Nathan writes:
When the WMF makes a
decision to intervene in the projects, full and informative communication isn't just a nice-if-you-can-get-it side benefit of dealing with a small company - it's essential to maintaining the fabric of a massively participatory and cooperative endeavor.
I think if you look at what we did with regard to the Gallimard takedowns --
1) Consulting with French legal experts before taking any action 2) Compelling Gallimard to narrow and specify their takedown demands 3) Enlisting community members to implement the takedowns 4) Including (though not required to do so) contact and identifying information for Gallimard 5) Providing a complete list of what Gallimard demanded to be taken down
-- you see both a high degree of deliberation on our part (we didn't simply jump to comply) and an effort to make clear to the community what we were doing and why, and to involve the community, even at the same point in time at which we followed through on the takedown demands.
You may remember than Yann originally asserted some kind of double standard (maybe that we're more afraid of French publishers than of British museums?), and Andre suggested that we simply (and fearfully) comply with facially invalid takedown requests. Neither notion is true. Somehow those notions didn't exactly feel cooperative.
I think it's essential to maintaining the fabric of a massively participatory and cooperative endeavor that one first give some attention to the full facts of how we responded, rather than jumping to (negative) conclusions about our motivations and interests. My view is that, to the extent possible, I want to minimize the exposure of community members to legal risk even as I'm doing the same for the Foundation. Partly this means adhering to the framework of the applicable laws, including copyright laws -- so, yes, we will normally comply with a formally correct takedown notice, just as we will comply with a formally correct "put up" demand. We'll also help targeted community members find independent legal counsel when we can, and we'll support chapters that seek to provide professional legal advice to the community as well. We do generally have to obey the rules, however, and we didn't create them.
--Mike
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
I think if you look at what we did with regard to the Gallimard takedowns --
- Consulting with French legal experts before taking any action
- Compelling Gallimard to narrow and specify their takedown demands
- Enlisting community members to implement the takedowns
- Including (though not required to do so) contact and identifying
information for Gallimard 5) Providing a complete list of what Gallimard demanded to be taken down
-- you see both a high degree of deliberation on our part (we didn't simply jump to comply) and an effort to make clear to the community what we were doing and why, and to involve the community, even at the same point in time at which we followed through on the takedown demands.
You may remember than Yann originally asserted some kind of double standard (maybe that we're more afraid of French publishers than of British museums?), and Andre suggested that we simply (and fearfully) comply with facially invalid takedown requests. Neither notion is true. Somehow those notions didn't exactly feel cooperative.
I think it's essential to maintaining the fabric of a massively participatory and cooperative endeavor that one first give some attention to the full facts of how we responded, rather than jumping to (negative) conclusions about our motivations and interests. My view is that, to the extent possible, I want to minimize the exposure of community members to legal risk even as I'm doing the same for the Foundation. Partly this means adhering to the framework of the applicable laws, including copyright laws -- so, yes, we will normally comply with a formally correct takedown notice, just as we will comply with a formally correct "put up" demand. We'll also help targeted community members find independent legal counsel when we can, and we'll support chapters that seek to provide professional legal advice to the community as well. We do generally have to obey the rules, however, and we didn't create them.
--Mike
At this point I'm familiar with what the Foundation did and did not do in this particular instance; while my note mentioned that the complaints about communication directed towards the WMF were usually prompted by specific instances, my point about the general responsibility of the WMF to communicate fully is just that - a general point, and not an implied restatement of Yann's complaint. On the other hand, while no one can say that the Foundation did not attempt to inform the French Wikisource community at all, the steps you did take are still open to some criticism and suggestions for improvement.
Cary posted a very brief summary of the rationale for the takedown notice, Gallimard's name and contact information, and a list of content deleted. He did not describe the Foundation's effort to limit the scope of the demand, or its contact with French counsel (which was described later, on the talk page, in the form of a copy of an e-mail from you mentioning Hugot Avocats), nor was any effort made to inform project participants how they could contest or counter Gallimard's demands. You can argue, and have argued, that participants should know this already or can easily discover the relevant information with some digging. But why not spare them the effort? It's fully possible that the folks most interested in the specific content are no longer paying close attention, or will be discouraged enough to just give up. Is posting a link to a useful description of put-up procedures really a liability for the WMF?
