Mailing List Archive

2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content
The "controversial content" study by Robert Harris and Dory Carr-Harris was
completed a few weeks ago.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content

What is the board's view of the recommendations that resulted from the study?

Are there any ongoing deliberations whether or not to put some of them into
practice?

A.




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The "controversial content" study by Robert Harris and Dory Carr-Harris was
> completed a few weeks ago.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content
>
> What is the board's view of the recommendations that resulted from the study?

Dear Andreas, and all,

I'm sorry we've been soooo slow to answer this -- it's a busy time. We
have been planning to post an update about the current status of the
controversial content discussion anyway, so thank you for asking the
question.

Here is what happened at the last board meeting regarding
controversial content, and our planned next steps.

==Background==
At the last in-person Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees meeting
in October, Robert and Dory Harris presented the study and its 11
recommendations to the Board. The Board expressed appreciation for the
thorough report and thanked them warmly for their work and for
soliciting community input throughout the process. Three hours of the
meeting agenda was devoted to this topic, and there was a lot of
discussion, with every board member expressing their reactions before
moving to open discussion.

For those who don't know what the recommendations are, the 11
recommendations made are listed in Part II of the study. The
recommendations fall into three types: recommendations involving
statements of principle (including the background principles),
recommendations requiring technical and Foundation support as well as
community support (such as those to code image show/hide functions),
and recommendations requiring community action (such as those to
review content).

In detail, Robert and Dory recommended that no changes be made to the
manner in which text-based “controversial” content is handled in the
Wikimedia projects, because the definitions and procedures currently
in place to deal with this content are working. They also made a
number of recommendations for action that falls within the bailiwick
of the Wikimedia community, including recommending that Wikimedia
consider development of a Wikijunior project and that Commons admins
consider how to improve implementation of some policies and how they
are applied. And they recommended that the Wikimedia Foundation staff
begin developing a new feature to allow Wikimedia project users to opt
into a system that would allow them to easily hide classes of images
from their own view.

In general, the Board welcomed many of these recommendations and the
care taken with this report, particularly the highlighting of some of
the fundamental unresolved questions about Commons mission, scope, and
growth rate.

==Next steps==
Here are the next steps the Board is taking:

The Board did not pass a resolution on controversial content or take
other action on the suggested recommendations at this meeting.
However, the Board has formed a working group around controversial
content, led by Board members Jan-Bart (as group Chair), Phoebe and
Kat, to work with Robert and Dory to identify next steps.

The working group will be examining the recommendations more closely,
soliciting Board member feedback on each of the recommendations to a
greater degree than there was time for in the in-person meeting,
working with the community and finally making a report to the full
Board. The working group is expected to recommend next steps,
including providing fuller analysis of the recommendations, which
recommendations (if any) there is consensus to move forward on and
noting what would be required to put them into practice.

Right now the working group is getting Board member feedback to see
what Board consensus exists around the resolutions, and after
finishing this process will probably move on to analysis. We realize
that some of the recommendations are much more controversial than
others, and some are much more technically difficult than others.

==How to help==

We recognize that this issue has been discussed to death in many
forums over a long time. And the Board has been reading those
discussions :) However, we need further support. Please join us in:

* summarizing -- for those who are feeling ambitious, summaries of
discussions so far (from the lists and the wiki, particularly
summaries of discussions related to the specific recommendations)
would be amazing. There is a section added to the talk page of Part II
to summarize thoughts related to each recommendation:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two#Recommendations_discussion

* analyzing -- further analysis of the recommendations would also be
great. Feasibility analysis (both social and technical) would be
wonderful as well as analysis of underlying principles and ideas.
Please put analysis on the wiki above (and let's refactor if it gets
unmanageable).

* working on the process -- is there a better way to come to community
consensus and to develop the best possible outcome, both practically
and philosophically, on this issue? Please share your thoughts.

