Mailing List Archive

Controversial Content Study Update
Robert Harris here again, the consultant looking at the
issues surrounding controversial content on Wikimedia projects. I wanted first
of all to thank all of you who have taken the trouble to once again weigh in on
a subject I know has been debated many times within the Wikimedia community. It
has been very valuable for me, a newcomer to these questions, to witness the
debate first-hand for several reasons. The first is to remind me of the
thinking behind various positions, rather than simply to be presented with the
results of those positions. And the second is as a reminder to myself to
remember my self-imposed rule of "do no harm” and to reflect on how easy
it is to break that rule, even if unintentionally.



So far, the immediate result for me of the dialogue has been to recognize that
the question of whether there is any problem to solve at all is a real question
that will need a detailed and serious response, as well as a recognition that
the possibility of unintended consequence in these matters is high, so caution
and modesty is a virtue.



Having said that, I will note that I'm convinced that if there are problems to
be solved around questions of controversial content, the solutions can probably
best be found at the level of practical application. (and I’ll note that
several of you have expressed qualified confidence that a solution on that
level may be findable). That's not to say that the intellectual and
philosophical debate around these issues is not valuable -- it is essential, in
my opinion. It's just to note that not only is the "devil" in the
details as a few of you have noted, but that the "angel" may
be in the details as well -- that is -- perhaps -- questions insoluble on
the theoretical level may find more areas of agreement on a practical level.
I'm not sure of that, but I'm presenting it as a working hypothesis at this
point.



My intended course of action over the next month or so is the following. I'm
planning to actually write the study on a wiki, where my thinking as it
develops, plus comments, suggestions, and re-workings will be available
for all to see. I was planning to begin that perhaps early in September. (A
presentation to the Foundation Board is tentatively scheduled for early
October). Between now and then, I would like to continue the kind of feedback
I've been getting, all of it so valuable for me. I have posted another set of
questions about controversy in text articles on the Meta page devoted to the
study, (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content) because my ambit does not just
include images, and text and image, in my opinion, are quite different forms of
content. As well, I will start to post research I've been collecting for
information and comment. I have some interesting notes about the
experience of public libraries in these matters (who have been struggling with
many of these same questions since the time television, not the Internet, was
the world’s new communications medium), as well as information on the policies
of other big-tent sites (Google Images, Flickr, YouTube, eBay,etc.) on these
same issues. I haven't finished collecting all the info I need on the latter,
but will say that the policies on these sites are extremely complex (although
not always presented as such) and subject within their communities to many of
the same controversies that have arisen in ours. We are not them, by any
means, but it is interesting to observe how they have struggled with many of
the same issues with which we are struggling.



The time is soon coming when I will lose the luxury of mere
observation and research, and will have to face the moment where I will enter
the arena myself as a participant in these questions. I’m looking forward to
that moment, with the understanding that you will be watching what I do with
care, concern, and attention.



Robert Harris


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Update [ In reply to ]
Robert,

For what it's worth and for the record, I want to thank you for
sharing your thoughts and findings about this process on this list,
it's a fantastic positive and constructive example of "transparency"
as I understand and value it.

Bon courage,

Cheers,

Delphine


On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM, R M Harris <rmharris@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris here again, the consultant looking at the
> issues surrounding controversial content on Wikimedia projects. I wanted first
> of all to thank all of you who have taken the trouble to once again weigh in on
> a subject I know has been debated many times within the Wikimedia community. It
> has been very valuable for me, a newcomer to these questions, to witness the
> debate first-hand for several reasons. The first is to remind me of the
> thinking behind various positions, rather than simply to be presented with the
> results of those positions. And the second is as a reminder to myself to
> remember my self-imposed rule of "do no harm” and to reflect on how easy
> it is to break that rule, even if unintentionally.
>
>
>
> So far, the immediate result for me of the dialogue has been to recognize that
> the question of whether there is any problem to solve at all is a real question
> that will need a detailed and serious response, as well as a recognition that
> the possibility of unintended consequence in these matters is high, so caution
> and modesty is a virtue.
>
>
>
> Having said that, I will note that I'm convinced that if there are problems to
> be solved around questions of controversial content, the solutions can probably
> best be found at the level of practical application. (and I’ll note that
> several of you have expressed qualified confidence that a solution on that
> level may be findable). That's not to say that the intellectual and
> philosophical debate around these issues is not valuable -- it is essential, in
> my opinion. It's just to note that not only is the "devil" in the
> details as a few of you have noted, but that the "angel" may
> be in the details as well -- that is -- perhaps -- questions insoluble on
> the theoretical level may find more areas of agreement on a practical level.
> I'm not sure of that, but I'm presenting it as a working hypothesis at this
> point.
>
>
>
> My intended course of action over the next month or so is the following. I'm
> planning to actually write the study on a wiki, where my thinking as it
> develops, plus comments, suggestions, and re-workings will be available
> for all to see. I was planning to begin that perhaps early in September. (A
> presentation to the Foundation Board is tentatively scheduled for early
> October). Between now and then, I would like to continue the kind of feedback
> I've been getting, all of it so valuable for me. I have posted another set of
> questions about controversy in text articles on the Meta page devoted to the
> study, (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content)  because my ambit does not just
> include images, and text and image, in my opinion, are quite different forms of
> content. As well, I will start to post research I've been collecting for
> information and comment.  I have some interesting notes about the
> experience of public libraries in these matters (who have been struggling with
> many of these same questions since the time television, not the Internet, was
> the world’s new communications medium), as well as information on the policies
> of other big-tent sites (Google Images, Flickr, YouTube, eBay,etc.) on these
> same issues. I haven't finished collecting all the info I need on the latter,
> but will say that the policies on these sites are extremely complex (although
> not always presented as such) and subject within their communities to many of
> the same controversies that have arisen in ours.  We are not them, by any
> means, but it is interesting to observe how they have struggled with many of
> the same issues with which we are struggling.
>
>
>
> The time is soon coming when I will lose the luxury of mere
> observation and research, and will have to face the moment where I will enter
> the arena myself as a participant in these questions. I’m looking forward to
> that moment, with the understanding that you will be watching what I do with
> care, concern, and attention.
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
~notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Update [ In reply to ]
One serious issue with the current status of the study is that it appears to
be fairly death - especially when considering that it debates a
controversial issue while potentially not affecting just one, but every
single Wikipedia. After an initial and sustained burst which saw at least
several edits a day we are currently in a state where 21 edits were made by
7 unique users over the past three weeks or so. I wouls equally point out
that, 24 hours after new questions have been posted only two users have
actually reacted to them (Myself and DGG). Compare that to the huge amount
of reactions that were posted after the initial notification on June 22, or
to the current the huge amount of reactions the current straw
poll<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll#Keep:_options_2.2C_3.2C_or_4>on
pending revisions is currently generating on the English Wiki.

Ill be a tad blunt about two issues i see:
1) This investigation needs momentum, and a boost if the momentum seems to
go down. Once the discussion seems to reduce to a trickle it is probably
best to move to the next fase, rather then waiting a fairly long time while
people forget.
2) I cannot shake the nagging feeling that i debated the same, or similar
questions at least several times, which reduces my interest in debating them
again (Telling the same story 10 times grows boring after all).

Last, a single point that just occured to me - where is this study
advertised? The foundation-l mailing list is mostly English, which means
that some of the other language Wikipedians may not be subscribed, nor be
able to read it or discuss it even if they wished to. To hook into question
4. a bit - if we aren't notifying non-english speaking Wikipedians and
conducting the entire discussion in English, aren't we excluding certain
groups on the basis of language?

~Excirial

2010/8/24 Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com>

> Robert,
>
> For what it's worth and for the record, I want to thank you for
> sharing your thoughts and findings about this process on this list,
> it's a fantastic positive and constructive example of "transparency"
> as I understand and value it.
>
> Bon courage,
>
> Cheers,
>
> Delphine
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM, R M Harris <rmharris@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert Harris here again, the consultant looking at the
> > issues surrounding controversial content on Wikimedia projects. I wanted
> first
> > of all to thank all of you who have taken the trouble to once again weigh
> in on
> > a subject I know has been debated many times within the Wikimedia
> community. It
> > has been very valuable for me, a newcomer to these questions, to witness
> the
> > debate first-hand for several reasons. The first is to remind me of the
> > thinking behind various positions, rather than simply to be presented
> with the
> > results of those positions. And the second is as a reminder to myself to
> > remember my self-imposed rule of "do no harm” and to reflect on how easy
> > it is to break that rule, even if unintentionally.
> >
> >
> >
> > So far, the immediate result for me of the dialogue has been to recognize
> that
> > the question of whether there is any problem to solve at all is a real
> question
> > that will need a detailed and serious response, as well as a recognition
> that
> > the possibility of unintended consequence in these matters is high, so
> caution
> > and modesty is a virtue.
> >
> >
> >
> > Having said that, I will note that I'm convinced that if there are
> problems to
> > be solved around questions of controversial content, the solutions can
> probably
> > best be found at the level of practical application. (and I’ll note that
> > several of you have expressed qualified confidence that a solution on
> that
> > level may be findable). That's not to say that the intellectual and
> > philosophical debate around these issues is not valuable -- it is
> essential, in
> > my opinion. It's just to note that not only is the "devil" in the
> > details as a few of you have noted, but that the "angel" may
> > be in the details as well -- that is -- perhaps -- questions insoluble on
> > the theoretical level may find more areas of agreement on a practical
> level.
> > I'm not sure of that, but I'm presenting it as a working hypothesis at
> this
> > point.
> >
> >
> >
> > My intended course of action over the next month or so is the following.
> I'm
> > planning to actually write the study on a wiki, where my thinking as it
> > develops, plus comments, suggestions, and re-workings will be available
> > for all to see. I was planning to begin that perhaps early in September.
> (A
> > presentation to the Foundation Board is tentatively scheduled for early
> > October). Between now and then, I would like to continue the kind of
> feedback
> > I've been getting, all of it so valuable for me. I have posted another
> set of
> > questions about controversy in text articles on the Meta page devoted to
> the
> > study, (
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content)
> because my ambit does not just
> > include images, and text and image, in my opinion, are quite different
> forms of
> > content. As well, I will start to post research I've been collecting for
> > information and comment. I have some interesting notes about the
> > experience of public libraries in these matters (who have been struggling
> with
> > many of these same questions since the time television, not the Internet,
> was
> > the world’s new communications medium), as well as information on the
> policies
> > of other big-tent sites (Google Images, Flickr, YouTube, eBay,etc.) on
> these
> > same issues. I haven't finished collecting all the info I need on the
> latter,
> > but will say that the policies on these sites are extremely complex
> (although
> > not always presented as such) and subject within their communities to
> many of
> > the same controversies that have arisen in ours. We are not them, by any
> > means, but it is interesting to observe how they have struggled with many
> of
> > the same issues with which we are struggling.
> >
> >
> >
> > The time is soon coming when I will lose the luxury of mere
> > observation and research, and will have to face the moment where I will
> enter
> > the arena myself as a participant in these questions. I’m looking forward
> to
> > that moment, with the understanding that you will be watching what I do
> with
> > care, concern, and attention.
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert Harris
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ~notafish
>
> NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get
> lost.
> Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
> http://blog.notanendive.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Update [ In reply to ]
If nobody is interested in discussing the study, the apparent
conclusion is not that the study should move to the next phase, but
just the opposite, that it should be abandoned. If nobody cares enough
to talk about it, it's not worth doing. (a slightly different
application of WP:GNG, the general notability guideline on enWP)
--in contrast, just as Delphine says, to the enWP pending revisions
question, which a great many people apparently feel is worth at
least discussing.

