2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content, Robert Harris introduces himself and opens a forum for discussion Options

[HRIP7]

Robert Harris, the consultant that the Wikimedia Foundation has asked to look into the issues of controversial content, has created a page on Meta-Wiki to introduce himself and "provide a forum for all Wikipedians to discuss the various relevant issues at play."

[Kelly Martin]

And, oh, look, WAS 4.250 has already taken a potshot at Wikipedia Review, on the discussion page.

[victim of censorship]

Robert Harris, the consultant that the Wikimedia Foundation has asked to look into the issues of controversial content, has created a page on Meta-Wiki to introduce himself and "provide a forum for all Wikipedians to discuss the various relevant issues at play."

This will be as affective as tossing a Glade air wick stick in to an ocean of festering monkey shit.

[thekohser]

And, oh, look, WAS 4.250 has already taken a potshot at Wikipedia Review, on the discussion page.

I viewed that as part of WAS 4.250's sarcastic assessment that Harris probably has no idea how impossible is the task laid out before him. Not a potshot at Wikipedia Review.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I do not get this at all. When did "worked with Sue Gardner for 17 years at CBC" count as a job qualification and 'employing recent graduate daughter as assistant' confirm professional detachment? Funnily enough, a recent blog post of his was "Selling in Tough Times – From “Cronyism”… to Collaboration"

Robert Harris is listed as a director of the 'Halton Children's Aid Society' who's mission is "to protect children and enable them to grow and realize their potential within a safe and nurturing environment" but is this also the same guy ... an announcer/producer on music radio show ... May 24, 2008 was the last broadcast of his 'I Hear Music' show.

So ... where is the 'child protection' experience ... where is the sociology or law experience ... where is the Web 2.0 experience (he admits none bar an enthusiastic user of the Pornopedia)

I dunno ... a lot of people are re-inventing themselves as corporate consultants and leadership coaches these days.

Robert Harris

Robert Harris has been helping CBC Radio audiences enjoy music for 25 years. He began his broadcasting career with the local CBC station in Ottawa, and created three series which eventually were syndicated across the country – How to Listen to Classical Music, How to Listen to Jazz and The Music of Broadway.

Harris has worked on, guest hosted, or otherwise contributed to a number of CBC Radio music programs for the past two decades – Stereo Morning, Mostly Music, Arts National, Two New Hours, In Performance and Music and Company. He has also appeared on Morningside, This Morning and Sunday Morning, speaking about music and other subjects.

In 1998 and 1999, he was This Morning's "Y2K Guy." Robert Harris is also the author of two books on music, What to Listen for in Mozart and What to Listen for in Beethoven.

[GlassBeadGame]

Typical that they would address "controversial content" by talking with Wikipedians. Where is the input from other stakeholders?

There is this:

How are you approaching the work?

As the Board FAQ noted, I’m basically compiling information on a number of fronts. How have other organizations online and offline dealt with similar issues? What techniques are used by other user-generated, big-tent sites, to handle similar problems? How relevant are these techniques to Wikimedia projects? What do experts in the field of free Internet speech think of the issues we’re grappling with? How do family educational groups feel? School libraries? The Wikimedia communities? I don’t mean to suggest that I am simply vacuuming up opinions around this subject, but I am trying to expand as widely as possible the thought universe that will be brought to bear on it. As the study progresses, I’m assuming that themes will emerge and that more specific areas of study and research will present themselves. At the moment, I’m keeping things quite open.

This strikes me as very narrow. The only remotely outside groups are "family education groups" and "school libraries." He is torturing language not to say "parents." No mention of the child protection community. No mention of any religious groups, including the 500,000 Muslims who have actively petitioned Wikipedia on a specific controversial issue. The usual suspects from "free Internet speech" (eg Free Kulture Fanatics) but not any "decency" or "watchdog" type of constituencies. Also no mention of museums and other cultural institutions who find themselves undermined by Free Kulture extremism such as National Portrait Gallery. This is so narrow I wouldn't be surprised if even those remotely "outside" groups are dealt with by just talking about them with Wikipedians.

[thekohser]

I just sent Mr. Harris the following e-mail:

I think it would be appropriate to include on your new FAQ page how much the Wikimedia Foundation is paying you for your work, even if in approximate terms. There will be different expectations from your role if we know that you're only being given an honorarium of something like $10,000 for your time, versus a $100,000 fee for full-time and expert dedication.

Also, how do you feel about the fact that certain voices critical of the Wikimedia Foundation are purposefully blocked from contributing to discussions such as yours?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...ser%3AThekohser

Your answers will help me to form an opinion whether you are a paid shill with the simple objective of making the Wikimedia Foundation "look better", or whether you are a genuine agent of change pressing for a true betterment of online knowledge media.

Kindly (and bluntly -- apologies for that),

Greg

--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354

EDIT: Additionally, please note that I am not User:Rock Honor.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Thu 1st July 2010, 3:45pm

[Milton Roe]

And, oh, look, WAS 4.250 has already taken a potshot at Wikipedia Review, on the discussion page.

No, turn your sarcasm detector on. WAS's comment is actually quite funny.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_W...tent#End_result

[Jon Awbrey]

More PR From Brutish Pedium

When you don't give a hoot about the Reality, throw some bucks at controlling the Image …

Jon

[GlassBeadGame]

More PR From Brutish Pedium

When you don't give a hoot about the Reality, throw some bucks at controlling the Image …

Jon

The Whores of Perception.

[thekohser]

I don't know why I'm feeling so generous, but I'd like to give Robert Harris the benefit of the doubt, until we see how he acts in service of Gardner and the Foundation. He may not know fully the mess he's walked into. Perhaps it's just a psychology experiment for me, but I would like to provide him with at least reasonable assistance, and see what he can accomplish with it.

Granted, I'd put 99-to-1 odds against anything truly groundbreaking and ethical to ultimately result from his efforts, but I'm willing to enter into it with a fair perspective.

Another data point...

Harris' daughter, who will be assisting Robert on this project, has a Twitter account. The #1 person she's following is Jimmy Wales.

-1 for the Harris team.

[GlassBeadGame]

I don't know why I'm feeling so generous, but I'd like to give Robert Harris the benefit of the doubt, until we see how he acts in service of Gardner and the Foundation. He may not know fully the mess he's walked into. Perhaps it's just a psychology experiment for me, but I would like to provide him with at least reasonable assistance, and see what he can accomplish with it.

Granted, I'd put 99-to-1 odds against anything truly groundbreaking and ethical to ultimately result from his efforts, but I'm willing to enter into it with a fair perspective.

I'll fast forward a bit:

GK: I'll help. I'll help.
WP: Go away troll.
GK: But I have so much to offer.
WP: We don't want it.
GK: I'm shocked and disappointed.

[ulsterman]

And, oh, look, WAS 4.250 has already taken a potshot at Wikipedia Review, on the discussion page.

His comment is absolutely brilliant. "You will know you have succeeded, if at the end of this study ... fourteen year old administrators are provided with clear instructions concerning controversial content (since blindly following the rules substitutes for editorial judgement in too many cases; BLP is an example - admins were literally claiming they had to treat people no different than buildings in order to follow NPOV policy ...)

Could anyone here sum up the problem with under-age admins better than that?

[GlassBeadGame]

Robert Harris, The Internet Watch Foundation, Cade Metz, John Seigenthaler, Prof. Taner Akçam, a decoy from Perverted Justice, Jana Winters, a dozen California Protective Service case workers, The curator of the National Portrait Gallery and half a million Muslims walk into a LA talent agency...

{insert your content here}

The talent agent is aghast and takes a moment to collect himself. Finally he says "What do you call the act?" Robert Harris looks up and says "The Aristocrats."

[Jon Awbrey]

More PR From Brutish Pedium

When you don't give a hoot about the Reality, throw some bucks at controlling the Image …

Jon

The Whores of Perception.

Slick, Oil.
Oil, Slick.

Somehow that “Pouring Oil On Troubled Waters Panacea” (POOTWP) just ain't the panacea it used to be …

Jon

[Milton Roe]

Robert Harris, The Internet Watch Foundation, Cade Metz, John Seigenthaler, Prof. Taner Akçam, a decoy from Perverted Justice, Jana Winters, a dozen California Protective Service case workers, The curator of the National Portrait Gallery and half a million Muslims walk into a LA talent agency...

{insert your content here}

The talent agent is aghast and takes a moment to collect himself. Finally he says "What do you call the act?" Robert Harris looks up and says "The Aristocrats."

Don't remind me of the film. A gross joke told once may be mildly funny, if you like irony and are in the mood. The same joke told over and over and over again by different people for 2 hours, generates a sort of horrid fascination that makes you think of using the thing as some kind of punishment. As in: "Who can we duck tape to a chair, and have this turkey loop over and over, in front of them?"

I vote Michael Snow.

[tarantino]

Greg's not the only "banned user" on the talk page of the controversial content study.
James Salsman was banned 3 years ago, but he continues to create accounts and edits project wide by IP like nothing has happened.
He even hobnobs with Wikimedia Foundation employees at meetups.

edit: Oops, Greg's comment has been removed.

This post has been edited by tarantino: Thu 1st July 2010, 8:08pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Robert Harris, The Internet Watch Foundation, Cade Metz, John Seigenthaler, Prof. Taner Akçam, a decoy from Perverted Justice, Jana Winters, a dozen California Protective Service case workers, The curator of the National Portrait Gallery and half a million Muslims walk into a LA talent agency...

{insert your content here}

The talent agent is aghast and takes a moment to collect himself. Finally he says "What do you call the act?" Robert Harris looks up and says "The Aristocrats."

Don't remind me of the film. A gross joke told once may be mildly funny, if you like irony and are in the mood. The same joke told over and over and over again by different people for 2 hours, generates a sort of horrid fascination that makes you think of using the thing as some kind of punishment. As in: "Who can we duck tape to a chair, and have this turkey loop over and over, in front of them?"

I vote Michael Snow.

I probably like the joke because I never saw the movie. I can see how it could get dreary after a couple of versions.

[privatemusings]

Oops, Greg's comment has been removed.

well I've sort of tried to paraphrase / put it back - and I've asked for RH to explicitly allow 'banned' users to contribute. In re-reading it, I haven't actually represented Greg's point particularly clearly (sorry!) - but I hope the gist remains.

I also kinda told off 'Rock Honor' - who might be cock up.... over here? - either ways it was a bit like getting savaged by a dead sheep - I guess I was having a Howe moment....

I'm with Greg in hoping for the best, whilst not expecting anything......

[Milton Roe]

Robert Harris, The Internet Watch Foundation, Cade Metz, John Seigenthaler, Prof. Taner Akçam, a decoy from Perverted Justice, Jana Winters, a dozen California Protective Service case workers, The curator of the National Portrait Gallery and half a million Muslims walk into a LA talent agency...

{insert your content here}

The talent agent is aghast and takes a moment to collect himself. Finally he says "What do you call the act?" Robert Harris looks up and says "The Aristocrats."

Don't remind me of the film. A gross joke told once may be mildly funny, if you like irony and are in the mood. The same joke told over and over and over again by different people for 2 hours, generates a sort of horrid fascination that makes you think of using the thing as some kind of punishment. As in: "Who can we duck tape to a chair, and have this turkey loop over and over, in front of them?"

I vote Michael Snow.

I probably like the joke because I never saw the movie. I can see how it could get dreary after a couple of versions.

You. Have. No. Idea.