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

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Call for referendum

 

 

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


philippe at wikimedia

Jun 29, 2011, 1:35 PM

Post #1 of 25 (3616 views)
Permalink
Call for referendum

*Please distribute widely*
*
*
*
*
*Call for referendum*: The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the
Board of Trustees, will be holding a vote to determine whether members of
the community support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image
filter, which would allow readers to voluntarily screen particular types of
images strictly for their own account.

Further details and educational materials will be available shortly. The
referendum is scheduled for 12-27 August, 2011, and will be conducted on
servers hosted by a neutral third party. Referendum details, officials,
voting requirements, and supporting materials will be posted at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum shortly.

For the coordinating committee,
Philippe (WMF)
Cbrown1023
Risker
Mardetanha
PeterSymonds
Robert Harris

___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 2106 (reader relations)

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


wjhonson at aol

Jun 29, 2011, 1:38 PM

Post #2 of 25 (3542 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

One type of image being "Image of Muhammad" ?







-----Original Message-----
From: Philippe Beaudette <philippe [at] wikimedia>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Wed, Jun 29, 2011 1:35 pm
Subject: [Foundation-l] Call for referendum


*Please distribute widely*




Call for referendum*: The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the
oard of Trustees, will be holding a vote to determine whether members of
he community support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image
ilter, which would allow readers to voluntarily screen particular types of
mages strictly for their own account.
Further details and educational materials will be available shortly. The
eferendum is scheduled for 12-27 August, 2011, and will be conducted on
ervers hosted by a neutral third party. Referendum details, officials,
oting requirements, and supporting materials will be posted at
ttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum shortly.
For the coordinating committee,
hilippe (WMF)
brown1023
isker
ardetanha
eterSymonds
obert Harris
___________________
hilippe Beaudette
ead of Reader Relations
ikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 2106 (reader relations)
philippe [at] wikimedia
______________________________________________
oundation-l mailing list
oundation-l [at] lists
nsubscribe: 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


keegan.wiki at gmail

Jun 29, 2011, 1:48 PM

Post #3 of 25 (3534 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

Precisely.
On Jun 29, 2011 3:38 PM, "Wjhonson" <wjhonson [at] aol> wrote:
>
> One type of image being "Image of Muhammad" ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe Beaudette <philippe [at] wikimedia>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Sent: Wed, Jun 29, 2011 1:35 pm
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Call for referendum
>
>
> *Please distribute widely*
>
>
>
>
> Call for referendum*: The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the
> oard of Trustees, will be holding a vote to determine whether members of
> he community support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image
> ilter, which would allow readers to voluntarily screen particular types of
> mages strictly for their own account.
> Further details and educational materials will be available shortly. The
> eferendum is scheduled for 12-27 August, 2011, and will be conducted on
> ervers hosted by a neutral third party. Referendum details, officials,
> oting requirements, and supporting materials will be posted at
> ttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum shortly.
> For the coordinating committee,
> hilippe (WMF)
> brown1023
> isker
> ardetanha
> eterSymonds
> obert Harris
> ___________________
> hilippe Beaudette
> ead of Reader Relations
> ikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> 415-839-6885, x 2106 (reader relations)
> philippe [at] wikimedia
> ______________________________________________
> oundation-l mailing list
> oundation-l [at] lists
> nsubscribe: 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
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


faigos at gmail

Jun 29, 2011, 2:01 PM

Post #4 of 25 (3537 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

This remind me of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbi2i_Y7gSE

and http://www.thefilterbubble.com/

I don't like filter bubbles.


--
Fajro

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


onthebrinkandfalling at aol

Jun 29, 2011, 5:28 PM

Post #5 of 25 (3533 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 17:01, Fajro <faigos [at] gmail> wrote:

This remind me of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbi2i_Y7gSE

and http://www.thefilterbubble.com/

I don't like filter bubbles.



"And what's in your filter bubble depends on who you are, and it depends on what you do - but the thing is that, you don't decide what gets in - and more importantly, you don't actually see what gets edited out." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbi2i_Y7gSE&t=4m23s



What am I misunderstanding? Surely there is a difference between the "filter bubble" that decides what content to show me on it's own, and an "opt-in" filter where I can decide for myself what content I may or may not want to see?

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


faigos at gmail

Jun 29, 2011, 6:02 PM

Post #6 of 25 (3530 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:28 PM, <onthebrinkandfalling [at] aol> wrote:

> What am I misunderstanding? Surely there is a difference between the "filter bubble" that decides what content to show me on it's own, and an "opt-in" filter where I can decide for myself what content I may or may not want to see?


yes, but you still would be in a bubble.