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Excirial <wp.excirial@gmail.com> wrote:
> One serious issue with the current status of the study is that it appears to
> be fairly death - especially when considering that it debates a
> controversial issue while potentially not affecting just one, but every
> single Wikipedia. After an initial and sustained burst which saw at least
> several edits a day we are currently in a state where 21 edits were made by
> 7 unique users over the past three weeks or so. I wouls equally point out
> that, 24 hours after new questions have been posted only two users have
> actually reacted to them (Myself and DGG). Compare that to the huge amount
> of reactions that were posted after the initial notification on June 22, or
> to the current the huge amount of reactions the current straw
> poll<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll#Keep:_options_2.2C_3.2C_or_4>on
> pending revisions is currently generating on the English Wiki.
>
> Ill be a tad blunt about two issues i see:
> 1) This investigation needs momentum, and a boost if the momentum seems to
> go down. Once the discussion seems to reduce to a trickle it is probably
> best to move to the next fase, rather then waiting a fairly long time while
> people forget.
> 2) I cannot shake the nagging feeling that i debated the same, or similar
> questions at least several times, which reduces my interest in debating them
> again (Telling the same story 10 times grows boring after all).
>
> Last, a single point that just occured to me - where is this study
> advertised? The foundation-l mailing list is mostly English, which means
> that some of the other language Wikipedians may not be subscribed, nor be
> able to read it or discuss it even if they wished to. To hook into question
> 4. a bit - if we aren't notifying non-english speaking Wikipedians and
> conducting the entire discussion in English, aren't we excluding certain
> groups on the basis of language?
>
> ~Excirial
>
> 2010/8/24 Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com>
>
>> Robert,
>>
>> For what it's worth and for the record, I want to thank you for
>> sharing your thoughts and findings about this process on this list,
>> it's a fantastic positive and constructive example of "transparency"
>> as I understand and value it.
>>
>> Bon courage,
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Delphine
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM, R M Harris <rmharris@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Robert Harris here again, the consultant looking at the
>> > issues surrounding controversial content on Wikimedia projects. I wanted
>> first
>> > of all to thank all of you who have taken the trouble to once again weigh
>> in on
>> > a subject I know has been debated many times within the Wikimedia
>> community. It
>> > has been very valuable for me, a newcomer to these questions, to witness
>> the
>> > debate first-hand for several reasons. The first is to remind me of the
>> > thinking behind various positions, rather than simply to be presented
>> with the
>> > results of those positions. And the second is as a reminder to myself to
>> > remember my self-imposed rule of "do no harm” and to reflect on how easy
>> > it is to break that rule, even if unintentionally.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > So far, the immediate result for me of the dialogue has been to recognize
>> that
>> > the question of whether there is any problem to solve at all is a real
>> question
>> > that will need a detailed and serious response, as well as a recognition
>> that
>> > the possibility of unintended consequence in these matters is high, so
>> caution
>> > and modesty is a virtue.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Having said that, I will note that I'm convinced that if there are
>> problems to
>> > be solved around questions of controversial content, the solutions can
>> probably
>> > best be found at the level of practical application. (and I’ll note that
>> > several of you have expressed qualified confidence that a solution on
>> that
>> > level may be findable). That's not to say that the intellectual and
>> > philosophical debate around these issues is not valuable -- it is
>> essential, in
>> > my opinion. It's just to note that not only is the "devil" in the
>> > details as a few of you have noted, but that the "angel" may
>> > be in the details as well -- that is -- perhaps -- questions insoluble on
>> > the theoretical level may find more areas of agreement on a practical
>> level.
>> > I'm not sure of that, but I'm presenting it as a working hypothesis at
>> this
>> > point.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > My intended course of action over the next month or so is the following.
>> I'm
>> > planning to actually write the study on a wiki, where my thinking as it
>> > develops, plus comments, suggestions, and re-workings will be available
>> > for all to see. I was planning to begin that perhaps early in September.
>> (A
>> > presentation to the Foundation Board is tentatively scheduled for early
>> > October). Between now and then, I would like to continue the kind of
>> feedback
>> > I've been getting, all of it so valuable for me. I have posted another
>> set of
>> > questions about controversy in text articles on the Meta page devoted to
>> the
>> > study, (
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content)
>>  because my ambit does not just
>> > include images, and text and image, in my opinion, are quite different
>> forms of
>> > content. As well, I will start to post research I've been collecting for
>> > information and comment.  I have some interesting notes about the
>> > experience of public libraries in these matters (who have been struggling
>> with
>> > many of these same questions since the time television, not the Internet,
>> was
>> > the world’s new communications medium), as well as information on the
>> policies
>> > of other big-tent sites (Google Images, Flickr, YouTube, eBay,etc.) on
>> these
>> > same issues. I haven't finished collecting all the info I need on the
>> latter,
>> > but will say that the policies on these sites are extremely complex
>> (although
>> > not always presented as such) and subject within their communities to
>> many of
>> > the same controversies that have arisen in ours.  We are not them, by any
>> > means, but it is interesting to observe how they have struggled with many
>> of
>> > the same issues with which we are struggling.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The time is soon coming when I will lose the luxury of mere
>> > observation and research, and will have to face the moment where I will
>> enter
>> > the arena myself as a participant in these questions. I’m looking forward
>> to
>> > that moment, with the understanding that you will be watching what I do
>> with
>> > care, concern, and attention.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Robert Harris
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ~notafish
>>
>> NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get
>> lost.
>> Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
>> http://blog.notanendive.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Update [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
The study was commissioned by the WMF itself. Therefore there is an interest
in the results of the study.