The idea here is that some communication is not necessarily ideal communication, and we can acknowledge that an effort was made while still asking for just a little bit more.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
You can argue, and have argued, that participants should know this already or can easily discover the relevant information with some digging. But why not spare them the effort? It's fully possible that the folks most interested in the specific content are no longer paying close attention, or will be discouraged enough to just give up. Is posting a link to a useful description of put-up procedures really a liability for the WMF?
I see nothing preventing the community from adopting a template including information about put-up procedures. If the community were to do this, it would not create liability for WMF. I believe David Gerard has suggested something similar.
The idea here is that some communication is not necessarily ideal communication, and we can acknowledge that an effort was made while still asking for just a little bit more.
I'm pleased, of course, that a few people do acknowledge that the effort was made.
--Mike
Hello,
2010/6/5 Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com:
Nathan writes:
When the WMF makes a
decision to intervene in the projects, full and informative communication isn't just a nice-if-you-can-get-it side benefit of dealing with a small company - it's essential to maintaining the fabric of a massively participatory and cooperative endeavor.
I think if you look at what we did with regard to the Gallimard takedowns --
- Consulting with French legal experts before taking any action
- Compelling Gallimard to narrow and specify their takedown demands
- Enlisting community members to implement the takedowns
Yes, but the community was only informed _after_ the texts were deleted. What's surprising to me, and most members of French Wikisource, is that some of the deleted pages are in the public domain in France (works by Jean de La Ville de Mirmont and Charles Péguy, who both died in 1914, so their works became public domain in October 2009). If actually you contacted the community _before_ deleting these pages, you could have informed Gallimard about that, and avoid deleting them. We still don't understand how the French lawyers made this mistake.
Did you know that some of the deleted pages were in the public domain in France? Do you understand that is what led us to think that the decision was not well informed?
(...)
--Mike
Regards,
Yann
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
I think if you look at what we did with regard to the Gallimard takedowns...
Going back to the original issue regarding communication, the appearance of Mike on this thread shows me that this mailing list is one good way to get the Board's attention.
If Mike hadn't been able to deal with an issue and he felt it was important he would just walk across to or email someone who is better placed to respond.
On that basis I would say there isn't a communication issue. It might be hard for a newbie to know where to go, but in a way that protects the staff from being overwhelmed by the many millions who visit the site and have a query. I actually think it's a good thing to have barriers to communicating with WMF staff. In that way, we the community become sort of receptionists for them; we can either deal with a complaint or question ourselves or, if it so warrants, bump it up here or directly email the WMF.
User:Bodnotbod
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thank you for your opinions. I'd like to clarify my criticism. What Mike has done and is doing is honorable; he's dedicating efforts and patience to the community. He has nothing to do with my questioning.
What I see is that WMF doesn't always publish the problems they're addressing, not in time, not entirely and not in a defined and known place. It seems that the WMF feels it is the correct way to communicate their actions once they're done, synthesizing briefly why to a selected (or random?) sample of the community. Some answers here even suggest that secrecy is necessary, that informing the community about what and why the Board is doing is not feasible or desirable as a norm and as a duty, and that communicating about the situation, intentions and actions of the WMF should be exceptional and under the community pressure, pressure that should be channeled and controlled through trusted community members.
I'm not trying to accuse but to put in relief a certain vision of WMF: an enterprise that must survive legally and economically, like any other enterprise. The community is some sort of public, clients and users that one must manage through public relations at best or indifference. In summary, this seems a vision of little accountability towards the community.
In contrast, I think the community has other expectations. They feel they own the projects because they made them, they're making them, they will make them. They're not consumers. They're the engine. They identify with the project. They share (more or less) a vision and they search for an ethic together. I think that in their minds, though they owe a lot to the founders, they now are the main part of this adventure. The WMF is paid by them to address what they will tell them to address. According to this vision, the accountability towards the community is total.
My words are not good and my vision short. I beg someone with better eloquence and diplomatic skills, with more experience and insight to develop the idea.
What I propose is to create a public space where the WMF would announce immediately the claims and pressures they receive, and how they will respond. (just a copy/paste of mails for example). People who want to follow, comment or act upon these kind of news would subscribe to a RSS feed, maybe with a filter for chapters.
