IRC office hours/Office hours 2010-10-27

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

23:02 -!- sgardner [~sgardner@wikimedia/Sue-Gardner] has joined #wikimedia-office
23:02 < Risker> do we have any particular topic tonight?
23:02 < cimon> privatemusings: not at all, very logical, if only I remembered the specific rationale
23:03 <@StevenW> Nope
23:03 <@StevenW> We thought we might talk about Halloween
23:03 * StevenW is kidding
23:03 < privatemusings> I'd like to follow up my email to foundation-l and Sue quickly, if I may? :-)
23:03 < Abbasjnr> This is why I edit Wikipedia: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/26/kenya-plane-homemade - Please have a look at it
23:03 < jsalsman> WP:NOTHOWTO
23:03 -!- mode/#wikimedia-office [+v sgardner] by ChanServ
23:03 < Dragonfly6-7> hi, Sue
23:04 < privatemusings> otoh it's a kinda heavy suject, so could wait... and hello Sue too :-)
23:04 < cimon> privatemusings: ah, it was two strokes for every hour, plus one stroke well separated, at the precise second.
23:04 < cimon> ... at noon only
23:05 < Dragonfly6-7> cimon - sounds vaguely pornographic
23:05 < privatemusings> (I was asking about whether the foundation is considering, or has in place, systems to deal with potentailly illegal media uploaded to WMF projects - illegal porn really......)
23:05 < cimon> Idea is you set your own timepieces at noon.
23:06 <+sgardner> Hello!
23:06 < Abbasjnr> hi
23:06 < jsalsman> in the Foundation's jursdiction, it usually takes a long time to determine whether still images are illegal
23:06 < cimon> and you you can optionally do clock strokes half hourly
23:06 <+sgardner> Hiya Abbas, everyone :-)
23:06 <+sgardner> What are we talking about: clock strokes?
23:06 * jsalsman waves hi
23:06 <+sgardner> jsalsman, hello :-)
23:06 < privatemusings> my clock just rung 10, and cimon thought it meant it was 5 am, but it's not....
23:06 <+sgardner> Ah.
23:06 < jsalsman> we were trying to help you with the controversial content details
23:06 < Risker> hi Sue
23:07 <+sgardner> Hi Risker, how are you?
23:07 < Abbasjnr> I preferred it when Office Hours were at 1900hrs UTC...
23:07 <+sgardner> They move around, I think, don't they?
23:07 < jowen> Yes they do
23:07 <+sgardner> I think we try for two standard timezones, to maximize who can come..
23:07 < jsalsman> they should to be fair to all time zone
23:07 < jsalsman> s
23:07 <+sgardner> Being fair to all time zones is hard.
23:07 -!- Jamesofur [~jamesur@wikimedia/Jamesofur] has quit [Quit: moving spots]
23:07 < Abbasjnr> Ohk
23:07 < Risker> sgardner, I'd be better if arbcom hadn't just been asked to make another BLP ruling....
23:08 < Dragonfly6-7> sgardner - let's go shopping.
23:08 < jowen> we try to do two a month one in the morning PT and one in the late afternoon to be fair to a few different time zones
23:08 < Abbasjnr> Fair enough
23:08 <+sgardner> I laughed the other day when John Vanderberg was upset because something was at 4AM for him. I don't mean to be insensitive at all, but I also thought: If you like in Australia, surely you get used to that :-)
23:08 < privatemusings> heh... it's a good time for Oz now :-)
23:08 <+sgardner> What's the BLP ruling, Risker?
23:08 < privatemusings> and no - you never get used to it!
23:08 < GerardM-> not so much in the Netherlands
23:09 < jsalsman> The one IT guy I know in Afghanistan, I've only talked to at 4am for him, but we covered reading tutors and sex ed for girls
23:09 -!- RoanKattouw [~chatzilla@mediawiki/Catrope] has quit [Quit: zzzzzzzzzzz]
23:09 < jowen> Does anyone know any Wikipedians in Dubai
23:10 < Risker> sgardner, whether or not to mass delete the old unreferenced BLPs....ones created since April have a special method for deletion if not referenced in sufficient time, but these are the 20,000 left from before that time
23:10 <@StevenW> We're trying to think of questions to ask you all. Since today's office hours is a little quiet. :)
23:10 < jowen> Sue is traveling to Dubai in early December and I want to create a meet up
23:10 < privatemusings> which way are you leaning, Risker?
23:10 -!- jayvdb [81b44d1f@wikimedia/Jayvdb] has joined #wikimedia-office
23:10 < privatemusings> (surely 'yes delete them' is the sensible course?)
23:10 < GerardM-> There are Indian wikipedians in Dubai
23:10 < Risker> I'm leaning toward eating my dinner before I read the page, privatemusings :)
23:11 -!- BirgitteSB [~chatzilla@wikisource/BirgitteSB] has joined #wikimedia-office
23:11 < geniice> Anyway since it seems unlikely that the foundation is going to get involved perhaps we should move away from the BLP issue
23:11 < Abbasjnr> QUESTION: How are Advisory Board Members selected?
23:11 < jowen> GerardM that is great, do you know any of their users names so I can invite them?
23:11 < Theo10011_> yes there are gerardM
23:11 < jsalsman> Dubai? Will you get to see Joi in Dubai, Sue?
23:11 < GerardM-> <grin> I would announce it on the India mailing list
23:11 <+sgardner> The BLP issue is really interesting though: are we typically deleting unreferenced ones after a specified period?
23:11 <+sgardner> I think Joi is in Mumbai when I'm in Dubai. He's speaking at Ink.
23:11 < jayvdb> sgardner: I was used to working on CA, USA tz, but I am getting old and creaky
23:12 < Abbasjnr> Joi of CC?
23:12 < jsalsman> hm. unreferenced BLPs do get deleted pretty easily
23:12 < jsalsman> yes, Abbasjnr
23:12 <+sgardner> Hey can I ask a question about BLPs?
23:12 < Dragonfly6-7> you can ask
23:12 < Risker> of course
23:12 < jsalsman> you can ask all the questions you have!
23:12 < geniice> sgardner you risk getting answers
23:12 < GerardM-> Sue I blogged about using Commons as a stock illustration resource.. I think that this will enhance its content
23:12 < GerardM-> it will also show what we are missing
23:13 < GerardM-> any ideas ?
23:13 < privatemusings> I reckon we should hear Sue's question :-)
23:13 <+sgardner> I know that it has always been frowned upon for people to edit their own articles. For all the obvious reasons. And I know that some people edited facts about themselves anyway, and sometimes it was considered okay, as long as they were honest about it and seemed not to be being promotional.
23:13 <+sgardner> Is that basically true?
23:13 <+sgardner> And: is it also true that 'editing your own article' has become somewhat less frowned-upon, over time?
23:14 < jsalsman> most of the stock photos I am familiar with are the ones which were used in place of photos which were not supposed to be stock. There is no way to anticipate those as far as I can tell, GerardM-
23:14 < privatemusings> there isn't really a consistent approach, in my view
23:14 < geniice> sgardner depends on the user. Basicaly the rule is don't get caught by anyone who cares
23:14 < cimon> sgardner: hehe, Mike Godwin got into trouble on that front...
23:14 <+sgardner> I ask because I know a guy who wants to edit his, and he is trying to figure out if it's even remotely okay, and how to do it responsibly.
23:14 < Theo10011_> I think its a grey area
23:14 < Risker> I think that the practice has always been inconsistent, sgardner, but that it is more frowned-upon now than it was in the past
23:14 <+sgardner> cimon: yeah, it was Mike I was thinking about, LOL.
23:14 <@StevenW> I'd generally concur with Risker
23:14 < Dragonfly6-7> sgardner - it depends on how you mean 'editing your own article"
23:14 <+sgardner> (Not Mike wanting to edit his today, but that he had in the past.)
23:14 < geniice> GerardM wont work. Getty have a cubic parsec of FUD to throw at anyone trying that
23:14 <+sgardner> So let me lay it out for you, and you can help me :-)
23:15 <+sgardner> Craig Newmark --who's on our Advisory Board, and who is a good guy-- wants to edit his own article.
23:15 < Dragonfly6-7> for instance, GL (a comics artist) edited his article this week: he fixed the list of comics he wrote, fixed his date of birth, and removed a photo of himself
23:15 <+sgardner> He wants to add information, not remove anything.
23:15 < Dragonfly6-7> the first two are fine, the third is... hm.
23:15 <+sgardner> Is that okay? / how would that be okay?
23:15 -!- SethFinkelstein [~sethf@SCRUBBING-BUBBLES.MIT.EDU] has joined #wikimedia-office
23:15 < Dragonfly6-7> sgardner - it should be okay as long as it's still neutral.
23:15 < cimon> sgardner: as somebody who was there, I can testify that he did in fact retcon his own actions...
23:15 < Dragonfly6-7> If it looks like he's trying to do a puff piece....
23:16 < jsalsman> people have been able to have quite a bit of control over their personal articles, but only if they go through WP:OFFICE channels as opposed to editing directly
23:16 < privatemusings> I think folk here should be wary of feeling they represent editors in general though, no?
23:16 < privatemusings> I mean, it really depends on which folk are around the article at the time, no?
23:16 < jayvdb> sgardner: the best approach is for him to make suggestions either a) on OTRS, or b) on the talk page
23:16 < Dragonfly6-7> hey, SethFinkelstein
23:16 < SethFinkelstein> Unlurked! :-)
23:16 < cimon> Dragonfly6-7: in Mikes case, puff piece isn't quite correct, as his version made him seem like a pretentious prat.
23:17 <+sgardner> privatemusings: for sure. And Craig knows that no-one can give him a 100% definitive answer: these things are being continually negotiated, to a certain extent.
23:17 < geniice> sgardner he would have to resign from the Advisory Board before even thinking about it
23:17 <+sgardner> But it'd help me to know what people think. I did not know it was getting _more_ frowned upon; I had thought I'd been hearing the oppostite.
23:17 < privatemusings> I think he should make the edits be believes are correct, and be prepared to talk about them
23:17 < jsalsman> the talk page would be a lot better than OTRS for Craig. Tell him to put his article and its talk page's Atom or RSS links into one of his Google Reader folders
23:17 <+sgardner> So that is helpful for Craig.
23:17 < privatemusings> and also be prepared for unreasonable people to hurl abuse for 'CoI' etc. ;-)
23:17 < Dragonfly6-7> He can *correct* his article if someone else has already created it. But he cannot whitewash it.
23:17 < Theo10011_> well anyone of us here can edit it, if Craig leaves a note on the talk page
23:17 < cimon> ...and I can say this, as we are good ol' veterans together, from the heyday of USENET.
23:18 < Theo10011_> shouldn't be a conflict of interest
23:18 -!- exe- [~d@bbservice137.mmpnet214.tnp.pl] has joined #wikimedia-office
23:18 < Dragonfly6-7> For instance, if he wants to hide the mention of his trial for crimes against humanity
23:18 <+sgardner> hey hey!
23:18 < jsalsman> privatemusings: that would only happen if he tried to edit the article directly, and it might not even be a problem for him
23:18 < Theo10011_> but we do require a reliable 3rd party source :)
23:18 < Dragonfly6-7> (hypothetically; I know he was never convicted)
23:18 <+sgardner> Hello Theo :-)
23:18 <+sgardner> Hypothetically indeed, LOL.
23:18 < Theo10011_> Hi sue
23:18 < privatemusings> bottom line though is that we can't really offer any general advice to anyone, because wiki is far too fluid a mediium
23:18 <+sgardner> I think what he wants to do is add a bunch of information about his involvement with eg The Sunlight Foundation.
23:19 < Dragonfly6-7> oh, and the other problem would be if he tried to conceal his identity
23:19 <+sgardner> Dragonfly: yeah, he knows that :-)
23:19 < Dragonfly6-7> if you want to edit the Wikipedia article about yourself, first rule: BE HONEST ABOUT WHO YOU ARE.
23:19 < privatemusings> actually that's an extant ethical question, no?
23:19 < jayvdb> has the office hours started ?
23:19 < jsalsman> sgardner: well ask him to blog with the title "I wish someone would add this to my Wikipedia article...."
23:19 < Dragonfly6-7> second rule: Does the article about you already exist? If no, DON'T BE THE ONE TO START IT.
23:20 <+sgardner> He also asked me which would be considered better/worse: to edit his own article (transparently & honestly), or to ask someone on his staff to edit his own article (again, transparently & honestly WRT who they are).
23:20 < Theo10011_> isn't that the definition of blogs
23:20 < Theo10011_> articles about people by the same people
23:20 < jsalsman> Craig can blog to Huffington Post. He should be the least of our worries. We have to help the teenagers in Afghanistan who already have three kids
23:20 <@StevenW> jayvdb: Yes.
23:20 < geniice> sgardner both would be resigning matters
23:20 <+sgardner> Resigning from what?
23:20 < geniice> sgardner the advisory board
23:21 < jsalsman> sgardner: tell him both are equally not at all evil
23:21 <+sgardner> It's tough, right.
23:21 < jsalsman> it's easy
23:21 <+sgardner> Because as we all know -- the best experts on people, are the people themselves. ie., Jimmy's birthdate. So it's tough to stand by and see the article about you is incorrect, and not see a clear path for getting it fixed.
23:21 <+sgardner> For many people, 'going on IRC' is not a clear path, as we know :-0
23:21 <+sgardner> er, :-)
23:21 < geniice> sgardner false
23:22 < Theo10011_> I agree
23:22 < Theo10011_> but I think the talk page gets overlooked on those issues
23:22 < geniice> sgardner you used to work in journalism no? how on earth can you think that?
23:22 <+sgardner> Think what?
23:22 < cimon> jsalsman: my suggestion would be not to blog, but offer some reputable news-outlet an interview on the subject...
23:22 < Theo10011_> if someone leaves a note there, its generally attended to
23:22 < geniice> sgardner " the best experts on people, are the people themselves"
23:22 * jsalsman nods
23:23 <+sgardner> Ehn.
23:23 < Theo10011_> its a fact gennice
23:23 < Theo10011_> can I tell your Favorite ice-cream flavor
23:23 < Theo10011_> even if you were famous
23:23 < jayvdb> question: are there plans to define this '100,000' community members figure that is being bandied about ?
23:23 < privatemusings> this is very silly
23:23 < Theo10011_> and I was a journalist
23:24 < privatemusings> I think that's a more useful question - how did we get 100,000 in the first place?
23:24 < geniice> Theo10011_ have you heard of say david blunkett?
23:24 < privatemusings> (as a figure?)
23:24 <@StevenW> jayvdb: Question noted.
23:24 <@StevenW> BTW
23:24 < jsalsman> if Craig or anyone like him were to make a request on his own talk page, the problem would evaporate in less than a day. If that girl from Afghanistan with the grey irises who made the cover of National Geographic tried to do the same, who would believe that it was really her?
23:24 <@StevenW> If anyone wants to make sure a question isn't forgotten, PM me with it.
23:24 < Theo10011_> no
23:24 < Theo10011_> should I have?
23:24 <+sgardner> Like for example the article about me: the people who wrote it clearly don't understand that "CBC Radio" and "CBC.CA" are a subset of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: they are not different organizations. The way the article is written (or was written at one point) seemed to misunderstand that. I hate seeing that error in the article, but there's no super-obvious way for me to get it fixed. (Or perhaps, there would not be if I di
23:24 <+sgardner> dn't understand how things work. For me, I am probably just too lazy.)
23:24 <+sgardner> (Catching up reading now.)
23:25 < geniice> Theo10011_ probably. Okey then have you heard of george galloway
23:25 < jsalsman> sgardner: why don't you post to your talk page saying "please indicate that CBC owns both Radio and .CA"
23:25 <+sgardner> Should we talk about the 100K?
23:25 <+sgardner> jsalsman: I am apparently too lazy. Oh well :-)
23:25 < jsalsman> lol
23:25 <+sgardner> yeah.
23:26 < privatemusings> it's a nice round figure - but where did it come from?
23:26 < Theo10011_> ya gennice, saw him on bill maher and some other political shows
23:26 < Dragonfly6-7> sgardner - sure there is. Edit it, use an edit summary of "CORRECTING FACTUAL ERROR - CBC.CA AND CBC RADIO ARE THE SAME ORGANIZATION"
23:26 < Dragonfly6-7> click 'save'
23:26 < Dragonfly6-7> done.
23:27 <+sgardner> Maybe I will do that :-)
23:27 -!- Jamesofur [~jamesur@wikimedia/Jamesofur] has joined #wikimedia-office
23:27 < geniice> Theo10011_ good. would you agree that he is one of the most important allies of the downtroden masses particularly in the islamic world?
23:27 <+sgardner> And I will cite you as saying it was okay :-)
23:27 * jsalsman doesn't want to forget [1] but doesn't want to waste important questions on a synchronous medium
23:27 < SethFinkelstein> Wikipedia Exec Edits own Biography!
23:27 < Theo10011_> hmm I don't know
23:27 < Theo10011_> thats POV
23:27 <+sgardner> yeah exactly, LOL. I saw what happened to Jimmy.
23:27 <+sgardner> 100K now?
23:28 < SethFinkelstein> Well, Jimmy is a different matter - very different matter
23:28 < geniice> Theo10011_ but thats how galloway would describe himself
23:28 < cimon> sgardner: the biggest problem isn't knowning the routes to get the right result, the bigger problem is how to avoid the Streisand Effect
23:28 <+sgardner> Okay, so let's talk about the 100K contributors. I'm assuming that the question is, how was the 100K figure arrived at. Yes?
23:28 < privatemusings> that's a good start :-)
23:29 < Theo10011_> he is entitled to that, whats of value are factual things like his designation and biography, maybe it could be under political stances
23:29 <+sgardner> I think somebody already answered this somewhere, or took a stab at an answer.
23:29 <+sgardner> I will do it too.
23:29 < jsalsman> my question would be, which banner made them contribute the most
23:30 -!- Abbasjnr [c4c9d9f1@gateway/web/freenode/ip.196.201.217.241] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
23:30 < privatemusings> I haven't really seen an explanation for the 100K anywhere, I don't think... so I hope it's worth reiterating......
23:30 <+sgardner> Essentially: we wanted to be able, in general, to tell people how many editors there are. So we needed to define 'what is an editor.' We didn't want to include 'anybody who has ever edited' in that figure, because of course some edits are vandalism or just playing around, and also because we didn't want to include in the number people who no longer edited.
23:30 <+sgardner> Are you still with me?
23:30 <+sgardner> So we needed to draw a fence around 'what is an editor.'
23:30 < privatemusings> yup
23:31 < jsalsman> yeah, you can set the active line at any number of edits per time period
23:31 -!- GerardM- [~chatzilla@dhcp-077-251-103-224.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
23:31 < jayvdb> privatemusings: see Andrew Gray's most recent email on foundation-l
23:31 < Dragonfly6-7> what about someone who created 200 articles but hasn't logged in since 2005 and may well be dead?
23:31 -!- Thorncrag|w [0c0f92fe@wikimedia/Thorncrag] has joined #wikimedia-office
23:31 <+sgardner> There is a figure somewhere (I don't have it at my fingertips, but it's in Erik Zachte's stats pages) that represents "Wikipedia editors who have made five or more edits in the past month." That figure is somewhere around 87K IIRC: Steven is checking.
23:32 <+sgardner> That is not the 100K number.
23:32 < cimon> "Eligible to vote in elections for the Board of Trustees?"
23:32 <+sgardner> The 100K number is the number of "Wikimedia editors who have made five or more edits in the past month."
23:32 < cimon> mainspace?
23:32 < jsalsman> main?
23:32 < cimon> as in encylcopaedia article
23:33 <+sgardner> That's where the 100K number comes from. Both numbers (active Wikipedians and active Wikimedians) are tracked on a monthly basis by Erik Zachte.
23:33 < jayvdb> sgardner: Andrew Gray and myself have both put the figure of wiki*m*edians around 85K to 90K, at most!
23:33 < Theo10011_> I think we all qualify for that
23:33 <+sgardner> The purpose of using that number at all, is simply to give people a ballpark of how many editors there are.
23:33 < privatemusings> bearing in mind active editors on multiple projects are counted multiple times, and obviously people who don't edit, aren't counted.
23:33 < jayvdb> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061506.html
23:34 <+sgardner> privatemusings: yeah, that's correct.
23:34 < jsalsman> I'm not sure main is the encyclopedia since the number of articles started leveling off. My brain tells me that main is closer to the Spanish Wiktionary's audio media than encyclopedia articles, for demographic reasons
23:34 < jayvdb> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/062027.html
23:34 <+sgardner> Why do you ask? Something about that number seems to be troubling people, and I'm not sure why.
23:35 < cimon> I think it is a mandelbrotian question.
23:35 < jsalsman> sgardner: why does who ask?
23:35 <+sgardner> You guys :-)
23:35 < cimon> How do you measure the length of the Spanish coastline.
23:35 < jayvdb> sgardner: my first primary reason is that the number should be accurate, with a known formula, and error rate explained
23:35 < privatemusings> I think it's just a suspiciously round no. perhaps - which makes folk feel it might be some sort of 'rounding up' or mild misrepresentation
23:35 <+sgardner> Ah, privatemusings, I hear you.
23:35 <+sgardner> So let me back up a little.
23:35 <@StevenW> The stats we're looking at are from stats.wikimedia.org
23:36 < jayvdb> then we can discuss and improve the algorithm
23:36 <@StevenW> The exact table that shows you Wikipedians is at http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaZZ.htm#wikipedians
23:36 < jsalsman> ok, well, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that the encyclopdia is doing spectacular. The bad news is that its admins and the non-English versions aren't yet, but "yet" means they certainly will
23:36 <+sgardner> Erik Z tracks a bunch of stuff over time. it's all published, at the URL Steven just posted. That information is 100% accurate, and I think it's pretty well footnoted to explain what it is you're looking at.
23:36 < jsalsman> the question becomes, how fast do you want to let them improve, Sue? You control that with some odd levers
23:37 < jsalsman> for example, you can decide whether audio upload stays difficult or becomes commonplace
23:37 < jsalsman> as far as I know there is no reason to allow it to stay difficult
23:37 < cimon> Finnish participation graph looks like an alligator.
23:37 -!- Jamesofur [~jamesur@wikimedia/Jamesofur] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
23:38 < jayvdb> StevenW: do you accept that two people have said the total across all projects is more likely 90,000 or less
23:38 < cimon> rose up to a ridge, leveled out, and rose again much less steeply, and has been trailing off again.
23:38 < jsalsman> a/k/a Gosper sigmoid curve
23:38 < jayvdb> *total contributors with >=5 edits
23:38 < Ziko> i wouldn't say that erik zachtes information is 100% accurate; usually due to reasons he cannot influence. take those japanese vies in, i believe, the philippines' figures
23:38 < jsalsman> Gompertz* sigmoid curve, sorry
23:38 <+sgardner> Having said that, the 100K number is just a ballpark -- I use it in presentations. It does not need to be accurate at a really granular level, because we're not using it to track change-over-time. It is indeed a very round number -- because that's all a general audience wants or needs. They just want to know, 'is it 100 people, or is it a million, or what.' So I would describe it as round, but not suspicious. Does that help?
23:38 <+sgardner> In effect: two different levels of precision, for two very different uses.
23:39 < jsalsman> 100K is probably a good number to imagine for the number of active enwiki editors
23:39 < jayvdb> sgardner: rounding up by 10% worries me
23:39 <@StevenW> jayvdb: Across all projects? The stats we just showed you are just for Wikipedia.
23:39 <+sgardner> Hi Ziko! yeah, we actually saw a little broken/corrupted data in a presentation Erik Z made to the staff today. But he signposts it where it is bad. And it is normally very good :-)
23:40 < cimon> jsalsman: you must have been thinking of Conways game of life.
23:40 < jayvdb> StevenW: myself and Andrew have looked at all the tables of all the projects; see the foundation-l emails I gave above
23:40 < jsalsman> cimon: not until you just mentioned it
23:40 < Ziko> nothing against erik, we're close buddies :-)
23:40 <+sgardner> It's really nice to have Erik Z in the office :-)
23:40 <+sgardner> Tomorrow is our all-staff meeting, so everyone is here.
23:41 < Ziko> the audience loves numbers, indeed. it is a little bit like the question 'how many people live in germany who speak french' - nobody knows
23:41 < jayvdb> sgardner: I dont have any concerns about 1 very rough number being used in presentations, but this number is in an audited report
23:41 < Dragonfly6-7> I've been saying we should throttle newpage creation
23:41 < ragesoss> jayvdb: What about editors who make 5+ edits per month without accounts? Do we have any estimate for how many there might be?
23:41 -!- zakg|away is now known as zakg
23:41 < Dragonfly6-7> until we have it better under contorl
23:41 -!- Thorncrag|w [0c0f92fe@wikimedia/Thorncrag] has left #wikimedia-office []
23:41 <+sgardner> jayvdb: I would round it down if it were higher. I'm not trying to exaggerate the number. If it were 120K editors, I would still say 100K. People ask me if it's a million editors, or a few hundred, or what. I'm just wanting to give them an order-of-magnitutde precision.
23:42 < jayvdb> ragesoss: I hear they are quite numerous, which would be a good data point to note
23:42 < jsalsman> the problem with all hands is that if you yell out "who wants pepperoni pizza?!?" everyone will start yelling and clapping, even though most would select a salad if asked individually
23:42 <@StevenW> Yes, an all staff meeting is always a different dynamic than normal days in the office.
23:42 * ragesoss is a vegetarian.
23:42 <@StevenW> But that's part of the point.
23:43 < privatemusings> Can I follow up with Sue my email to her and foundaiton-l in regard to ways of handling potentially illegal content?
23:43 < privatemusings> sorry about the (rather grotty) subject change - but I wanted to raise the matter.....
23:43 < privatemusings> (I was asking about whether the foundation is considering, or has in place, systems to deal with potentailly illegal media uploaded to WMF projects - illegal porn really......)
23:44 < privatemusings> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061753.html
23:44 <+sgardner> oh jayvdb: I just saw that, sorry. I hear you, but it's also worth noting that it's an explanatory footnote to the statements, and is explicitly called out as unaudited.
23:44 <+sgardner> Sure. Go ahead, privatemusings.
23:44 < jsalsman> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content is currently under proposal, and seems okay to me
23:44 < privatemusings> detail above really :-)
23:45 < privatemusings> this is not a 'community standards' type question - more of an enquiry as to how we handle the really nasty stuff that apparently we get (2 or three times a year? ever? - depends on who you ask)
23:45 -!- Felka [4dfa0db3@gateway/web/freenode/ip.77.250.13.179] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
23:45 <@StevenW> That's a pretty weighty question privatemusings. Give Sue a second.
23:45 < privatemusings> of course :-)
23:45 < privatemusings> she can have 2 or 3 ;-)
23:45 < jayvdb> for context, I've checked and the image 'File:Closeup of female masturbation pastel.jpg' is _not_ available for admins
23:45 <+sgardner> privatemusings, honestly. I'm sure you are aware of the many systems in place. Yes?
23:46 < privatemusings> actually, the oversighters I've spoken with remain unaware of any process to follow in terms of reporting
23:46 < privatemusings> is this inaccurate?
23:46 < geniice> jayvdb did you try undeleting it?
23:46 < jsalsman> "really nasty" is relative. In a work office environment, what most people might consider mild could potentially get someone's lifetime career distroyed. Such is the nature of moral panics.
23:46 < privatemusings> (and I believe image remains available to stewards and oversighters - I confirmed this very recently)
23:47 < Dragonfly6-7> I mean, what about a picture of (for instance) horseshoe crabs mating?
23:47 < jayvdb> geniice: no, I didnt.
23:47 < geniice> jayvdb that was the problem in the past
23:47 <+sgardner> I can't speak to theoretical conversations you've had, obviously. Our systems seem to be working fine. I don't see anything to suggest that they are not.
23:47 < jayvdb> geniice: was a bug raised ?
23:47 < geniice> jayvdb admins could acess oversighted images by undeleting them
23:47 < Theo10011_> Hasn't most of this already been covered in the controversial content study
23:47 < privatemusings> well should an oversighter when removing an image as 'child porn' take any further steps?
23:48 < privatemusings> currently the material remains on WMF servers, no?
23:48 < jsalsman> privatemusings: do you have suggested improvements for http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content ?
23:48 <@StevenW> No.
23:48 < jayvdb> geniice: k; that needs to be fixed, and the oversighters need to recheck that previously oversighted images have not been undeleted.
23:48 < privatemusings> are you sure, Steven?
23:48 < geniice> QUESTION. How what percentage of the foundations current employees were only possible to recruit due to the foundation being based in san fransisco
23:48 < privatemusings> if so, by what process is it examined and removed - and how should oversighters begin that process?
23:49 < Dragonfly6-7> privatemusings - I should recommend also "clearing their cache"
23:49 < privatemusings> yeah - probably!
23:49 <+sgardner> privatemusings: I'm always curious to know what you're trying to achieve by asking these questions. Can you tell me?
23:49 <@StevenW> Good question geniice
23:49 < jsalsman> privatemusings: I think you have demonstrated the conclusions of http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2010-porn.html as well as anyone might
23:50 < privatemusings> sue - sure :-)
23:50 <+sgardner> Go ahead.
23:50 < privatemusings> in this instance, I don't know if the foundation has considered whether or not the specific image in question should be removed - I feel it should be.
23:51 < privatemusings> So what I'm trying to achieve here is finding out if WMF agree :-)
23:51 < jsalsman> it has been "deleted" but not "expunged" because the latter could be construed as destruction of evidence
23:51 <+sgardner> I'm asking more about the general issue, not this specific question. You raise these types of questions a lot, and honestly, I've never been 100% sure what your motivation is.
23:51 < Ziko> (QUESTION: I would be interested what will be done will the results of the harris report. by the way, after reading it i checked at some articles in de.wp. the article "masturbation" has even a video!)
23:51 < cimon> privatemusings: was I sensing incorrectly that you were also fishing around for a comment to the effect that WMF should alert law enforcement?
23:52 <@StevenW> Another good question Ziko. Noted.
23:52 < privatemusings> cimon - well I don't know if law enforcement should be notified or not
23:52 -!- schapman [~schapman@216.38.130.162] has quit [Quit: schapman]
23:52 < privatemusings> certainly I would expect in some cases it probably should be?
23:52 < jsalsman> law enforcement is free to contact the foundation with concerns. I doubt there is a duty to inform law enforcement of illegal porn, but there is no restriction on doing so, either
23:52 <@StevenW> Sue's going to finish privatemusings question then we can get to geniice's and Ziko's questions in order.
23:52 < SethFinkelstein> (QUESTION: Ms. Director, I was wondering if you could dispel the last clouds over the matter of the 2010 Donor Survey by Q2 Consulting. Can you commit to disclosing the amount of the contract? (obviously, you may not know the amount offhand, but can you have it released it to the public?)
23:53 < jsalsman> SethFinkelstein: "the" contract? lol
23:53 -!- Dalton [~~@warzone2100/moderator/Dalton] has left #wikimedia-office []
23:53 < SethFinkelstein> hmm?
23:53 < privatemusings> in terms of my motivation, I think WMF has a habit of being reactive rather than proactive in these areas (hopefully the study's recommendations will begin a shift in this pattern?) - I'm just keen to support good practices being in place, and some accountability to make sure.
23:54 < jayvdb> I'd also like an answer to SethFinkelstein's question, as the last office-hours did not result in many answers that contained the facts of the matter
23:54 -!- Krinkle [~Krinkle@wikipedia/Krinkle] has joined #wikimedia-office
23:55 < Risker> (QUESTION for the next slot: I assume the WMF has interim general counsel. Who would that be, and what is the access path for them?)
23:55 < jsalsman> as I said earlier, determination of whether still photos are illegal takes a very lengthy amount of time in the Foundation's jurisdiction. The reason is that such determinations can only be made by the justice system, which tends to apply standards so esoteric that they would seem alien to most people. The idea that the Foundation would, for example, be able to ascertain the age of the subject of a close-cropped uploaded p
23:55 <@StevenW> privatemusings: I think an important thing to remember when it comes to any content issue is that it's not the job of the WMF proactively police or deal with content. We leave that up to the community for many reasons, including legal ones.
23:56 -!- bawolff [~bawolff@wikinews/bawolff] has joined #wikimedia-office
23:56 <@StevenW> it's*
23:56 < Theo10011_> For the record privatemusings, I believe all of the content on Wikipedia would fall under the aegis of user-generated content, same as the content on Facebook, craigslist etc..... Legally speaking the foundation is not liable for that information
23:57 < Theo10011_> in fact it doesnt even have to comply with a Cease and Desist after google and youtube's landmark trial
23:57 <+sgardner> Okay, privatemusings. I don't actually think we're being reactive, at all.
23:57 < privatemusings> StevenW - but how can the community remove data from the servers?
23:57 < jsalsman> that is true, the Foundation is protected by the safe harbor provisions in several categories of intellectual property law
23:57 < privatemusings> I don't think they can?
23:57 <+sgardner> privatemusings, you spend a lot of time talking about these issues, and I think you're well aware of where we're at. We are not knowingly breaking any laws, and we have no reason to believe any laws are being broken. Mike Godwin has done plenty of analysis for us, and believes there's not reason to worry about that.
23:57 < privatemusings> he mentioned that he felt the DOJ would be in touch previously (were there a problem!)
23:58 <+sgardner> Having said that –as you know-- the board and I have been considering whether we should treat controversial content differently from non-controversial content. It's a very complex question: there are no simple answers. That's why the board asked me to commission the controversial content study, and that's why the board is currently working through the process for figuring out what should happen next. It's a very emotional topic for
23:58 <+sgardner> lots of people, and it's hard to engage in it without people –on all sides of the many interrelated issues-- getting upset. I think the way we're handling it is responsible and thoughtful. That's basically where we're at.
23:58 <+sgardner> What's the next question?
23:58 < privatemusings> well for the record, I wanted you to be clear that an image of a 16 year old girl masturbating remains on WMF servers accessible to stewards and oversighters on commons - I hope that image can be removed, and I hope future problematic images can be removed via a transparent and clear process which seems to me to currently be lacking....
23:58 <+sgardner> Geni?
23:58 < privatemusings> and yeah.. lets move on (thanks for your time etc.) :-)
23:58 <@StevenW> The question was:
23:59 <@StevenW> What percentage of employees were we only able to recruit because we're located in SF.
23:59 <@StevenW> ?
23:59 <@StevenW> That right geniice?
23:59 <+sgardner> Ah. Okay -- Geniice, are you still here?
23:59 < geniice> yes
23:59 <@StevenW> Great
23:59 * jsalsman would never work for an encyclopedia compilation project which would hire him
--- Day changed Thu Oct 28 2010
00:00 <+sgardner> Can I ask how come you're asking, or what's underpinning the question?
00:01 < geniice> sgardner the original rational behind the move to SF was donations and staff. The recent move back towards the small donation model largely nigates the donation argument which just leaves the staff argument
00:01 <+sgardner> Ah.
00:01 <+sgardner> Okay.
00:01 -!- Vito [~Vito@unaffiliated/vito] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
00:01 < jsalsman> more chapters
00:03 <@StevenW> Cool. Sue is answering now.
00:03 <+sgardner> I would question the premise a bit. The original intent of moving to SF was a bunch of things: 1) to be in a big city with access to big-city support services and an international airport, 2) to be in a city that was more multicultural/internationally-focused than St Petersburg, 3) access to a great pool of technical talent, and 4) donations. In no particular order.
00:04 <+sgardner> But to answer your actual question -- being in a hotbed of technology is important to us for reasons beyond the hiring of tech staff. In St Petersburg the tech staff was pretty isolated -- there were no meet-ups, lectures, likeminded organizations etc. So it
00:04 < ragesoss> I think being near like-minded organizations and partly-like-minded organizations from the movement could benefit was also part if it.
00:04 < ragesoss> *from which
00:04 <+sgardner> 's not just about recruitment; it's also about having a great environment in which tech staff can benefit from colleagues at other organizations, and so forth.
00:05 <@StevenW> EFF and Creative Commons are here also, as examples
00:05 < geniice> ragesoss err the FSF is in chicago
00:05 <+sgardner> James tells me that 11 of our tech staff were SF-based when we hired them --they came to us from companies like Amazon, Nimish came form Yahoo, Neil from Google, etc.
00:06 <+sgardner> I think the choice of SF has been validated a million times over.
00:06 < ragesoss> geniice If I recall correctly, it was a close race between SF and Chicago.
00:06 < ragesoss> I had my fingers crossed for New Haven, my self.
00:07 < ragesoss> (that was a joke, about the close race, btw)
00:07 < jsalsman> Chicago would have been a disaster unless we got the top floor of the Morton International building
00:07 <+sgardner> You know, I kind of want to say something here.
00:07 <+sgardner> I don't mind answering your questions.
00:07 <+sgardner> I feel accountable to you folks.
00:07 < jsalsman> we know
00:07 < jayvdb> Miami wasnt considered ?
00:07 < geniice> ragesoss nope Boston, London,New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC
00:08 <+sgardner> Having said that, the tone of this particular office hours is kind of irritating me.
00:08 < TheCavalry> Howso?
00:08 < jsalsman> how would you do a WMF HQ in Miami? It would require Snoop Dogg going East Coast
00:08 <+sgardner> Is this really how we want to spend our time?
00:08 < cimon> right
00:09 <+sgardner> I just think it would be great if we could talk about the work we're aiming to get done, rather than asking leading questions about why we picked the Bay Area, _three years ago_.
00:09 < Risker> I have to admit that I too am irritated at the "already asked and answered" decisions
00:09 < jayvdb> isnt WMF still a Florida non-profit ?
00:09 <+sgardner> I wasn't meaning to be critical of jsalsman's comment about Miami, LOL. sorry James.
00:09 <@StevenW> Maybe office hours would be more productive if we got a topic proposed beforehand?
00:09 < jsalsman> I'm trying to get to http://www.google.com/buzz/jsalsman/gEFZ5miSQ9k/I-write-letters-to-Congress-and-you-should-too-Its topics
00:09 <@StevenW> We got a lot accomplished in the Pending Changes offices hours, for instance.
00:10 < Risker> yes please, StevenW. If there is no topic, this is what you are going to have.
00:10 <+sgardner> Thanks Risker. It's not that I want us to all be 'nice' with each other, necessarily: I just think it makes sense for us to talk about important stuff.
00:10 < bawolff> sgardner: So how far along are we in seizing control of the world ?
00:10 <@StevenW> LOL
00:10 < Risker> I'd much rather have heard about the all staff meeting tomorrow, or changes in personnel
00:10 < Theo10011_> half way there....
00:11 <+sgardner> Okay. LOL, bawolff.
00:11 <+sgardner> We're actually running out of time now, but I do want to answer any outstanding questions.
00:11 < geniice> sgardner QUESTION okey then what do you think is important stuff.
00:11 <+sgardner> What've we got?
00:11 <+sgardner> And let's also think of some topics for next time :-)
00:12 < Risker> I asked about interim general counsel, who is it, what's the contact path...
00:12 < geniice> not BLP
00:12 < jsalsman> all my questions are mediocre as far as I know. I won't know which ones are outstanding until the banner donation statistics come back
00:12 < thedj> counsel email is a kind of good point i guess.
00:13 <@StevenW> FYI: whoever is manning it, legal at wikimedia.org is still the number one venue for really pressing legal queries for the projects
00:13 < jsalsman> Godwin's talk page, thedj
00:13 <+sgardner> geniice, I don't think it makes sense to second-guess old decisions too much, and I don't think 'gotcha' or leading-type questions are very productive. (Again, I don't mind answering tough questions, and I don't mind being accountable for my decisions. But sometimes I think people are poking around looking for problems where they don't exist. some of that is fine, but it shouldn't be everything that we do together.)
00:13 <@StevenW> Not so much jsalsman :)
00:13 < thedj> StevenW: there, that's the proper answer :D
00:13 < Theo10011_> theres an awful lot of nitpicking it seems
00:14 < SethFinkelstein> Ms. Gardner, excuse me - given the amount of attack and bona-fide libel I've endured from WIKIMEDIA PEOPLE - including several attempts to intimidate me or retaliate over critical coverage - I have ZERO sympathy for your feelings of being irritated over these sorts of questions :-(
00:14 < thedj> you were not asked for sympathy. it was an observation.
00:15 < thedj> :D
00:15 <+sgardner> So: good & useful topics, I would say: kicking around notions for the mediawiki roadmap; talking about how social networking functionality can / cannot be useful for our projects; WYSWIG, stuff related to support of a healthy community, kicking around what we learning from all the various outreach initiatives. Those are just a few notions off the top of my head: you probably all have more.
00:15 < geniice> sgardner the location of the foundation is an ongoing current expense. While of course the recent lease extension has rendered the issue moot in the medium term it is something that needs to be kept under long term review. If the initial justifications change then it's probbaly worth letting people know
00:15 < jsalsman> Seth, did someone threaten to kill you? I know that happens to admins and I am trying to prevent it happening to anyone
00:15 < jayvdb> is Wikisource a good topic for office hours ? ;-)
00:16 < SethFinkelstein> jsalsman - I don't want to hijack. Send me email if you care.
00:16 <+sgardner> Let me go back to the GC question.
00:16 < jsalsman> I do care but, you know, I would hope you would explain what happened to you so we can all fix it in the best way possible
00:17 < SethFinkelstein> This isn't the place for it. Again, no hijack.
00:17 <+sgardner> We have an interim GC lined up: a lawyer with Squires Sanders in DC. We also have a newly-minted lawyer who's worked with us in the past, who will be in the office supporting the more senior lawyer from Squires. They've both worked extensively with Mike, and he feels they'll be a good interim solution for us while we find a new GC.
00:17 < bawolff> when you say WYSIWYG are you refering to the sentence level editing stuff, WYSIWYG in general, some other WYSIWYG project I havn't heard about, or were you just useing it as an example?
00:18 < jowen> Just as we are starting to wrap up, the next office hours for Sue is November 10 at 10:00 PT. This will be Sue's last office hours before January 2011.
00:18 <+sgardner> If anyone (editors, chapters people, etc.) have legal questions or problems, Steven's correct -- legal at wikimedia.org is where to send them.
00:18 <@StevenW> bawolff yes that was just an example
00:18 < jsalsman> can you imagine what it must be like to work at a lawyer mint?
00:18 < BirgitteSB> If WMF thinks it is a good idea to commit reasources to the global South were the wikis are not taking off as naturally as they have in Western cultures because they *need* the boost there. Why doesn't the same underlying think translate into commiting reasources to sister projects?
00:19 <@StevenW> I think I'm going to put up a section on Meta to solicit topics for office hours in the future.
00:19 <+sgardner> Birgitte! hello!
00:19 < BirgitteSB> Hi :)
00:19 < thedj> oh and the mobile market is another good topic for another time
00:21 <@StevenW> Indeed thedj.
00:21 <+sgardner> Birgitte, that might deserve a fuller conversation, maybe at the next office hours. But let me say this for now: the focus on the Global South is geographical not project-based. Essentially the premise is that people in poorer parts of the world have greater barriers (to reading & participation) than people in richer countries. There are lots of other issues, but that's the gist. So our Global South strategy is really about mitigating
00:21 <+sgardner> some of those disadvantages. It's not project-based.
00:21 <+sgardner> (In other words, Wikinews doesn't have inherent/systemic disadvantages relative to Wiktionary.)
00:22 < jsalsman> Sue, do you think you and Phoebe should visit the Arizona Center for Nonviolent Communication during the lame duck session?
00:22 < BirgitteSB> I didn't think it was project based BTW
00:22 <@StevenW> Let's do a quick round where people throw out possible topics for future office hours, just so you all don't have go on Meta and there were lots of good ones.
00:23 < jayvdb> sgardner: would you commit to every project being given equal, or proportional space in your Global South strategy?
00:23 <+sgardner> jsalsman, what a great idea! I think Phoebe and I should have a TV show: In Search of Consensus Decisionmaking, or something.
00:23 * jsalsman repeats topics from http://www.google.com/buzz/jsalsman/gEFZ5miSQ9k/I-write-letters-to-Congress-and-you-should-too-Its
00:23 < ragesoss> hahaha
00:23 < jsalsman> yeah
00:23 <@StevenW> If you put ideas into the channel I'll make sure they get listed on the wiki.
00:23 <@StevenW> And of course they'll be in the log.
00:24 * StevenW pokes people who had good ideas. Like Ziko, thedj, Risker.
00:24 <@StevenW> geniice too
00:25 < BirgitteSB> But the response about sister project focus were along the line of WMF needing to put reasources in Wikipedia were the return is known to be good
00:25 < jayvdb> it is my concern that all sister projects have a systemic disadvantage as opposed to Wikipedia+Commons
00:25 < Dragonfly6-7> SethFinkelstein, I respect you and I respect your accomplishments.
00:25 <+sgardner> I don't think it's even an issue, jayvdb. We'll be aiming for general awareness, recruitment, etc. We won't aim to control what people do once they arrive at the projects.
00:25 < BirgitteSB> And that thinking would preclude the global south
00:25 < Risker> well, I agree that we need to talk more about sister projects
00:25 <@StevenW> Sister projects. Noted.
00:25 < BirgitteSB> I just don't understand the disconnect between these areas
00:26 <+sgardner> jayvdb: it's worth a longer conversation. I know people have really strong feelings about the importance of the sister projects. I think that's good: it would be worse if people did not care.
00:26 < Ziko> i would like to know what will be the consequences of the harris report
00:26 < Risker> I think we also need to talk about problems with Asian language projects and their excessive dependence on "fair use"...
00:26 -!- Mikemoral [~Mikemoral@wikimedia/mikemoral] has quit []
00:26 < Risker> although it would be very helpful to have some people who actually edit those projects
00:26 < jayvdb> sgardner: ok. hopefully that conversation can happen when I am not asleep
00:26 <+sgardner> mm, Ziko. Sorry, I forgot about your question. I'll answer it, then we'll wrap up :-)
00:26 < BirgitteSB> Low-risk vs. Most needed
00:26 < geniice> Risker switch off local uploads
00:26 <+sgardner> What do you know of where we're at now? Or should I just recap post board meeting?
00:26 < ragesoss> One thing that might be worth talking about next time is the balance between different resource priorities in terms of where the bottlenecks are in accomplishing the mission. Erik Moeller gave a really provocative talk about that in the office today. Basing priorities on real data about what is holding us back is something we're just starting to be able to do.
00:27 < Risker> geniice, I am not just talking about images, and I'm trying to be polite here, because my Hindi is somewhat lacking
00:27 < jayvdb> ragesoss: real data, like say '100,000' people? ;-)
00:27 < ragesoss> :)
00:27 < SethFinkelstein> Repost - (QUESTION Ms. Director, I was wondering if you could dispel the last clouds over the matter of the 2010 Donor Survey by Q2 Consulting. Can you commit to disclosing the amount of the contract? (obviously, you may not know the amount offhand, but can you have it released to the public?))
00:28 <+sgardner> Ziko, hang on a second. I sent a note to the staff updating them on the board meeting. Let me fetch it, and I will just paste it in here.
00:28 < thedj> StevenW: mobile
00:28 < geniice> Risker yes trying to deal with copyright complaints about the Hindi is problematical
00:28 < ragesoss> real data like, how many people get turned off by the lack of WYSIWYG vs. the having a negative first social experience on Wikipedia.
00:28 <@StevenW> thanks thedj
00:29 < jowen> So again if anyone knows some Dubai Wikimedians can you send me their user names at jowen at wikimedia.org
00:29 < Theo10011_> Risker I can talk about the Hindi Wiki if you want afterwards
00:29 < jayvdb> I'd like to see that real data
00:29 < cimon> StevenW: I would suggest a topic of how does the whole ball of wax do it's will formation. That is - forgetting the centipedes legs, how does it decide where to go?
00:30 < Risker> Theo10011, I think it would be good to have it as an office hours, so that other members of the project could also join in
00:30 -!- dgultekin [~dgultekin@216.38.130.166] has quit [Quit: dgultekin]
00:30 < ragesoss> jayvdb: Erik suggested that maybe all the tech improvements in the world wouldn't do much if all the bottlenecks are in the social processes. That's something we're only starting to find ways to research.
00:30 <+sgardner> Ziko: here's what I sent to the staff.
00:30 <+sgardner> As you probably remember I was asked by the board last May to commission a study about how the Wikimedia projects handle controversial content. For this agenda item, we were joined by Robert Harris and Dory Carr-Harris, the consultants who have been working with us on this project (and who have spoken with a number of you as they carried out their work, including Philippe, Steven, Danese, Cyn, Ryan Kaldari, Neil, and others). This wa
00:30 <+sgardner> s a big agenda item: three hours. Robert and Dory presented their observations and recommendations, which you can read here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content.
00:30 < ragesoss> jayvdb: I don't think we have data that can answer those questions yet, unfortunately.
00:30 < ragesoss> we're half an hour over, by the way...
00:30 < jsalsman> thank you. Sue. Please make sure all your banner ideas get tested. The esoterica I added is important too, I promise
00:30 < Ziko> thanks
00:30 <+sgardner> Upshot: they are recommending that no changes be made to the way in which text-based controversial material is handled in the Wikimedia projects. They made a number of recommendations for action that falls within the bailiwick of the Wikimedia community: recommending that Wikimedia consider development of a Wikijunior project and that Commons admins consider how to tighten up some policies and their application, including elevating the
00:30 <+sgardner> 'principle of least surprise' to the level of official policy. And, they recommend that the Wikimedia Foundation develop a 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.
00:31 <+sgardner> In general, the Board welcomed many of these recommendations, and thanked Robert and Dory for their approach to the work. There was LOTS of discussion, all of it remarkably civil and
00:31 <+sgardner> open-minded :-) To move the work forward, the Board appointed a working group led by JB (as group chair), Phoebe and Kat, to work with Robert and Dory to figure out next steps, which will include communications with the Wikimedia community as well as specific discussions with the Commons community. JB agreed to make an initial report to the Board by November 6.
00:31 < geniice> we've got a Wikijunior project
00:31 <+sgardner> That's it.
00:31 < geniice> dates back to what 05?
00:31 < jsalsman> heh if principle of least suprise was adopted, would that mean Cold fusion would have to report on x-ray production?
00:31 <@StevenW> Isn't that sort of defunct or inactive?
00:31 < jayvdb> sgardner: I like the idea of allowing users to not see media they dont want to see
00:31 < geniice> StevenW I'm pretty sure it's dead yes
00:32 <+sgardner> You're talking about Wikijunior, right?
00:32 < geniice> yes
00:32 * jsalsman wants to see media he doesn't want to see
00:32 -!- Vito [~Vito@host128-12-static.29-79-b.business.telecomitalia.it] has joined #wikimedia-office
00:32 -!- Vito [~Vito@host128-12-static.29-79-b.business.telecomitalia.it] has quit [Changing host]
00:32 -!- Vito [~Vito@unaffiliated/vito] has joined #wikimedia-office
00:32 < jayvdb> I would like to have a round table about that in Australia
00:32 <+sgardner> Yeah: what Robert was imagining was a version of Wikipedia that is explicitly designed to be "safe" for children.
00:32 < Ziko> afaik, wikijunior is a wikiproject inside wikibooks
00:32 < geniice> jsalsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_isopod
00:32 <+sgardner> More like SOS Schools than the earlier Wikijunior.
00:33 < jsalsman> safe.... I have spent a lot of time wondering why safe is so much more, um, exciting
00:33 < thedj> a "kids" wikipedia requiers a lot of partnerships
00:33 <+sgardner> (Basically -- you can ignore the label Wikijunior.)
00:33 < geniice> sgardner how long to I have to present a solution to the "nd, they recommend that the Wikimedia Foundation develop a 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." thing
00:33 < geniice> basicaly when do you want a working demo by?
00:33 < Dragonfly6-7> You have fifteen minutes.
00:33 < geniice> I could do that
00:33 < jayvdb> ;-)
00:34 < geniice> but it would be a very limited demo
00:34 < privatemusings> Nov 6 is mentioned as a date above....
00:34 < cimon> jsalsman: I have seen lots of material I wouldn't have wanted to see, but was glad that I did.
00:34 <+sgardner> yes, November 6.
00:34 < geniice> but I can't really put anything together before the weekend
00:34 < privatemusings> probably a good idea to set it up, and flick JB an email?
00:34 <+sgardner> LOL
00:34 <+sgardner> Ziko, does that answer it, or did you have any follow-up?
00:35 < Ziko> sgardner, i will see what will be reported by that commission, thanks
00:35 < jsalsman> Wait, Sue, one more thing!
00:35 < Dragonfly6-7> this is the perfect time for you to propose marriage, jsalsman
00:35 < jsalsman> I know this is dorky
00:35 <+sgardner> Sure :-)
00:36 < jsalsman> but.... there's an official project to colonize other planets http://www.kurzweilai.net/nasa-ames-worden-reveals-darpa-funded-hundred-year-starship-program
00:36 -!- brion [~brion@wikipedia/Brion-VIBBER] has quit [Quit: brion]
00:36 <+sgardner> Dorky is fine :-)
00:36 <+sgardner> Ziko, feel free to write Robert directly if you want, also. He'd be happy to talk with you :-)
00:36 < jsalsman> will you please arrange to have your descendents cyropreserved for colonization missions?
00:37 < ragesoss> this is getting silly.
00:37 <@StevenW> I think that would be a misuse of donor funds
00:37 < privatemusings> getting? ;-)
00:37 <+sgardner> LOL Steven!
00:37 <+sgardner> very funny
00:37 -!- Ziko [53bdea03@gateway/web/freenode/ip.83.189.234.3] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
00:37 < ragesoss> good point, pm
00:37 <+sgardner> Look, Ziko is leaving us.
00:37 * thedj huggles sgardner pours her more coffee and hands her a stroopwafel. Thx for being here again.
00:37 < jsalsman> well think about it please
00:37 <+sgardner> We need to go too :-)
00:37 * jsalsman hugs everyone as is the custom
00:37 <@StevenW> mmm. stroopwafels.
00:37 <+sgardner> Thanks thedj. I hug you all :-)
00:38 <@StevenW> Thanks for throwing out ideas for new office hours topics everyone.
00:38 < Theo10011_> peace and love
00:38 < Dragonfly6-7> hasta godzilla
00:38 <@StevenW> And have a good morning/evening/whatever
00:38 < privatemusings> now it's getting a bit over friendly!
00:38 <+sgardner> Okay! see you guys. Thanks to you all.
00:38 < privatemusings> thanks sue.... ta ta :-)
00:38 <+sgardner> What did Erik used to sign his mail with?
00:38 < Theo10011_> thanks
00:38 < privatemusings> resistance is futile?
00:38 < Dragonfly6-7> I will devour your soul?
00:38 <+sgardner> LOL
00:39 < Theo10011_> lol
00:39 <+sgardner> privatemusings makes the best joke of the day
00:39 <+sgardner> with dragonfly6-7 close behind!
00:39 < Dragonfly6-7> sgardner - have you ever seen Star Trek: Voyager?
00:39 < Dragonfly6-7> or really, *any* of the Star Trek stuff with the Borg>?
00:39 <+sgardner> Yeah. But I am really an original Star Trek person. LOL
00:39 < privatemusings> I'm here all week... try the veal.....
00:39 <+sgardner> hee
00:39 <@StevenW> Okay we officially need to end office hours when we start talking about Star Trek
00:39 <+sgardner> Bye guys :-)
00:39 <@StevenW> Good night everyone.
00:39 < jowen> good night
00:39 < thedj> nite all
00:39 < Theo10011_> byeeee
00:39 -!- sgardner [~sgardner@wikimedia/Sue-Gardner] has quit [Quit: Leaving]