Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[jokarwilis2005]

Please help me about my blog bacause I am new star making blog m...give me some 
idea
Sent from my BlackBerry®
powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT

-Original Message-
From: philippe 

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 23:52:58 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results


Ahem.  List mods?


___
philippe
philippe.w...@gmail.com


[[en:User:Philippe]]

On Mar 3, 2009, at 11:39 PM, jokarwilis2...@gmail.com wrote:

> Anyone give me some idea abaut my blog .http://jokarwilis2009.blogspot.com
> Because my blog is low trafic
> --Original Message--
> From: Erik Moeller
> Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
> Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:15 AM
>
> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers?
>
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
> attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
> consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.
>
> -- 
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
>___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry®
> powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT
>___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[philippe]

Ahem.  List mods?


___
philippe
philippe.w...@gmail.com


[[en:User:Philippe]]

On Mar 3, 2009, at 11:39 PM, jokarwilis2...@gmail.com wrote:

> Anyone give me some idea abaut my blog .http://jokarwilis2009.blogspot.com
> Because my blog is low trafic
> --Original Message--
> From: Erik Moeller
> Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
> Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:15 AM
>
> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers?
>
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
> attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
> consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.
>
> -- 
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry®
> powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[jokarwilis2005]

Anyone give me some idea abaut my blog .http://jokarwilis2009.blogspot.com 
Because my blog is low trafic
--Original Message--
From: Erik Moeller
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:15 AM

2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
> CC lawyers?

We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.

-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


Sent from my BlackBerry®
powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[jokarwilis2005]

My is my live please give some information about trafic to my blog 
http://jokarwilis2009.blogspot.com
--Original Message--
From: geni
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:41 AM

2009/3/4 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers?
>
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
> attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
> consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.
>

What is their line of reasoning on that?



-- 
geni

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


Sent from my BlackBerry®
powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[Geoffrey Plourde]

They wrote the damned thing, so they are most likely to understand it. 





From: geni 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:41:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

2009/3/4 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers?
>
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
> attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
> consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.
>

What is their line of reasoning on that?



-- 
geni

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



  
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[geni]

2009/3/4 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers?
>
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
> attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
> consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.
>

What is their line of reasoning on that?



-- 
geni

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Cabal?

[Chris Down]

I realise, and beg of people not to actually believe I buy into this, but
when someone makes an accusation that someone is claiming to be a WMF
employee and claims that there is a conspiracy, I tend to bring it up. I beg
of people to not take me for an idiot.

- Chris

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Cary Bass  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Chris Down wrote:
> > Ipatrol has just came on IRC claiming that he has been told that
> > the WMF is hiring people to "validate" articles, and that the
> > foundation is doing it in secret by using thousands of IPs and
> > academics. He claims that the WMF has contracted colleges all
> > across the US have been recruiting academics to "validate"
> > articles, and states that admins are involved in this 'cabal', or
> > whatever.
> IRC is hardly a credible medium, and individuals frequently show up on
> various channels and make up things for whatever reason. "Trolling"
> is but one name for it. I suggest if it happens again, you look for
> one of the channel contacts and get more information. For example, a
> list of people with access to the #wikimedia channel can be found by
> typing:
>
> /msg ChanServ access #wikimedia list
>
>
> Admittedly, if you're a conspiracy theorist, it's reasonable to assume
> that whoever responds is part of the conspiracy...
>
> Cary
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFJrXt6yQg4JSymDYkRAsy0AJ95D01M+KT78Ur5ildHJj8u3ErxpACgxQXU
> ZEpVC8PPhDpfeWbnMzWxGyA=
> =TzEi
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[Erik Moeller]

2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
> CC lawyers?

We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.

-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Introducing our Usability Team

[Brian]

Make something not only usable but cool! Good luck guys.

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Naoko Komura  wrote:
> Please join me welcoming the new members of the Usability Project Team.
>
> Arash Boostani, a fourteen-year tech-veteran from Genentech, has joined
> the project team as a Senior Software Developer.  Arash also previously
> directed the development team of an environmental non-profit directory
> service called WiserEarth, which runs on collaborative software similar
> to MediaWiki.  At WiserEarth, Arash led the way in making the software
> available as open-source software for the development community.
>
> As of February 1st, Trevor Parscal was internally transferred from the
> Wikimedia tech team to the position of Software Developer on the
> Usability project.  Trevor has over eight years experience as an
> independent consultant in both software development and user interface
> design.  After joining WMF, Trevor worked on data center management
> tools, amongst other development projects.
>
> Parul Vora, a former resident designer of the Design Innovation Team at
> Yahoo! (Yhaus) and researcher at Yahoo! Research Berkeley, joined the
> team.  Parul brings a unique combined talent of user experience
> research, design, and technology to the team.  She has worked on various
> research and design projects such as experimental information interfaces
> and an event-based media sharing application. At Intel Research Labs,
> she researched open-source physical computing platforms, their sensors
> and actuators, and visual programming languages for mobile phone platforms.
>
> We are currently interviewing candidates for the second software
> developer position.
>
> It is my honor and privilege to work with Arash, Trevor and Parul on the
> Wikipedia Usability Initiative. I am excited to have the mixture of
> great talents on the team.
>
> Naoko Komura
>
> Program Manager
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Support Free Knowledge:  http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[David Gerard]

2009/3/4 Fred Bauder :

> How about something a little more helpful?


Uh, I think pointing out obvious problems counts, particularly when
the solution offered is to do the same things that are already
problematic twice as hard.

The hard part is to lead the community to a standard of living bio
that is suitable.

* What makes a valid research source is not something teenagers on a
website can make up off the top of their heads and expect to get
right, but that's what WP:RS is. See the talk page if you don't
believe me. Hubris and enthusiasm don't make competence,
unfortunately.
* No guideline or policy will protect against stupidity or malice, and
those that try to will be a millstone for good faith editors. But time
and time again, the community reaction has been to add more policies
and guidelines in the hope these will protect against stupidity or
malice, and blame the good faith editors for not following the bad
guidelines hard enough. See the current arbitration case on the
matter.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Fred Bauder]

> 2009/3/3 Matthew Brown :
>
>> I see no reason why having an article on someone need include
>> information not published in reliable sources.  If they're well-known
>> for something in the public eye but details of their life elsewhere
>> are not prevalent, then that's how our article should be as well.
>
>
> This will promptly become a "your source is great"/"no yours sucks
> mine rules" battle. When we started requiring references, that became
> the target of the querulous. And everyone is convinced the term
> "reliable sources" is actually (a) objectively definable (b) invariant
> for all topics.
>
> And never mind that people who know about the construction of ontology
> and how it works usually have a degree or two in the subject, I'm sure
> a bunch of people who've been on a wiki for a few months can make up
> something that passes all muster, and if it doesn't then reality is
> wrong. And the New York Times is gospel, but anything in the subject's
> own blog must be first assumed to be a tissue of lies, and the subject
> themselves buried in initialisms.
>
>
> - d.

How about something a little more helpful?

Fred



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Introducing our Usability Team

[Naoko Komura]

Please join me welcoming the new members of the Usability Project Team.

Arash Boostani, a fourteen-year tech-veteran from Genentech, has joined 
the project team as a Senior Software Developer.  Arash also previously 
directed the development team of an environmental non-profit directory 
service called WiserEarth, which runs on collaborative software similar 
to MediaWiki.  At WiserEarth, Arash led the way in making the software 
available as open-source software for the development community.

As of February 1st, Trevor Parscal was internally transferred from the 
Wikimedia tech team to the position of Software Developer on the 
Usability project.  Trevor has over eight years experience as an 
independent consultant in both software development and user interface 
design.  After joining WMF, Trevor worked on data center management 
tools, amongst other development projects.