As far as I am concerned, this is discussion has been very much an echo
chamber. The same points of view repeated by the same people. With very few
people actually listening and willing to compromise. At Wikimania I spoke
with one of the persons involved in the study. I asked about what I am
interested in, I got the feed back I was looking for. I am relatively
certain that I have been heard and consequently I am done discussing.

As to referrals to the en.wp, that is as parochial as anything. It is just
one Wikipedia that does not get the input from other Wikipedias in a more
extreme fashion. Its consensus is so big in "numbers" that it does not seem
to care about what is consensus elsewhere.

On 25 August 2010 05:58, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@gmail.com> wrote:

> If nobody is interested in discussing the study, the apparent
> conclusion is not that the study should move to the next phase, but
> just the opposite, that it should be abandoned. If nobody cares enough
> to talk about it, it's not worth doing. (a slightly different
> application of WP:GNG, the general notability guideline on enWP)
> --in contrast, just as Delphine says, to the enWP pending revisions
> question, which a great many people apparently feel is worth at
> least discussing.
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Excirial <wp.excirial@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One serious issue with the current status of the study is that it appears
> to
> > be fairly death - especially when considering that it debates a
> > controversial issue while potentially not affecting just one, but every
> > single Wikipedia. After an initial and sustained burst which saw at least
> > several edits a day we are currently in a state where 21 edits were made
> by
> > 7 unique users over the past three weeks or so. I wouls equally point out
> > that, 24 hours after new questions have been posted only two users have
> > actually reacted to them (Myself and DGG). Compare that to the huge
> amount
> > of reactions that were posted after the initial notification on June 22,
> or
> > to the current the huge amount of reactions the current straw
> > poll<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll#Keep:_options_2.2C_3.2C_or_4
> >on
> > pending revisions is currently generating on the English Wiki.
> >
> > Ill be a tad blunt about two issues i see:
> > 1) This investigation needs momentum, and a boost if the momentum seems
> to
> > go down. Once the discussion seems to reduce to a trickle it is probably
> > best to move to the next fase, rather then waiting a fairly long time
> while
> > people forget.
> > 2) I cannot shake the nagging feeling that i debated the same, or similar
> > questions at least several times, which reduces my interest in debating
> them
> > again (Telling the same story 10 times grows boring after all).
> >
> > Last, a single point that just occured to me - where is this study
> > advertised? The foundation-l mailing list is mostly English, which means
> > that some of the other language Wikipedians may not be subscribed, nor be
> > able to read it or discuss it even if they wished to. To hook into
> question
> > 4. a bit - if we aren't notifying non-english speaking Wikipedians and
> > conducting the entire discussion in English, aren't we excluding certain
> > groups on the basis of language?
> >
> > ~Excirial
> >
> > 2010/8/24 Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com>
> >
> >> Robert,
> >>
> >> For what it's worth and for the record, I want to thank you for
> >> sharing your thoughts and findings about this process on this list,
> >> it's a fantastic positive and constructive example of "transparency"
> >> as I understand and value it.
> >>
> >> Bon courage,
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Delphine
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM, R M Harris <rmharris@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Robert Harris here again, the consultant looking at the
> >> > issues surrounding controversial content on Wikimedia projects. I
> wanted
> >> first
> >> > of all to thank all of you who have taken the trouble to once again
> weigh
> >> in on
> >> > a subject I know has been debated many times within the Wikimedia
> >> community. It
> >> > has been very valuable for me, a newcomer to these questions, to
> witness
> >> the
> >> > debate first-hand for several reasons. The first is to remind me of
> the
> >> > thinking behind various positions, rather than simply to be presented
> >> with the
> >> > results of those positions. And the second is as a reminder to myself
> to
> >> > remember my self-imposed rule of "do no harm” and to reflect on how
> easy
> >> > it is to break that rule, even if unintentionally.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > So far, the immediate result for me of the dialogue has been to
> recognize
> >> that
> >> > the question of whether there is any problem to solve at all is a real
> >> question
> >> > that will need a detailed and serious response, as well as a
> recognition
> >> that
> >> > the possibility of unintended consequence in these matters is high, so
> >> caution
> >> > and modesty is a virtue.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Having said that, I will note that I'm convinced that if there are
> >> problems to
> >> > be solved around questions of controversial content, the solutions can
> >> probably
> >> > best be found at the level of practical application. (and I’ll note
> that
> >> > several of you have expressed qualified confidence that a solution on
> >> that
> >> > level may be findable). That's not to say that the intellectual and
> >> > philosophical debate around these issues is not valuable -- it is
> >> essential, in
> >> > my opinion. It's just to note that not only is the "devil" in the
> >> > details as a few of you have noted, but that the "angel" may
> >> > be in the details as well -- that is -- perhaps -- questions insoluble
> on
> >> > the theoretical level may find more areas of agreement on a practical
> >> level.
> >> > I'm not sure of that, but I'm presenting it as a working hypothesis at
> >> this
> >> > point.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > My intended course of action over the next month or so is the
> following.
> >> I'm
> >> > planning to actually write the study on a wiki, where my thinking as
> it
> >> > develops, plus comments, suggestions, and re-workings will be
> available
> >> > for all to see. I was planning to begin that perhaps early in
> September.
> >> (A
> >> > presentation to the Foundation Board is tentatively scheduled for
> early
> >> > October). Between now and then, I would like to continue the kind of
> >> feedback
> >> > I've been getting, all of it so valuable for me. I have posted another
> >> set of
> >> > questions about controversy in text articles on the Meta page devoted
> to
> >> the
> >> > study, (
> >>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content
> )
> >> because my ambit does not just
> >> > include images, and text and image, in my opinion, are quite different
> >> forms of
> >> > content. As well, I will start to post research I've been collecting
> for
> >> > information and comment. I have some interesting notes about the
> >> > experience of public libraries in these matters (who have been
> struggling
> >> with
> >> > many of these same questions since the time television, not the
> Internet,
> >> was
> >> > the world’s new communications medium), as well as information on the
> >> policies
> >> > of other big-tent sites (Google Images, Flickr, YouTube, eBay,etc.) on
> >> these
> >> > same issues. I haven't finished collecting all the info I need on the
> >> latter,
> >> > but will say that the policies on these sites are extremely complex
> >> (although
> >> > not always presented as such) and subject within their communities to
> >> many of
> >> > the same controversies that have arisen in ours. We are not them, by
> any
> >> > means, but it is interesting to observe how they have struggled with
> many
> >> of
> >> > the same issues with which we are struggling.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The time is soon coming when I will lose the luxury of mere
> >> > observation and research, and will have to face the moment where I
> will
> >> enter
> >> > the arena myself as a participant in these questions. I’m looking
> forward
> >> to
> >> > that moment, with the understanding that you will be watching what I
> do
> >> with
> >> > care, concern, and attention.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Robert Harris
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ~notafish
> >>
> >> NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
> get
> >> lost.
> >> Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
> >> http://blog.notanendive.org
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Update [ In reply to ]
It is possible that there is a difference between what the WMF is
interested in and what the community is interested in, something which
makes itself evident when there is no responses from people in the
various projects. . I'm aware there are various portions of the
community, but I can only judge by the responses from my own
projects.--and this does not mean that I myself am necessarily not
interested, as can in fact be seen by my commenting here !

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> The study was commissioned by the WMF itself. Therefore there is an interest
> in the results of the study.
>
> As far as I am concerned, this is discussion has been very much an echo
> chamber. The same points of view repeated by the same people. With very few
> people actually listening and willing to compromise. At Wikimania I spoke
> with one of the persons involved in the study. I asked about what I am
> interested in, I got the feed back I was looking for. I am relatively
> certain that I have been heard and consequently I am done discussing.
>
> As to referrals to the en.wp, that is as parochial as anything. It is just
> one Wikipedia that does not get the input from other Wikipedias in a more
> extreme fashion. Its consensus is so big in "numbers" that it does not seem
> to care about what is consensus elsewhere.
>
> On 25 August 2010 05:58, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If nobody is interested in discussing the study, the apparent
>> conclusion is not that the study should move to the next phase, but
>> just the opposite, that it should be abandoned. If nobody cares enough
>> to talk about it, it's not worth doing. (a slightly different
>> application of WP:GNG, the general notability guideline on enWP)
>> --in contrast, just as Delphine says, to the enWP pending revisions
>> question,  which a great many people apparently feel is  worth at
>> least discussing.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Excirial <wp.excirial@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > One serious issue with the current status of the study is that it appears
>> to
>> > be fairly death - especially when considering that it debates a
>> > controversial issue while potentially not affecting just one, but every
>> > single Wikipedia. After an initial and sustained burst which saw at least
>> > several edits a day we are currently in a state where 21 edits were made
>> by
>> > 7 unique users over the past three weeks or so. I wouls equally point out
>> > that, 24 hours after new questions have been posted only two users have
>> > actually reacted to them (Myself and DGG). Compare that to the huge
>> amount
>> > of reactions that were posted after the initial notification on June 22,
>> or
>> > to the current the huge amount of reactions the current straw
>> > poll<
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll#Keep:_options_2.2C_3.2C_or_4
>> >on
>> > pending revisions is currently generating on the English Wiki.
>> >
>> > Ill be a tad blunt about two issues i see:
>> > 1) This investigation needs momentum, and a boost if the momentum seems
>> to
>> > go down. Once the discussion seems to reduce to a trickle it is probably
>> > best to move to the next fase, rather then waiting a fairly long time
>> while
>> > people forget.
>> > 2) I cannot shake the nagging feeling that i debated the same, or similar
>> > questions at least several times, which reduces my interest in debating
>> them
>> > again (Telling the same story 10 times grows boring after all).
>> >
>> > Last, a single point that just occured to me - where is this study
>> > advertised? The foundation-l mailing list is mostly English, which means
>> > that some of the other language Wikipedians may not be subscribed, nor be
>> > able to read it or discuss it even if they wished to. To hook into
>> question
>> > 4. a bit - if we aren't notifying non-english speaking Wikipedians and
>> > conducting the entire discussion in English, aren't we excluding certain
>> > groups on the basis of language?
>> >
>> > ~Excirial
>> >
>> > 2010/8/24 Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >> Robert,
>> >>
>> >> For what it's worth and for the record, I want to thank you for
>> >> sharing your thoughts and findings about this process on this list,
>> >> it's a fantastic positive and constructive example of "transparency"
>> >> as I understand and value it.
>> >>
>> >> Bon courage,
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> Delphine
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM, R M Harris <rmharris@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Robert Harris here again, the consultant looking at the
>> >> > issues surrounding controversial content on Wikimedia projects. I
>> wanted
>> >> first
>> >> > of all to thank all of you who have taken the trouble to once again
>> weigh
>> >> in on
>> >> > a subject I know has been debated many times within the Wikimedia
>> >> community. It
>> >> > has been very valuable for me, a newcomer to these questions, to
>> witness
>> >> the
>> >> > debate first-hand for several reasons. The first is to remind me of
>> the
>> >> > thinking behind various positions, rather than simply to be presented
>> >> with the
>> >> > results of those positions. And the second is as a reminder to myself
>> to
>> >> > remember my self-imposed rule of "do no harm” and to reflect on how
>> easy
>> >> > it is to break that rule, even if unintentionally.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > So far, the immediate result for me of the dialogue has been to
>> recognize
>> >> that
>> >> > the question of whether there is any problem to solve at all is a real
>> >> question
>> >> > that will need a detailed and serious response, as well as a
>> recognition
>> >> that
>> >> > the possibility of unintended consequence in these matters is high, so
>> >> caution
>> >> > and modesty is a virtue.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Having said that, I will note that I'm convinced that if there are
>> >> problems to
>> >> > be solved around questions of controversial content, the solutions can
>> >> probably
>> >> > best be found at the level of practical application. (and I’ll note
>> that
>> >> > several of you have expressed qualified confidence that a solution on
>> >> that
>> >> > level may be findable). That's not to say that the intellectual and
>> >> > philosophical debate around these issues is not valuable -- it is
>> >> essential, in
>> >> > my opinion. It's just to note that not only is the "devil" in the
>> >> > details as a few of you have noted, but that the "angel" may
>> >> > be in the details as well -- that is -- perhaps -- questions insoluble
>> on
>> >> > the theoretical level may find more areas of agreement on a practical
>> >> level.
>> >> > I'm not sure of that, but I'm presenting it as a working hypothesis at
>> >> this
>> >> > point.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > My intended course of action over the next month or so is the
>> following.
>> >> I'm
>> >> > planning to actually write the study on a wiki, where my thinking as
>> it
>> >> > develops, plus comments, suggestions, and re-workings will be
>> available
>> >> > for all to see. I was planning to begin that perhaps early in
>> September.
>> >> (A
>> >> > presentation to the Foundation Board is tentatively scheduled for
>> early
>> >> > October). Between now and then, I would like to continue the kind of
>> >> feedback
>> >> > I've been getting, all of it so valuable for me. I have posted another
>> >> set of
>> >> > questions about controversy in text articles on the Meta page devoted
>> to
>> >> the
>> >> > study, (
>> >>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content
>> )
>> >>  because my ambit does not just
>> >> > include images, and text and image, in my opinion, are quite different
>> >> forms of
>> >> > content. As well, I will start to post research I've been collecting
>> for
>> >> > information and comment.  I have some interesting notes about the
>> >> > experience of public libraries in these matters (who have been
>> struggling
>> >> with
>> >> > many of these same questions since the time television, not the
>> Internet,
>> >> was
>> >> > the world’s new communications medium), as well as information on the
>> >> policies
>> >> > of other big-tent sites (Google Images, Flickr, YouTube, eBay,etc.) on
>> >> these
>> >> > same issues. I haven't finished collecting all the info I need on the
>> >> latter,
>> >> > but will say that the policies on these sites are extremely complex
>> >> (although
>> >> > not always presented as such) and subject within their communities to
>> >> many of
>> >> > the same controversies that have arisen in ours.  We are not them, by
>> any
>> >> > means, but it is interesting to observe how they have struggled with
>> many
>> >> of
>> >> > the same issues with which we are struggling.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The time is soon coming when I will lose the luxury of mere
>> >> > observation and research, and will have to face the moment where I
>> will
>> >> enter
>> >> > the arena myself as a participant in these questions. I’m looking
>> forward
>> >> to
>> >> > that moment, with the understanding that you will be watching what I
>> do
>> >> with
>> >> > care, concern, and attention.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Robert Harris
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > foundation-l mailing list
>> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ~notafish
>> >>
>> >> NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
>> get
>> >> lost.
>> >> Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
>> >> http://blog.notanendive.org
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> foundation-l mailing list
>> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Update [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
Given that this is the FOUNDATION-L it is quite relevant what the WMF is
interested in. If I were particularly interested in the English language
communities opinion I would be elsewhere.