--
Fajro

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


tom at tommorris

Jun 30, 2011, 2:28 AM

Post #7 of 25 (3523 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 02:02, Fajro <faigos [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:28 PM, <onthebrinkandfalling [at] aol> wrote:
>
>> What am I misunderstanding? Surely there is a difference between the "filter bubble" that decides what content to show me on it's own, and an "opt-in" filter where I can decide for myself what content I may or may not want to see?
>
>
> yes, but you still would be in a bubble.
>

Hmm. I think the problem with filter bubbles is that you don't even
see, say, stories from your political opponents. There is quite a
substantial difference between not even knowing that Google or
Facebook are removing news about a particular topic, and voluntarily
choosing not to see, say, the images on the 'Fisting' article.

That's not necessarily an argument for the opt-in filter, but I don't
see how the comparison with the so-called 'filter bubble' is a good
one. I'd have a problem if people started making overwrought
comparison to Nazi book burnings too. Justifying such an overwrought
comparison by saying "well, the material would still be censored"
isn't helpful to the discussion.

--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>

Please don't print this e-mail out unless you want a hard copy of
it. If you do, go ahead. I won't stop you. Nor will I waste your
ink/toner with 300+ lines of completely pointless and legally
unenforceable cargo cult blather about corporate confidentiality.

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


nemowiki at gmail

Jun 30, 2011, 2:55 AM

Post #8 of 25 (3525 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

Tom Morris, 30/06/2011 11:28:
> I'd have a problem if people started making overwrought
> comparison to Nazi book burnings too.

Wow, a reductio ad reductionem ad Hitlerum argument.

Nemo

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


dgerard at gmail

Jun 30, 2011, 4:27 AM

Post #9 of 25 (3523 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

On 30 June 2011 10:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki [at] gmail> wrote:
> Tom Morris, 30/06/2011 11:28:

>> I'd have a problem if people started making overwrought
>> comparison to Nazi book burnings too.

> Wow, a reductio ad reductionem ad Hitlerum argument.


Trained professional philosophers can get away with that sort of
thing. Omega can predict whether you'll try this at home, kids!


- d.

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


alecmconroy at gmail

Jun 30, 2011, 4:31 AM

Post #10 of 25 (3522 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Philippe Beaudette
<philippe [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> *Call for referendum*: The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the
> Board of Trustees, will be holding a vote to determine whether members of
> the community support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image
> filter, which would allow readers to voluntarily screen particular types of
> images strictly for their own account.

Yay on several levels!
A referendum--- good thing. Referendums are good things.
The last I checked in on the filtration project, they appeared to be
acting very thoughtfully and going in a direction carefully chosen to
be consistent with our values. We're all a little jittery from last
time, so everyone was reading the fine print very very closely and
wringing their hands over tiny bits of the wording that could trigger
some sort of negative experience--- but if my impression of what I
think the plan will be is accurate, I suspect this discussion is
likely to find support, or at the very least, little strenuous
'mission/values-based" objections.

--
Putting aside this referendum and this actual ballot item and
thinking merely abstractly about referendums and process--
;too long to read? 1. Pick the right referendum format for the
right issue. 2. Let the board members speak up. 3. Public debates
also have PR bonuses.


==Formats==
One of the things to clarify in any given discussion, whether this is
a non-binding discussion, a poll, or whether it's a secret vote
intended to be binding (with the obvious understanding that regardless
of prior intentions, the board does have a "emergency veto" option).
Each of these options is completely valid-- you just need to
communicate which of them we're going with on any particular occasion.

A secret vote alone, devoid of rationales, gives us a very tiny bit of
information-- yes or no, black or white. We know what the overall
outcome is, but we have no clue why it was the outcome.
A third-party poll or survey asks specific questions rather than
seeking an up-down vote-- questions like "Would you personally use
this feature?" vs merely "Should WMF do this?". Answers to surveys
can give us more information, but of course that extra information
will 'gray' the outcome, making it sometimes harder to interpret the
results.
An on-wiki 'poll'/discussion-hybrid, of these sort used at RFA/AFD, is
our most 'default' decision making process, but this process does not
guarantee any clear outcome-- this style is the most prone to "no
consensus", and thus it's not as appropriate in cases where an
actually black-white decision must be made (e.g. choosing board
members).
And lastly, there's always unstructured "talk page style" discussion alone.

One of the challenges with referendums is matching the issues to the
method. When people vote, they'll have certain expectations about
how the outcome will affect things. When people survey, poll or
discuss, they bring different expectations. Two nearly equally
supported options are 'no consensus' in a on-wiki poll-discussion, but
those same sentiments seen through the lens of a vote can result in a
'winner and a runner up'.

