Topic: Rights/Guidelines/Privileges Discussion
Posts (1 - 20 of 25)
Sort by: Ascending | Descending
Login to Post a Reply.
|
Flag comment for removal RogerEaton 5 months ago
Michael, please go ahead with your plans for an Internationalization group without regard to the Global Assembly. It will be mid-April before we are ready to try anything and I rather like Jafra's idea about coming to agreement on overall strategy as an early step in our WiserEarth development as a very suitable topic for the Wiser Earth Dialog - coming soon.
|
|
a discussion on Internationalization is happening here in a Suggestions topic, "Easy Translation, Counter English Bias": http://www.wiserearth.org/article/92db0ad28faf176f5cca9080c7d505a2
|
|
|
Hey Roger,
I think the GA software would be great for this discussion. I worry a bit that I might be moving too fast with the Internationalization group and that it requires more deliberation before making it a permanent structure within Governance...but on the other hand...I think that some sort of "focus" group, or place that people demonstrate support to "internationalize" or "globalize" WiserEarth is really needed. I think we need more than just a discussion topic or set of wikipages within another group. Perhaps we can move forward with this new group, and then allow the GA dialog to address the possibility of other working groups. The GA dialog could test the waters on how many other people would actually be interested in lending their time and energy to steward certain groups. As to your concern on removed content, you can view that content because you have Editor status on WiserEarth. So all users without Editor status can't view the removed item. I think though that Editors should be able to hide removed items as well. By the way, all removed content can be viewed through "recent activity", and then changing the second column from the left to "removed" or "out of scope". Most if not all of the "out of scope" items provide an explanation for removal. The "removed" items for the most part, don't exist anymore or were removed by request. http://www.wiserearth.org/recent?type=organization&status=3&newness=0&revisions=1 |
|
|
Hey Boatsie, welcome back! no need for apologies... I would like to see groupings or separate categories for suggestions too. If groups allowed multiple modules, this would be possible. There are other ways to help categorize modules with a lot of entities, such as the use of folders. Something to deliberate... -"I know i sound like a broken record here but I feel we should discuss the idea of Trusted Users (TUs) to build up community of regular users and differentiate that from newcomers." --I feel this would be a worthy idea to deliberate in the Suggestions group as a wikipage. I've addressed my concerns about it already, but perhaps the idea just needs some more input to make it seem appropriate. -"There is no real clear INTRO place or starting page for users to first experience WE and meet community." --I would like to discuss this further. One of the staff suggested a welcome page could consist of WiserEarth groups...including the Editors group, Governance, and perhaps some which are associated with that users' areas of focus. I think it needs its own discussion topic! |
|
|
The Page Status Descriptions page at http://www.wiserearth.org/article/f774081e28910e3041c932aa8db4c494/group/WiserEarthGovernance is of interest here, as Boatsie (Deborah) suggests. The more I think about the "removed" status, the more I question how we are handling it. While I agree items should be removed sometimes, my curiosity about the removed items is aroused. Also, I don't like seeing the removed items in the comment and reply lists - they make me feel that something is awry with this item that it should have "removed" items attached to it. This is perhaps just my reaction, but I like to think I am a good standin for the sensitive viewer. So on the one hand I don't want to see these removed items at all and on the other I want to view them in detail.
I will add my suggestion to the suggestion list: 1) that instead of showing the removed items with no data except the fact that they were removed, we show a button at the top of the list that says "include removed items in list". This button would simply change the list to be as it is today, except that 2) each removed item will either have a button that says "display removed content" or a notice of "Illegal or invasion of privacy" notice will be displayed. These two buttons will be available to everyone, regardless of role - again except in the case of illegality or invasion of privacy. Later, we can add some kind of feedback to removed content that is displayed so we can register our sense of agreement or disagreement with the removal of this item. Hmm -- this needs some work before I post it in Suggestions - I'll try to get to it by tomorrow. |
|
bowo posted an intriguing article and created a group on human rights and the rights of nature http://www.wiserearth.org/resource/view/0636b36e0454cea758a177acb8dda5c3/group/weversity
... seems appropo for this discussion. |
|
|
Governance Wiki Pages
Within the last five days, several new wiki pages have been added to the Goverance Page dealing with privacy, terms of use, Area of Focus Design, Vision of WE. Many of the topics presented in these documents fall under the desciption of what we are attempting to discuss here. Perhaps we could take one of these at a time and move through discussing? |
|
|
Re: Suggestions
Michael, ive been off 'project' for several days now and sorry i haven't gotten back to you. I think that the suggestions page needs different groupings for sugggestions. A taxonomy which would allow users to place their ideas under categories; e.g., 'user interface' , Community Resources, Interactivity. I know i sound like a broken record here but I feel we should discuss the idea of Trusted Users (TUs) to build up community of regular users and differentiate that from newcomers. I also have some questions about creating groupings in governance. It seems to me that there are so many efforts in so many different sections to create 'order' and that these attempts run parallel lives and end up duplicating efforts. There is no real clear INTRO place or starting page for users to first experience WE and meet community. More on this later. Sorry I've been out of the loop ... |
|
|
Michael, I like your suggestion. These natural groupings will become even more relevant as the numbers of active participants increase. The Global Assembly software could be helpful in giving each of these working groups its own collective voice. We need to think about self-tagging as a way of identifying such groups from the bottom up but until we develop that capability on the technical side, I think we could play it by ear and set up your working groups. We already have Governance itself. Then there are the Editors. Your Internationalization group makes three. A fourth group might be called the Buzz - here we would try to attract the casual surfer who is buzzing about and hasn't decided to land yet. The Money would be restricted on an honor basis to those who have given money to Wiser Earth! Not a bad idea as a way of attracting donations. Hmm. Maybe I am getting too fanciful, but I like it!
|
|
|
I propose "working groups" for the Governance group. In a sense they could almost be like lobbying groups. This is a question this group can debate. Do we need them? If we do, for what purposes? For example, I think one interesting possibility is an "Internationalization" group...which as the title suggests...would help represent non-English, non-US based users on WiserEarth. There are many other possibilities.
|
|
|
I agree with you boatsie, that we need to understand the commonalities, in addition I'd add differences. From those differences I think we'll have a clearer picture of whether our activity as a whole reflects our principles, because shouldn't this ultimately be what we are governed BY?: http://www.wiserearth.org/article/ebae1d9f4f61d194ff3ee0e74f0ce929
I'll start with one issue that I think needs some "governing". While looking at the Suggestions group and those comments in the Suggestions forum, I notice that users are coming from unique backgrounds and express different needs: http://www.wiserearth.org/group/suggestions How do we represent the interests of these different users? I've noticed that users come from unique backgrounds: low and high bandwidth users, U.S and non-U.S users, third-world and developing country users, avid WiserEarth group users, casual users, philanthropists, businessmen, student activists....I could go on. Others probably have other ideas. So who is speaking on behalf of these groups? Do these groups have a voice and equal representation in the resources and activity devoted to their needs? Do they deserve representation? Which groups deserve a higher recognition that others? Which groups represent the majority of active WiserEarth users? How does this affect the current structure of WiserEarth? Most importantly, are we living up to our principles? |
|
|
THE BIG PICTURE. I'd like to suggest we begin attempting to define the core issue we are attempting to reach concensus on to actually begin this discussion. I would suggest that this in some way reflects an understanding of what commonalities exist between members of WE. How would we define the key motivator encouraging participants? It seems apparent to me that the members intuitively 'get' this community as a place where their innate rights and privliges are championed, encouraged, respected. And in this regard, we are all seeking to find a way in which this atmosphere is transferrable to the global community through our actions and through the integration and the coexistance of WE members.
So open communication is part of the big picture, tantamount to the big picture. Equal access to the tools of governance. I believe that privileges should be granted based upon degree of immersion and involvement and should be earned (as per my mention of Trusted Users) and can be abused and removed based upon a prescribed formula. Is this helpful at all in starting a conversation which we can use to begin the prioritizing process? Can we develop a statement which reflects the big picture and discuss? |
|
|
TUs.. I think that was me... Here's Kos' policy:
Trusted Users If a user gathers enough comment mojo, they become a Trusted User. To prevent people from gaming the system, the exact amount of mojo required is not publicly revealed. Trusted Users have a few additional privileges compared to regular users. A regular user can recommend comments; a TU can also hide comments. If a comment gets enough hide ratings, it becomes hidden to regular users (also see the trolls section below). TUs can, if they wish, see the hidden comments. TUs thus have the responsibility of deciding whether comments should be hidden or not. In addition, TUs can edit and remove tags from diaries; regular users can only add new tags. There are two easy ways to tell if you are a TU. First is to look at the Tools sidebar; if there is an entry reading 'Hidden Comments', you are a TU. The other way is to try to rate a comment; if there is a 'Hide' button next to the 'Recommend' button, you are a TU. One of the factors that goes into determination of TU status is time. If a user stops commenting, or their comments stops getting recommendations, eventually that user will lose http://dkosopedia.com/wiki/DailyKos_FAQ#Trusted_Users |
|
Hey, all:
Hey, Angus: Thank you for the compliment--I agree that there is, or should be, a reasonably small bundle of rights (your "core rights") that each member has, hence my focus mostly on the member's page, and the simple freedom of speech to participate across the site, subject to the simple standards of decency. This needs to be refined, expanded, or discarded as needed according to the community and NCI. I wasn't aware of the distinction you make between British and American legal approaches. Separated by more than a common language, eh? The privileges issue is one that it seems is more spontaneous and subject to ideas and examples from other sites, for example. In the other thread "TUs" were mentioned, which sounds similar to volunteer Editors here in WE. That comment needs to be transferred or repeated here so it can be batted around. I think one issue tied to privileges is recruitment of more active members, so that more volunteer, active people can step up, preferably from really, really far off lands--the more global the better. (Yes, I know, "global" either is or isn't. But, I think everyone knows what I mean.) Thanks, Angus, for the feedback--let's everyone keep up the conversation and make some progress! David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! |
|
Dear Dave:
I very much like your distinction between rights (inalienably granted) and privileges (earned). As a Brit (privilege oriented legal approach) and American (rights oriented legal approach) I see benefits in both. The key point is that a right must be respected and cannot be revoked (although it can be reinterpreted) so we should be careful about what is put in this category. A good small number of core rights will keep the burden down on administration and governance functions. Best, Angus |
|
|
Hey, all:
Here are some thoughts on rights vs. privileges: Earlier I pointed out that I felt what we were talking about were more properly called "privileges" instead of "rights". After having read some of the subsequent comments, it occurs to me we are talking about both, but in different areas. Rights are intrinsic, and subject to change only with some rigid rules of due process; privileges are extra and can be withdrawn at will. A bundle of member's rights come intact upon registration; privileges are earned by the member through participation, and they come from NCI. An old statement goes "One person's rights end where the next person's nose begins." There are limits, and these can be made very clear. The main area in which a member of WE has rights is in that person's Profile. There are only some very minimal entries, and beyond that the person has the complete right to refuse to use, or else edit at will. This basically is the right to control the content of their own page. To that end, being able to limit the comments others place on the member's page is a right which should be acknowledged, and the mechanism set up to accomplish it. As other suggestions regarding profiles are made, they need to be considered with regard to the member's rights. However, beyond the basic profile page and its control by the member, extra features added by NCI to profiles, while interesting and helpful, are not really rights. Rights have to do with overall control of content, rather than the existence of extra features. Features may add to the flexibility the member has in exercising their rights to control, but they do not add rights. A member has some freedom of speech in their profile, consistent with standards of decency established by NCI. I see one case in which someone has transgressed in this manner by having inappropriate (which in fact is just very immature) content, since the tone of the site seems to weed those out, and that person still has a profile. According to tradition, the three things people in 'polite society' (at least in the Judeo-Christian West) don't talk about in public are sex, religion, and politics. Yet, these are all protected by free speech, but 'politeness' constrains people from indulging in them. It seems the same constraints apply here on WE. Sex is seldom an issue, except in gender issues and psychology, but aside from sex, there is an undercurrent of religion here in WE, but even more prevalent a strong undercurrent of politics. WE refer a lot to culture and needed improvements to civil society, but virtually never to the religious aspects which created the problems and now obstruct these improvements. WE also refer to the characteristics of society and the problems and injustice it contains, but seldom to the political forces which enforce a whole host of negative characteristics and injustice. Ideally, the separation between rights and privileges narrows and disappears over time, but maybe this is too egalitarian or Utopian a view. Many people enjoy the distinction of privilege so much they would have to invent new privilege to stay ahead--sort of an 'arms race' scenario. Please feel free to comment, elaborate, disagree--that is your right! David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! |
|
|
Angus, I'm glad to find someone taking the big view here. The topic of discussion at http://wiserearth.org/forum/view/1aefbb83d083fffab18812a3f2b2cb94 was the Rights of WiserEarthlings. Even there, though, we could not help but look at big picture items, and soon our topic was expanded to “Rights and Privileges”. Now, with your input, it seems we need to expand at least to “Rights, Privileges and Responsibilities”. Then there are your other points, which need addressing as well.
Underlying our previous discussion was the possibility that we might list possible Rights of WiserEarthlings and then use the Global Assembly (GA) software to prioritize them. Please see the “Shared Priorities” article at http://wiserearth.org/forum/view/0569b2bb365d6ec829c19749903df81b/new/1 . I am definitely open to the idea of prioritizing Rights, but I suggest we might better use the GA software first to discuss the big picture subjects for Governance, and then work down to particularizing priorities in each of the major areas that we decide are important. Please note that the GA software is in process of adding a threaded forum capability. It won't be until that capability is ready (by the end of March) that we could begin our discussion there. The Global Assembly Dialog at http://www.globalassembly.net is nearing the end of its fifth round - next Monday. At that point it will make sense for me to send a message to all the members of the Global Assembly group on Wiser Earth http://wiserearth.org/group/GAdialog . As part of that message, I will invite everyone to this discussion in Governance. I do think the GA software, with its built-in rating capabilities, will help us a lot in coming to consensus decisions about Governance topics both large and small, but until GA is ready, let's see what we can do here. |
|
|
Let the discussion begin! What the governance is about: Reference to Angusparker. Roger will post on this later.
|
|
|
There was a previous discussion, "A Group to host a discussion on our rights as WiserEarthlings" at http://wiserearth.org/forum/view/1aefbb83d083fffab18812a3f2b2cb94 . In that discussion we thought that if Governance could be opened up, as it has been (thank you!), so now we can continue that discussion here.
I also started another discussion not realizing this one was already going. Can someone please delete the other discussion? One priviliege I would like to have is to be able to delete a discussion that has no replies that I started! |
|
|
In addition to the process and inclusiveness of governance we have to decide what the governance is about. Here is a list I came across recently for networks:
Purpose of the network – mission, vision, operating principles Objectives/goals Values and beliefs of the network Membership arrangements of the network Responsibilities of members Workplan and/or activities of the network Distribution of network resources (budgeting) |
You do not have access to post to this record
1 to 20 of 25 Posts
Contributors to this Page