Parul Vora, a former resident designer of the Design Innovation Team at 
Yahoo! (Yhaus) and researcher at Yahoo! Research Berkeley, joined the 
team.  Parul brings a unique combined talent of user experience 
research, design, and technology to the team.  She has worked on various 
research and design projects such as experimental information interfaces 
and an event-based media sharing application. At Intel Research Labs, 
she researched open-source physical computing platforms, their sensors 
and actuators, and visual programming languages for mobile phone platforms.

We are currently interviewing candidates for the second software 
developer position.

It is my honor and privilege to work with Arash, Trevor and Parul on the 
Wikipedia Usability Initiative. I am excited to have the mixture of 
great talents on the team.

Naoko Komura

Program Manager
Wikimedia Foundation






-- 
Support Free Knowledge:  http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Delirium]

David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>   
>> Sure, the persons themselves can not be harmed, but our
>> deep understanding of the forces of history, and what force
>> personality, heredity, cultural context and up-bringing play
>> within it, is immeasurably impoverished by getting a view that
>> is faulty.
>> 
>
>
> In which case it's an important issue, but it's not *this* important
> issue. At all. Even a bit.
>   
I'd argue that they're actually pretty closely interwtined issues--- 
incorrect information in a Wikipedia article harming actual, currently 
living people. There are some areas where this is very unlikely, and 
other areas where it's more likely, and I agree with many that we ought 
to have better policies on the areas where it's more likely. But I think 
we do somewhat a disservice to the overall mission by splitting off BLPs 
into separate policies and treat them as if they're some unique category 
unto themselves. Rather, I'd gather together "negative information about 
living people", "inflammatory information about ongoing conflicts", 
"poorly source information relating to current elections", and similar 
categories into a tier of information that has particularly stringent 
application of the verification and NPOV policies.

-Mark


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I'm making a point of replying to this before I read any of the other 
> responses to avoid being tainted by them.
>
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>   
>> * The editors I've spoken with about BLPs are pretty serious about them –
>> they are generally conservative, restrained, privacy-conscious, etc. But I
>> wonder if that general attitude is widely-shared. If Wikipedia believes (as
>> is said in -for example- the English BLP policy) that it has a
>> responsibility to take great care with BLPs, should there be a
>> Wikipedia-wide BLP policy, or a projects-wide statement of some kind?
>>   
>> 
> The English Wikipedia is probably the worst offender.  Until that is 
> sorted out a Wikipedia wide policy is premature.  The qualities at the 
> beginning of you paragraph are important, but a level of common sense 
> also needs to be applied.  In unbalanced criticism any individual 
> comment may be perfectly valid when viewed in isolation.  The problem is 
> with the effect of restating details, or the injudicious use of 
> adjectives in places where they don't enlighten.
>
>   

I doubt your statement "The English Wikipedia is probably the
worst offender." has genuine statistical evidence behind it. But
no doubt it can't be far behind from the worst.

I do think your instinct about policies not being panaceas is
likely accurate though. It isn't policy change (or regime change :)
wikipedia projects need. It is contributor culture change. And
that is hardest to bring about.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[David Gerard]

2009/3/3 Matthew Brown :

> I see no reason why having an article on someone need include
> information not published in reliable sources.  If they're well-known
> for something in the public eye but details of their life elsewhere
> are not prevalent, then that's how our article should be as well.


This will promptly become a "your source is great"/"no yours sucks
mine rules" battle. When we started requiring references, that became
the target of the querulous. And everyone is convinced the term
"reliable sources" is actually (a) objectively definable (b) invariant
for all topics.

And never mind that people who know about the construction of ontology
and how it works usually have a degree or two in the subject, I'm sure
a bunch of people who've been on a wiki for a few months can make up
something that passes all muster, and if it doesn't then reality is
wrong. And the New York Times is gospel, but anything in the subject's
own blog must be first assumed to be a tissue of lies, and the subject
themselves buried in initialisms.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Matthew Brown]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:
> That would not preclude an article about the movie, if notable, although
> only a few films spring to mind. And the name of the actor can be
> mentioned but ought not be a redlink, unless the person's private life is
> notable and the subject of substantial information published in reliable
> sources.

I see no reason why having an article on someone need include
information not published in reliable sources.  If they're well-known
for something in the public eye but details of their life elsewhere
are not prevalent, then that's how our article should be as well.

-Matt

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Fred Bauder]

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> I asked whether raising the notability bar would improve the
>>> overall quality of BLPs. Do we have other ideas for preventative
>>> measures?
>>
>> The start of a poor biography is good news coverage of some
>> incident that occurred to a person, their 15 minutes of fame, or
>> infamy. Any other information about the person is not available, at
>> least not from any reliable published source. To avoid this would
>> require exclusion of biographies regarding persons about whom
>> information about their life, apart from an incident, is
>> unavailable.
> This would exclude a great deal of pornographic actresses and actors.
> Which I don't think is a bad thing, in fact. I'm far from a prude,
> but someone who is solely notable for appearing in a few pornographic
> films seems to contradict what our policy is regarding other inclusion
> categories; and these articles seem to have a higher-than-average
> incident of compliant rate, notably when personal information begins
> to appear on their articles.
>
> Cary

That would not preclude an article about the movie, if notable, although
only a few films spring to mind. And the name of the actor can be
mentioned but ought not be a redlink, unless the person's private life is
notable and the subject of substantial information published in reliable
sources.

Fred



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I'm making a point of replying to this before I read any of the other 
> responses to avoid being tainted by them.
>
>   
And I am keeping with the spirit of a statement I made in an
earlier post, and am keeping my replies to specific focused
points short and sweet.

> Sue Gardner wrote:
>   

>> * Wikimedians have developed lots of tools for preventing/fixing vandalism
>> and errors of fact. Where less progress has been made, I think, is on the
>> question of disproportionate criticism. It seems to me that the solution may
>> include the development of systems designed to expose particularly biased
>> articles to a greater number of people who can help fix them. But this is a
>> pretty tough problem and I would welcome people's suggestions for resolving
>> it
>>   
>> 
> The problem with rules that are too detailed is that the letter of the 
> rules often overrides the spirit of those rules.  It does little good 
> when a discussion about a possibly derogatory statement migrates to one 
> about the use of primary or secondary sources.  When every detail about 
> a BLP receives the same scrutiny the really bad stuff tends to fall into 
> the background, and energies are sapped by being perfect over details 
> which, even if wrong, are harmless.  The question, for example, of where 
> the subject attended school is not usually harmful if it's wrong.  If 
> the subject tries to correct this we need to trust him in the absence of 
> reason for the contrary, and we need somehow to credit him as the source 
> of that information.  To question this without reason presumes bad faith.
>   

This is not unexceptionally accurate. There are many details
of biographical articles where it is not even close to presuming
bad faith on the person in question to assume they might out
of a perfectly natural human foible (a foible is not even close
to bad faith) wish to gild the lily or embellish, or even retouch
a blemish. I certainly know I have fallen for that in many
instances, when telling tales of my deeds, and know many
people who probably remember events I have personally
witnessed wholly sane, sober and of sound mind with a vivid
memory, but they remember what happened to their own benefit,
quite naturally and non-bad-faith.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen




___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>   
>> I think it is very on point to mention that even if some
>> things were on that list, that would not make them
>> *more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of
>> them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if
>> they were infact contrary to our mission.
>> 
>
> Indeed. What we need to determine is what things are both acceptable
> to the community *and* legal. They are two independent criteria that
> both need to be satisfied.
>
>   

Actually, what the CC lawyers would say, would *not*
constitute what is legal. it would just be some vague
interpretation of their intents and understandings; and
I doubt they would even confidentially let anyone know
*all* their views of possible legal ramifications.

It is not true that some concrete and definable "what
is legal" should be satisfied. In fact it would be contrary
to many of our core mission issues to satisfy many
"what is legal" criteria, in quite a few jurisdictions.

And not just in China, but quite palpably also in the UK.
(Crown Copyright for instance).

What we do want to enable though, is interoperability
within reasonable limits of concordance with our mission,
and jurisdictional issues of importing, exporting content
and keeping it generally in play within a copyleft framework.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Michael Snow wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>   
>> Let me repeat that in a different way, for emphasis: I think that a 
>> great number of our biographies, and bad in a particular way.  Minor 
>> controversies are exploded into central stories of people's lives in a 
>> way that is abusive and unfair, and games players have learned how to 
>> properly cite things and good people have a hard time battling against 
>> violations of WP:UNDUE.
>>   
>> 
> I've made this observation before, but I think it bears repeating. At 
> least on the English Wikipedia, a frequent practice is to start a 
> section called "Criticism and controversy" or some variation thereof. 
> This indicates to me an utter failure to write an actual biographical 
> article. If we can't figure out how to integrate something into the 
> overall picture of someone's life, then we're definitely failing to 
> provide the context to actually understand the controversy, probably 
> giving it distorted emphasis, and possibly lacking the material to treat 
> the person as the subject of an independent article. Quite often, of 
> course, the back-and-forth in that section ends up overwhelming any 
> other content instead.
>   

While I find it impossible to disagree with your characterization
of the current situation in any depth, and for sentimental reasons
don't wish to engage teh view expressed by Jimmy Wales above
your reply; I am bound to note that this state of affairs does
present a certain historical irony, in that "Criticism and controversy"
sections did not originate as a way of "starting" a biasing against
a person whom the article was about, but as a way of keeping the
main body of the biographical wholly hagiographical, and all the
seamy sides being able to be rebutted in the "controversy" section,
with none of the encomiums and even the worst saccharine
sentiments in the hagiographical portion challenged at all
by even the gentlest critical glance. "Yes, we won't be removing
that sourced information, just moving it out of the way of the main
flow of our sweet article about this wonderful person."


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> I think it is very on point to mention that even if some
> things were on that list, that would not make them
> *more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of
> them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if
> they were infact contrary to our mission.

Indeed. What we need to determine is what things are both acceptable
to the community *and* legal. They are two independent criteria that
both need to be satisfied.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Jesse (Pathoschild) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There have been a lot of points raised, so I'll answer a few
> generally. (All messages from committee members, including this one,
> are personal messages and don't represent the committee.)
>   
Very cool parenthetical remark there, just as an aside.
> New simple-language wikis will not be created under the current
> policy, simply because the policy does not have objective criteria
> that would allow them. Do we allow any simple wikis, like a "simple
> Cherokee" Wikipedia? If not, what objective criteria distinguish
> deserving from non-deserving languages? If so, should we also permit
> scientific-language wikis, and any other arbitrary variant
> contributors may legitimately propose? If not, what criteria
> distinguish deserving from non-deserving variants?
>   
I think this is a conundrum, and I tried to offer a shortcut
way of proceeding with non-English simples, without
thinking about the criteria at all, by just dumping them
all into incubator, and following the criteria of viable
community size/activity criteria or what have you - I frankly
have no idea what they are at all, but I am betting they are
getting viable project results, or you would be adjusting
them - and hatching them when they meet the criteria.

Don't see why you couldn't have a go at letting non-
simples from at least a few of the largest languages have
a test at creating a viable community of editors in a simple
variant of their language.

I know as a fact that even such a minor language as Finnish,
does have many many books in any decent public library
worthy of the name (studying as I am Library and information
sciences - and paddling very hard below the surface for my
"craftsmanship work") here would have a respectable
number of books written both in large print, and in simplified
form (not always intersecting). But I confess that may be an
artifact of being a citizen of one of the nations with the highest
literacy rates on record.

> There are two ways to create new simple-language wikis. The first,
> most obvious but most difficult, is to formulate those criteria so
> that the policy can be changed to allow them. The second is to
> circumvent the policy, by convincing the Board to accept such a
> proposal directly. (The second may be possible, but would be very
> unfair to contributors who want a simple non-English wiki, which won't
> have the same amount of popular support to sway the Board.)
>   
I frankly don't understand what would be "very unfair" to
let larger language projects with more weight behind them,
be the ones to do the hard lifting to actually establish the fact
gosh-darn it, English is *not* the only simple that can be viable.

Baby steps, baby steps. Get a beach head first, and soon you
can haul in smaller languages.



> The language committee itself was created by Board approval, and can
> be dismantled or have its membership changed by Board approval.
> Without a language subcommittee, requests would need to be processed
> by the Board or the sysadmins directly. More likely, the membership
> would be changed in case of problems. I think the language committee
> does more good than ill, but persons who disagree can certainly gather
> together and propose a change.
>
>   

Or of course, people on the committee can grow themselves
noses, ears, and other senses, and observe the environment
more clearly.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[David Gerard]

2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :

> Bear with me. I started with that, because that is something
> at the periphery, easily overlooked. I will focus on the meat
> of the issue in due time.


Then I ask you to get to the point and stay on it, because this needs
to be a thread focused on this specific issue, not one susceptible to
being hijacked for other causes. Whether that's your intention or not.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>   
>> Sure, the persons themselves can not be harmed, but our
>> deep understanding of the forces of history, and what force
>> personality, heredity, cultural context and up-bringing play
>> within it, is immeasurably impoverished by getting a view that
>> is faulty.
>> 
>
>
> In which case it's an important issue, but it's not *this* important
> issue. At all. Even a bit.
>
>
>   

Bear with me. I started with that, because that is something
at the periphery, easily overlooked. I will focus on the meat
of the issue in due time.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[David Gerard]

2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :

> Sure, the persons themselves can not be harmed, but our
> deep understanding of the forces of history, and what force
> personality, heredity, cultural context and up-bringing play
> within it, is immeasurably impoverished by getting a view that
> is faulty.


In which case it's an important issue, but it's not *this* important
issue. At all. Even a bit.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I'm making a point of replying to this before I read any of the other 
> responses to avoid being tainted by them.
>
>   
Since I think you make several insightful observations
well worth focusing on, I hope you will in return not
mind me replying in several messages to your one,  just
so I don't create a huge long message,  but can focus on
each point with the detail and consideration it deserves.

(I may take some time between each partial reply, just so
I don't give a quick and shallow reply.)

> Sue Gardner wrote:
>   
>> * Do we think the current complaints resolution systems are working?  Is it
>> easy enough for article subjects to report problems?  Are we courteous and
>> serious in our handling of complaints?  Do the people handling complaints
>> need training/support/resources to help them resolve the problem (if there
>> is one)?  Are there intractable problems, and if so, what can we do to solve
>> them?  
>>   
>> 
> Training accomplishes very little if we don't know what we want that 
> training to accomplish.  At some level it is important, but it is not in 
> itself THE problem.  Courtesy is a personal quality that is most often 
> not amenable to training.  Discourtesies need to be handled with an even 
> hand.  If courtesy is shown to the subject, but not to the apparently 
> offending writer, the problem is exacerbated when the writer feels 
> pushed to defend his actions.  An intervenor who takes an unnecessarily 
> aggressive approach to fixing an article is as much a part of the 
> problem.  The intractable problems are rooted in human nature.
>
> I have always believed that the subjects of BLPs should have a right of 
> reply.  To some extent they should have the right to publicly rebut what 
> is said about them.  Such rebuttals need to be clearly identified and 
> attributed, and, unless they launche a clear personal attack on some 
> other person, even an outrageous reply needs to be added without content 
> editing.
>
>   

Personally, (and I admit, this inflames me no end, and I *do*
lose sleep over it) BDP's should have a right of reply too, from
beneath the grave (yes, I am referring to Biographies of
Dead Persons), but they rarely get an even shake. There are
various Biographies of specific Swedish nobles from the late
18th century whose portrayal is clearly libelous, if it were said
of a living person, as it was written in the 1911 edition of EB -
and largely unedited, incorporated into the English language
wikipedia. (I wish I had the historiographical/biographical
know-how and energy to rectify that, but I have to admit I
don't.)

And I am not claiming outrage at a systemic bias, but just
flagrant bias as per the author of the specific entry.

