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
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
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 pollhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll#Keep:_options_2.2C_3.2C_or_4on pending revisions is currently generating on the English Wiki.
Ill be a tad blunt about two issues i see: 1) 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 4. 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
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 pollhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll#Keep:_options_2.2C_3.2C_or_4on 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 4. 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
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
It is possible that there is a difference between what the WMF is interested in and what the community is interested in, something which makes itself evident when there is no responses from people in the various projects. . I'm aware there are various portions of the community, but I can only judge by the responses from my own projects.--and this does not mean that I myself am necessarily not interested, as can in fact be seen by my commenting here !
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Given that this is the FOUNDATION-L it is quite relevant what the WMF is interested in. If I were particularly interested in the English language communities opinion I would be elsewhere.
As I argued before, I find this a subject that has been talked to death with hardly a person interested in what others have to say. I had my say, and that is enough for me given the intransigence of opinions and the lack of genuine interest that I observe. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 August 2010 17:17, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
It is possible that there is a difference between what the WMF is interested in and what the community is interested in, something which makes itself evident when there is no responses from people in the various projects. . I'm aware there are various portions of the community, but I can only judge by the responses from my own projects.--and this does not mean that I myself am necessarily not interested, as can in fact be seen by my commenting here !
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
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
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
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:17 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
It is possible that there is a difference between what the WMF is interested in and what the community is interested in, something which makes itself evident when there is no responses from people in the various projects. . I'm aware there are various portions of the community, but I can only judge by the responses from my own projects.--and this does not mean that I myself am necessarily not interested, as can in fact be seen by my commenting here !
David and all,
This is an interesting problem in general: what to do with hot topics that don't have sustained interest. There certainly seemed to be enough interest in objectionable content a few months ago, or at least enough interest to warrant looking into it further. I suspect the concerns and ideas that people raised then haven't actually gone away over the summer.
However, now Excirial writes that there's not so much activity on this meta page, while Robert is still asking for help. I can hypothesize a few possibilities for why this might be so:
* our entire editor base is on holiday, preparing to go back to school, or otherwise engaged * somehow the meta page wasn't advertised to all of the people who do care about this topic, so they don't know it exists * people are, as you say, sick of talking about it, or feel like they've said what needs to be said already somewhere * people are content to leave it others, or are actively choosing to leave it to people who might be more involved in the issue (like commons admins) * the page is long and complex, and people don't have time to get through it or have other priorities * these things can't be rushed * people don't have anything to say about these specific questions, or have only thought through one part of the issue and don't want to address the rest * responding to dramatic topics, heated email threads or "crisis situations" is more exciting than thinking things through slowly (in which case we should threaten to do something drastic to raise interest -- like no more photos of anything, only line engravings from here on out. Victorianpedia!) * there's not enough motivation to participate because it's not clear what will actually happen afterwards; there's not a sense of building something or coming to a conclusion in the discussion * the situation is actually not as dire as Excirial writes, since there was a fair amount of participation in July, quite a bit before that, and any of the above factors might be true for one or more potential discussants now.
I don't think any of those possibilities, if true, necessarily point to a lack of interest by "the community"; clearly some people are interested and some could care less, some may be working elsewhere on the same issue, and some may simply be distracted. But I do think that it can sometimes be hard to get productive collaboration & discussion through the mechanism of asking for feedback, for these reasons and more; many other efforts to get input from the community have also had difficulty (or else, like pending changes on en:, there's so much discussion over such a long period that it's difficult to tell what's going on). So is there a better way?
best, Phoebe
p.s. I agree with Delphine; thank you Robert for the long explanation of your thinking and process, which I think is really valuable and a lovely demonstration of openness and transparency; I look forward to seeing the research results.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:49 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:17 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
It is possible that there is a difference between what the WMF is interested in and what the community is interested in, something which makes itself evident when there is no responses from people in the various projects. . I'm aware there are various portions of the community, but I can only judge by the responses from my own projects.--and this does not mean that I myself am necessarily not interested, as can in fact be seen by my commenting here !
David and all,
This is an interesting problem in general: what to do with hot topics that don't have sustained interest. There certainly seemed to be enough interest in objectionable content a few months ago, or at least enough interest to warrant looking into it further. I suspect the concerns and ideas that people raised then haven't actually gone away over the summer.
or winter! I vowed some time ago to not be northern-hemisphere-ist, but I still slip up. Hard to think about it being winter elsewhere when it's 39C outside here....
phoebe
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 02:52, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
or winter! I vowed some time ago to not be northern-hemisphere-ist, but I still slip up. Hard to think about it being winter elsewhere when it's 39C outside here....
But, you are using C instead of F, which is quite good for one American :P
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 02:52, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
or winter! I vowed some time ago to not be northern-hemisphere-ist, but I still slip up. Hard to think about it being winter elsewhere when it's 39C outside here....
But, you are using C instead of F, which is quite good for one American :P
It's a commendable step forward in a country where "39C" is more likely to be interpreted as a bust size than a temperature.
Ray
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org