Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
David Goodman wrote: > I think we will only make progress when we accept the apologies of the > people involved. I can understand that they want to at least formally > defend the original board statement, but I think they--and we all- > -recognize that the discussion has moved in a somewhat more permissive > direction now than that first statement implied. When people admit > they've acting over-hastily, as by now I think essentially everyone > has, I don't see the point of continue to berate them about it. > > We're returning to normalcy. Perhaps the most useful thing people with > any view on the issue could do is contribute to specific discussions > on improvements in how we handle challenges, on possible software > improvements , and on deletion and undeletion of particular images. > Indeed! Moving forward does not depend on determining who was right about historical wrongs.. Ec > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:32 PM, K. Peachey wrote: > >> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Stuart West wrote: >> >>> ...snip... >>> Jimmy acknowledged this wasn't right and I respect his apology. >>> ...snip... >>> - stu >>> >> Yes! because no one would consider >> starting discussion on wiki first before drawing their guns and start >> shooting? >> ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
On 12 May 2010 00:38, David Goodman wrote: > I think we will only make progress when we accept the apologies of the > people involved. I can understand that they want to at least formally > defend the original board statement, but I think they--and we all- > -recognize that the discussion has moved in a somewhat more permissive > direction now than that first statement implied. When people admit > they've acting over-hastily, as by now I think essentially everyone > has, I don't see the point of continue to berate them about it. The board has grievously condemned the work of the volunteers on Commons. "whoops sorry lol" really doesn't cut it to restore trust in them. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
I think we will only make progress when we accept the apologies of the people involved. I can understand that they want to at least formally defend the original board statement, but I think they--and we all- -recognize that the discussion has moved in a somewhat more permissive direction now than that first statement implied. When people admit they've acting over-hastily, as by now I think essentially everyone has, I don't see the point of continue to berate them about it. We're returning to normalcy. Perhaps the most useful thing people with any view on the issue could do is contribute to specific discussions on improvements in how we handle challenges, on possible software improvements , and on deletion and undeletion of particular images. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:32 PM, K. Peachey wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Stuart West wrote: >> ...snip... >> Jimmy acknowledged this wasn't right and I respect his apology. >> ...snip... >> - stu > You mean his little smug little reply that it was a press stunt?[1][2] > and saying that it was a urgent matter[3] (yes! because starting a > huge delete purge after being in the news is such great press!) and > then actievly and publicly approving of the weelwarring he was > particpating in over the deletion of the images[4]m oh and deleting > images he knew would be restored[5] (Can't get much more pressey than > that!). > > Then when people suggested he talk to the community involved (Commons) > on wiki he publicly said he has[6], Yeah telling them to basically to > stfu till after the matter is over and out of the press (I'm sure > someone can find those diff's if your intrested since i'm out). Then > also mentioning that it was a method to start "much" needed discussion > on wiki about the content[7], Yes! because no one would consider > starting discussion on wiki first before drawing their guns and start > shooting? > > -Peachey > > [1]. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057896.html > [2]. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058086.html > [3]. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058092.html > [4]. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058087.html > [5]. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058091.html > [6]. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057891.html > [7]. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058162.html > > ___ > 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: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Stuart West wrote: > ...snip... > Jimmy acknowledged this wasn't right and I respect his apology. > ...snip... > - stu You mean his little smug little reply that it was a press stunt?[1][2] and saying that it was a urgent matter[3] (yes! because starting a huge delete purge after being in the news is such great press!) and then actievly and publicly approving of the weelwarring he was particpating in over the deletion of the images[4]m oh and deleting images he knew would be restored[5] (Can't get much more pressey than that!). Then when people suggested he talk to the community involved (Commons) on wiki he publicly said he has[6], Yeah telling them to basically to stfu till after the matter is over and out of the press (I'm sure someone can find those diff's if your intrested since i'm out). Then also mentioning that it was a method to start "much" needed discussion on wiki about the content[7], Yes! because no one would consider starting discussion on wiki first before drawing their guns and start shooting? -Peachey [1]. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057896.html [2]. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058086.html [3]. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058092.html [4]. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058087.html [5]. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058091.html [6]. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057891.html [7]. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058162.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
