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

Wed May 18 18:32:13 UTC 2011

Hi Phoebe,

What is the current status with regard to the recommendations from the
2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content?

From what I can see, a proposal based on the study was generated at 

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Personal_image_filter

and the proposal was subsequently presented and discussed at the Board 
Meeting in Berlin, in late March.

How did that go? Any further developments?

Best,
Andreas

--- On Sun, 20/2/11, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update
> To: "phoebe ayers" <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com>, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 22:54
> 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.
> > 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 