Hoi, The study was commissioned by the WMF itself. Therefore there is an interest in the results of the study.
As far as I am concerned, this is discussion has been very much an echo chamber. The same points of view repeated by the same people. With very few people actually listening and willing to compromise. At Wikimania I spoke with one of the persons involved in the study. I asked about what I am interested in, I got the feed back I was looking for. I am relatively certain that I have been heard and consequently I am done discussing.
As to referrals to the en.wp, that is as parochial as anything. It is just one Wikipedia that does not get the input from other Wikipedias in a more extreme fashion. Its consensus is so big in "numbers" that it does not seem to care about what is consensus elsewhere.
On 25 August 2010 05:58, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
If nobody is interested in discussing the study, the apparent conclusion is not that the study should move to the next phase, but just the opposite, that it should be abandoned. If nobody cares enough to talk about it, it's not worth doing. (a slightly different application of WP:GNG, the general notability guideline on enWP) --in contrast, just as Delphine says, to the enWP pending revisions question, which a great many people apparently feel is worth at least discussing.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Excirial wp.excirial@gmail.com wrote:
One serious issue with the current status of the study is that it appears
to
be fairly death - especially when considering that it debates a controversial issue while potentially not affecting just one, but every single Wikipedia. After an initial and sustained burst which saw at least several edits a day we are currently in a state where 21 edits were made
by
7 unique users over the past three weeks or so. I wouls equally point out that, 24 hours after new questions have been posted only two users have actually reacted to them (Myself and DGG). Compare that to the huge
amount
of reactions that were posted after the initial notification on June 22,
or
to the current the huge amount of reactions the current straw poll<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll#Keep:_opti...
on pending revisions is currently generating on the English Wiki.
Ill be a tad blunt about two issues i see:
- This investigation needs momentum, and a boost if the momentum seems
to
go down. Once the discussion seems to reduce to a trickle it is probably best to move to the next fase, rather then waiting a fairly long time
while
people forget. 2) I cannot shake the nagging feeling that i debated the same, or similar questions at least several times, which reduces my interest in debating
them
again (Telling the same story 10 times grows boring after all).
Last, a single point that just occured to me - where is this study advertised? The foundation-l mailing list is mostly English, which means that some of the other language Wikipedians may not be subscribed, nor be able to read it or discuss it even if they wished to. To hook into
question
- a bit - if we aren't notifying non-english speaking Wikipedians and
conducting the entire discussion in English, aren't we excluding certain groups on the basis of language?
~Excirial
2010/8/24 Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com
Robert,
For what it's worth and for the record, I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts and findings about this process on this list, it's a fantastic positive and constructive example of "transparency" as I understand and value it.
Bon courage,
Cheers,
Delphine
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM, R M Harris rmharris@sympatico.ca
wrote:
Robert Harris here again, the consultant looking at the issues surrounding controversial content on Wikimedia projects. I
wanted
first
of all to thank all of you who have taken the trouble to once again
weigh
in on
a subject I know has been debated many times within the Wikimedia
community. It
has been very valuable for me, a newcomer to these questions, to
witness
the
debate first-hand for several reasons. The first is to remind me of
the
thinking behind various positions, rather than simply to be presented
with the
results of those positions. And the second is as a reminder to myself
to
remember my self-imposed rule of "do no harm” and to reflect on how
easy
it is to break that rule, even if unintentionally.
So far, the immediate result for me of the dialogue has been to
recognize
that
the question of whether there is any problem to solve at all is a real
question
that will need a detailed and serious response, as well as a
recognition
that
the possibility of unintended consequence in these matters is high, so
caution
and modesty is a virtue.
Having said that, I will note that I'm convinced that if there are
problems to
be solved around questions of controversial content, the solutions can
probably
best be found at the level of practical application. (and I’ll note
that
several of you have expressed qualified confidence that a solution on
that
level may be findable). That's not to say that the intellectual and philosophical debate around these issues is not valuable -- it is
essential, in
my opinion. It's just to note that not only is the "devil" in the details as a few of you have noted, but that the "angel" may be in the details as well -- that is -- perhaps -- questions insoluble
on
the theoretical level may find more areas of agreement on a practical
level.
I'm not sure of that, but I'm presenting it as a working hypothesis at
this
point.
My intended course of action over the next month or so is the
following.
I'm
planning to actually write the study on a wiki, where my thinking as
it
develops, plus comments, suggestions, and re-workings will be
available
for all to see. I was planning to begin that perhaps early in
September.
(A
presentation to the Foundation Board is tentatively scheduled for
early
October). Between now and then, I would like to continue the kind of
feedback
I've been getting, all of it so valuable for me. I have posted another
set of
questions about controversy in text articles on the Meta page devoted
to
the
study, (
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Co... )
because my ambit does not just
include images, and text and image, in my opinion, are quite different
forms of
content. As well, I will start to post research I've been collecting
for
information and comment. I have some interesting notes about the experience of public libraries in these matters (who have been
struggling
with
many of these same questions since the time television, not the
Internet,
was
the world’s new communications medium), as well as information on the
policies
of other big-tent sites (Google Images, Flickr, YouTube, eBay,etc.) on
these
same issues. I haven't finished collecting all the info I need on the
latter,
but will say that the policies on these sites are extremely complex
(although
not always presented as such) and subject within their communities to
many of
the same controversies that have arisen in ours. We are not them, by
any
means, but it is interesting to observe how they have struggled with
many
of
the same issues with which we are struggling.
The time is soon coming when I will lose the luxury of mere observation and research, and will have to face the moment where I
will
enter
the arena myself as a participant in these questions. I’m looking
forward
to
that moment, with the understanding that you will be watching what I
do
with
care, concern, and attention.
Robert Harris
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- ~notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
get
lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l