Correctly set up, this channel between the WMF and the community could be synergetic. It could avoid triggering anger, edit wars and demissions. It could be used as a brain tank to collect data and ideas about the problems that the WMF is facing, even when the WMF is doomed to act on short terms. If the WMF accepts to feed the community with its problems and intentions and listens to the corresponding feedback, most of the communication problems would be defused, in my opinion.
I think it is worth an experimental try at least. If it yields positively constructive results, then maybe there should be such a page for each big category of problems that the WMF usually deals with.
Oh well, just a (badly expressed) idea.
On 05/06/2010 11:29, Bod Notbod wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
I think if you look at what we did with regard to the Gallimard takedowns...
Going back to the original issue regarding communication, the appearance of Mike on this thread shows me that this mailing list is one good way to get the Board's attention.
If Mike hadn't been able to deal with an issue and he felt it was important he would just walk across to or email someone who is better placed to respond.
On that basis I would say there isn't a communication issue. It might be hard for a newbie to know where to go, but in a way that protects the staff from being overwhelmed by the many millions who visit the site and have a query. I actually think it's a good thing to have barriers to communicating with WMF staff. In that way, we the community become sort of receptionists for them; we can either deal with a complaint or question ourselves or, if it so warrants, bump it up here or directly email the WMF.
User:Bodnotbod
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Okay, so from my perspective, here's where we are:
The WMF staff cares about the projects and we respect the work that they do. Additionally, they do a much better job than the other top...well, one hundred websites in the world in communicating with their volunteers and their userbase. The flip-side is that this is the reason that most organizations put up a wall between administration and staff. Not that this is healthy, and I certainly don't encourage it, but this is what a thread like the ones we've had recently fosters: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
1. MediaWiki software support Damned if you don't: Volunteers won't necessarily jump on fixing the software patches/extensions if they are to hard and there is not enough time or energy to go around. Damned if you do: You didn't listen to the community and implemented these changes without review.
2. Project support: Damned if you do: We demand that the office intervene in pushing through community requested enhancements, and we will complain about them when you do. Damned if you don't: Why do we pay these people?
3. Takedown notices/other staff or founder actions: Damned if you don't: The Wikimedia Foundation does not care about its userbase, and requests that all issues about content being directed at the uploader (at their own legal expense). Damned if you do: GET OFF MY LAWN
I'm sorry if this seems terse. Well, actually I'm not. The Foundation is as actively engaged as it can be and hands off as it can be. Say an "engine" as it was put doesn't like vector. Well, I don't either. But what do you want? Polls? Noticeboards? Even more discussion than we already have now?
I'm a big fan of discussions, I'll talk about most anything endlessly. This is talking about running a business, and sometimes that requires stifling discussion until the appropriate time for ideas and reforms have come about as well as {{sofixit}}. Criticism is what should build a business model, and I'm certain that the WMF takes this to heart because, as mentioned, they don't have the steel heart wall that most major websites do.
Long story short: chasing+tail=killing time.
Just my opinion.
Keegan Peterzell wrote:
Okay, so from my perspective, here's where we are:
The WMF staff cares about the projects and we respect the work that they do. Additionally, they do a much better job than the other top...well, one hundred websites in the world in communicating with their volunteers and their userbase. The flip-side is that this is the reason that most organizations put up a wall between administration and staff. Not that this is healthy, and I certainly don't encourage it, but this is what a thread like the ones we've had recently fosters: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I would suggest that instead of a wall between the community and the foundation, there should be built a bridge. A form of consultation by a small group of "wise heads" from the communities, who know how they work; not as a decision making body, but purely informing about the realities in the various communities.
- MediaWiki software support Damned if you don't: Volunteers won't necessarily jump on fixing the
software patches/extensions if they are to hard and there is not enough time or energy to go around. Damned if you do: You didn't listen to the community and implemented these changes without review.
There hasn't historically been a need to listen to the community for but a tiny fraction of features to the software, which are espescially sensitive. There isn't an absolute need to build a consensus for most trivial and crystal clear improvements to the software. The problem is determining which changes are going to be controversial, and which not.
To repeat, the community at large need only be rarely given a look in before the implementation, but there needs to be some review by folks who understand viscerally how the animal (community) functions. This didn't used to be a problem at all, because all the developers in fact came from the communities, and full well knew us, warts and all.
Ceterum censeo, I think a minimal group of wise folks from the community should be brought in to identify all the changes that are totally uncontroversial.
