Hi Phoebe, What is the current status with regard to the recommendations from the 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content?
>From what I can see, a proposal based on the study was generated at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Personal_image_filter and the proposal was subsequently presented and discussed at the Board Meeting in Berlin, in late March. How did that go? Any further developments? Best, Andreas --- On Sun, 20/2/11, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- > update > To: "phoebe ayers" <[email protected]>, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing > List" <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 22:54 > 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 > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
