Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update

 

 

Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


jayen466 at yahoo

Feb 18, 2011, 5:26 AM

Post #1 of 6 (822 views)
Permalink
2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update

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




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


phoebe.wiki at gmail

Feb 20, 2011, 11:35 AM

Post #2 of 6 (781 views)
Permalink
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update [In reply to]

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo> 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
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayen466 at yahoo

Feb 20, 2011, 2:54 PM

Post #3 of 6 (778 views)
Permalink
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update [In reply to]

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> wrote:

> From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Cc: "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen466 [at] yahoo>
> Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 19:35
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM,
> Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo>
> 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
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayen466 at yahoo

May 18, 2011, 11:32 AM

Post #4 of 6 (683 views)
Permalink
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update [In reply to]

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> wrote:

> From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update
> To: "phoebe ayers" <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail>, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists>
> 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>
> wrote:
>
> > From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of
> Controversial Content -- update
> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists>
> > Cc: "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen466 [at] yahoo>
> > Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 19:35
> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM,
> > Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo>
> > 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
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


phoebe.wiki at gmail

May 18, 2011, 12:26 PM

Post #5 of 6 (679 views)
Permalink
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update [In reply to]

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> 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> wrote:
>
>> From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo>
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update
>> To: "phoebe ayers" <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail>, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists>
>> 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>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail>
>> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of
>> Controversial Content -- update
>> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists>
>> > Cc: "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen466 [at] yahoo>
>> > Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 19:35
>> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM,
>> > Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo>
>> > 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
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> 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
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayen466 at yahoo

May 18, 2011, 2:30 PM

Post #6 of 6 (679 views)
Permalink
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update [In reply to]

Thanks for the update, Phoebe, and best wishes.

Andreas


--- On Wed, 18/5/11, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:

> From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists>
> 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>
> 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>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo>
> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study
> of Controversial Content -- update
> >> To: "phoebe ayers" <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail>,
> "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists>
> >> 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>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail>
> >> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia
> Study of
> >> Controversial Content -- update
> >> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l [at] lists>
> >> > Cc: "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen466 [at] yahoo>
> >> > Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 19:35
> >> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM,
> >> > Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo>
> >> > 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
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > 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
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.