Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 21:30:27 -0500 From: Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status Message-ID: <CAHqe4Lrnvy9QjWkUwcKG+eL8hZwA5bcoRhR5Lct+A=6115u+nw@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to drag this out--there are definitely more interesting things to talk about. But as someone who basically holds Phoebe's position on the issue I'd like to say what I am thinking also.
I think, in fact, that I am almost exactly in agreement with Phoebe. I voted for the resolution because I thought we had reached a consensus that was compatible with everyone's principles and wasn't going to compromise anything else that was critically important. And I think we were wrong. Maybe it was foolish to think it could have been true, but it seemed like a victory to get even that far--the controversial content discussion has been the most divisive and difficult in my time on the board (since 2006, if you're counting).
We are still divided, as a board, on where to go from here; it is a true conflict. The actual words in the statement are fine--they should be, after all the effort poured into them. It is the implications that we didn't properly foresee and that I think we're still not in agreement on.
Traditionally, the way we as a board have dealt with true conflicts is not to release a series of resolutions that squeak by with a bare majority, but to find some path forward that can get broad or even unanimous support. If we cannot even get the board--a very small group, with more time to argue issues together and less diversity of opinion than the wider community--what hope is there to get the broader community to come to agreement that the action we decide on is the best decision?
I think it's my responsibility to be open to argument, to have some things that cannot be compromised, but to be willing to accept a solution that doesn't violate them even if I think it's not the best one. And to be willing to delegate the carrying-out of those decisions to others. Sometimes I have to take a deep breath and realize something is going completely unlike how I would have chosen to do it, and that it might still be okay; I have to step back, let everyone do their own jobs, and be as fair as possible in evaluating how it is turning out even if it is not what I wanted. And sometimes that means the most responsible thing for me to do is to shut up so I don't ruin the chance of a positive outcome by undermining others' efforts in progress.
So in an ideal universe, I still think it is possible for a solution to be developed in line with the resolution that doesn't violate the principles of free access to information that we value.
But in the practical universe, I think it is a poor use of resources to keep trying along the same path; we have things that will have much more impact that aren't already poisoned by a bad start. It was a viable starting position at one point and now I believe that we can't get anywhere good from it; better to scrap it entirely, perhaps later to try something completely different. I would still love to see some way to meet the needs of the people who don't want to be surprised by what they will find in a search. But I don't think it's going to come out of the current approach.
So I supported the resolution and now I support rescinding it, at least in part. I don't think this is inconsistent with anything on my part, nor on Phoebe's.
-Kat
Hi Kat, that's very refreshing to hear, though perhaps if it had come sooner there would have been less bad blood and the issue would be less significant in the current chapter elections.
I was in the minority that thought it would be good to offer some sort of image filter to our readers, I even designed one that would avoid many of the problems of the Foundation proposal http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming/personal_...
I'm also quite supportive both of the principle of Least Astonishment (POLA) and also of fixing our search routines so that sexual images that also involve cucumbers etc don't automatically jump to the top of searches for cucumbers because of the popularity of sexual images. But POLA itself is something that we need to carefully define. I'm aware of one recent incident where an editor got qite a bit of hassle because an image that he used to have on his webpage was subsequently replaced by an image that I would describe as Not Safe For Home, let alone Not Safe For Work. I'd consider that a POLA breach, but presumably the person who replaced a cropped image of someone's upper body with an uncropped image would just have thought they were improving an image.
But even though I've been supportive of much of the controversial content resolution, I'm not sure that the way the WMF has handled this has been ideal. My preference would be that when the WMF realises that a proposal has serious problems in the community, that proposal should be wholly or partially suspended or withdrawn so that the contentious aspects can be resolved. Better still the WMF should aim to work with the grain of the community and not adopt resolutions and major changes of direction without first getting community consensus for them.
I'm also intrigued by your comment "we have things that will have much more impact that aren't already poisoned by a bad start". Taking the fundraising proposal as an example, do you really think that the WMF idea of centralising fundraising and not doing it through chapters has not had a bad start? Or that the idea of running an inherently decentralised global movement in a tightly controlled centralised manner was ever going to be uncontentious, consensual or for that matter practical?
I'd also suggest that the board clarify when it considers that collective responsibility applies to its members and where it doesn't. There are some things such as dealings with regulators where collective responsibility is necessary for a board such as the WMF. There are other things such as the development of internal policy, where collective responsibility on the board is risky and unhealthy for the organisation. Unhealthy because on a divisive issue you want the minority to feel that they lost in the board decision, not that the board as a whole is opposed to their ideas.
WereSpielChequers