- Project support: Damned if you do: We demand that the office intervene in pushing
through community requested enhancements, and we will complain about them when you do. Damned if you don't: Why do we pay these people?
I don't think there has *ever* been a case where a requested enchancement that had reached a community consensus being implemented had caused complaints by any but the regular trolls. I could imagine serious complaints being leveled if the implementation didn't adhere to the consensus reached, but that is just about all.
- Takedown notices/other staff or founder actions: Damned if you don't: The Wikimedia Foundation does not care about its
userbase, and requests that all issues about content being directed at the uploader (at their own legal expense). Damned if you do: GET OFF MY LAWN
I am sorry, I just can't parse what you are suggesting here. This doesn't correspond to anything real in the past or anything hypothetically in our future.
There has never been a "Get off my lawn!" attitude anywhere. What people have said quite often is: "Please explain your actions, and what variety of justification are they based on, pretty please, with a cherry on top!" And absent a clear and present danger, "Do join us, we respect and value involvement, within the context of the normal operation of our community, from foundation functionaries, no matter how senior."
The above really is an egregious case of the excluded middle.
I'm sorry if this seems terse. Well, actually I'm not. The Foundation is as actively engaged as it can be and hands off as it can be. Say an "engine" as it was put doesn't like vector. Well, I don't either. But what do you want? Polls? Noticeboards? Even more discussion than we already have now?
Ceterum censeo, the fuss could have been reduced, if quietly some wise heads from the community might have just whispered to the vector-crew; "Great job, overall, but collapsing the interwiki links just won't fly. Best not even try."
I'm a big fan of discussions, I'll talk about most anything endlessly. This is talking about running a business, and sometimes that requires stifling discussion until the appropriate time for ideas and reforms have come about as well as {{sofixit}}. Criticism is what should build a business model, and I'm certain that the WMF takes this to heart because, as mentioned, they don't have the steel heart wall that most major websites do.
I think the point is that it would be nice if there was somebody from the community who would be tasked with heading foundation folks aside, before the fact, when they are in danger of doing something seriously controversial that really *does* require a consensus reached.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.comwrote:
I would suggest that instead of a wall between the community and the foundation, there should be built a bridge. A form of consultation by a small group of "wise heads" from the communities, who know how they work; not as a decision making body, but purely informing about the realities in the various communities.
Good idea.
I don't think there has *ever* been a case where a requested enchancement that had reached a community consensus being implemented had caused complaints by any but the regular trolls. I could imagine serious complaints being leveled if the implementation didn't adhere to the consensus reached, but that is just about all.
The thing is, our historical model doesn't tend to repeat itself except in the usual societal roles.
I am sorry, I just can't parse what you are suggesting here. This doesn't correspond to anything real in the past or anything hypothetically in our future.
There has never been a "Get off my lawn!" attitude anywhere. What people have said quite often is: "Please explain your actions, and what variety of justification are they based on, pretty please, with a cherry on top!" And absent a clear and present danger, "Do join us, we respect and value involvement, within the context of the normal operation of our community, from foundation functionaries, no matter how senior."
I hope you're kidding about the politeness and lack of get off my lawn attitude, because it definitely exists.
I think the point is that it would be nice if there was somebody from the community who would be tasked with heading foundation folks aside, before the fact, when they are in danger of doing something seriously controversial that really *does* require a consensus reached.
Give me a pen and I'll write the first sentence.
Keegan Peterzell wrote:
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.comwrote:
I am sorry, I just can't parse what you are suggesting here. This doesn't correspond to anything real in the past or anything hypothetically in our future.
There has never been a "Get off my lawn!" attitude anywhere. What people have said quite often is: "Please explain your actions, and what variety of justification are they based on, pretty please, with a cherry on top!" And absent a clear and present danger, "Do join us, we respect and value involvement, within the context of the normal operation of our community, from foundation functionaries, no matter how senior."
I hope you're kidding about the politeness and lack of get off my lawn attitude, because it definitely exists.
Only in cases where the senior functionaries come with a bull-dozer. Usually benign lawn-mowers are welcomed.
I think the point is that it would be nice if there was somebody from the community who would be tasked with heading foundation folks aside, before the fact, when they are in danger of doing something seriously controversial that really *does* require a consensus reached.
