Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC/March 2020

Dashboard

Transcripts/notes
Thanks for maintaining the etherpad,. I think I misunderstood how you framed it in the meeting, and removed it pending discussion (it's still in the history). I didn't realize it would include a lot of attributed direct quotes rather than function similarly to the agenda in compiling various bits of information, links, etc. that came up (which it also does, of course). I think that's fine for people who were there in the meeting to have a shared transcript to refer back to, but I'm kind of uneasy publishing this level of detail on-wiki and making it opt-out rather than opt-in (similar to why I'd rather err on privacy when it comes to recording these meetings). I don't think there's anything particularly sensitive in these notes in particular, but I'd like to get some thoughts of other folks. (and anyone else who cares to comment, of course). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course I would conform to any norms which this group wanted to establish.
 * I have been doing things this way for years in
 * meta:WALRUS
 * meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network
 * meta:Wikimedia LGBT+
 * More recently I started doing this for meta:Wikimedia Cafe. I have this for various Wiki in person conferences, like 50 pages for last Wikimania, and I do this for Wikimedia Medicine notes but they deal with more private sensitive info than most groups so things are different.
 * I can comply with any standard including no notes. I do not mind the deletion if that is the group's choice. Personally, my read on the community situation is that there is demand for public meetings which are open by default, and to put the burden on attendees to self-censor themselves or say private things in designated private meetings. The non-wiki world does the opposite, which is to assume that everything is private unless designated public. I will leave it to others to decide what to do with Wiki NYC.
 * My own proposal is for recorded published video, audio, and text transcripts, where everyone assumes that everything they say and do is on camera for the world. In other private meetings there is space for private conversation.
 * For thought on the general case see meta:WikiProject Remote Event Participation.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what was in the record, but I'd be uncomfortable with the video being made public, and probably likewise with a full transcript. I don't think I said or did anything I feel need be kept private, but I think in a small meeting like this there's an expectation that the people in the meeting are your only audience. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the intent behind sharing notes, I agree that I'm not comfortable with the level of detail provided. These are not official meetings of the Chapter, but an informal gathering to share and discuss issues of pertinence to the movement. Recording them in any detail potentially inhibits those discussions (I certainly wouldn't contribute as much) and might make it intimidating for newbies to ask questions. As we move our work online, this is a good reminder that I need to be more explicit about what we do/don't document in public venues. Thank you all for this discussion. Megs (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was an open meeting. On the other hand I know  is very big on privacy. I would feel better if attendees knew ahead of time if what they said was being transcribed and available online. - kosboot (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bob, and shall natter on a bit more about it. There is public, or open, and there is private, or closed. If it's public, open to all, then any stupid thing I say will be noticed, recorded, shared to the world, and used against me. Same as if I typed it in a talk page. If it's private, also called closed, then I can speak out without colleagues and strangers down the block and around the world necessarily knowing what an idiot I was and what kind of evil I was plotting. There's a place for each kind of discussion and the simple version of the choice is, all the way one way, or all the way the other. If we want a precisely set balance between the fully private and the fully public, then we should be explicit about those details. My own preference is for wide open meetings that let it all hang out in line with Wikipedia tradition, and damn the torpedos. However once the event announcement says what kind it is, then each of us can take it or leave it. Again, for me, sure; I'm confident I can work with whatever the consensus says. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I find writing and speaking to be very different. When I write something on wikipedia, I have the opportunity to re-read what I wrote and edit or delete it before I publish it.  With an audio or video recording, there's no such preview ability.  In any case, perhaps it's silly vanity, but I'm more comfortable spraying my written word all over creation than I am with a recording of my voice or image of my face.
 * Also (as happened the other evening) other people may wander into the field of view of the camera and within audio range of the microphone, without even realizing they're doing so. Perhaps I've agreed to be recorded, but the other person didn't.  In fact, I jokingly outed the other person that evening.  Not a big deal in the small setting of the meeting, but perhaps the other person didn't want to be publicly outed. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PS, I've revdel'ed the log entries for the reasons stated above. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PS, I've revdel'ed the log entries for the reasons stated above. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * So,, that leaves us with a meeting open to all, but off the record. That is, if we are actually there, we must not turn on the recording feature of our smartphone, or alternatively must not publish the recorded voices. If it is a teleconference, we must not record what's coming into our home. In either case we must not take, (or must not publish) detailed notes or transcripts of who said what. These "Off the record" rules of course would be difficult to enforce in an open meeting where, by definition, strangers are invited who are not easily policed and can just sit quietly tapping their keyboard as their phone records voices.