* joining the group -- especially if you are interested in
facilitating these discussions, or in the above process question, join
the working group! Please write Jan-Bart, Phoebe or Kat if you are
interested. If you are interested but don't have much time,
participating in one of the above ways would be great.

These recommendations are made, ultimately, to the community -- so
please help decide what to do with them.

Let me/us know if you have questions.

best,
Phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
Hi all,

I thought I'd note for those interested in the latest from the
community side of the 'controversial content' discussions - the
Commons 'Sexual Content' proposal has just gone into a polling stage
for the second time;

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29

Hard to tell at this early stage how it's going to go, but I find the
general level of quality of comment at the poll to be a little wanting
in some ways (oh well).

I hope Phoebe doesn't mind me copying her in on this email, but I'd
also like to follow up an enquiry about the working group she
mentioned last month - it's here;
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phoebe#G.27day_Phoebe

cheers,

Peter,
PM.

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:46 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The "controversial content" study by Robert Harris and Dory Carr-Harris was
>> completed a few weeks ago.
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content
>>
>> What is the board's view of the recommendations that resulted from the study?
>
> Dear Andreas, and all,
>
> I'm sorry we've been soooo slow to answer this -- it's a busy time. We
> have been planning to post an update about the current status of the
> controversial content discussion anyway, so thank you for asking the
> question.
>
> Here is what happened at the last board meeting regarding
> controversial content, and our planned next steps.
>
> ==Background==
> At the last in-person Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees meeting
> in October, Robert and Dory Harris presented the study and its 11
> recommendations to the Board. The Board expressed appreciation for the
> thorough report and thanked them warmly for their work and for
> soliciting community input throughout the process. Three hours of the
> meeting agenda was devoted to this topic, and there was a lot of
> discussion, with every board member expressing their reactions before
> moving to open discussion.
>
> For those who don't know what the recommendations are, the 11
> recommendations made are listed in Part II of the study. The
> recommendations fall into three types: recommendations involving
> statements of principle (including the background principles),
> recommendations requiring technical and Foundation support as well as
> community support (such as those to code image show/hide functions),
> and recommendations requiring community action (such as those to
> review content).
>
> In detail, Robert and Dory recommended that no changes be made to the
> manner in which text-based “controversial” content is handled in the
> Wikimedia projects, because the definitions and procedures currently
> in place to deal with this content are working. They also made a
> number of recommendations for action that falls within the bailiwick
> of the Wikimedia community, including recommending that Wikimedia
> consider development of a Wikijunior project and that Commons admins
> consider how to improve implementation of some policies and how they
> are applied. And they recommended that the Wikimedia Foundation staff
> begin developing a new feature to allow Wikimedia project users to opt
> into a system that would allow them to easily hide classes of images
> from their own view.
>
> In general, the Board welcomed many of these recommendations and the
> care taken with this report, particularly the highlighting of some of
> the fundamental unresolved questions about Commons mission, scope, and
> growth rate.
>
> ==Next steps==
> Here are the next steps the Board is taking:
>
> The Board did not pass a resolution on controversial content or take
> other action on the suggested recommendations at this meeting.
> However, the Board has formed a working group around controversial
> content, led by Board members Jan-Bart (as group Chair), Phoebe and
> Kat, to work with Robert and Dory to identify next steps.
>
> The working group will be examining the recommendations more closely,
> soliciting Board member feedback on each of the recommendations to a
> greater degree than there was time for in the in-person meeting,
> working with the community and finally making a report to the full
> Board. The working group is expected to recommend next steps,
> including providing fuller analysis of the recommendations, which
> recommendations (if any) there is consensus to move forward on and
> noting what would be required to put them into practice.
>
> Right now the working group is getting Board member feedback to see
> what Board consensus exists around the resolutions, and after
> finishing this process will probably move on to analysis. We realize
> that some of the recommendations are much more controversial than
> others, and some are much more technically difficult than others.
>
> ==How to help==
>
> We recognize that this issue has been discussed to death in many
> forums over a long time. And the Board has been reading those
> discussions :) However, we need further support. Please join us in:
>
> * summarizing -- for those who are feeling ambitious, summaries of
> discussions so far (from the lists and the wiki, particularly
> summaries of discussions related to the specific recommendations)
> would be amazing. There is a section added to the talk page of Part II
> to summarize thoughts related to each recommendation:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two#Recommendations_discussion
>
> * analyzing -- further analysis of the recommendations would also be
> great. Feasibility analysis (both social and technical) would be
> wonderful as well as analysis of underlying principles and ideas.
> Please put analysis on the wiki above (and let's refactor if it gets
> unmanageable).
>
> * working on the process -- is there a better way to come to community
> consensus and to develop the best possible outcome, both practically
> and philosophically, on this issue? Please share your thoughts.
>
> * joining the group -- especially if you are interested in
> facilitating these discussions, or in the above process question, join
> the working group! Please write Jan-Bart, Phoebe or Kat if you are
> interested. If you are interested but don't have much time,
> participating in one of the above ways would be great.
>
> These recommendations are made, ultimately, to the community -- so
> please help decide what to do with them.
>
> Let me/us know if you have questions.
>
> best,
> Phoebe
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
On 6 December 2010 09:02, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com> wrote:

> I thought I'd note for those interested in the latest from the
> community side of the 'controversial content' discussions - the
> Commons 'Sexual Content' proposal has just gone into a polling stage
> for the second time;
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29
> Hard to tell at this early stage how it's going to go, but I find the
> general level of quality of comment at the poll to be a little wanting
> in some ways (oh well).


Holy crap, PM and I just agreed on something relating to this topic.
(We both voted "support".) That'll be about the ninth or tenth seal
...


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 17:41, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 December 2010 09:02, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I thought I'd note for those interested in the latest from the
>> community side of the 'controversial content' discussions - the
>> Commons 'Sexual Content' proposal has just gone into a polling stage
>> for the second time;
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29
>> Hard to tell at this early stage how it's going to go, but I find the
>> general level of quality of comment at the poll to be a little wanting
>> in some ways (oh well).
>
> Holy crap, PM and I just agreed on something relating to this topic.
> (We both voted "support".) That'll be about the ninth or tenth seal

Same feelings here. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:02 AM, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I thought I'd note for those interested in the latest from the
> community side of the 'controversial content' discussions - the
> Commons 'Sexual Content' proposal has just gone into a polling stage
> for the second time;
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29

thanks for sending this out, and I am glad to see the discussion/vote
ongoing and hope to see lots of participation in it.

> I hope Phoebe doesn't mind me copying her in on this email, but I'd
> also like to follow up an enquiry about the working group she
> mentioned last month - it's here;
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phoebe#G.27day_Phoebe

And thanks for the prod... we've been slow to put together the working
group that I mentioned in my last message, but it is still happening.
In the meantime comments on the recommendations are certainly welcome.
More soon, I hope!

best,
Phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
I'm sorry we are putting more energy into what should be banned from commons instead of searching for mechanisms to protect those readers who would prefer to stay away from such content.

I mean, I understand the problem with paedophilia, and why it needs to be kept outside wikimedia projects, but I think it is equally important to provide with the means to present the content to users in their desired level of exposure; tagging, collapsing and hiding graphic content would do the trick, and it is technologically straightforward.