As I argued before, I find this a subject that has been talked to death with
hardly a person interested in what others have to say. I had my say, and
that is enough for me given the intransigence of opinions and the lack of
genuine interest that I observe.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 25 August 2010 17:17, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is possible that there is a difference between what the WMF is
> interested in and what the community is interested in, something which
> makes itself evident when there is no responses from people in the
> various projects. . I'm aware there are various portions of the
> community, but I can only judge by the responses from my own
> projects.--and this does not mean that I myself am necessarily not
> interested, as can in fact be seen by my commenting here !
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > The study was commissioned by the WMF itself. Therefore there is an
> interest
> > in the results of the study.
> >
> > As far as I am concerned, this is discussion has been very much an echo
> > chamber. The same points of view repeated by the same people. With very
> few
> > people actually listening and willing to compromise. At Wikimania I spoke
> > with one of the persons involved in the study. I asked about what I am
> > interested in, I got the feed back I was looking for. I am relatively
> > certain that I have been heard and consequently I am done discussing.
> >
> > As to referrals to the en.wp, that is as parochial as anything. It is
> just
> > one Wikipedia that does not get the input from other Wikipedias in a more
> > extreme fashion. Its consensus is so big in "numbers" that it does not
> seem
> > to care about what is consensus elsewhere.
> >
> > On 25 August 2010 05:58, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If nobody is interested in discussing the study, the apparent
> >> conclusion is not that the study should move to the next phase, but
> >> just the opposite, that it should be abandoned. If nobody cares enough
> >> to talk about it, it's not worth doing. (a slightly different
> >> application of WP:GNG, the general notability guideline on enWP)
> >> --in contrast, just as Delphine says, to the enWP pending revisions
> >> question, which a great many people apparently feel is worth at
> >> least discussing.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Excirial <wp.excirial@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > One serious issue with the current status of the study is that it
> appears
> >> to
> >> > be fairly death - especially when considering that it debates a
> >> > controversial issue while potentially not affecting just one, but
> every
> >> > single Wikipedia. After an initial and sustained burst which saw at
> least
> >> > several edits a day we are currently in a state where 21 edits were
> made
> >> by
> >> > 7 unique users over the past three weeks or so. I wouls equally point
> out
> >> > that, 24 hours after new questions have been posted only two users
> have
> >> > actually reacted to them (Myself and DGG). Compare that to the huge
> >> amount
> >> > of reactions that were posted after the initial notification on June
> 22,
> >> or
> >> > to the current the huge amount of reactions the current straw
> >> > poll<
> >>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll#Keep:_options_2.2C_3.2C_or_4
> >> >on
> >> > pending revisions is currently generating on the English Wiki.
> >> >
> >> > Ill be a tad blunt about two issues i see:
> >> > 1) This investigation needs momentum, and a boost if the momentum
> seems
> >> to
> >> > go down. Once the discussion seems to reduce to a trickle it is
> probably
> >> > best to move to the next fase, rather then waiting a fairly long time
> >> while
> >> > people forget.
> >> > 2) I cannot shake the nagging feeling that i debated the same, or
> similar
> >> > questions at least several times, which reduces my interest in
> debating
> >> them
> >> > again (Telling the same story 10 times grows boring after all).
> >> >
> >> > Last, a single point that just occured to me - where is this study
> >> > advertised? The foundation-l mailing list is mostly English, which
> means
> >> > that some of the other language Wikipedians may not be subscribed, nor
> be
> >> > able to read it or discuss it even if they wished to. To hook into
> >> question
> >> > 4. a bit - if we aren't notifying non-english speaking Wikipedians and
> >> > conducting the entire discussion in English, aren't we excluding
> certain
> >> > groups on the basis of language?
> >> >
> >> > ~Excirial
> >> >
> >> > 2010/8/24 Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com>
> >> >
> >> >> Robert,
> >> >>
> >> >> For what it's worth and for the record, I want to thank you for
> >> >> sharing your thoughts and findings about this process on this list,
> >> >> it's a fantastic positive and constructive example of "transparency"
> >> >> as I understand and value it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bon courage,
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >>
> >> >> Delphine
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM, R M Harris <rmharris@sympatico.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Robert Harris here again, the consultant looking at the
> >> >> > issues surrounding controversial content on Wikimedia projects. I
> >> wanted
> >> >> first
> >> >> > of all to thank all of you who have taken the trouble to once again
> >> weigh
> >> >> in on
> >> >> > a subject I know has been debated many times within the Wikimedia
> >> >> community. It