Some of the other interesting effects-- you can always go from a
discussion to a discussion + survey. You could transform a planned
survey into a vote. But I suspect it will be more controversial to go
the other way-- to take a vote in progress and turn it back into a
mere discussion, discussion-poll, or survey. In whichever process
you use, the more participation you get, the 'stronger' the result.
The more discussion, the more nuanced the result. Voting gives you
black or white, discussions give you all the shades of gray. Finding
the 'optimum method' for any given occasion is always probably going
to be tricky, especially when you factor in the language issues too.

==Show us Debates==

Another issue, not necessarily relevant to this referendum but more to
referendums in general-- when there's a disagreement on the board, we
really want to know the reasoning and the question at issue. The
board can and often should advise the community. Certainly, this
could be just via on-wiki participation in the discussion by members
of the board in their role as community members-- but there are other
ways of doing it too.

We don't necessarily need active, named participation-- the board
could vote to release a statement written collaboratively that
describes the diversity of opinion within the board. Where multiple
opinions exist, multiple members could collaborate in making sure
their advice gets to the community. Adding names to statements is
nice because some people trust individual board members they know, but
not the board as a whole-- and seeing names they know will help
reassure them. I know no one on the board will want to public sign on
to a statement that could wind up being controversial-- there's
always the risk for blowback. I'd certainly prefer "across the
board" participation, even if some of it has to be
anonymous/pseudonymous/collective participation.

The point is--- in a normal election, the ballot issue is who will sit
on the board, so there's a certain logic in the non-candidate board
preserving its neutrality in that issue. But for referendums in
general, the community doesn't have to operate in a vacuum.

If something's non-controversial within the board, the resulting
process will be less controversial if you tell us it's not
controversial in a way we can verify. Right now, we expect the board
will keep the traditional "non-profit boardmember firewall of
silence"-- and thus every referendum or issue could, potentially, be
very controversial or very boring-- I think in general this ambiguity
will tend to make things more controversial, as people
out-of-communication with the board on a specific issue may imagine
the board at each others throats, or may imagine their favorite board
members secretly trying to shout an opinion but being gagged by
traditions of silence and neutrality for board members. If "I" know
only one board member and I see something ambiguous happening, I might
'project' my own imagined conflicts onto the board in unforeseeable
ways.

If there really is a controversy within the board that's ever really
so heated members really couldn't discuss it civilly, then perhaps it
would actually be wise to remain silent. But my impression is that
these kinds of cases are 'imagined' far more frequently than they
actually occur-- if indeed they ever occur. Our board members are
our best and our brightest. They can disagree without being incivil--
indeed, they can be a model civil disagreement for us. Our whole
system is built upon transitioning from civil disagreement to
consensus. I don't expect things to fall apart when the board admits
that they, like every group of humans, have a disagreement over some
details.

On the contrary, I expect civil presentation of such debates would
tend to be a moderating influence on subsequent discussion. Usually,
it seems like the involved-community tends to imaging far worse
conflicts within the board than actually exist, while the uninvolved
community tends to imagine board debates as non-existent or utterly
trivial. Getting every individual board member on record, freely but
civilly stating their own opinion-- on nearly all matters, this
practice will tend to minimize conflict, not inflame it.

In those issues where a consensus of the board does not yet exist, we
can already expect there to be community controversy, regardless of
what the board members say. In these cases, board members can serve a
valuable role in helping the community shape its discussion in more
productive ways, focusing on what matters without getting hung up on
the things that don't matter.

I also recognize that as humans there may, in fact, be issues the
board can't discuss in public. That's okay too. The board is a team,
and sometimes it may have to stay silent in order to ensure good
teamwork. We don't want the team to splinter-- we don't want anyone
beaten to death with a baseball bat sitting around the board room
table, we don't want the community to hear that anyone's been nearly
beaten to death with a cane on the floor of the chamber because debate
got too heated. lol. But I don't think that metaphorically &
facetious disaster is ever going to occur.

In all but the most extreme of imaginable circumstances, I have
complete confidence that every single individual board member's
opinion can be a productive part of the discussion, even if their
words are as simple as "I personally have no stance or opinion on this
question" or "I'm not sure what the answer should be". Just saying
that little bit will help people see that it's not a big deal, the
house isn't on fire, everything's okay, there's a debate, and like
most of our debates, it's kinda boring once you get to the details and
probably not something to freak out over. :)

==PR bonuses to public disagreement==
There's a saying in at least the US non-profit world, although since
I'm connected to that world it may be further spread than just that.
The saying is "what happens in the board room stays in the board
room". The saying gives words to a very, very old concept, that a
team needs a certain confidentiality to be able to form optimum
decision making-- that limited confidentiality, though a little
contrary to our values, buys us a lot of pragmatic results we wouldn't
want to sacrifice. Honest, frank, unquotable discussion is a good
way to communicate, and board confidentiality rules are valuable in
helping foster that communication.

But at the opposite end of the spectrum we have an extreme that could
be called "Whoever enters the board room stays in the board room...
and never comes back out."-- namely, that it's sometimes difficult to
get our board members, in total, to express _any_ public disagreement,
even when such disagreement plainly exists and can be inferred.

Never showing public disagreement is every bit as dangerous as never
allowing any conversations to be ever been confidential.

A visible diversity of opinion on the board could have a wide range of
positive effects beyond just the editor community. Off the top of my
head, a visibly diverse board is far hard to attack and far less prone
to being abandoned in the wake of controversy. A monolithic board
perpetuates the false impression that a single board member can exert
more far direct control over our project than they actually can, and
this has invited all manner of attacks. Many of the worst outside
PR attacks we've been subjected to have been of the form "Person X
works for WMF, Person X is evil, and Person X can directly influence
WM policy, thus WM is evil". I won't rehash the list of specific
cases, but if you go back and look, most fit that patten in some way.

How do we kill this narrative dead in its tracks?

We can't possibly ensure every person we every talk to is
non-controversial to everyone, obviously. We can never claim
everyone we associate with is a saint-- we've been incredibly lucky
so far, if we've had bad apples they haven't risen to the level I've
heard about them and remember them now-- but every organization will,
sooner or later, have truly bad apples who are publicly discovered to
be truly bad apples.

The obvious way to kill this narrative is to use the clear fact-- a
board member is very, very limited in what they can do, and the
foundation itself is very limited in what it can do. If you have a
problem with us, you cannot attack or blackmail our board members in
order to make us change our minds-- and the easiest way to
demonstrate that is for us to show to the whole world that our board
does not agree, our board members cannot dictate our articles' content
or our projects' policies.

In the US, while the content of public school libraries is
occasionally controversial, but the content of a university library is
virtually never controversial, even if the university is a public
university. The dispute is not always about child-access-- talk to
protesters and they will often tell you that the objected content is
universally wrong for adults and children alike. It's NOT just age
difference-- people accept an 18 year old can read absolutely anything
at a university, but someone people will adamantly protest that same
18 year old reading the same content at their high school. So why
then do they protest public k-12 but only rarely protest libraries at
public universities?

I've been fascinated by this effect for a long time, and my conclusion
is this. Protesters who object to content will equally object to it
everywhere, but they only protest it in places they reasonably expect
someone actually has the power to change things.

At a university library, they know the librarian cannot remove a
book-- they know the the university president can't remove a book--
they don't expect _anyone_ has the power to change the free nature
of the university library-- often they truly expect that nothing short
of a US constitutional amendment can affect the contents of a
university library. In contrast, a k-12 school is an institution that
runs on a hierarchical model, people usually 'expect' there to be
'some authority' that decides what is allowed and what is not.

In yet another illustration of the counter-intuitive conclusion from
game theory-- sometime the player with more power is actually at a
disadvantage because of that power. A university president doesn't
have much control over things, so he's free to say "I wish there was
something that could be done about that horrible author, but there's
absolutely nothing I can do about it. If you're still upset, call
your congressperson." But since an elementary school teacher is
often expected to have that kind of 'censorship power', an elementary
school official is a huge target for pressure.

The further we can get away from the model of elementary schools and
towards the model of the global universities, the better.

The public still seems to think that if someone can just convince
Jimmy (or some other prominent leader), that leader can then just
change things accordingly. There are stories upon stories of that
follow this patten. This myth, laughable to us insiders, keeps
cropping up when the broader society discusses us. Maybe someone in
our organization has defrauded us, seduced us, corrupted us, bribed
us, or infiltrated us. The common misunderstanding that keeps
resurfacing is this myth that if you can just convince some person to
change their mind, you would instantly convince WM to change its
actions. This confusion invites bad-faith people to actually attack
us to try to change things, and this confusion invites good-faith
people to speculate about conflicts of interest.

One of the biggest weapons we could have against these sorts of
criticisms and attacks is a wider understanding that our leaders don't
have that kind of power-- which insiders already know. This narrative
is fueled by confusion, it can be solved with truth. Oour leaders
don't want that kind of editorial control, they don't ask for it, they
don't need it, they don't have it, and they can't get it no matter how
badly they want it. So-- if you have a problem with us, you can't
attack the board members or the foundation staff in order to solve it.

The clearest signals we could send to kill that myth once and for all
is to let people see that our board is, in fact, extremely diverse in
nature and extremely limited in authority. Regular referendums with
public contribution from the board will help all parties understand
the reality that is our status quo-- people disagree all the time,
and we like it that way.

Alec

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


dgerard at gmail

Jun 30, 2011, 4:42 AM

Post #11 of 25 (3519 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

On 30 June 2011 12:31, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy [at] gmail> wrote:

> The further we can get away from the model of elementary schools and
> towards the model of the global universities, the better.


+1

(This entire post is gold.)

One *big* problem we have now is: Wikipedia has won. Wikipedia is the
encyclopedia anyone actually consults, ever. Wikipedia now defines
what an "encyclopedia" is in popular conception.

So we don't have any tail-lights to chase. What sets our direction? Do
we just drift?

This gives a conceptual model to work to: We are the sum of all
university libraries.[1]

This is just one. We need more. We need conceptual goals on that
level, so that we know what the heck we're doing here.

This will then allow us to say to people demanding we do things a
certain way "no, and this is why."


- d.




[1] In some regards. Maybe. I expect nitpicking shortly.

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


fredbaud at fairpoint

Jun 30, 2011, 7:06 AM

Post #12 of 25 (3518 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

> On 30 June 2011 12:31, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> The further we can get away from the model of elementary schools and
>> towards the model of the global universities, the better.
>
>
> +1
>
> (This entire post is gold.)
>
> One *big* problem we have now is: Wikipedia has won. Wikipedia is the
> encyclopedia anyone actually consults, ever. Wikipedia now defines
> what an "encyclopedia" is in popular conception.

We are actually affecting the English language at this point through the
choices we make for our article titles.

Fred


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


alecmconroy at gmail

Jun 30, 2011, 9:00 AM

Post #13 of 25 (3522 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

> One *big* problem we have now is: Wikipedia has won. Wikipedia is the
> encyclopedia anyone actually consults, ever. Wikipedia now defines
> what an "encyclopedia" is in popular conception.
>
> So we don't have any tail-lights to chase. What sets our direction?

Well, this is now completely and utterly off topic, but since I'm here...
I _think_ maybe I've known the answer for several years now, but I
still don't really know how to communicate it. But since you
asked---

The most exciting thing I've heard of is kinda hard to explain in
English-- at least it's hard for me to explain it. It can be
described in geekspeak by saying "How would Wikimedia be different if
it had been made after Git?" Go ask the Free Software people that
question and watch their faces light up with possibilities. To
other people you can say "What if Wikimedia projects were less like a
website and more like the internet itself?" and they'll get very
interested, even if they don't know precisely what you mean.

Our "business model" is to take the lessons of Free Software and apply
them to the challenges traditionally faced by librarians and
educators.

In 2002, we sort of 'forked off' from the 'mainstream' Free Software
movement, and this 2002ish model of revision control is the model we
use in our wikis.
Since 2002, literally some of the best minds on the planet have been
working on the question of how large groups of strangers can work
together to create documents when they don't all want the exact same
finished product. The lessons they've learned, and the tools they've
created, are truly mindblowing.

Imagine if virtually every editor's computer had copies of whole
chunks of Wikimedia projects, starting first and foremost with your
own contributions to the projects.
Each editor could effortlessly, automatically, seamlessly share their
contributions with the whole world. A users could create a whole new
'project' without using any Wikimedia resources at all-- not a single
dime. If a new project was popular, it could be seamlessly and
automatically shared with the entire world, again, at no expense to
the foundation. "Bad" projects would get weeded out because no one
would share them, while "good" projects would rise to the top
automatically. All with zero external oversight, zero external
support from the foundation.

On such new model projects, two editors could simultaneously edit the
same article without those pesky software-triggered edit conflict
warnings that interfere with their editing. Interested editors could
have edit wars if they want, but edit wars would not wipe out a third
party's contributions the way they do now. Each editor controls and
hosts their own private 'sandbox versions' of the articles. Writers
could just write, individually or collaboratively, as they chose.
Their contributions would only get shared if they were popular, their
contributions might or might not wind up in a version directly hosted
by the foundation, but either way, their contributions could be easily
and widely shared so long as people were willing to donate the space
and bandwidth of their own computers to share it.