On 11 May 2010 22:48, Stuart West wrote: > A lot has happened since my email so here's a quick follow-up. I hear the > concerns many of you have raised on this list and elsewhere. I feel awful > about them. As Kat said so well, I think there is a big difference between > the principles the Board agreed to in our statement and the actions taken by > Jimmy and others. Thank you. > I supported the Board statement last week and still support it. I believe > the presence of materials unambiguously not relevant to our educational > mission is bad for us as it can alienate people (users, potential new > volunteers, educators, others) who we need on our side to accomplish our > mission. I know this is a complex issue. Many people have thought more > about the challenges than I have (please read Greg Maxwell's great email for > some of the history > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058081.html). I > am trying to catch up. I hoped the Board statement would both encourage the > community to pursue a clean-up drive and also renew community efforts to > resolve the tough policy issues. Your message still seems to carry an implicit assumption that there was an actual problem of such magnitude as to warrant such action - that you regret the effects of the actions, but not the fact of the drastic action. There has been *no evidence whatsoever* presented that there was such a problem with Commons. No-one has presented any such evidence. I'd have thought they would have by now. Stu, is there any evidence? Did you, as a Board member, ask for any, before or after the actions were taken? Please present the evidence of a problem so serious it was worth the obvious effects that would result from the action taken. If you do not have evidence, then you have grievously slandered the Commons community, and you need to withdraw the slanders in your first message - in which you decried the gross failings of the Commons community - sentence by sentence. You'll know the apology is sufficient when all the people you condemned come back. Please, present the evidence the decision was based on. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
On 11 May 2010 22:54, Milos Rancic wrote: > Thank you, Stu! Indeed, thank you, Stu! The first round of statements we got from individual board members were very disappointing, but I'm glad to see board members admitting their mistakes and acknowledging things that were done wrong. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Stuart West wrote: > A lot has happened since my email so here's a quick follow-up. I hear the > concerns many of you have raised on this list and elsewhere. I feel awful > about them. As Kat said so well, I think there is a big difference between > the principles the Board agreed to in our statement and the actions taken by > Jimmy and others. > > I supported the Board statement last week and still support it. I believe > the presence of materials unambiguously not relevant to our educational > mission is bad for us as it can alienate people (users, potential new > volunteers, educators, others) who we need on our side to accomplish our > mission. I know this is a complex issue. Many people have thought more > about the challenges than I have (please read Greg Maxwell's great email for > some of the history > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058081.html). I > am trying to catch up. I hoped the Board statement would both encourage the > community to pursue a clean-up drive and also renew community efforts to > resolve the tough policy issues. > > I do not support the degree of unilateral deleting that happened. I was > happy to see deletion of the really bad stuff that unambiguously lacked > educational and historical significance. I wasn't expecting and wasn't happy > to see how far things went without broader community involvement. Jimmy > acknowledged this wasn't right and I respect his apology. > > What I didn't say in my earlier emails, and should have, is that I want the > leadership resolving this to come from the community. I feel passionately > the community is the heart and soul of our movement. Without you we have > nothing. I am in awe of your energy, commitment, and ability to change the > world. As Ting said, we as a Board can at times help focus energy. But I > believe the best solution is a community solution. > > I'm really sorry about the way this played out. Commons editors should feel > they have more support and encouragement dealing with this tough issue, not > less. > > I'll be on the IRC open meeting tomorrow if you want to discuss live. > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_meetings#May_12.2C_2010. Thank you, Stu! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
