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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