Cheers,
MarianoC

--- El lun 6-dic-10, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> escribió:

> De: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com>
> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Fecha: lunes, 6 de diciembre de 2010, 17:09
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:02 AM,
> private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I thought I'd note for those interested in the latest
> from the
> > community side of the 'controversial content'
> discussions - the
> > Commons 'Sexual Content' proposal has just gone into a
> polling stage
> > for the second time;
> >
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29
>
> thanks for sending this out, and I am glad to see the
> discussion/vote
> ongoing and hope to see lots of participation in it.
>
> > I hope Phoebe doesn't mind me copying her in on this
> email, but I'd
> > also like to follow up an enquiry about the working
> group she
> > mentioned last month - it's here;
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phoebe#G.27day_Phoebe
>
> And thanks for the prod... we've been slow to put together
> the working
> group that I mentioned in my last message, but it is still
> happening.
> In the meantime comments on the recommendations are
> certainly welcome.
> More soon, I hope!
>
> best,
> Phoebe
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
> And thanks for the prod... we've been slow to put together
> the working
> group that I mentioned in my last message, but it is still
> happening.
> In the meantime comments on the recommendations are
> certainly welcome.
> More soon, I hope!


Yes please. Greg has predicted that this study and its recommendations will die a quiet bureaucratic death. As it stands, if I had to bet my house on him being wrong, I'd be keeping an eye out for thermal sleeping bags just in case. It's freezing outside.

Andreas




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
> From: private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>

> Hi all,
>
> I thought I'd note for those interested in the latest from
> the
> community side of the 'controversial content' discussions -
> the
> Commons 'Sexual Content' proposal has just gone into a
> polling stage
> for the second time;
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29
>
> Hard to tell at this early stage how it's going to go, but
> I find the
> general level of quality of comment at the poll to be a
> little wanting
> in some ways (oh well).

You mean comments like this one?

"Oppose. US moral is stupid and sucks, Wikimedia and Wikipedia are free projects and shouldn't be restricted this way."

At 54 in support, and 43 opposing at the time of writing, I think it's pretty clear it's headed for an "epic fail".

Andreas




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
--- On Mon, 6/12/10, Mariano Cecowski <marianocecowski@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> Date: Monday, 6 December, 2010, 19:40
> I'm sorry we are putting more energy
> into what should be banned from commons instead of searching
> for mechanisms to protect those readers who would prefer to
> stay away from such content.
>
> I mean, I understand the problem with paedophilia, and why
> it needs to be kept outside wikimedia projects, but I think
> it is equally important to provide with the means to present
> the content to users in their desired level of exposure;
> tagging, collapsing and hiding graphic content would do the
> trick, and it is technologically straightforward.
>
> Cheers,
> MarianoC

Such a system was indeed among the recommendations put forward by the 2010
Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content, paralleling similar systems in
place at major sites such as Google, youtube and flickr.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two#User-Controlled_Viewing_Options

As for the Commons sexual content policy poll: there are currently 144
editors in support, and 138 opposing adoption of the policy. The community
is almost exactly split down the middle.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29

Andreas


> --- El lun 6-dic-10, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
> > De: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com>
> > Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of
> Controversial Content
> > Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Fecha: lunes, 6 de diciembre de 2010, 17:09
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:02 AM,
> > private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I thought I'd note for those interested in the
> latest
> > from the
> > > community side of the 'controversial content'
> > discussions - the
> > > Commons 'Sexual Content' proposal has just gone
> into a
> > polling stage
> > > for the second time;
> > >
> > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29
> >
> > thanks for sending this out, and I am glad to see the
> > discussion/vote
> > ongoing and hope to see lots of participation in it.
> >
> > > I hope Phoebe doesn't mind me copying her in on
> this
> > email, but I'd
> > > also like to follow up an enquiry about the
> working
> > group she
> > > mentioned last month - it's here;
> > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phoebe#G.27day_Phoebe
> >
> > And thanks for the prod... we've been slow to put
> together
> > the working
> > group that I mentioned in my last message, but it is
> still
> > happening.
> > In the meantime comments on the recommendations are
> > certainly welcome.
> > More soon, I hope!
> >
> > best,
> > Phoebe





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
--- El jue 9-dic-10, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@yahoo.com> escribió:

> De: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@yahoo.com>
> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Fecha: jueves, 9 de diciembre de 2010, 22:46
> --- On Mon, 6/12/10, Mariano Cecowski
> <marianocecowski@yahoo.com.ar>
> wrote:
> > Date: Monday, 6 December, 2010, 19:40
> > I'm sorry we are putting more energy
> > into what should be banned from commons instead of
> searching
> > for mechanisms to protect those readers who would
> prefer to
> > stay away from such content.
> >
> > I mean, I understand the problem with paedophilia, and
> why
> > it needs to be kept outside wikimedia projects, but I
> think
> > it is equally important to provide with the means to
> present
> > the content to users in their desired level of
> exposure;
> > tagging, collapsing and hiding graphic content would
> do the
> > trick, and it is technologically straightforward.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > MarianoC
>
> Such a system was indeed among the recommendations put
> forward by the 2010
> Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content, paralleling
> similar systems in
> place at major sites such as Google, youtube and flickr.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two#User-Controlled_Viewing_Options
>
> As for the Commons sexual content policy poll: there are
> currently 144
> editors in support, and 138 opposing adoption of the
> policy. The community
> is almost exactly split down the middle.
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29
>
> Andreas

Problem is, Controlled Viewing is an option to deletionism, but is not being seen as it. The current poll is to set a criteria for the exclusion of material from commons, whereas content hiding is [generally speaking] against it.

Why do we have to decide what we delete before we decide what we hide (acording to user preferences) ?

MarianoC.-




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
--- On Fri, 10/12/10, Mariano Cecowski <marianocecowski@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> Problem is, Controlled Viewing is an option to deletionism,
> but is not being seen as it. The current poll is to set a
> criteria for the exclusion of material from commons, whereas
> content hiding is [generally speaking] against it.
>
> Why do we have to decide what we delete before we decide
> what we hide (acording to user preferences) ?
>
> MarianoC.-


Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft sexual content policy
was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:

* Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation under Florida law
* Sexual images of people uploaded without their knowledge and consent

The first is simply a requirement to comply with the law, while the second
is a moral issue; we shouldn't host an image of a woman giving a blowjob
for example if the woman has not given her consent to have the image uploaded, and is unaware of its presence on Commons. Excluding those types
of cases has nothing to do with the viewer experience; it has to do with
protecting the foundation, and the privacy of the people depicted.

Andreas

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PORN#Commons_is_not_an_amateur_porn_site

> From: Mariano Cecowski <marianocecowski@yahoo.com.ar>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Friday, 10 December, 2010, 7:28
>
>
> --- El jue 9-dic-10, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@yahoo.com>
> escribió:
>
> > De: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@yahoo.com>
> > Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of
> Controversial Content
> > Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Fecha: jueves, 9 de diciembre de 2010, 22:46
> > --- On Mon, 6/12/10, Mariano Cecowski
> > <marianocecowski@yahoo.com.ar>
> > wrote:
> > > Date: Monday, 6 December, 2010, 19:40
> > > I'm sorry we are putting more energy
> > > into what should be banned from commons instead
> of
> > searching
> > > for mechanisms to protect those readers who
> would
> > prefer to
> > > stay away from such content.
> > >
> > > I mean, I understand the problem with
> paedophilia, and
> > why
> > > it needs to be kept outside wikimedia projects,
> but I
> > think
> > > it is equally important to provide with the means
> to
> > present
> > > the content to users in their desired level of
> > exposure;
> > > tagging, collapsing and hiding graphic content
> would
> > do the
> > > trick, and it is technologically
> straightforward.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > MarianoC
> >
> > Such a system was indeed among the recommendations
> put
> > forward by the 2010
> > Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content, paralleling
> > similar systems in
> > place at major sites such as Google, youtube and
> flickr.
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two#User-Controlled_Viewing_Options
> >
> > As for the Commons sexual content policy poll: there
> are
> > currently 144
> > editors in support, and 138 opposing adoption of the
> > policy. The community
> > is almost exactly split down the middle.
> >
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29
> >
> > Andreas
>
>
>
>      
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
> --- On Fri, 10/12/10, Mariano Cecowski <marianocecowski@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> > Problem is, Controlled Viewing is an option to deletionism,
> > but is not being seen as it. The current poll is to set a
> > criteria for the exclusion of material from commons, whereas
> > content hiding is [generally speaking] against it.
> > =
>
> > Why do we have to decide what we delete before we decide
> > what we hide (acording to user preferences) ?
> > =
>
> > MarianoC.-
>
>
> Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft sexual content policy
>
> was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
>
> * Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation under Florida law
> * Sexual images of people uploaded without their knowledge and consent
>
> The first is simply a requirement to comply with the law, while the second
> is a moral issue; we shouldn't host an image of a woman giving a blowjob
> for example if the woman has not given her consent to have the image upload=
> ed, and is unaware of its presence on Commons. Excluding those types
> of cases has nothing to do with the viewer experience; it has to do with
> protecting the foundation, and the privacy of the people depicted.
>