A lot has happened since my email so here's a quick follow-up. I hear the concerns many of you have raised on this list and elsewhere. I feel awful about them. As Kat said so well, I think there is a big difference between the principles the Board agreed to in our statement and the actions taken by Jimmy and others. I supported the Board statement last week and still support it. I believe the presence of materials unambiguously not relevant to our educational mission is bad for us as it can alienate people (users, potential new volunteers, educators, others) who we need on our side to accomplish our mission. I know this is a complex issue. Many people have thought more about the challenges than I have (please read Greg Maxwell's great email for some of the history http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058081.html). I am trying to catch up. I hoped the Board statement would both encourage the community to pursue a clean-up drive and also renew community efforts to resolve the tough policy issues. I do not support the degree of unilateral deleting that happened. I was happy to see deletion of the really bad stuff that unambiguously lacked educational and historical significance. I wasn't expecting and wasn't happy to see how far things went without broader community involvement. Jimmy acknowledged this wasn't right and I respect his apology. What I didn't say in my earlier emails, and should have, is that I want the leadership resolving this to come from the community. I feel passionately the community is the heart and soul of our movement. Without you we have nothing. I am in awe of your energy, commitment, and ability to change the world. As Ting said, we as a Board can at times help focus energy. But I believe the best solution is a community solution. I'm really sorry about the way this played out. Commons editors should feel they have more support and encouragement dealing with this tough issue, not less. I'll be on the IRC open meeting tomorrow if you want to discuss live. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_meetings#May_12.2C_2010. -stu On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Stuart West wrote: > A few of you have asked for more perspectives from Board members on the > goings-on at Commons. I'm happy to share some of my personal views on the > events of the past few days. > > First off, let me thank everyone who has participated in the debate. I've > kept up with many of the email threads, talk pages, village pumps, and some > IRC. I really appreciate the passion and energy, especially when > constructive. I've been around the projects for about five years, and on > the Board for over two years, and this is one of the hardest and most > substantive issues we've attacked. In my view, it is also one of the most > important. > > Here are some of my personal thoughts on the issue: > > - We were hosting material that was unambiguously not relevant to our > educational mission and it needed to go. Its presence on our > projects/servers alienated people (users, potential new volunteers, > educators, others) who we need on our side. Getting rid of it was the right > answer for the long-term success of our mission which is a focus both of my > responsibilities as a Board member and my personal motivation as a > volunteer. More broadly, in allowing the clearly objectionable content on > one of our projects I feel the community (including the Board, Foundation > and Commons admins) failed in our collective role as stewards of the > mission. > > - I agree with the view that the presence of hardcore pornography on > Commons represents a clear failure of our community-driven consensus process > and that we must change the way we do things. Among other drivers I see: > (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography > distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous > hosting). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated the issue > too long and failed to drive closure and implement. (3) There are complex > issues around _some_ of the content that is in a gray area and those > complexities distracted us from dealing with the clearer cut cases. > > - Due to the failure of the community process, something extraordinary had > to be done. A small step was our Board statement we hoped would focus > attention. A bigger step was the work by Jimmy and other individuals on > Commons who took bold and decisive action. Clearly it is messy, and there is > room for overcorrection and the removal of some materials that are indeed > relevant to our educational mission. This is inevitable but is certainly > fixable. I want to thank all those who have been working so hard on this, > either the initial clean-up or the ongoing review process. It's not easy > work, but it's critically important. > > Like a lot of things within our community, the past few days have been > messy. But I believe the outcome is headed in the right direction: get rid >
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
On 09.05.2010 02:04, Noein wrote: > > On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote: > >> (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography >> distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous >> hosting). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated the issue >> too long and failed to drive closure and implement. (3) There are complex >> issues around _some_ of the content that is in a gray area and those >> complexities distracted us from dealing with the clearer cut cases. >> > In order to help us understand better the situation, can you refer > concrete examples of 1 and a link to the discussion mentioned in 2? > I would not speak for Stuart but I can give concrete cases of "politic propaganda" widespread in en.wikipedia and related cancellation of content with a different point of view. All that without any action of the community and with an evident non neutral position of sysops. I promise you to open another thread with all that points but I would like to discuss that like a different problem not related with hardcore pornography. After that I hope to receive your feedback. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