> >> >> > has been very valuable for me, a newcomer to these questions, to
> >> witness
> >> >> the
> >> >> > debate first-hand for several reasons. The first is to remind me of
> >> the
> >> >> > thinking behind various positions, rather than simply to be
> presented
> >> >> with the
> >> >> > results of those positions. And the second is as a reminder to
> myself
> >> to
> >> >> > remember my self-imposed rule of "do no harm” and to reflect on how
> >> easy
> >> >> > it is to break that rule, even if unintentionally.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So far, the immediate result for me of the dialogue has been to
> >> recognize
> >> >> that
> >> >> > the question of whether there is any problem to solve at all is a
> real
> >> >> question
> >> >> > that will need a detailed and serious response, as well as a
> >> recognition
> >> >> that
> >> >> > the possibility of unintended consequence in these matters is high,
> so
> >> >> caution
> >> >> > and modesty is a virtue.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Having said that, I will note that I'm convinced that if there are
> >> >> problems to
> >> >> > be solved around questions of controversial content, the solutions
> can
> >> >> probably
> >> >> > best be found at the level of practical application. (and I’ll note
> >> that
> >> >> > several of you have expressed qualified confidence that a solution
> on
> >> >> that
> >> >> > level may be findable). That's not to say that the intellectual and
> >> >> > philosophical debate around these issues is not valuable -- it is
> >> >> essential, in
> >> >> > my opinion. It's just to note that not only is the "devil" in the
> >> >> > details as a few of you have noted, but that the "angel" may
> >> >> > be in the details as well -- that is -- perhaps -- questions
> insoluble
> >> on
> >> >> > the theoretical level may find more areas of agreement on a
> practical
> >> >> level.
> >> >> > I'm not sure of that, but I'm presenting it as a working hypothesis
> at
> >> >> this
> >> >> > point.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > My intended course of action over the next month or so is the
> >> following.
> >> >> I'm
> >> >> > planning to actually write the study on a wiki, where my thinking
> as
> >> it
> >> >> > develops, plus comments, suggestions, and re-workings will be
> >> available
> >> >> > for all to see. I was planning to begin that perhaps early in
> >> September.
> >> >> (A
> >> >> > presentation to the Foundation Board is tentatively scheduled for
> >> early
> >> >> > October). Between now and then, I would like to continue the kind
> of
> >> >> feedback
> >> >> > I've been getting, all of it so valuable for me. I have posted
> another
> >> >> set of
> >> >> > questions about controversy in text articles on the Meta page
> devoted
> >> to
> >> >> the
> >> >> > study, (
> >> >>
> >>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content
> >> )
> >> >> because my ambit does not just
> >> >> > include images, and text and image, in my opinion, are quite
> different
> >> >> forms of
> >> >> > content. As well, I will start to post research I've been
> collecting
> >> for
> >> >> > information and comment. I have some interesting notes about the
> >> >> > experience of public libraries in these matters (who have been
> >> struggling
> >> >> with
> >> >> > many of these same questions since the time television, not the
> >> Internet,
> >> >> was
> >> >> > the world’s new communications medium), as well as information on
> the
> >> >> policies
> >> >> > of other big-tent sites (Google Images, Flickr, YouTube, eBay,etc.)
> on
> >> >> these
> >> >> > same issues. I haven't finished collecting all the info I need on
> the
> >> >> latter,
> >> >> > but will say that the policies on these sites are extremely complex
> >> >> (although
> >> >> > not always presented as such) and subject within their communities
> to
> >> >> many of
> >> >> > the same controversies that have arisen in ours. We are not them,
> by
> >> any
> >> >> > means, but it is interesting to observe how they have struggled
> with
> >> many
> >> >> of
> >> >> > the same issues with which we are struggling.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The time is soon coming when I will lose the luxury of mere
> >> >> > observation and research, and will have to face the moment where I
> >> will
> >> >> enter
> >> >> > the arena myself as a participant in these questions. I’m looking
> >> forward
> >> >> to
> >> >> > that moment, with the understanding that you will be watching what
> I
> >> do
> >> >> with
> >> >> > care, concern, and attention.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Robert Harris
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> > Unsubscribe:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> ~notafish
> >> >>
> >> >> NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails
> will
> >> get
> >> >> lost.
> >> >> Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
> >> >> http://blog.notanendive.org
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Update [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:17 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is possible that there is a difference between what the WMF is
> interested in and what the community is interested in, something which
> makes itself evident when there is no responses from people in the
> various projects. . I'm aware there are various portions of the
> community, but I can only judge by the responses from my own
> projects.--and this does not mean that I myself am necessarily not
> interested, as can in fact be seen by my commenting here !

David and all,

This is an interesting problem in general: what to do with hot topics
that don't have sustained interest. There certainly seemed to be
enough interest in objectionable content a few months ago, or at least
enough interest to warrant looking into it further. I suspect the
concerns and ideas that people raised then haven't actually gone away
over the summer.

However, now Excirial writes that there's not so much activity on this
meta page, while Robert is still asking for help. I can hypothesize a
few possibilities for why this might be so:

* our entire editor base is on holiday, preparing to go back to
school, or otherwise engaged
* somehow the meta page wasn't advertised to all of the people who do
care about this topic, so they don't know it exists
* people are, as you say, sick of talking about it, or feel like
they've said what needs to be said already somewhere
* people are content to leave it others, or are actively choosing to
leave it to people who might be more involved in the issue (like
commons admins)
* the page is long and complex, and people don't have time to get
through it or have other priorities
* these things can't be rushed
* people don't have anything to say about these specific questions, or
have only thought through one part of the issue and don't want to
address the rest
* responding to dramatic topics, heated email threads or "crisis
situations" is more exciting than thinking things through slowly (in
which case we should threaten to do something drastic to raise
interest -- like no more photos of anything, only line engravings from
here on out. Victorianpedia!)
* there's not enough motivation to participate because it's not clear
what will actually happen afterwards; there's not a sense of building
something or coming to a conclusion in the discussion
* the situation is actually not as dire as Excirial writes, since
there was a fair amount of participation in July, quite a bit before
that, and any of the above factors might be true for one or more
potential discussants now.

I don't think any of those possibilities, if true, necessarily point
to a lack of interest by "the community"; clearly some people are
interested and some could care less, some may be working elsewhere on
the same issue, and some may simply be distracted. But I do think that
it can sometimes be hard to get productive collaboration & discussion
through the mechanism of asking for feedback, for these reasons and
more; many other efforts to get input from the community have also had
difficulty (or else, like pending changes on en:, there's so much
discussion over such a long period that it's difficult to tell what's
going on). So is there a better way?

best,
Phoebe

p.s. I agree with Delphine; thank you Robert for the long explanation
of your thinking and process, which I think is really valuable and a
lovely demonstration of openness and transparency; I look forward to
seeing the research results.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Update [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:49 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:17 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It is possible that there is a difference between what the WMF is
>> interested in and what the community is interested in, something which
>> makes itself evident when there is no responses from people in the
>> various projects. . I'm aware there are various portions of the
>> community, but I can only judge by the responses from my own
>> projects.--and this does not mean that I myself am necessarily not
>> interested, as can in fact be seen by my commenting here !
>
> David and all,
>
> This is an interesting problem in general: what to do with hot topics
> that don't have sustained interest. There certainly seemed to be
> enough interest in objectionable content a few months ago, or at least
> enough interest to warrant looking into it further. I suspect the
> concerns and ideas that people raised then haven't actually gone away
> over the summer.

or winter! I vowed some time ago to not be northern-hemisphere-ist,
but I still slip up. Hard to think about it being winter elsewhere
when it's 39C outside here....

phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Update [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 02:52, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> or winter! I vowed some time ago to not be northern-hemisphere-ist,
> but I still slip up. Hard to think about it being winter elsewhere
> when it's 39C outside here....

But, you are using C instead of F, which is quite good for one American :P

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Update [ In reply to ]
Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 02:52, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> or winter! I vowed some time ago to not be northern-hemisphere-ist,
>> but I still slip up. Hard to think about it being winter elsewhere
>> when it's 39C outside here....
>>
> But, you are using C instead of F, which is quite good for one American :P
>
>
It's a commendable step forward in a country where "39C" is more likely
to be interpreted as a bust size than a temperature.

Ray

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