You'll never get the weenies to vote give up images of blowjobs, so don't expect any consensus there. Also the Ethnographic get out will allow all the images of naked kids and adolescents that that the pervs can upload and FT2 will be there to defend. I bounced 8 accounts to flickr yesterday that were simply naked kids in 3rd world countries intermixed with Adult porn. All of which were deleted within an hour of the report.

The "Study of Controversial Content" lost the plot and is pretty much dead. No good will come from it.



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:45:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jayen466@yahoo.com writes:


> Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft sexual content
> policy
> was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
>
> * Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation under Florida law
> * Sexual images of people uploaded without their knowledge and consent
>

I would think from the voting, that it's now apparent that this was not
conveyed in the draft policy, as simply as you express it here.

How long is the draft policy, and how short is your summary here.

Apparently something else got added or substracted in the meanwhile.

W
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
--- On Fri, 10/12/10, WJhonson@aol.com <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
> From: WJhonson@aol.com <WJhonson@aol.com>

> > Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft
> sexual content
> > policy
> > was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
> >
> > * Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation
> under Florida law
> > * Sexual images of people uploaded without their
> knowledge and consent
> >
>
> I would think from the voting, that it's now apparent that
> this was not
> conveyed in the draft policy, as simply as you express it
> here.
>
> How long is the draft policy, and how short is your summary
> here.
>
> Apparently something else got added or substracted in the
> meanwhile.


Suggest you read the draft policy, rather than the votes.

A.




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:08:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jayen466@yahoo.com writes:


> Suggest you read the draft policy, rather than the votes.
>

You're suggesting that all the no votes are simply trolls then?
That's a lot of no votes to just cast them off as people who didn't read
the draft, isn't it?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
On 10 December 2010 08:45, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft sexual content policy
> was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
> * Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation under Florida law
> * Sexual images of people uploaded without their knowledge and consent


That would be why I voted "yes". The first category is already
nuke-on-sight, but the second we had some actual examples of.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
On 10/12/2010 20:37, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:08:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> jayen466@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
>> Suggest you read the draft policy, rather than the votes.
>>
>
> You're suggesting that all the no votes are simply trolls then?
> That's a lot of no votes to just cast them off as people who didn't read
> the draft, isn't it?


People don't read they react. In the UK a couple of years ago there was
a petition that gathered 50,000 signatures against a proposal to ban all
photography in public spaces. As a point of fact there was no such
proposal.

This received over 10,000 responses and a huge number of point ny point
rebuttals despite the fact that it is obviously a joke based around the
Brady Bunch.
http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html

As the respondents to the above were pretty much the same constituents
as wikipedians (young, male, technically savvy) why would any one think
that exactly the same thing isn't going on with those currently voting?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
--- On Sat, 11/12/10, ???? <wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> People don't read they react. In the UK a couple of years
> ago there was
> a petition that gathered 50,000 signatures against a
> proposal to ban all
> photography in public spaces. As a point of fact there was
> no such
> proposal.
>
> This received over 10,000 responses and a huge number of
> point ny point
> rebuttals despite the fact that it is obviously a joke
> based around the
> Brady Bunch.
> http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html
>
> As the respondents to the above were pretty much the same
> constituents
> as wikipedians (young, male, technically savvy) why would
> any one think
> that exactly the same thing isn't going on with those
> currently voting?


There is that, and there is also something Scott MacDonald wrote a couple
of years ago; he said it in relation to BLPs, but it applies more widely.
It's one of the most perceptive things I've read about WP:

'Wikipedia isn't governed by the thoughtful or the informed – it is
governed by anyone who turns up. There are a small core of people who like
playing wiki as an in-house role-playing game and simply deny real-world
consequences that might limit their freedom of action. There are a larger
group who are too immature or lazy to think straight. And then there are
all those who recognise "something must be done", but perpetually oppose
the something that's being proposed in favour of a "better idea". The
mechanism is rather like using a chat-show phone-in to manage the
intricacies of a federal budget – it does not work for issues that need
time, thought, responsibility and attention. I doubt this problem can be
fixed – since it needs structural change to decision making – which is
impossible for precisely the same reasons.'

Put that together with our demographics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMFstratplanSurvey1.png

and there is no reason to be surprised by anything. And thus we plod on ...

I sometimes think the most addictive thing about Wikipedia is that there
is so much wrong with it. It's like seeing someone pushing a huge load on
a three-wheeled cart, which is about to topple over. It's a natural
instinct to run over and lend a hand to stabilise the thing. Meanwhile,
there is another person who actually *wants* the cart to fall over and
starts pushing from the other end ... et voilà, two new editors.

Andreas




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content [ In reply to ]
> People don't read they react.

Here is a real-life example. I asked a German mate of mine why he had
opposed the policy, with the following oppose rationale:

"Oppose No need to go beyond existing legal obligations, just follow the
laws that apply." (Oppose 114)

When I asked him in which way he thought the policy went beyond obscenity
and privacy law, his reply was that he hadn't bothered to read it:

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Fossa&action=historysubmit&diff=82528083&oldid=82526835

"I have no idea what's in the policy, but the most liberal policy
feasible is a policy that adheres to the laws that apply. If, say, the
servers are located in Guinea, they should adhere to Guniean law, if they
are located in Tulsa, US/Oklahoma law applies. No need for redundancies
here."

What the policy tried to do was make editors aware of existing laws, incl.
privacy, because at the moment, if you nominate a blow-job or similar
picture imported a few weeks ago from a "no longer active" Flickr account,
it is as likely as not that three people will turn up for the deletion
discussion.

One says, "You can't see all of her face." Another says, "It's in use in
a project, so we can't delete it". Another says the nominator is a prude,
and a fourth says, "It has educational value."

As Scott said, it's a chat-show phone-in.

Andreas



--- On Sat, 11/12/10, ???? <wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> From: ???? <wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Saturday, 11 December, 2010, 8:57
> On 10/12/2010 20:37, WJhonson@aol.com
> wrote:
> > In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:08:37 PM Pacific
> Standard Time,
> > jayen466@yahoo.com
> writes:
> >
> >
> >> Suggest you read the draft policy, rather than the
> votes.
> >>
> >
> > You're suggesting that all the no votes are simply
> trolls then?
> > That's a lot of no votes to just cast them off as
> people who didn't read
> > the draft, isn't it?
>
>
> People don't read they react. In the UK a couple of years
> ago there was
> a petition that gathered 50,000 signatures against a
> proposal to ban all
> photography in public spaces. As a point of fact there was
> no such
> proposal.
>
> This received over 10,000 responses and a huge number of
> point ny point
> rebuttals despite the fact that it is obviously a joke
> based around the
> Brady Bunch.
> http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html
>
> As the respondents to the above were pretty much the same
> constituents
> as wikipedians (young, male, technically savvy) why would
> any one think
> that exactly the same thing isn't going on with those
> currently voting?





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