Hello, 2010/5/9 Thomas Dalton : > Stu, > > Thank you for telling us your views. You have admitted that the way > this was dealt with was "messy". That such an approach would be messy > should have been obvious to everyone involved, so do you think it > would have been better to take a less messy approach? Perhaps the > Board could have issued a statement saying that the current situation > was unacceptable, explaining why, and that they would have to > intervene to fix it if the community didn't sort it out by a certain > deadline. > > Unfortunately, this looks to me like the board couldn't really agree > on what to do so made a vague enough statement that those board > members that didn't feel it was right to go in a delete everything > wouldn't oppose it but that Jimmy could claim supported his view and > legitimised him doing whatever the hell he pleased. The board needs to > be stronger - when Jimmy does things like this it reflects badly on > all of you, so you need to keep him under control. If you can't agree > on what to do, you need to either defer to the community or come up > with a genuine compromise rather than political manoeuvring to avoid > being responsible for what happens. Also, it would help us choose > board members if you were more public about your disagreements. You > don't have to all present a united front behind Jimmy. +1 I can't express my view more clearly. Yann ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
On 9 May 2010 01:09, David Gerard wrote: > On 9 May 2010 01:04, Noein wrote: >> On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote: > >>> (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography >>> distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous >>> hosting). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated the issue >>> too long and failed to drive closure and implement. (3) There are complex >>> issues around _some_ of the content that is in a gray area and those >>> complexities distracted us from dealing with the clearer cut cases. > >> In order to help us understand better the situation, can you refer >> concrete examples of 1 and a link to the discussion mentioned in 2? > > > Indeed. (1) is a definite [citation needed]. > > > - d. > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toyslove_sybian_in_action_kobe_lee.OGG in particular the last 20 seconds. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:09 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 9 May 2010 01:04, Noein wrote: >> On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote: >>> (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography >>> distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous >>> hosting). . >> >> In order to help us understand better the situation, can you refer >> concrete examples of 1 > > Indeed. (1) is a definite [citation needed]. > Stu, I'm going to put this as civilly as possible, going out of my way to AGF. Recently there have been some very substantial 'misunderstandings' between some individual board members and the community.For example, one board member made a number of statements that, unfortunately, led many in the community to believe that the Foundation was ordering a substantial new policy. This turned out not to be true. Earlier, there were similar misunderstandings over this same issue. At one point, many in the community may have mistakenly come to believe that there was a new legal opinion by the Foundation-- there was not. In light of all this, I think everyone needs to take a _very_ close look at anything that board members say, to make sure no future misunderstandings like this occur again. In short-- yeah, if you want us to believe you, you're gonna need to cite things. Nothing against you personally-- I'm sure you're a trustworthy individual. But "Just trust us" isn't gonna be very persuasive this week. Jimbo's trust is gone, and now the community is watching you guys, trying to figure out whether the foundation is trustworthy still or not. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
On 9 May 2010 01:04, Noein wrote: > On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote: >> (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography >> distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous >> hosting). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated the issue >> too long and failed to drive closure and implement. (3) There are complex >> issues around _some_ of the content that is in a gray area and those >> complexities distracted us from dealing with the clearer cut cases. > In order to help us understand better the situation, can you refer > concrete examples of 1 and a link to the discussion mentioned in 2? Indeed. (1) is a definite [citation needed]. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
Stu wrote: '"Due to the failure of the community process, something extraordinary had to be done" There's been many statements claiming that Commons cannot police itself, however, the deletions have been counted: a mere 400 files were deleted, after which Jimbo said the cleanup was done. A lot of those are getting undeleted, because it's agreed they never should've been deleted in the first place. There are 6,609,202 files on commons. That means that less than one hundredth of one percent of all files were of a type that could be considered pornographic by Jimbo's definitions, and that's such an extremely low number that it would imply Commons was doing a pretty good job of monitoring itself. Further, Jimbo only proposed the new policy May 6th. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ASexual_content&action=historysubmit&diff=38830945&oldid=38801972 By May 7th, 89 edits had been made, and a workable policy was beginning to emerge: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ASexual_content&action=historysubmit&diff=38893880&oldid=38830959 While there were doubts on the talk page about the record keeping act, provisional to the Foundation making a statement, most people were willing to wait and accept Jimbo's judgement - and he was pushing very hard for it. It had very quickly become clear that art was considered a protected case, but Commons was more than willing to look into photographs and film, and deal with the legal issues that were implied to be the reason for the policy change. The process was working - and then Jimbo went on a rampage, deleting art and diagrams, and wheel-warring. to keep art deleted. This was NOT about Commons refusing to cooperate. This was Jimbo seeking approval of a pre-defined action, which he misled the community into thinking was for legal reasons, then when consensus went the slightest bit differently to what he wanted, protecting artworks and such, he went ahead and deleting art and diagrams anyway. And for what? Is "We've deleted the pornographic photographs" really so much worse PR than "We've deleted pornographic photographs, and also artworks widely agreed to have strong artistic merit by art scholars?" I'd have said the latter was the far worse choice. [Addendum: Right, let's see if this threading works] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Stuart West wrote: > A few of you have asked for more perspectives from Board members on the > goings-on at Commons. I'm happy to share some of my personal views on the > events of the past few days. > > First off, let me thank everyone who has participated in the debate. I've > kept up with many of the email threads, talk pages, village pumps, and some > IRC. I really appreciate the passion and energy, especially when > constructive. I've been around the projects for about five years, and on the > Board for over two years, and this is one of the hardest and most substantive > issues we've attacked. In my view, it is also one of the most important. > > Here are some of my personal thoughts on the issue: > > - We were hosting material that was unambiguously not relevant to our > educational mission and it needed to go. Its presence on our projects/servers > alienated people (users, potential new volunteers, educators, others) who we > need on our side. Getting rid of it was the right answer for the long-term > success of our mission which is a focus both of my responsibilities as a > Board member and my personal motivation as a volunteer. More broadly, in > allowing the clearly objectionable content on one of our projects I feel the > community (including the Board, Foundation and Commons admins) failed in our > collective role as stewards of the mission. > > - I agree with the view that the presence of hardcore pornography on Commons > represents a clear failure of our community-driven consensus process and that > we must change the way we do things. Among other drivers I see: (1) There > were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography distributors taking > advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous hosting). (2) As a > community (including the Board), we debated the issue too long and failed to > drive closure and implement. (3) There are complex issues around _some_ of > the content that is in a gray area and those complexities distracted us from > dealing with the clearer cut cases. > > - Due to the failure of the community process, something extraordinary had to > be done. A small step was our Board statement we hoped would focus attention. > A bigger step was the work by Jimmy and other individuals on Commons who took > bold and decisive action. Clearly it is messy, and there is room for > overcorrection and the removal of some materials that are indeed relevant to > our educational mission. This is inevitable but is certainly fixable. I want > to thank all those who have been working so hard on this, either the initial > clean-up or the ongoing review process. It's not easy work, but it's > critically important. > > Like a lot of things within our community, the past few days have been messy. > But I believe the outcome is headed in the right direction: get rid of the > content that is irrelevant to or hurts our mission, bring urgency to the > debate about the many challenges and gray areas, and most importantly fix the > policies/processes that have been broken. Let's get to it. Stu, I am really frustrated with your doublethink. I can say that Jan-Bart made his statement too early and thus that he didn't have all necessary information, but your statement came after a day long debate, as well as you said that you read the most of the previous discussions. What really frustrates me is the fact that some of the Board members and staff (yes Mike, you too) are continuing to treat the most of the community as idiots. Did you read what Jimmy deleted? And how did he do that? Please, read again those parts of the discussions if you missed . (Search for "jpg", "png", "svg" inside of your mailbox.) Instead of trying to find a way how to solve this situation, you are giving a surrealistic statement characteristic for bureaucrats of totalitarian regimes and falling corporations. Do you actually see that this Jimmy's action made an unprecedented revolt inside of the community? Does it matter to you? No, this is not anymore about any kind of community problem. Board was able to make changes as it made it for BLP. We are now three days out of that discussion. We are now discussing about: 1. irrational and dangerous behavior of one Board member; and 2. support of that behavior by the part of the Board and staff. At the other side, you are still free to work on some sensible proposal to the community about solving this issue. And you can start another thread with it. However, talking just about some "community's failures" and not about obvious and blatant abuse of permissions is just an example of doublethink. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
Hi, On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Stuart West wrote: > > - Due to the failure of the community process, something extraordinary had to > be done. A small step was our Board statement we hoped would focus attention. > A bigger step was the work by Jimmy and other individuals on Commons who took > bold and decisive action. Clearly it is messy Stu, thank you for sharing your thoughts in detail. There are precedents in the Wikimedia movement's history where the community process « failed » and the Board decided to take action. They did so thoughtfully, by crafting a resolution that was refined a lot (I seem to recall then-Board members who spent a lot of volunteer time wording it carefully). The Board gave the community appropriate time to implement the policy, and a deadline. The topic of this policy was not very different from the topic we are discussing now, since it was about Free and Non-free content: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy From what I can see, this process, based on mutual respect and « guidance » of the community, was highly successful: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content And I would even say it is a model of collaboration between the Board and local communities. If I understand correctly, the reason why this approach was not followed this time is because there was apparently a feeling of urgency. I am not privy to the discussions between Jimmy and Fox News, but I understand Fox's story is the source of Jimmy's « bold and decisive action », as you put it. It is not unprecedented for the Board to « guide » the community that fails to address an issue (and we have processes for that that have proved successful). However, I believe it is quite unprecedented for a Board member to exercise editorial control under the pressure of another organization (however « fair and balanced » it might be). -- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Stuart West wrote:
> ...snip...
> - We were hosting material that was unambiguously not
> relevant to our educational mission and it needed to go. Its presence on
> our projects/servers alienated people (users, potential new volunteers,
> educators, others) who we need on our side. Getting rid of it was the
> right answer for the long-term success of our mission which is a focus
> both of my responsibilities as a Board member and my personal motivation
> as a volunteer. More broadly, in allowing the clearly objectionable
> content on one of our projects I feel the community (including the
> Board, Foundation and Commons admins) failed in our collective role as
> stewards of the mission.
How was content that is historically art (and as far as i know, actually
displayed in some museums) not educational, How about the images that
were actually used in articles on projects, how is that not inherently
educational?
> - I agree with the view that the presence of hardcore pornography on
> Commons represents a clear failure of our community-driven consensus
> process and that we must change the way we do things. Among other
> drivers I see: (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore
> pornography distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get
> free anonymous hosting). (2) As a community (including the Board), we
> debated the issue too long and failed to drive closure and implement.
> (3) There are complex issues around _some_ of the content that is in a
> gray area and those complexities distracted us from dealing with the
> clearer cut cases.
They did have policies, Just because people don't agree doesn't mean
they should go on a deleting rampage deleting anything that they don't
like then wheel warring with people that are active on the project
compared to someone that to my understanding has never taken interest in
the project on a community level and had less than 30 edits before
change which tends to suggest they hasn't really had time to absorb
local policy. Some of their policies included but not limited to
Deleting unusable content, Redirecting/Suggesting people to use other
sites to submit their content, Getting people to submit content into
OTRS for verification. Oh heaven forbid people have to do work and check
on gray area situations..
> - Due to the failure of the community process, something extraordinary
> had to be done. A small step was our Board statement we hoped would
> focus attention. A bigger step was the work by Jimmy and other
> individuals on Commons who took bold and decisive action. Clearly it is
> messy, and there is room for overcorrection and the removal of some
> materials that are indeed relevant to our educational mission. This is
> inevitable but is certainly fixable. I want to thank all those who have
> been working so hard on this, either the initial clean-up or the ongoing
> review process. It's not easy work, but it's critically important.
Failure of community process? There were more than ready to discuss the
issues, They had had policies for years which foundation staff have been
involved in, Then a board member goes on a mass rampage deleting
anything they don't think abides by his view, wheel warring with
members, refusing to listen till after the matter is "dealt with" then
they publicly stating on the mailing list that it was for "Good PR" all
whilst another board member has stated the matter is still being
discussed ("Oh hai thar! I'm a cop and arresting you on something that
hasn't been made a law yet...". much?!) with the other members.
> ...snip...
> -stu
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
Stu, Thank you for telling us your views. You have admitted that the way this was dealt with was "messy". That such an approach would be messy should have been obvious to everyone involved, so do you think it would have been better to take a less messy approach? Perhaps the Board could have issued a statement saying that the current situation was unacceptable, explaining why, and that they would have to intervene to fix it if the community didn't sort it out by a certain deadline. Unfortunately, this looks to me like the board couldn't really agree on what to do so made a vague enough statement that those board members that didn't feel it was right to go in a delete everything wouldn't oppose it but that Jimmy could claim supported his view and legitimised him doing whatever the hell he pleased. The board needs to be stronger - when Jimmy does things like this it reflects badly on all of you, so you need to keep him under control. If you can't agree on what to do, you need to either defer to the community or come up with a genuine compromise rather than political manoeuvring to avoid being responsible for what happens. Also, it would help us choose board members if you were more public about your disagreements. You don't have to all present a united front behind Jimmy. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote: > (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography > distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous > hosting). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated the issue too > long and failed to drive closure and implement. (3) There are complex issues > around _some_ of the content that is in a gray area and those complexities > distracted us from dealing with the clearer cut cases. In order to help us understand better the situation, can you refer concrete examples of 1 and a link to the discussion mentioned in 2? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL5fvwAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LJ5IIANamqcGptj9/BxDl5DQvniDA uW4K40yLUpwWtV+sdiBDGNAfzfsIUROMvUG3nEDDaacx5EGAUl1BNBo/1g0zqGgv IP0NhTtEP6OrV1gDXGtWXxHZi6WNOZ4GQq2qnHYg3M1t9deLSo3wXkM6DK6G+T6A opu85TE3xD8Vu1cka/6DklCWMsKtWWfBNteAXp/ZwUfZfRdvKiDFN8tzXaiNSXcA XqT2JmuLuzPijADxXeSV4kfk1ugzMjra10v9X9BdqZWVp2abRQSepz/ZZKkA3gnY tT3BhfNXOvkRzgSZyreWBUsTpRn6MHm6EmJJaYLECXxn5v+eJlvSxTx7/aX3FuI= =Jap3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
A few of you have asked for more perspectives from Board members on the goings-on at Commons. I'm happy to share some of my personal views on the events of the past few days. First off, let me thank everyone who has participated in the debate. I've kept up with many of the email threads, talk pages, village pumps, and some IRC. I really appreciate the passion and energy, especially when constructive. I've been around the projects for about five years, and on the Board for over two years, and this is one of the hardest and most substantive issues we've attacked. In my view, it is also one of the most important. Here are some of my personal thoughts on the issue: - We were hosting material that was unambiguously not relevant to our educational mission and it needed to go. Its presence on our projects/servers alienated people (users, potential new volunteers, educators, others) who we need on our side. Getting rid of it was the right answer for the long-term success of our mission which is a focus both of my responsibilities as a Board member and my personal motivation as a volunteer. More broadly, in allowing the clearly objectionable content on one of our projects I feel the community (including the Board, Foundation and Commons admins) failed in our collective role as stewards of the mission. - I agree with the view that the presence of hardcore pornography on Commons represents a clear failure of our community-driven consensus process and that we must change the way we do things. Among other drivers I see: (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous hosting). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated the issue too long and failed to drive closure and implement. (3) There are complex issues around _some_ of the content that is in a gray area and those complexities distracted us from dealing with the clearer cut cases. - Due to the failure of the community process, something extraordinary had to be done. A small step was our Board statement we hoped would focus attention. A bigger step was the work by Jimmy and other individuals on Commons who took bold and decisive action. Clearly it is messy, and there is room for overcorrection and the removal of some materials that are indeed relevant to our educational mission. This is inevitable but is certainly fixable. I want to thank all those who have been working so hard on this, either the initial clean-up or the ongoing review process. It's not easy work, but it's critically important. Like a lot of things within our community, the past few days have been messy. But I believe the outcome is headed in the right direction: get rid of the content that is irrelevant to or hurts our mission, bring urgency to the debate about the many challenges and gray areas, and most importantly fix the policies/processes that have been broken. Let's get to it. -stu = Stu West Member, Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
