[Foundation-l] Controversial Content Study Update

Wed Aug 25 17:06:29 UTC 2010

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 at 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 at 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 at 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 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>