Replying for the purpose of forwarding the original message, part two. --Michael Snow
On 6/23/2010 10:59 PM, Michael Snow wrote: > What is the purpose of the resolution? > > The Board is asking its Executive Director to conduct a study, with the > goal of figuring out what to do about potentially-objectionable material > in the projects. We know there is, and will always be, some material in > the projects that some readers will find offensive: that's inevitable, > given the size and scope of our readership, and our commitment to > providing access to all of the world's knowledge. We don't want to cause > unnecessary offence to people, and we particularly don't want to offend > people if it means they won't therefore use our projects, or that they > will aim to keep other people from using them. We want our projects to > be available to as many people as possible, and we would like, as much > as possible, to minimize the number of people who are prevented from > accessing the projects by third-parties. Having said that, we see the > projects' role as making available all knowledge, not making available > solely such knowledge as is universally deemed acceptable. It's a > challenge, and we need to strike an appropriate balance. Therefore, > we're asking our ED to do some investigation and thinking, and make some > recommendations to us at our meeting this fall. > > How was the resolution developed and agreed upon? > > The board and the community have been talking about this topic for the > past two months -- and indeed, the Commons and Wikipedia communities > have been discussing it for many years. Once the board reached general > agreement that a study was a good idea, we asked our ED to draft a > resolution to that effect. After she did that, we spent several weeks > talking with each other, refining the language of the draft, and voting > to adopt the resolution. > > Does the board have consensus on what to do about > potentially-objectionable materials in the projects? > > No. So far, board members have exchanged several hundred e-mails on this > topic, and we will continue to discuss it in the coming months. > Currently, board members have expressed quite different views, and there > is no consensus on how to resolve the issue. We think that's completely > fine though: it's complicated, and it's worth a lot of thought and > discussion. That's why we've commissioned a study: to see what we can > learn from other similar discussions that have taken place within other > organizations. > > What are the individual board members' views on this issue? How divided > is the board? > > We don't really want to characterize individual board members' views. > Having said that, individual board members have expressed their opinions > publicly in the past, and they will probably continue to do so. The > board is comfortable with disagreement on this issue, and it's > comfortable with people expressing their opinions. For example, Michael > Snow has been having a conversation with contributors on Commons, and > both Jimmy and SJ have been expressing their views there too. That's > fine, and the board encourages it. > > How is this study related to the purge of some sexual imagery that > happened on Commons a month ago? > > The Commons purge happened because Jimmy felt there was material on > Commons which didn't belong there -- that was potentially objectionable, > and had no educational value. The board released a statement on May 7, > encouraging Wikimedia editors to scrutinize potentially offensive > materials with the goal of assessing their educational or informational > value, and to remove them from the projects if there was no such value. > Jimmy himself then deleted a bunch of imagery he thought was > problematic. In so doing, he made a lot of admins on Commons really > angry -- essentially because they felt Jimmy was acting unilaterally, > without sufficient discussion. So yes, this study is an attempt to > better handle the general issue of potentially-objectionable material on > the projects, including Commons, by giving it some sustained attention. > > In its statement May 7, the board said that it was not intending to > create new policy, but rather to reaffirm and support policy that > already exists. Has that changed? > > We don't know yet what recommendations will come out of the study. It's > quite possible they will include recommendations to change policy on the > projects. In giving direction to the consultant, we have asked that > everything be considered: nothing has been ruled out. > > In the aftermath of the Commons purge, a lot of editors felt that the > Wikimedia Foundation, the board, and/or Jimmy had overstepped their > authority. What do you say to those editors who believe that editorial > policy is their purview, not the responsibility of the board or the staff? > > We agree with editors who say that, and we believe that Wikimedia's > current methods of developing and enforcing policy, for the most part, > work really beautifully. The Wikimedia projects are a shining example of > the power of mass collaboration, and nobody wants to fundamentally > change anything about how the projects work. > > Is this the first time the Board has ever asked the ED or WMF to address > an issue like this? > > This is the first time the Board has asked the ED to investigate the > issue of potentially-objectionable material on the projects, yes. > > Will the Board make a decision about next steps on this issue following > the ED's presentation of findings? > > The Board will review the recommendations and findings, and will > continue to discuss the matter and reach out to the community of > volunteers to discuss the issue. We won't speculate on what decisions > will be made, or when, until findings have been reviewed and discussed. > > Who will the ED be seeking out to undertake this research? > > She has hired a consultant: Robert Harris, a former executive with the > Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Robert is an experienced Canadian > journalist and writer who, over the course of his career, has held > responsibility for developing and ensuring compliance with editorial > standards and practices at the CBC. We think he's right for this work > because he's smart and thoughtful, has decades of experience handling > sensitive editorial issues, and is experienced at balancing the > interests of multiple stakeholders inside a mission-driven organization > designed to serve the general public. Sue worked with Robert for 17 > years at the CBC, and is confident he can help us with this issue. > > What will the process look like? > > This won't be like the strategy project, which took an entire year and a > team of full-time people. This process will be smaller and simpler. > Robert intends to gather input from four major sources: i) by reading > existing policy and discussion pages on the wikis, ii) by interviewing > key project participants such as board members and community members, > iii) by gathering together external statements of policy, papers and > reports on this topic, and iv) by interviewing key experts such as > advisory board members, anti-censorship advocates, child-protection > organizations, and so forth. He will probably not do much original > research (such as surveys or focus groups): instead, he will tend to > rely on existing research done by others. Once Robert has gathered all > the input, he will do some analysis and thinking, and then make > recommendations to the board. It is intended to be a fairly quick and > simple process of information-gathering and thinking. > > What will the end result look like? > > Robert will explore and summarize our particular context: our mission, > our production processes, and current relevant policies. He will tell us > how other organizations and entities, such as libraries and big > user-generated content sites, have handled this challenge. He will lay > out possible courses of action, and the pros and cons of each in our > context. And finally, he will make recommendations to the board. > > What might those recommendations include? > > Nothing is off the table. Robert has not been asked to explicitly > exclude anything from the scope of recommendations. He could recommend > anything from doing nothing to creative ideas that haven't been > considered before. > > What will happen after the board receives the recommendations? > > The board will discuss the recommendations at its fall meeting. Then it > will talk with the community. Nothing will happen without lots of > discussion. > > Why not hire a community member to do this work? > > Any community member who'd be interested in this work has probably > already formed an opinion on the topic, which means it might be hard for > them to maintain neutrality, and/or other people might perceive them as > non-neutral. Robert brings a fresh eye, which is probably useful. Also, > he will bring to us his experience of designing policy elsewhere. > > What other projects or properties face similar situations as those of > Wikimedia's? Who or what can provide context for this kind of research > or decision making? Who else knows how to address this issue? > > We are interested in practices of other large projects containing > community-created material, such as Flickr, YouTube, Google, eBay, and > the Internet Archive. We are also interested in educational institutions > and archives, whose work is similar to ours. So we will be talking with > groups such as libraries, museums, and universities. Many smart people > have grappled with these issues, and we are looking forward to hearing > how they have handled them. We also know that our context is unique, and > the outcome will need to be suited to us: our mission, goals, values and > editorial practices. > > Are you doing this because you're worried about the media, or donors? > > No. The board is doing this because we've agreed that getting more > information about other approaches to the issue is the right thing to > do. We want to be thoughtful and responsible, and we think it's worth > putting some focused effort against this issue. We may be wrong about > that (and it's true that some board members feel more strongly about it > than others). We want to do what is best in terms of advancing the > mission and meeting the needs of all the world's readers and contributors. > > Has the Board or Foundation actively done anything on the projects to > remove explicit content? Has any illegal material been found or deleted? > > Although the Foundation would remove any illegal content if it were > necessary, it has not needed to do so--the task of removing this kind of > material generally falls to our volunteers first, who watch the latest > changes and additions to our projects. However, project policies often > include editorial considerations in addition to legal considerations; > just because an image is within the bounds of the law does not > necessarily mean it falls within the project scope, and individual > members have removed content they believed was outside of project policies. > > The Wikimedia community has engaged in thoughtful policy development > around these issues for many years. Why is there a need for a top-down > process now? > > It's true that the community has had many good policy discussions about > these issues, dating to the earliest days of Wikipedia. Ultimately, we > think those discussions may have been constrained in ways that aren't > ideal. First, discussions about policy tend to be project-centric, > rather than addressing the interests of the Wikimedia movement as a > whole. That means they typically aren't very informed by a > bigger-picture view (for example, the experiences of other projects, > other communities, other websites, other educational initiatives), in > part because there typically aren't resources dedicated to getting that > information. And, some types of policy change (for example, those with > technology implications) may be abandoned early, because community > members know technical support is hard to come by. We're hoping that > this process will help us to have a broader conversation about the topic > than might otherwise be possible. > > Who wrote this Q and A, and who is its intended audience? > > The first draft of this Q and A was written by Jay and Sue for the > board, based on the text of the resolution, and Sue's understanding of > the consensus that had been achieved by the board over the past several > months. Individual board members requested various revisions, and new > versions of the draft were recirculated over several days. The main > audience is the Wikimedia community, and the goal is to articulate the > board's position as completely as possible. > > --Michael Snow > > _______________________________________________ > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately > directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia > Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l > > > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
