[Foundation-l] Controversial Content Study Update

Wed Aug 25 03:58:10 UTC 2010

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 at 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:_options_2.2C_3.2C_or_4>on
> 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 at 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 at 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_Content)
>>  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 at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at 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