Wiki 'moderation'- please assist us fellow Evangelism members

[danielabarbosa]

In case you missed the sterring call on Monday and the note that Elias
published on the general list we have agreed to do the following per
Elias notes and i have volunteered to take the lead for the Wiki but i
would like the support of the active evangelism members as well.

The idea is to be able to address things that are put on the wiki that
do not meet the objectives of the DataPortability project. This is not
censorship and i hope no one takes it as such- just trying to keep
things 'clean' and professional and we stay focused on the tasks.

Please note I will be on vacation from the 7th through the 17th with
little access to the wiki- so hopefully if something needs to be
deleted/remove someone can step up and take care of it (remember if a
deletion/removal is done by mistake- its a wiki and easily reverted!).
Once i return if you have concerns and would like to discuss please
let me know.

thanks-daniela

Elias not to the General Discussion List
----------------------------------------

Hi everyone,

As agreed on today's steering call, the following people have been
nominated to guard the DataPortability collaboration tools based on
recent experience of abuse, spam, and inappropriate conduct of fellow
participants.

1) Steering mailing list: Brett McDowell
2) Wiki: Daniela Barbosa
3) Public mailing list (this one): Elias Bizannes (me).

It would be great if people could step up for all the chat rooms,
other mailing lists, or even support the above mentioned.

Given moderation will be subjective, the following will be my approach
to how I conduct this role:
1) If you post spam: Your message will be deleted and you will be
banned. No tolerance.
2) If you make an attack on a person: You will be warned, asked to
apologise, and any subsequent action afterwards that is inappropriate
despite the warning, will have you banned until further notice.

As I said, this is subjective, but hopefully the above will help you
understand my approach as this mailing list continues to grow (now
1230 people) and history has shown people seem to lack professional
behavioral when conducting themselves on these forums. Ultimately,
this is more about encouraging a positive environment and not anything
else.

Regards,
Elias

[bmn]

I don't have a ton of time, but will be happy to help ... do we have a
general guideline along the lines of the Wikipedia NPOV? or is the
approach below (no spam, no personal attacks) the definitive starting
point?

[Elias Bizannes]

Mostly spam for now, but you raise a good point.

We need to ensure pages in the main wiki are sanctioned as official
policy, and those that arn't, are clearly labeled as such. This also
means checking official pages for language, as well as monitoring
edits.

> > Elias- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[bmn]

I'm managing a trade association program that has recently launched a
wiki effort (wiki.fisd.net) and I have to say it's been non-trivial to
get these policies, processes, practices, etc. worked out as we go
along. My hunch is it's _much_ easier to start with announced rules
and then adapt them as the community desires. Do we have a definitive
list of what would constitute "sanctioned official policy" in a given
context?

[Elias Bizannes]

No definitive list. Perhaps you could help us out here with your
experience and make a proposal that we adopt as the initial policy?

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[bmn]

To date, I've referred folks to Wikipedia guidelines as a general
reference point and encouraged discussion. We're a trade association
that functions as a roundtable for different industry sectors
(exchanges, buy and sell-side firms, and the vendor eco-system(s)
around them), so we're constantly moderating between conflicting views
(been an interesting learning experience to be able to voice three
conflicting views at the same time ;). Accordingly, I've had the
liberty early on here to say "We make the final decision, period,
until you folks work out agreement amongst yourselves as to how to
resolve these issues". Not sure that's really an applicable approach
here. That said, some basics (NPOV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view), verifiable information (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability), no personal attacks
(this is one where editors have to err on the side of caution), and no
copyright violations) seem to provide a framework for the conversation
at least. I also found the "What wikipedia is and isn't" stuff to be
very useful -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
-- and would think that a similar approach would be helpful here to
get started.

[Elias Bizannes]

Thanks. I think that's a good start.

Keep posting if you get any other ideas specifically. Maybe when
Daniela gets back from her vacation, we can formalise a policy.