same debate was going on in many
other languages.
What we have is the occasional small group that unreasonably pushes a one
sided promotional point of view to the detriment of the encyclopedia. They
often edit on only a single subject area and take up a great deal of
resources of editors who are trying to write an encyclopedia. One can go to
a number of different places and get a couple of users to comment but none
of these comments are ever binding and in a number of debates I have been
involved in have been dismissed as uninformed.
What is needed is a "finding of facts" not related to user behaviour but
content after a review of the literature. These interpretations with
discussion would than be implemented until which time the literature on the
subject matter changes. This would allow people to resume productive
editing rather than going around in circles for sometimes years generating
millions of bits of text and spending hundreds of hours.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc.
It is irritating to continually see stewards making local blocks at the
English language Wikibooks with the comment "crosswiki abuse <! --globally
locked[1]; about bot[2]-- >". This has been occurring since March. In
every case I've checked the user in question has a unified account and in
nearly all cases they have not made any edits locally, much less done
anything for a local block. If there are cross-wiki issues, their account
should be locked as is already the case, but the making of these local
blocks on top of that is counter to what I've come to expect. English
Wikibooks has a dozen admins, with about half active. Stewards will not
rename users there because there are local bureaucrats and they will not CU
users there because there are local CheckUsers. Why are they making local
blocks when there are administrators? These weren't local emergencies
because, as stated above, in nearly every case there were no edits. I don't
expect that they are aware of local policies and with the exception of one
steward, none of them have been made local admins. English Wikibooks opted
in to global sysops, but in none of these cases were the people blocking
members of such a group; even if they were, the block would have to be for
local disruption. Local blocking by stewards for accounts that have already
been globally locked is not only redundant, but undermines local project
autonomy. Please stop.
--User:Adrignola
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SH#lock
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:StewardBot
Gerard M. says:
Dear Greg,
This is not about criticism but about research. With respect I have not seen
your research papers, I am not aware of your credentials that would make you
a choice to be considered for being part of a research committee.
Given that the work of the committee includes work on policies that have to
do with access to confidential data, it seems to me only natural that your
status as being banned from several Wikis is an other reason why you are
easily disqualified from participating in a research committee.
At that you have had your "test" several times and as a result you are a
known entity.
Thanks,
GerardM
++++++++++++++++++++
Allow me to make you aware of my credentials, Gerard, since you asked
"with respect".
I'm the Director of Market Research for a company valued at $52
billion. I've been making a living with market research for 18 years
now.
One of my co-authored research papers was published in a scientific
journal supplement:
http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/data/183/3/DC1/1
I've written a white paper about research for public relations:
http://www.icrsurvey.com/docs/MR%20for%20PR.doc
For the more casual reader, I've maintained an occasional blog on
research since 2005:
http://insidemr.blogspot.com/
And, I've conducted numerous informal but systematic research studies
about Wikimedia properties:
http://www.mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Studyhttp://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/watcher/<http://toolserver.org/%7Emzmcbride/watcher/>
(You'll have to ask around
about that one.)
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Survey_about_Wikipedia (Currently, a
bit slow-going on the analysis, due to editing parameters imposed on
the Wikiversity community by Jimmy Wales)
I am curious about this "access to confidential data" of which you
speak. This presupposes that other members of the vast Wikimedia
community do currently have access to this confidential data. Have
they been vetted in some way that you can be assured that they won't
do something with that data more monstrous than what I would ever do
with such data? I'm trusted with confidential customer account data
by a $52 billion company.
******************
Meanwhile, D. Gerard says:
Trolling blogs probably isn't the best resume item, no. HTH!
******************
No, it's probably not, if only I were "trolling".
Hope that helps!
---
Greg
Hi folks,
I sent this to an internal Wikimedia mailing list earlier today to surface
any bugs, and it seems to be working fine. So, please do fill out this
survey, if you've got time :-)
Thanks,
Sue
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <susanpgardner(a)gmail.com>
Date: 6 August 2010 02:00
Subject: [Internal-l] Pre-Strategy Finalization Goals Survey (Community)
To: Internal-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
If you have trouble viewing or submitting this form, you can fill it out
online:
https://spreadsheets2.google.com/viewform?formkey=dHR2NU5OLUlNR3hCcFBrN3JLU…
Pre-Strategy Finalization Goals Survey (Community)
Hi folks,
Forgive cross-posting to multiple lists, and please feel free to share this
e-mail with others.
As you know, the strategy plan is nearing finalization: it'll be presented
to the board for final approval in October. The last big piece of work prior
to its completion is the finalization of goals, measures of success and
targets.
Some background: Goals, measures of success and targets are in development
here http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities.
They'll continue to iterate over the next few weeks, and will be presented
to the board for final approval at the end of August. You can influence them
by editing that page, but this survey is designed to give you an additional,
different way to give input. Similar surveys have been sent to the staff,
and to board members. I'll see the survey results, as will Erik, Barry,
Danese, Zack, Veronique and the board, and your responses will be taken into
account as the plan is finalized.
Couple of quick points:
* The survey is anonymous;
* Questions are skippable;
* Google Docs doesn't seem to have any safeguards against spamming. But
please just fill out the survey once :-)
* If you want to fill it out, please try to do so before August 15.
Thanks,
Sue
The current strategy plan calls for nearly doubling global unique visitors
in the next five years. Choose the response that best reflects your view.
- That goal is completely attainable, and might even happen without any
particular action;
- That goal is completely attainable by the Wikimedia Foundation, and
doesn't require any special effort from community members beyond what is
already happening;
- That goal is completely attainable, if the Wikimedia Foundation and
the Wikimedia community work hard to achieve it;
- That goal is probably unattainable;
- That goal is almost certainly unattainable;
- Don't know / not sure.
