[Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Phoebe, 

Thank you very much for the update. 

Recommendations 7 and 9 are important points, and I am glad there is some work being done on them. 

Do let us know again how things are progressing!

Best,
Andreas

--- On Sun, 20/2/11, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen466 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 19:35
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM,
> Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Could Phoebe, Jan-Bart or Kat please give us an update
> on the activities of
> > the working group looking into the recommendations
> resulting from the 2010
> > Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content?
> >
> > Have any conclusions been drawn, and are there any
> plans or discussions about
> > implementing any of the recommendations?
> >
> > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/215066?search_string=working%20group%20controversial%20content;#215066
> >
> > Andreas
> 
> Hi Andreas! Thanks for asking. Sorry for the slow reply,
> I've been
> away on holiday the last couple of days and have not been
> online.
> 
> Also, my apologies for not posting an update before you
> asked. Things
> have been slowly moving but as yet no conclusions.
> 
> Here is what has happened since I sent my last update:
> 
> Over the winter holidays the membership of the working
> group changed
> due to the workload of other board committees. Jan-Bart and
> Kat
> stepped down and were replaced by Matt, Jimmy and Bishakha;
> I am still
> involved and agreed to chair the group. Of course any
> recommendations
> for statements or resolutions will go to the whole board.
> The Harrises
> are still involved as consultants on a "paid-as-needed"
> basis; if we
> want them to do any further research or facilitation they
> are
> available.
> 
> In my last message, I wrote that "The working group will be
> examining
> the recommendations more closely, soliciting Board member
> feedback on
> each of the recommendations to a greater degree than there
> was time
> for in the in-person meeting, working with the community
> and finally
> making a report to the full Board. The working group is
> expected to
> recommend next steps, including providing fuller analysis
> of the
> recommendations."
> 
> We did the first part of this (board member feedback); and
> are
> currently working on the analysis part. As you know the
> various
> recommendations fall into three kinds: philosophical,
> community-facing
> (such as changing specific community practices), and
> technical. I
> asked the WMF tech staff to spend some time looking into
> the
> recommendations that require technical work (7 & 9)* so
> that we can
> have more information about what's feasible and possible,
> and what it
> would take on the wmf/tech side and the community side.
> This does not
> mean they're developing these features now; it means I
> asked for
> possible specifications (since I am unfamiliar with what it
> would take
> in MediaWiki to make this happen) so the working group can
> make a more
> informed recommendation. The WMF won't develop anything
> without a
> board request.
> 
> You may notice that the "working with the community" part
> has been
> largely absent this winter. Beyond carefully reading** all
> of the
> public discussion to date, the working group has not
> actively worked
> with the community (at large) or specific community
> members. This is
> because I wanted to first focus on getting all of the board
> feedback
> and getting background information, and that has taken
> longer than I
> hoped. Of course we're not under the illusion that any
> changes can be
> made in how this organization works with controversial
> content (or
> even happily keeping the status quo) without community
> discussion
> (which there has been a lot of), consensus (which the
> recommendations
> were meant to help catalyze but afaik has not yet emerged),
> and hard
> work. I'd still suggest the meta talk pages along with
> commons policy
> pages as a good place to discuss the issue; and people can
> still help
> the working group by working on summarization, analysis,
> and procedure
> advice for going forward.
> 
> I'll say that the board does not yet have a formal position
> on this
> whole issue, and so I am hesitant to say much about that
> for fear of
> it being *taken* as an official board position.
> 
> You may read this message and think "ok, they're doing
> something" or
> you may read this message and think "the board has totally
> lost the
> way/not done their job on this issue" or you may not care
> :) Either
> way, feel free to write me or us, publicly or privately.
> Our next step
> as a working group will be a report to the board, likely at
> the march
> meeting.
> 
> -- phoebe
> 
> 
> * recs 7 & 9: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two#User-Controlled_Viewing_Options
> ** I have also been working on summarizing all this
> discussion; a big job.
>