Hi Phoebe,
What is the current status with regard to the recommendations from the
2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content?
From what I can see, a proposal based on the study was generated at
and the proposal was subsequently presented and discussed at the Board
Meeting in Berlin, in late March.
How did that go? Any further developments?
Best,
Andreas
--- On Sun, 20/2/11, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update
To: "phoebe ayers" <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com>om>, "Wikimedia Foundation
Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 22:54
Hi Phoebe,
Thank you very much for the update.
Recommendations 7 and 9 are important points, and I am glad
there is some work being done on them.
Do let us know again how things are progressing!
Best,
Andreas
--- On Sun, 20/2/11, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of
Controversial Content --
update
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen466(a)yahoo.com>
Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 19:35
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM,
Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Could Phoebe, Jan-Bart or Kat please give us an
update
on the activities of
> the working group looking into the
recommendations
resulting from the 2010
> Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content?
>
> Have any conclusions been drawn, and are there
any
plans or discussions about
Hi Andreas! Thanks for asking. Sorry for the slow
reply,
I've been
away on holiday the last couple of days and have not
been
online.
Also, my apologies for not posting an update before
you
asked. Things
have been slowly moving but as yet no conclusions.
Here is what has happened since I sent my last
update:
Over the winter holidays the membership of the
working
group changed
due to the workload of other board committees.
Jan-Bart and
Kat
stepped down and were replaced by Matt, Jimmy and
Bishakha;
I am still
involved and agreed to chair the group. Of course any
recommendations
for statements or resolutions will go to the whole
board.
The Harrises
are still involved as consultants on a
"paid-as-needed"
basis; if we
want them to do any further research or facilitation
they
are
available.
In my last message, I wrote that "The working group
will be
examining
the recommendations more closely, soliciting Board
member
feedback on
each of the recommendations to a greater degree than
there
was time
for in the in-person meeting, working with the
community
and finally
making a report to the full Board. The working group
is
expected to
recommend next steps, including providing fuller
analysis
of the
recommendations."
We did the first part of this (board member feedback);
and
are
currently working on the analysis part. As you know
the
various
recommendations fall into three kinds: philosophical,
community-facing
(such as changing specific community practices), and
technical. I
asked the WMF tech staff to spend some time looking
into
the
recommendations that require technical work (7 &
9)* so
that we can
have more information about what's feasible and
possible,
and what it
would take on the wmf/tech side and the community
side.
This does not
mean they're developing these features now; it means
I
asked for
possible specifications (since I am unfamiliar with
what it
would take
in MediaWiki to make this happen) so the working group
can
make a more
informed recommendation. The WMF won't develop
anything
without a
board request.
You may notice that the "working with the community"
part
has been
largely absent this winter. Beyond carefully reading**
all
of the
public discussion to date, the working group has not
actively worked
with the community (at large) or specific community
members. This is
because I wanted to first focus on getting all of the
board
feedback
and getting background information, and that has
taken
longer than I
hoped. Of course we're not under the illusion that
any
changes can be
made in how this organization works with
controversial
content (or
even happily keeping the status quo) without
community
discussion
(which there has been a lot of), consensus (which the
recommendations
were meant to help catalyze but afaik has not yet
emerged),
and hard
work. I'd still suggest the meta talk pages along
with
commons policy
pages as a good place to discuss the issue; and people
can
still help
the working group by working on summarization,
analysis,
and procedure
advice for going forward.
I'll say that the board does not yet have a formal
position
on this
whole issue, and so I am hesitant to say much about
that
for fear of
it being *taken* as an official board position.
You may read this message and think "ok, they're
doing
something" or
you may read this message and think "the board has
totally
lost the
way/not done their job on this issue" or you may not
care
:) Either
way, feel free to write me or us, publicly or
privately.
Our next step
as a working group will be a report to the board,
likely at
the march
meeting.
-- phoebe
* recs 7 & 9:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Conten…
** I have also been working on summarizing all this
discussion; a big job.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: