Opposition to the soweego project
I noticed that your strong opposition to the
soweego project is related to commercial social networks, while you are fine with the rest of our targets, i.e., trusted external catalogues.
I totally understand your point, and am glad to rephrase the whole proposal without commercial targets.
As a team of research scientists, we are in completely good faith and just thought that those targets would be highly beneficial for the community.
Would you be so kind to revise your opposition in light of the changes to the project?
- Hjfocs, thanks for reaching out. If you are a research scientist, you ought to have run your proposal past an ethics board (and frankly, if your ethics board approved it as it stood, then that board acted deficiently). I found your proposal, as it stood, deeply problematic, and not only in relation to its intended use of commercial social networks. However, I will consider supporting it if certain changes are made, which I have now added to the project proposal page below my initial statement of opposition. Thanks again, Zazpot (talk) 11:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Zazpot: I have updated the proposal, so feel free to go through it and eventually revise your opinion.
- In any case, I kindly ask you to move your comments to the proposal talk page (maybe here), as stated at the start of the endorsements section, which should only contain endorsements, not oppositions.
- I'm sure of your understanding.
- Best, --Hjfocs (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, Hjfocs. I said that I would reconsider if you made the changes I suggested, but so far you only seem to have made the third change on my list :( As you have not yet made the others, I will not yet reconsider my opinion, sorry. If at some point in the future you do actually make all the changes I listed, then do please get in touch again, and I will gladly reconsider as promised, because with all of those changes implemented, I would likely feel very differently about the proposal.
- I won't be moving my feedback elsewhere. Grants:Project/Apply clearly instructs grant applicants to "encourage community members to post feedback on your proposal page". Zazpot (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Zazpot: I think the third change on your list entails the other ones, so I don't see the need to create additional sections. Of course, you are completely free not to revise your opposition, despite the revision of the proposal based on your concerns. However, I kindly ask you again to move your concerns to the talk page: it seems that you have neglected the specific indications both from the very same link you mentioned (Grants:Project/Apply) and from the proposal template, respectively:
"2. Community discussion: The Wikimedia community is invited to endorse proposals or discuss any concerns they have on proposal talk pages".
"Do you think this project should be selected for a Project Grant? Please add your name and rationale for endorsing this project below! (Other constructive feedback is welcome on the discussion page)."
- Said that, I kindly ask you again to move your comments to the talk/discussion page. If you are not willing to do that, I'm afraid I will have to do it myself.
- Cheers, --Hjfocs (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hjfocs, all four items in my list are distinct. As such, fulfilling the third item on the list does not fulfil the others. Perhaps you could read them again, to see if you can see my point of view; or explain to me in more detail why you think any one of them entails any of the others? I'm not sure what else to suggest, on that front. I made them as clear as I could. Please understand that I am not being difficult: I made those suggestions because I very much wanted to see your proposal become something I could support without qualms, and as it stood, I had such grave qualms that I absolutely could not support it.
- About the location of my feedback: I note that you earlier thanked me for placing it on the proposal page! And yes, Grants:Project/Apply invites people to use the talk page, but it does not require them to do so. What I placed under the "Endorsements" heading answers the question posed there: "Do you think this project should be selected for a Project Grant?" (I.e. I answered: no it should not be selected for a grant, not as it stood.) I also followed the other parts of the instructions: "Please add your name..." (I signed my comments); "and rationale for endorsing this project..." (I explained, effectively, that one possible rationale for endorsing the proposal as it stood, would be if one held the view that the proposal's doxxing/privacy/accuracy/etc risks were immaterial - a rationale whose problems I also explained). So, it seems entirely appropriate for my comment to remain where it is, and I ask you politely not to move or alter it in any way.
- I'm sorry we have not seen eye to eye on this. I think the tools you are building hold much promise for adding useful claims to Wikidata, and that your team has the technical ability to put them to good use (which I would be glad to see!); but I also think that the proposal as it stood was unconscionable for the reasons I have already given. Zazpot (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)