[Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

[R M Harris]

May I just reply to thank Excirial for the excellent suggestions re:formatting contained in his thoughtful reply (I'll look them over carefully) and just to note a couple of things. I'm well aware of the long-standing debates on these issues in the past, and I respect the fatigue with which many might approach yet another discussion of the question. As well, my point in raising the question of Controversial issues in English Wikipedia was not to misrepresent its status, but just to note that this form of categorization of content has been contemplated to be useful in some parts of the Wikimedia universe, a universe, which, while varied, does share certain common principles. And thanks for reminding me of the varied complexity of semi-autonomous principalities with the Wikimedia family.

> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:28:23 +0200
> From: wp.excirial at gmail.com
> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for	Potentially-Objectionable Content
> 
> *Thoughts on this so far*
> 1) I have to admit that my first thought upon reading this is "Oh no, not
> AGAIN", mainly due to the fact that this topic seems to be a never-ending
> debate which keeps flaring up at times. This debate is not only present on
> community-wide discussions, but also on deletion discussions of specific
> images, the mailing list, other wiki's and so on and on. Be aware that it
> may be difficult to motivate people for another debate.
> 2) This topic has been discussed so often on so many places that the
> arguments are virtually always recycled from previous discussions. A lot of
> information can be gleaned from past discussions. Its a data-goldmine :).
> 3) I got to agree with the previous two posters - The current discussion
> seems hard to boil down to anything sensible. I would equally warn that the
> page is currently just 52k long - if it is already hard to follow now it
> will be even harder later on. For example, the deletion
> discussion<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29&action=history>on
> the English Wiki regarding the image on the Goatse article ended up
> being
> nearly 200k - and that discussion was just about a single image on a single
> Wiki. If your going to tackle "Commons + controversial" the amount of
> information may easily be several factors higher because of the larger
> amount of images and the fact that it is cross-wiki.
> 
> *Possible error*
> Besides this i noticed a possible errors in the questions , which i would
> point out along with a few words of advice.
> *1) "Q1:Wikipedia has put certain policies and procedures in place to deal
> with special contentious categories of articles <Snip> see Wikipedia:
> Controversial articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AGFCA".*
> 
> There are two (possible) errors in this statement. First off, the article
> linked is an essay <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Essay>, which is
> not the same as a policy or
> guideline<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies>.
> An policy is a rule that everyone must follow, a guideline is a commonly
> accepted best practice (Thus in practice it should be followed), but an
> essay is the opinion of several editors. Some essays are widely followed,
> but others are almost 1 person writeups. Hence, have a look at
> WP:TTR<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DESiegel/Template_the_regulars>and
> WP:DTTR <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DTTR>. Those are both marked
> as essays, but yet they are each others polar opposites.
> 
> The second thing i would point out is that this is an essay from the English
> Wiki. Keep in mind that every Wiki may have its own, distinct set of rules.
> For example, the Arabic Wiki forbids images of Muhammad while the English
> Wiki allows them. Keep in mind that Commons is a cross-wiki project, which
> means that it has to serve different projects with different rules. This is
> not exactly an error, but rather a word of caution when considering commons.
> 
> *Some tips*
> *Rethink the structuring of the page. I few pointers could be:*
>  - Create a statement on top summarizing the context, boundries and reason
> for the page itself. This will keep people on topic, and allows for late
> joining of the discussion (People rarely join into a long discussion)
> - Create a summary section which summarizes what has been discussed so far.
> (See the History section on this
> discussion<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/ace.wikipedia_and_Prophet_Muhammad_images>for
> an example as to what i means). Long discussions are often only partly
> read, which means that the same thing is often discussed multiple times. As
> for another example: The "Goatse" discussion i linked above contains several
> duplicate statements as to rule thisandthat with argument moreandmore, which
> has already been discussed days ago resulting in a lot of duplicate work.
> Besides, it is convenient to have a summary if your involved in a discussion
> which you didn't read in a few days.
> - Cluster the questions and move them up. Currently they are on the 17th
> header of the talk page, which will scare off people (Do i have to read all
> of that above?) or cause them to miss them. Also, clustering where possible
> will reduce the amount of questions, and thus the area's of discussion (Thus
> easier to overview - though some people would argue that a lot of questions
> scares people off). For example, question two is simply a continuation of
> question 1, so it might be better to create a subsection on question 1. (As
> in: Question 1 <Question> A: <Subsequestion> B: <Subquestion>.
> - Use subheaders! In the current situation everything is present under a
> level two header, which makes things hard to read. A better structure would
> be, for example:
> 
> == Introduction ==
> <Short introduction of the page>
> === Goals, context and content ===
> <As mentioned above - why do we have this page, and what do we intend to do
> with it?>
> === Summary  ===
> <What we discussed so far>
> 
> == Questions ==
> <Short introduction if required>
> === Question 1 ===
> ==== Reactions ====
> 
> === Question 2 ===
> ==== Reactions ====
> 
> === Question 3 ===
> ==== Reactions ====
> 
> ==== Subquestion A====
> ==== Reactions ====
> 
> ==== Subquestion B====
> ==== Reactions ====
> 
> == Discussion ==
> <Free discussion area - Off topic statements, or statements that don't fit
> in the above sections can be added here. Header 1 to 16 can also be added
> here as level 3 headers.>
> 
> Note that this schematic is a rather basic and quickly-made example. There
> are certainly means to improve or alter it so that it fits better. For
> example, you might consider a "background" page that summarizes the events
> before this discussion (Such as the controversies since 2006 which are
> already listed). Some editors might be new, and therefor they might lack
> some background information. Hence, some of the Wikipedia communities
> Commons serves are less then a year old, so there may be editors who aren't
> even aware that this is a long-standing issue.
> 
> *And finally*
> Best of luck with this project! You will certainly have a field day working
> on this one, since i'd say that this is the most discussed subject on
> Wikipedia - Once the floodgates break open you will see a tsunami of
> responses coming your way so be ready for a lot of reading. I hope the
> suggestions above will prove to be helpfull,
> 
> Kind regards,
> ~Excirial
> 
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:04 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Looking at the contributors so far, I'm not sure that discussion is
> > > recoverable to any form of usefulness.
> >
> > 1. Checked and agreed.
> > 2. I am not going to discuss with well known censorship trolls.
> > 3. If this would be the main path of discussion, fork of Commons will
> > be the option.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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