Wikipedia talk:Surveillance awareness day/RFC

I think an RFC needs 2 options, not 10. Details can be worked out later if there is interest in doing something to highlight these issues on 2/11. Is anyone working on this page preparing an RFC and central discussion? – SJ + 19:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Educate" and "allies" seem a bit non-neutral. How's this?

Should Wikipedia do anything on February 11 regarding the "Day We Fight Back" online protest? There was a previous discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page.

Do nothing

Do something opposing the protest

Do something favouring the protest

—rybec 08:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much much better than my text! Allies is blatantly non-neutral, I can't believe my brain didn't spot something so hugely non-neutral. Stoopid brain. :) And three options is also necessary so we don't pre-judge what form our response would take. Excellent excellent work that has my complete confidence. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you can jettison the name "Surveillance awareness day" now that we're no longer focused on the main page project. A more neutral title might be Wikipedia:The Day We Fight Back or Wikipedia:February 11, 2014 or something. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the "on February 11" should go at the beginning, not the end of the sentence. Otherwise it's ambiguous (could be taken as saying: the protest is on the 11th but when we might do something is unspecified). —rybec 09:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a second question about whether any action should be in for, or against the protest. I've gone and posted it. —rybec 10:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) ::::What do you think of a completely neutral choice: 'acknowledging' the protest'. Two choices: we either choose to pay homage in some NPOV, encyclopedic way or we do nothing different that day. Not sure how to word this - but what do you think? petrarchan47 t c 10:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was what I posted. Because Petrarchan47 had misgivings about the wording, I deleted it before anyone responded. —rybec 11:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused why we're backtracking. It seems to me there is quite a well-developed proposal to highlight surveillance related topics on the main page on February 11th, as a nod to the "The Day We Fight Back" protest. I imagined that would be the proposal presented, with a straightforward support/oppose discussion, though maybe I'm just behind on the conversation. benmoore 20:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main page project proved to be very controversial among the 10 editors who were aware of it. SJ has suggested a "back to basics" approach where we propose an RFC to generate consensus, without specifying what form our special action might take. Rybec and Petrarchan47 are hammering out the wording. --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say controversy in unavoidable in this space, plenty were averse to a banner and indeed doing anything. Anyway, I look forward to the community discussion. benmoore 21:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be clear, we aren't backtracking or trowing out anything we've learned in the previous attempts at hammering something out. In the interest of time, some thought it would be wise to move immediately with a general RfC to gauge whether we should do a thing or not. At Jimbo's, where this is being discussed, the support still outweighs the opposition. However, do we actually have enough time at this point to do anything? Some say no. petrarchan47 t c 22:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone posted an RFC, or is anyone about to? If not I'll repost. —rybec 23:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is simply that an RFC should be support/oppose for a single option, if you want closure.

The clearest proposal is what Jehochman and ben suggested: to highlight topics related to mass surveillance on the main page. – SJ + 21:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel strongly that we need to include more detail of the proposal in the RfC to avoid further paralysis. Previously we had kicked around a number of ideas - replacing the main page completely, redirecting the front page, doing a black-out, et al. At this point given time constraints and the amount of critical response I think the best course is to use the existing landing page and point Featured Article, In the News and Did You Know to primarily existing encyclopedia content regading surveillance programs (of which there is quite a lot of great stuff already). This will allow us to complete this project in a timely fashion, help educate users on the proposed date of Feb 11th and provide a firm counter argument for those opposed to any involvement - when we are accused of NPOV, etc as we already have been, we can say look we are pointint people to encyclopedic content and thats it.

As such my RfC proposal text would be something like this

Inasmuch as Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that depends on its users to provide accurate and unbiased content, concerns over widespread government surveillance that could lead to self censorship and retaliation for publishing is a growing issue for Wikipedia editors and readers. Should Wikipedia provide a surveillance-focused set of encyclopedia content for users on February 11 regarding the "Day We Fight Back" online protest? This proposal would involve pointing Featured Article, In the News and Did You Know to Wikipedia content concerning government surveillance while continuing to maintain the highest standards for "NPOV" encyclopedic content. Jaydubya93 (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I worry the main page project is too controversial. Instead, we should just ask the community if we should do "something" or "nothing". It will be much easier to gauge consensus without proposing a specific idea. And then we'll have everyone in one place to decide "if yes, then what?" --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could remove the specific reference to main page by removing the last sentence, saying:

Inasmuch as Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that depends on its users to provide accurate and unbiased content, concerns over widespread government surveillance that could lead to self censorship and retaliation for publishing is a growing issue for Wikipedia editors and readers. Should Wikipedia provide a surveillance-focused set of encyclopedia content for users on February 11 regarding the "Day We Fight Back" online protest?

--HectorMoffet (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and agreed. Can we roll with this version today and start getting the word out? There is a good possibility that I can help with media attention to the poll if needed / aappropriate. Jaydubya93 (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first version needs an RFC. To avoid confusion, use simple language, be clear about what is proposed (a main page theme, not 'providing content')

The second version does not need an RFC. You can do this directly: list articles that don't exist, encourage people to contribute to the wikiproject, run a bot to remind project-members of tasks each day for a few weeks, recruit people from related wikiprojects or topics. No consensus is needed to provide readers with encyclopedia content :-) – SJ + 21:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sj, Does the idea of running a banner need an RFC? Do you think it would be worthwhile to run such an RFC? --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would need a similar RFC to run a banner. I would focus on a single idea, not both. The main page theme seems better-defined.

(ec) I haven't seen much discussion around banners in general: our banner space is not well utilized to encourage edits or let people know about new topics. Independent of this topic, a discussion about that would be useful, e.g., to let readers know about new wikiprojects or current events. Done properly (rotation, moderation, design, tone) this should make browsing more interesting, not more annoying. – SJ + 23:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please find someone you trust and get them to start that conversation. I'm horrible at this sort of thing, and will hopefully focus on keeping my head down and writing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That's my thinking about why it seems harder to discuss banners. They are experimented with even less than the main page; and almost always only for logged-in users. – SJ + 00:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]