[Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Erik Moeller]

2010/9/28 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
> This doesn't answer my question, which was:
>
> _When_ will the board _review_ [the task-forces output]?

I'm sorry I didn't answer your question, John. Please note that I'm
neither on the Board, nor am I part of Board meetings, nor do I serve
as a conduit for them; the agenda for Board meetings is set by Sue
together with the chair of the Board and other Board members. My
understanding via Sue is that they'e focused so far on the high-level
priorities articulated in the strategic plan, and my sense is that if
individual task forces have items that they'd like to get the Board's
review or input on, they should bring this to the attention of the
Chair of the Board (tchen at wikimedia dot org) or an individual Board
member they know. But others can chime in and correct me on this if
needed.

> It sounds your take is that the existing WMF policy is sufficient for
> the present time?

My take is that plenty of stuff can happen without waiting for the
Board to pass new policy. I think that at least on the technology
front, there are still some low-hanging fruits that would be
relatively easy to pick (that is, to get consensus for), such as
better reader-facing tools for reporting BLP issues (we've already
thought a tiny bit about extending the new Article Feedback tool in
this direction), generally better content patrolling/labeling tools,
an evaluation and improvement of the effectiveness of the abuse
filter, OTRS process improvements and support etc. That is not to say
WMF can take all of these on, but all of them are actionable by anyone
with enough time and motivation. On the policy front, my impression is
that we're now dealing with genuinely difficult editorial borderline
questions, and that the basics of policy are pretty solid at least in
the mature projects.

The harder decisions are, as always, those where multiple perceived
goods are in conflict, especially the good of openness to
contribution/participation, and the good of minimizing harm to
individuals -- semi or PC protection for all BLPs, for example. My
view is that one shouldn't set unattainable standards; a clear
labeling system for unreviewed edits, where we strive to reduce review
time to as close to zero as possible, without going all the way to
deferring the view of the latest revision, seems entirely ethically
defensible for an encyclopedia developed in real-time. But, I can see
the argument in favor of a Pending Changes type approach on all BLPs,
and if that -- or stronger actions -- are what you believe is
necessary, then yes, I think you'll need to persuade the Board of that
for it to ever happen across all projects.

-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate