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

Andreas Kolbe jayen466 at yahoo.com
Wed May 18 21:30:33 UTC 2011


Thanks for the update, Phoebe, and best wishes. 

Andreas


--- On Wed, 18/5/11, 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>
> Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 20:26
> Hi Andreas,
> 
> Well, as promised a report from the board working group was
> presented
> to the full board (including information on the draft spec
> that you
> linked below, which is open for comment but certainly not
> set in
> stone), the matter was discussed at the March meeting as
> one of the
> many items on the agenda, and after the meeting we have
> been
> discussing a board resolution/next steps. Pretty typical.
> The minutes
> for the march meeting should be out soon.
> 
> ( Incidentally, a general note on board process for those
> interested
> -- guidelines for board deliberations were passed in July,
> and can be
> seen here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Board_deliberations
> 
> The upshot is that a resolution takes three weeks minimum
> from the
> time of being proposed to passing, except in
> extraordinary/emergency
> cases. Two weeks of discussion, then a week of voting, and
> that does
> not account for extra time spent writing various drafts or
> discussing,
> or delays caused by exhausted committee chairs :) The time
> period
> tries to take into account the schedules of 10 very busy
> people, at
> least a handful of whom are traveling at any given time, as
> well as
> allow for enough time to seriously debate each resolution
> and take
> care with the wording.
> 
> So that, in a nutshell, is why sometimes things seem to
> take forever! )
> 
> -- phoebe
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to
> phoebe.ayers
> <at> gmail.com *
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 



More information about the foundation-l mailing list