For what it's worth, I added my comments to your page on Meta
2013/5/9, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com:
Yay! Erik replied. Seriously, I was beginning to think no one from the
Foundation read this mailing list anymore aside from me and Kaldari (and we
read it as volunteers!). See
I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board
resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a
moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a
(presumably) private setting in a library:
From a common-sense perspective, Pete, I'd say that if the image was taken
in a private place, shows an identifiable person, and that person does not
give permission for us to be using their likeness, it should be a
no-brainer that we don't have the right (ethically, at least, in light of
the
On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 15:23, Pete Forsyth wrote:
I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board
resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a
moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a
(presumably) private
Well said, Fluff. I actually don't think the verification is necessary in a
case like this; there's no compelling reason to suspect the person is lying
about her identity. And given the scale of how many files are proposed for
deletion in a day, I don't think we can afford to set the bar so high
Yay :-) And congratulations to you and your team, Sumana, on the OPWGSoC
boost - it is really exciting to see the work pay off!
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Sumana Harihareswara suma...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Thanks for the updates Sumana, and I agree with Siko -- item #3 is
especially awesome!
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Siko Bouterse sboute...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Yay :-) And congratulations to you and your team, Sumana, on the OPWGSoC
boost - it is really exciting
Tom, I agree with your concern. But if the principle is that we should
enforce the board resolution anywhere it applies, we should simply delete
this photo without needing OTRS, right? It's an issue of who's obligated to
do what. The board resolution clearly states that if there is no
On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 15:48, Pete Forsyth wrote:
Well said, Fluff. I actually don't think the verification is necessary in a
case like this; there's no compelling reason to suspect the person is lying
about her identity. And given the scale of how many files are proposed for
deletion in
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
It'd be nice if we had OTRS agents more active in Commons who could
proactively deal with these kinds of things.
(They might be made to feel as welcome as Christians in lion enclosures,
but that's another matter...)
I
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Two good posts.
Bear in mind though that there is also a half-way house solution, whereby
contributors would identify to the Foundation, but
It would also be a massive resourcing challenge, particularly to get
identification working across all projects. What is ideal is not always
what is feasible.
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Oliver Keyes
Hi Sylvia
It seems the crux of your argument is against the nature of the Internet
itself, rather than anything specific to Wikipedia. There is nothing unique
about anonymity on Wikipedia. In fact, it could be argued that internet
itself promotes anonymity - Internet protocol don't require any
Andreas wrote:
At the moment, I believe the only editors required to identify are arbitrators
and chapter members.
For the first, no, all functionaries (I had to provide proof of identity when I
got the oversight bit) as well as arbs have to identify to the Foundation.
Chapter members ... do
Hi Theo, thank you for the thorough response. You bring up very valid
points, specially around privacy standards across countries/continents with
a very different political and cultural makeup. And not something likely to
change unless supremacy over wikipedia is given to one specific entity or
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Sylvia Ventura
sylvia.vent...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Theo, thank you for the thorough response. You bring up very valid
points, specially around privacy standards across countries/continents with
a very different political and cultural makeup. And not something
A coupe of thoughts on the comment that internet itself promotes
anonymity that might have been the case in the early days, but as more of
our 'real lives' activity migrates online and replaces the physical world;
internet has become the 'repository' of knowledge, but also goods and
services,
Hi Sylvia
I share some of your concerns and agree with your insightful observations.
My comments are inline-
On Sat, May 11, 2013, Sylvia Ventura sylvia.vent...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Theo, thank you for the thorough response. You bring up very valid
points, specially around privacy standards
On 5/9/2013 4:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Bear in mind though that there is also a half-way house solution,
whereby contributors would identify to the Foundation, but remain at
liberty to use a pseudonymous user name.
Identification might then be a prerequisite for certain community
roles
OK, points taken below from Oliver Keyes about talking to trolls.
But here's what (knock wood) got my well known long term abuse harasser
(1000+ nasty and/or threatening emails, hundreds of reverts of edits to
me during last 6 months) off my back without going to the cops --which I
easily
20 matches
Mail list logo