Give me a pen and I'll write the first sentence.
Sentence of what? I don't understand what you are wanting to write? I am talking about a group of people, who would represent the communities.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Sorry, I was using an idiom for good idea, let's get started :)
On Jun 6, 2010 10:26 AM, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan Peterzell wrote: > On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > <cimonavaro@gmail....
I am sorry, I just can't parse what you are suggesting here. >> This
doesn't correspond to anythi... Only in cases where the senior functionaries come with a bull-dozer. Usually benign lawn-mowers are welcomed.
I think the point is that it would be nice if there was somebody >> from
the community who would... Sentence of what? I don't understand what you are wanting to write? I am talking about a group of people, who would represent the communities.
Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l maili...
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan Peterzell wrote:
Okay, so from my perspective, here's where we are:
The WMF staff cares about the projects and we respect the work that they do [snip] but this is what a thread like the ones we've had recently fosters: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I think this is totally true and needs to be remembered. Working with the community shouldn't be a frustrating experience. [Or maybe it's just that long-term community members have gotten inured to a certain level of frustration and therefore don't even notice anymore? I can't tell].
[snip]
Ceterum censeo, I think a minimal group of wise folks from the community should be brought in to identify all the changes that are totally uncontroversial.
Is it perhaps fair to suggest that changes that more people see are likely to be more controversial? Usability and fundraising both are particularly difficult in this regard, since huge numbers of people (everyone who uses the site) are affected by those changes. On the other hand, I rarely see controversy over, say, a new feature that some people want but most will never use.
Along with this, there are certain hot button issues, such as: * deletion of content, for any reason (but particularly anything that could be connected to censorship or legal repression)
those actions will always be controversial, and for pretty good reason -- such actions come potentially close to violating our core values, and therefore should be examined closely.
I'm trying to think of what other always-controversial topics are, on the WMF scale (as opposed to on the projects). Maybe we should make up a list. (And then distribute "wrong version" stickers).
-- phoebe
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 3:24 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan Peterzell wrote:
Okay, so from my perspective, here's where we are:
The WMF staff cares about the projects and we respect the work that they
do [snip] but this is what a thread
like the ones we've had recently fosters: Damned if you do, damned if
you
don't.
I think this is totally true and needs to be remembered. Working with the community shouldn't be a frustrating experience. [Or maybe it's just that long-term community members have gotten inured to a certain level of frustration and therefore don't even notice anymore? I can't tell].
Personally, I expect that the folks that work for the WMF understand this concept and work within the confines of it. In any environment in which you invest your time, energy, and emotion this is just another run of the mill thing. On the other hand, internally while still collected your brain is still screaming "I get it, shut up." Naturally it is inappropriate to actually say that, and you have to swallow that very bitter pill. Doesn't mean you can't explain or defend yourself, which they are expected to do as part of the job (and by they, I mean any person with "advanced permissions" on WMF projects and life in general).
From my position, like the commons deletion debate, there is a time to act
and then discuss, and other times vice versa. Doing this in the wrong order will cause...well, this. As Mike tried to point out in an earlier thread about the commons deletions, sort out that first and THEN talk about Jimbo's role and how the process was managed. Something out of process occured, so we need to rectify what the issue was first, and then move on to the theoretical debate.
Again, speaking only for myself, the communications break-downs occur when you want to talk about something while feeling passionately about it. In reality, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
-- Keegan
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.comwrote:
I would suggest that instead of a wall between the community and the foundation, there should be built a bridge. A form of consultation by a small group of "wise heads" from the communities, who know how they work; not as a decision making body, but purely informing about the realities in the various communities.
Oh, I didn't get to this earlier because I replied from my mobile device.
Cimon, seriously give me a pen and I'll write the first sentence. I'm one for stepping up to the plate. Let's start a meta page where people can register thoughts/complaints/grievances/joy/sorry to WMF staff. If it is a serious concern, the staff can respond after someone consults with them and receive either a you can handle it or I can handle it response. How would selection go? I dunno. But it would facilitate communication issues, and if you have enough experience working with staffers it should be an easy thing. I can shoot about all of the ones that matter in the programs department an email and get a quick response. You could too. So could everyone on this list, for the most part. If you really want to do this, I'm game and I'm sure others are as well.
...'cept that pesky MZMcBride :)
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org