I think the 2010-2015 goals should be:
- Fairly easily attainable;
- Definitely attainable, but not necessarily easily;
- Ambitious but possible;
- Audacious and probably not attainable, but inspiring;
- Don't know / not sure.
In setting 2010-15 goals, I believe the Wikimedia Foundation should:
- Create targets that are entirely within the control of the Wikimedia
Foundation to influence;
- Create targets that also rely upon efforts by others (i.e., editors) to
be achieved;
- Don't know / not sure.
Select the statement that most closely matches your view:
- Goal-setting for Wikimedia is straightforward: we know exactly what we
want to do, and how to measure success;
- Goal-setting for Wikimedia is difficult: we understand pretty well what
we want to do, but the measures of success and actual targets are not
obvious. However, I believe we can set good goals, measures and targets now,
and we should NOT need to change them much during the next five years;
- Goal-setting for Wikimedia is difficult. We should set goals now, but
many measures and targets will be provisional, and we'll definitely need to
REFINE them over the next five years, possibly radically;
- Goal-setting for Wikimedia is difficult. We should set the goals,
measures and targets that are straightforward, but we should NOT set targets
for things we're still uncertain about.
- Don't know / not sure.
The primary purpose of setting goals is:
- To create a shared understanding and alignment about what we're trying
to do, publicly and with everyone;
- To inspire people: to create an audacious target that everyone can get
excited about and rally behind, including editors and donors;
- To create accountability: if we don't reach our goals, we are not
succeeding;
- Don't know / not sure.
If we exceed our goals, I will probably feel:
- Thrilled;
- Disappointed: that would tell me our goals weren't sufficiently
challenging;
- Don't know / not sure.
If we don't meet our goals, I will probably feel:
- Fine. Goals are meant to inspire/align: if we do good work but don't
meet them, that's okay;
- Unhappy. Goals are a serious commitment: if we don't meet them, that is
bad;
- Don't know / not sure.
Select the statement that more closely matches your view:
- Perfection is the enemy of the good. I would rather see us using
imperfect measures than no measures at all;
- Imperfect measures are a waste of time and energy. I would rather see
us wait until we have good measures, rather than using measurements that are
available today, but not very good;
- Don't know / not sure.
Below is a list of measures the Wikimedia Foundation is considering putting
in place. For each, please rate its importance.
Not important Somewhat important Important Critical Don't know / not
sure Global unique visitors to all Wikimedia Foundation properties per
month
according to comScore Total number of active volunteer editors (>=5
edits/month) to all Wikimedia projects Retention of active
volunteers Demographics
of active volunteers (i.e., age, gender, nationality) Reader-submitted
quality assessment results ("rate this article on a scale of one to
five") Number
of articles/media objects/resources in different languages Uptime of
all key services Availability of secure off-site copies of all
Wikimedia project data and underlying software infrastructure Site
performance in different geographies Financial stability as measured by
months of cash on hand, size of reserves, number of donations annually
Number
of community-originating gadgets, tools, and MediaWiki extensions in
production use in Wikimedia projects Regular availability of up-to-date
snapshots and archives of all public data to researchers
There are some areas in which the Wikimedia Foundation would like to track
progress, but it isn't easy to figure out what to measure, or how to measure
it. For each item below, please indicate whether it seems to you to be: 1)
IMPORTANT: definitely worth the effort to define and track, or 2) LESS
IMPORTANT: probably not worth the effort to define and track.
Important Less Important Don't know / not sure Measure of Reach: Reach of
Wikimedia content among people with no or limited connectivity Measure of
Quality: Expert article assessments Measure of innovation: Number of
community-originating gadgets, tools, and MediaWiki extensions in production
use in Wikimedia projects Assessment of research community health:
Thriving environment of research and dialog regarding the social and
technical aspects of Wikimedia content and communities
Are there other measures that you think are important and should be
tracked, that are not listed here? If so, please write them in.
Are there any other comments or input you would like to provide with regard
to the goal-setting for the strategy plan? If so, please write it in.
Any comments on this survey? If so, please write them in.
Is there anything else you'd like to say? If so, please write it in.
Powered by Google Docs <http://docs.google.com> Report
Abuse<https://spreadsheets2.google.com/reportabuse?formkey=dHR2NU5OLUlNR3hCcFBrN3…>-
Terms
of Service <http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS> - Additional
Terms<http://www.google.com/google-d-s/terms.html>
_______________________________________________
Internal-l mailing list
Internal-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-l
--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
G'day all,
I hope it's appropriate to cross-post this to both commons and foundation
lists - it seems so to me, and no doubt if there's a courtesy or practice
I'm unaware of, someone will be kind enough to point it out :-) (rude words
and nasty comments are ok, but it's better if they rhyme.)
Discussions at the meta page where Robert Harris is posing some related
questions is gently dying down -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_C…
and over on commons we're approaching another poll about whether to adopt
the 'sexual content' policy proposal -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Another_poll.…
What appears to be the largest point of discussion extant is whether or not
media featuring sexual content should contain at least an assertion that all
of the participants consent to the upload / publishing of the material - you
can see some folk arguing that we shouldn't apply such a condition
retrospectively, and maybe not at all -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Automatic_del…
I believe consent is desirable across the board in regard to sexual content,
and would like to see this sort of wording ratified as policy -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&oldid…
The discussions are actually pretty substantial, civil, useful, and
generally better than we've managed in the past, and of course the more
outside views on the matter, the better - so if you're at all inclined to
share your thoughts on the commons specific side of how WMF handles sexual
content, please do pipe up, either ahead of, or as part of the upcoming
poll....
cheers,
Peter,
PM.