On new model projects, there would never be any "one" version of such
a project at any fixed time. Instead, the version of the project at
a given time can vary, depending on who you ask. If you ask our
canonical servers, we'll give you 'the' one answer-- but if you want
to ask your roommate's computer instead, you can see if he knows
something about the subject that our server's consensus does not.

A fun bonus of this would be that it would instantly set a fire to
independent development of the mediawiki software and its extensions.
Once hosting was distributed, new features would become distributed
too. If I want to add a feature to a "new model" project, I need
only convince my own computer, I don't have to build it and then hope
I can convince strangers that it should be used.

It's not my idea, I believe it's been independently suggested at
least five different times that I know of. But it's a HUGE step that
would require a big, bold push from developers and thus potentially a
large initial commitment from the foundation to spur development of
such a thing. That commitment might not be huge in terms of
resources-- a few professional lead developer-coordinators, perhaps.
But it would require some courage, leadership, and a vision to rally
volunteer developers around. If you visibly agree to it being built,
an amorphous 'they' will likely show up to actually build it for you,
free of charge. It would will radically change things for everyone
the instant such a tool is actually created.

Such a wiki is inevitable, I just hope we can be the ones to develop it.

Alec

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


kim at bruning

Aug 19, 2011, 9:10 AM

Post #14 of 25 (2901 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 09:00:57AM -0700, Alec Conroy wrote:
> > One *big* problem we have now is: Wikipedia has won. Wikipedia is the
> > encyclopedia anyone actually consults, ever. Wikipedia now defines
> > what an "encyclopedia" is in popular conception.
> >
> > So we don't have any tail-lights to chase. What sets our direction?
>
> Well, this is now completely and utterly off topic, but since I'm here...
> I _think_ maybe I've known the answer for several years now, but I
> still don't really know how to communicate it. But since you
> asked---
>
> The most exciting thing I've heard of is kinda hard to explain in
> English-- at least it's hard for me to explain it. It can be
> described in geekspeak by saying "How would Wikimedia be different if
> it had been made after Git?" Go ask the Free Software people that
> question and watch their faces light up with possibilities. To
> other people you can say "What if Wikimedia projects were less like a
> website and more like the internet itself?" and they'll get very
> interested, even if they don't know precisely what you mean.
>
> Our "business model" is to take the lessons of Free Software and apply
> them to the challenges traditionally faced by librarians and
> educators.
>
> Since 2002, literally some of the best minds on the planet have been
> working on the question of how large groups of strangers can work
> together to create documents when they don't all want the exact same
> finished product. The lessons they've learned, and the tools they've
> created, are truly mindblowing.
>
> Imagine if virtually every editor's computer had copies of whole
> chunks of Wikimedia projects, starting first and foremost with your
> own contributions to the projects.
> <snip cool stuff>
> Such a wiki is inevitable, I just hope we can be the ones to develop it.

Would Ward Cunningham be ok?

See
http://wardcunningham.github.com/

He's working on the "Smallest Federated Wiki". :-D

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72

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


cimonavaro at gmail

Aug 20, 2011, 11:31 AM

Post #15 of 25 (2876 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

I would like to make tiny procedural point before things go any
further, if I may, please don't let this stop the philosphical
distractions going in any way (though perhaps better suited in their
own thread).

Since there is going to be such a short interval between the vote
concluding, and the results being announced, is it the presumption
that no due diligence needs to be adhered to with regards to vote
fraud, and sock-puppets are explicitly allowed to vote?



--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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


risker.wp at gmail

Aug 20, 2011, 11:52 AM

Post #16 of 25 (2871 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

On 20 August 2011 14:31, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro [at] gmail> wrote:

> I would like to make tiny procedural point before things go any
> further, if I may, please don't let this stop the philosphical
> distractions going in any way (though perhaps better suited in their
> own thread).
>
> Since there is going to be such a short interval between the vote
> concluding, and the results being announced, is it the presumption
> that no due diligence needs to be adhered to with regards to vote
> fraud, and sock-puppets are explicitly allowed to vote?
>
>

No.

Each individual may vote once, using a single eligible account of his or her
choice.

I do not understand why you would think that violating election rules would
be okay if there was the possibility one wouldn't get caught. Isn't that
like walking out of a store without paying for the television because the
clerk just happened to step away from the till for a few minutes?

If it requires more time to do due diligence, then it will take more time.


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


cimonavaro at gmail

Aug 20, 2011, 12:12 PM

Post #17 of 25 (2874 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Risker <risker.wp [at] gmail> wrote:
> On 20 August 2011 14:31, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> I would like to make tiny procedural point before things go any
>> further, if I may, please don't let this stop the philosphical
>> distractions going in any way (though perhaps better suited in their
>> own thread).
>>
>> Since there is going to be such a short interval between the vote
>> concluding, and the results being announced, is it the presumption
>> that no due diligence needs to be adhered to with regards to vote
>> fraud, and sock-puppets are explicitly allowed to vote?
>>
>>
>
> No.
>
> Each individual may vote once, using a single eligible account of his or her
> choice.
>
> I do not understand why you would think that violating election rules would
> be okay if there was the possibility one wouldn't get caught. Isn't that
> like walking out of a store without paying for the television because the
> clerk just happened to step away from the till for a few minutes?
>
> If it requires more time to do due diligence, then it will take more time.
>

So why announce ridiculously unrealistic timeframe between the vote
concluding and the results being announced?



--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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


philippe at wikimedia

Aug 20, 2011, 5:08 PM

Post #18 of 25 (2862 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
cimonavaro [at] gmail> wrote:

>
> So why announce ridiculously unrealistic timeframe between the vote
> concluding and the results being announced?
>
>
First, I disagree that it's "ridiculously unrealistic". Vote checking has
already started and will continue throughout the polling. Second, hindsight
is 20/20. I'll tell you that it's a balancing act... we've gotten it right
a few times and we've gotten it wrong a few times. It's been years since
this type of all-projects election was held for anything but a Board of
Trustees election, and so, yeah, mistakes will be made. But let's just wait
and see on the timeframe, shall we? No doubt an extension will have to
happen, but.... what's the harm? If we take a couple extra days to announce
the results, who has been harmed?

pb

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


cimonavaro at gmail

Aug 20, 2011, 7:48 PM

Post #19 of 25 (2856 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Philippe Beaudette
<philippe [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
> cimonavaro [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>>
>> So why announce ridiculously unrealistic timeframe between the vote
>> concluding and the results being announced?
>>
>>
> First, I disagree that it's "ridiculously unrealistic". Vote checking has
> already started and will continue throughout the polling. Second, hindsight
> is 20/20. I'll tell you that it's a balancing act... we've gotten it right
> a few times and we've gotten it wrong a few times. It's been years since
> this type of all-projects election was held for anything but a Board of
> Trustees election, and so, yeah, mistakes will be made. But let's just wait
> and see on the timeframe, shall we? No doubt an extension will have to
> happen, but.... what's the harm? If we take a couple extra days to announce
> the results, who has been harmed?
>
>'

Months, not extra days, dude.


--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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


risker.wp at gmail

Aug 20, 2011, 8:03 PM

Post #20 of 25 (2861 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

On 20 August 2011 22:48, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Philippe Beaudette
> <philippe [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
> > cimonavaro [at] gmail> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So why announce ridiculously unrealistic timeframe between the vote
> >> concluding and the results being announced?
> >>
> >>
> > First, I disagree that it's "ridiculously unrealistic". Vote checking
> has
> > already started and will continue throughout the polling. Second,
> hindsight
> > is 20/20. I'll tell you that it's a balancing act... we've gotten it
> right
> > a few times and we've gotten it wrong a few times. It's been years since
> > this type of all-projects election was held for anything but a Board of
> > Trustees election, and so, yeah, mistakes will be made. But let's just
> wait
> > and see on the timeframe, shall we? No doubt an extension will have to
> > happen, but.... what's the harm? If we take a couple extra days to
> announce
> > the results, who has been harmed?
> >
> >'
>
> Months, not extra days, dude.
>


Jussi, I have no idea why you think it would take months to carry out due
diligence on these votes, or months to release the results. Perhaps you
should explain why you think that.

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


sterkebak at gmail

Aug 21, 2011, 2:22 AM

Post #21 of 25 (2855 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

At the time of the License Commitee with the vote we had te results
also very fast...

Dude... Its all possible when they check all the votes made on day 1
on day 2 etc etc... And the system is very simple to work with.

Best,

Huib


2011/8/21, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro [at] gmail>:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Philippe Beaudette
> <philippe [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
>> cimonavaro [at] gmail> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So why announce ridiculously unrealistic timeframe between the vote
>>> concluding and the results being announced?
>>>
>>>
>> First, I disagree that it's "ridiculously unrealistic". Vote checking has
>> already started and will continue throughout the polling. Second,
>> hindsight
>> is 20/20. I'll tell you that it's a balancing act... we've gotten it
>> right
>> a few times and we've gotten it wrong a few times. It's been years since
>> this type of all-projects election was held for anything but a Board of
>> Trustees election, and so, yeah, mistakes will be made. But let's just
>> wait
>> and see on the timeframe, shall we? No doubt an extension will have to
>> happen, but.... what's the harm? If we take a couple extra days to
>> announce
>> the results, who has been harmed?
>>
>>'
>
> Months, not extra days, dude.
>
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Verzonden vanaf mijn mobiele apparaat

Kind regards,

Huib Laurens
WickedWay.nl

Webhosting the wicked way.

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


philippe at wikimedia

Aug 21, 2011, 2:25 AM

Post #22 of 25 (2856 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

It's really truly not going to be a matter of weeks, I can assure you of
that.

It may be, at best, a couple of extra days, but we've all been vote checking
as we go. I don't anticipate much delay if any.

___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

philippe [at] wikimedia



On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 2:22 AM, Huib Laurens <sterkebak [at] gmail> wrote:

> At the time of the License Commitee with the vote we had te results
> also very fast...
>
> Dude... Its all possible when they check all the votes made on day 1
> on day 2 etc etc... And the system is very simple to work with.
>
> Best,
>
> Huib
>
>
> 2011/8/21, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro [at] gmail>:
> > On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Philippe Beaudette
> > <philippe [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
> >> cimonavaro [at] gmail> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> So why announce ridiculously unrealistic timeframe between the vote
> >>> concluding and the results being announced?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> First, I disagree that it's "ridiculously unrealistic". Vote checking
> has
> >> already started and will continue throughout the polling. Second,
> >> hindsight
> >> is 20/20. I'll tell you that it's a balancing act... we've gotten it
> >> right
> >> a few times and we've gotten it wrong a few times. It's been years
> since
> >> this type of all-projects election was held for anything but a Board of
> >> Trustees election, and so, yeah, mistakes will be made. But let's just
> >> wait
> >> and see on the timeframe, shall we? No doubt an extension will have to
> >> happen, but.... what's the harm? If we take a couple extra days to
> >> announce
> >> the results, who has been harmed?
> >>
> >>'
> >
> > Months, not extra days, dude.
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> --
> Verzonden vanaf mijn mobiele apparaat
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Huib Laurens
> WickedWay.nl
>
> Webhosting the wicked way.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


cimonavaro at gmail

Aug 21, 2011, 8:38 AM

Post #23 of 25 (2857 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette
<philippe [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> It's really truly not going to be a matter of weeks, I can assure you of
> that.
>
> It may be, at best, a couple of extra days, but we've all been vote checking
> as we go. I don't anticipate much delay if any.
>

A vote by vote check is going to let sockpuppets go right on by. "No,
these aren't the sockpuppets you are looking for..."


--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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


kim at bruning

Aug 21, 2011, 11:29 AM

Post #24 of 25 (2837 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 01:35:00PM -0700, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> *Please distribute widely*
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *Call for referendum*: The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the
> Board of Trustees, will be holding a vote to determine whether members of
> the community support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image
> filter, which would allow readers to voluntarily screen particular types of
> images strictly for their own account.

This is false. Having participated: there are no questions asking
whether members of the community "support the creation of an opt-in
personal image filter".

Even if the question had been asked as stated, it has been rendered
moot by further discussion and collaboration.

==Summary of discussion so far==

(please help if you think I'm forgetting major points!)

A personal image filter -in itself- does not cause as much trouble as
you might think...

... however, finding and/or generating the meta-data required to make such
a filter work has some flaws.
* The data may be open to attack
* Marking images may entail a POV value judgement
* Marking images may require an impractically large amount of volunteer work

(
For completeness: In the discussion, A small number of people have also taken the opportunity to advocate actual censorship of wikipedia and wikimedia
commons; or have advocated the use of the (new) metadata in parental
filters or other censorship tools.
)

== Next steps ==

I suggest that we now concentrate on constructively discussing the
meta-data ecology; including viability, security, and practicality.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72

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


nemowiki at gmail

Aug 21, 2011, 1:02 PM

Post #25 of 25 (2825 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for referendum [In reply to]

Kim Bruning, 21/08/2011 20:29:
> == Next steps ==
>
> I suggest that we now concentrate on constructively discussing the
> meta-data ecology; including viability, security, and practicality.

I personally concluded that wasting a huge lot of time discussing
whether this filter will make us waste a huge lot of time to implement
and discuss the (obviously controversial) categorization of images (with
endless edit-wars and possibly a permanent ForestFire) would be a bit
contradictory. The filter could just collapse by itself if editors won't
care about it (my personal hope).
But Jimmy Wales at Wikimania reminded us how many bureaucratic processes
we have which drain us a surprising amount of energy (and happyness,
even; especially of new editors), so perhaps this will just be one more.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
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.