 * Meetings where all will be published please me, but those that are not entirely open, or even private meetings, are also often good. Just say so. For meetings off the record, say at the top that it's "open" but not to be recorded, with a footnote or other way of listing rules without bogging down the opening. Alternative versions of "off the record" might allow publishing minutes and transcripts, or one or the other, but not recordings of voice or video. The Board might want to make the recording and publishing rules for the monthly meeting, and the conference host, event organizer, or other authority for others.
 * Incidentally, the various links we discussed ought to be published here. Some of us used our tablet or other device that did not make easy typing during the event. And I think none of us actually recorded the proceedings except some of what was typed. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I more or less agree with what you're framing as "open to all, but off the record" but I wouldn't necessarily call it "off the record". Instead, I'd just say that by default we don't publish full transcripts or full recordings, and that we should get active consent or opt-in whenever we do record/transcribe something. I feel similarly to Roy, in that while I know it's not really a private setting, it's hard to speak to a small group with the mindset that your words will be visible to the world and/or saved for posterity. That's how Wikipedia works, but an offline meeting is necessarily different from Wikipedia. There are many people who feel more comfortable online for its privacy; there are many people who feel more comfortable offline for its smaller audience and personal connection. I think there's a lot to be said for both, but I don't necessarily think that the technologically mediated interpersonal documentation norms from a wiki need carry over/translate to offline meeting practices, too. I will likewise go along with whatever the chapter membership wants, but would certainly feel less comfortable if I knew I was being recorded.
 * As a side note, I'm not so sure how important it is that the notes be set up like a transcript and/or attributed to people by name. Here's a different version of the Etherpad notes reworked to simply remove names. That's not so different than what we usually use the agenda for (adding some notes, links, etc. disconnected from actual people). What do people think about this? (Feel free to remove the link if still objectionable in some way). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I apologise for perhaps being overly dramatic with my revdel, but I think the basic concept is valid. Personal details were posted on-wiki about a person who did not give permission for those details to be published under a highly permissive license and was almost certainly unaware that by stepping into the field of view of the camera, they were exposing themselves to that.  This is a violation of WP:OUTING.  From my individual point of view, I'm fine with those notes being reposted, as long as these personal details are elided.
 * I think we're fundamentally in the same place. It's not the sharing of information that bothers me, it's that somebody's personal information was shared without their knowledge or consent.  Of course, I was part of the chain of events when I spoke up to explain who this person was that walked into the frame.  Also, just to be eliminate any doubt, I'm sure that User:Bluerasberry was totally acting in good faith and with the best of intentions, as are you. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we're fundamentally in the same place. It's not the sharing of information that bothers me, it's that somebody's personal information was shared without their knowledge or consent.  Of course, I was part of the chain of events when I spoke up to explain who this person was that walked into the frame.  Also, just to be eliminate any doubt, I'm sure that User:Bluerasberry was totally acting in good faith and with the best of intentions, as are you. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure; we're all trying to find our way in a new place. To summarize or perhaps clarify my argument, I think privacy in a public meeting is futile; we must restrict attendance if we are to succeed in restricting publication. However, it seems I am alone in disagreeing with two thoughtful advocates of an alternative view, so unless someone else wants to chime in, it looks like a consensus. This leaves another question, what kind of privacy? Journalists and their sources have evolved several formulae which may be somewhat relevant even though their cases are publication of discussions that do not invite the public. They use terms like "reliable sources", "not for attribution", "background" and sometimes "deep background". In our case, participants could be allowed to paraphrase publicly what anyone said, but without attribution and without publishing recordings of voice or video. Eventually the question may arise, am I allowed to edit the official (if any) record to quote myself more precisely and/or to claim responsibility? Perhaps that's a refinement for a later discussion. Or perhaps I'm just worrying too much. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Zoom Bombing
Just in case we didn't have enough to worry about: zoom bombing is a thing, apparently. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)