Hi Phoebe, Thank you very much for the update.
Recommendations 7 and 9 are important points, and I am glad there is some work being done on them. Do let us know again how things are progressing! Best, Andreas --- On Sun, 20/2/11, phoebe ayers <[email protected]> wrote: > From: phoebe ayers <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- > update > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Andreas Kolbe" <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 19:35 > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM, > Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Could Phoebe, Jan-Bart or Kat please give us an update > on the activities of > > the working group looking into the recommendations > resulting from the 2010 > > Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content? > > > > Have any conclusions been drawn, and are there any > plans or discussions about > > implementing any of the recommendations? > > > > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/215066?search_string=working%20group%20controversial%20content;#215066 > > > > Andreas > > Hi Andreas! Thanks for asking. Sorry for the slow reply, > I've been > away on holiday the last couple of days and have not been > online. > > Also, my apologies for not posting an update before you > asked. Things > have been slowly moving but as yet no conclusions. > > Here is what has happened since I sent my last update: > > Over the winter holidays the membership of the working > group changed > due to the workload of other board committees. Jan-Bart and > Kat > stepped down and were replaced by Matt, Jimmy and Bishakha; > I am still > involved and agreed to chair the group. Of course any > recommendations > for statements or resolutions will go to the whole board. > The Harrises > are still involved as consultants on a "paid-as-needed" > basis; if we > want them to do any further research or facilitation they > are > available. > > In my last message, I wrote that "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." > > We did the first part of this (board member feedback); and > are > currently working on the analysis part. As you know the > various > recommendations fall into three kinds: philosophical, > community-facing > (such as changing specific community practices), and > technical. I > asked the WMF tech staff to spend some time looking into > the > recommendations that require technical work (7 & 9)* so > that we can > have more information about what's feasible and possible, > and what it > would take on the wmf/tech side and the community side. > This does not > mean they're developing these features now; it means I > asked for > possible specifications (since I am unfamiliar with what it > would take > in MediaWiki to make this happen) so the working group can > make a more > informed recommendation. The WMF won't develop anything > without a > board request. > > You may notice that the "working with the community" part > has been > largely absent this winter. Beyond carefully reading** all > of the > public discussion to date, the working group has not > actively worked > with the community (at large) or specific community > members. This is > because I wanted to first focus on getting all of the board > feedback > and getting background information, and that has taken > longer than I > hoped. Of course we're not under the illusion that any > changes can be > made in how this organization works with controversial > content (or > even happily keeping the status quo) without community > discussion > (which there has been a lot of), consensus (which the > recommendations > were meant to help catalyze but afaik has not yet emerged), > and hard > work. I'd still suggest the meta talk pages along with > commons policy > pages as a good place to discuss the issue; and people can > still help > the working group by working on summarization, analysis, > and procedure > advice for going forward. > > I'll say that the board does not yet have a formal position > on this > whole issue, and so I am hesitant to say much about that > for fear of > it being *taken* as an official board position. > > You may read this message and think "ok, they're doing > something" or > you may read this message and think "the board has totally > lost the > way/not done their job on this issue" or you may not care > :) Either > way, feel free to write me or us, publicly or privately. > Our next step > as a working group will be a report to the board, likely at > the march > meeting. > > -- phoebe > > > * recs 7 & 9: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two#User-Controlled_Viewing_Options > ** I have also been working on summarizing all this > discussion; a big job. > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
