yunus

Whoops, apologies for any misunderstanding :)

That does sound reasonable enough.

Hi Bret,

On editor selection process

Exactly. The first editors were indeed selected by staff, but afterward, non-staff editors can endorse any member to be an editor. So, it looks like a decentralization process to me, not incompatible with the principle above. Probably not the most ideal, but given the circumstances, it appears to be the best option at the time realizing that there are difficulties in bringing true democracy online (community-wide elaboration, voting, etc.), if at all possible. But worry not, if there's a better (and viable) way to elect new editors, we're always open for suggestions.

Please also remember that there's nothing too special in terms of 'power' after being an editor, and abuse of the privileges (to delete content and comment) have been non-existent so far. It acts more as a sign of trust and commitment.

On analogies

Yes. But that's exactly the tricky part about analogies. There's certain mental association attached to any analogy we choose to use, compounded by personal bias in interpreting those analogies. So, nothing really was taken seriously I'm sure, but just a small reminder :)

On project plan and priorities

I don't/can't speak for the entire staff, but in my mind, there needs to be a balance between being swift and being participative. If everything must be discussed by the entire community before a definitive decision is made, then the project risk moving too slow.

As is with previously mentioned argument, I think the project must have a center (so it can start!) and at the same time, must decentralize in due time making more and more information and processes open to the wider community. This is a process where both staff and community (not that they're separate entities) learn from each other I think, as we try and succeed (or fail!). So it's good to have these timely reminders from community members like you.

On plans and priorities, I'm guessing that it will be a matter of time before full transparency on that end is achieved. In the mean time, there's no stopping you to come up with your own! We're all ears (though naturally, not everything we hear will make it to implementation).

There's this interesting article by Kevin Kelly about balancing top-down/center with bottom-up/periphery processes --> The bottom is not enough. Of course, the discourse can be an endless one.... and that would make us all talk and no walk :)

Summing up: it's a process... an evolution if you will.

Keep the thoughts coming!
~Bowo

Hi Bret, good points and thanks for starting this discussion.

On deleted content

At a glance, I think it makes sense that "open to full public scrutiny" would equal "open access to deleted content". But on a practical level, there are (I think) reasons that such open access may not be feasible. For example

• deleted content is copyright-ed material
• deleted content is defamatory

Interesting to see how Wikipedia handles this situation --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_pages#Access_to_deleted_pages

Access to deleted pages

"Because many deleted articles are found to contain defamatory or other legally suspect material, deleted pages are not permitted to be generally viewed. However, they remain in the database (at least temporarily) and are accessible to administrators, along with their edit history unless they are oversighted. Any user with a genuine reason to view a copy of a deleted page may request a temporary review (or simply ask an administrator to supply a copy of the page). Note that these requests are likely to be denied if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), or if no good reason is given for the request."

Would this be a good solution?... apart from the fact that editors is no longer people appointed/promoted by staff only. Promoting an editor (who has the privilege to delete and view deleted content) has become a community process. So, the secrecy/conspiracy theory don't really hold true any longer (not that it ever has...). You can always ask one of the editors/admins what's inside a 'deleted' page.

p.s. The deleted comment you linked btw has no 'reasons for deletion' info. I think we need to add a filter that disallow comment suppression/deletion by an admin/editor when a reason is not provided. This looks like an example of Camilla's comment that "we don't always get things right and some things don't work as well as they should do from a users perspective, but we're learning and trying to improve things even though it takes time due to our limited resources."

On project plans and priorities

The major items are listed in the WiserEarth flyer (can be downloaded from the Spread the Word page). As for a more detailed items, I can imagine how they would be useful for both staff and the community, but perhaps you could provide some reasons on how such information would be useful? As a staff, I personally am for more openness to and participation from the community, but feel that it must be done the right way at the right time. Perhaps the time has come and we need to find a  way?

Fyi, the WiserEarth Suggestions group itself was established as part of the "being more open and participatory" process, and is not 'perfect' in any sense as you've discovered along the way :) And actually, I'm the one who wrote that sentence! --> "Most and highest rated suggestions get higher possibility for implementation." This is to compensate for the fact that even the highest rated suggestions may not fit into the bigger picture in terms of overall site principle, mission, design and availability of technical resource. Sometimes, people (including me) tend to look from their own perspective and needs when suggesting something, instead of the bigger picture. That's why you'll notice that most of the process is done by discussion and consensus among staff and the community. The ratings serve as one of the indicators I think of how good and feasible a suggestion is, but not as the only indicator.

I wonder what others think?

p.s. I always enjoyed your analogies, especially the "tossing my cookies" one! :) But as is with analogies, I think it's wise to be careful with choosing what to use for which situation. Thanks again for starting this discussion. I think it's an important one to have.

As stated above, transparency is about being open to the public. Removing a comment or an article from public view and just making a note of such is not being transparent in my opinion. How can the public be sure that the comment or article should have been removed without actually being able to examine it? For example, if Bush/Obama/anybody said that evidence of torture is completely transparent because he can review the evidence at any time--but he is holding that information from public inspection--is that being transparent? If I openly say that I'm keeping evidence of me stealing money secret because I say the evidence is misleading, is that transparency? Or secrecy?

I am not arguing against removing comments or articles when they should be. However, I suggest that there should always be a link from their original place for public inspection. That would be transparency: "open to full public scrutiny."

Also, part of WiserEarth being transparent would, of course, include what its staff is working on--especially since "WiserEarth is community-driven and is not centralized," according to the above definition of community. So where can I find this information? What, for example, are the WiserEarth.org development projects currently being worked on? (Interestingly, you cannot find this information on the Under development link from the Suggestions page.)

Further, how are the priorities for these development projects fully determined? Indeed, what are these priorities? It is not enough to say that the "Most and highest rated suggestions get higher possibility for implementation." Especially considering that the rating system is "experimental" (according to Honore), is not working very well (reference1, reference2, reference3), and seems to be used mostly by the WiserEarth staff.

My purpose in writing this is to promote a clarification of the WiserEarth principles and/or to promote a greater fidelity to them.