Sure, the persons themselves can not be harmed, but our
deep understanding of the forces of history, and what force
personality, heredity, cultural context and up-bringing play
within it, is immeasurably impoverished by getting a view that
is faulty.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen






___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>   
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 
>>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>>> CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their interpretation of it is
>>> highly relevant. Community opinion is only relevant within the bounds
>>> of what is acceptable under the license.
>>>
>>>   
>> While there is nothing I disagree logically with in your
>> statement; I do think the last sentence is only acceptable
>> if taken in the absolute.
>>
>> Certainly that is an "utmost" framework that cannot be
>> transgressed. But there are many, many, many things
>> clearly and unambiguously acceptable within hte bounds
>> of the license, which are clearly unacceptable for our
>> mission.
>>
>> There is no reason for us to stretch the license "as far
>> as it can go".
>> 
>
> I don't understand what you are disagreeing with... The license has
> certain requirements, there is a long list of things that would
> satisfy those requirements. Community opinion should be used to decide
> which items on that list we consider acceptable, it can't be used to
> decide that things not on that list are acceptable.
>
>   

The source of your confusion is simple. You think I disagree
with you, when I (plainly worded and quoted by you) find
"nothing I disagree logically with in your statement".

I simply do not disagree with you. Period.

But you do introduce a very specific staement in your
confusion that can help to progress further gains in
understanding.

You say specifically that "Community opinion should be
used to decide which items on that list we consider
acceptable, it can't be used to decide that things not
on that list are acceptable."

I think it is very on point to mention that even if some
things were on that list, that would not make them
*more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of
them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if
they were infact contrary to our mission.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their interpretation of it is
>> highly relevant. Community opinion is only relevant within the bounds
>> of what is acceptable under the license.
>>
>
> While there is nothing I disagree logically with in your
> statement; I do think the last sentence is only acceptable
> if taken in the absolute.
>
> Certainly that is an "utmost" framework that cannot be
> transgressed. But there are many, many, many things
> clearly and unambiguously acceptable within hte bounds
> of the license, which are clearly unacceptable for our
> mission.
>
> There is no reason for us to stretch the license "as far
> as it can go".

I don't understand what you are disagreeing with... The license has
certain requirements, there is a long list of things that would
satisfy those requirements. Community opinion should be used to decide
which items on that list we consider acceptable, it can't be used to
decide that things not on that list are acceptable.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Erik Moeller :
>   
>> Hello all,
>>
>> as some of you may have seen, I've run a small survey over the
>> weekend, scattered via a 5% site-notice on the English Wikipedia for
>> signed in users. The result is a self-selected sample of authors. I'll
>> publish the full anonymous raw data later this week, and I also intend
>> to run it on the German Wikipedia to get some comparative data. Please
>> note that I'll probably turn off the English version before doing so,
>> so if you feel you still want to take the survey yourself, you can do
>> so at: http://survey.wikimedia.org/index.php?sid=69514
>> 
>
> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
> CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their interpretation of it is
> highly relevant. Community opinion is only relevant within the bounds
> of what is acceptable under the license.
>   

While there is nothing I disagree logically with in your
statement; I do think the last sentence is only acceptable
if taken in the absolute.

Certainly that is an "utmost" framework that cannot be
transgressed. But there are many, many, many things
clearly and unambiguously acceptable within hte bounds
of the license, which are clearly unacceptable for our
mission.

There is no reason for us to stretch the license "as far
as it can go".


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report a problem link

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> I doubt that it is worth our while to discuss Wikia policies.

I vehemently disagree. I see no reason to assume Wikia
have learned nothing that wikimedia could learn from.

I do admit most things they focus on will not translate
to wikimedia, but still cross-pollination always enriches
the gene-pool.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Ray Saintonge]

David Gerard wrote:
> If bad writing were curable by guidelines and policies, English
> Wikipedia would be brilliant prose from end to end. It isn't - there's
> a discernible "Wikipedia style" which is flat, grey and neutralised.
>   

This would seem to put us in the same class as such great publications 
as "The Watchtower" and "Awake". :-)

Ec

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Cabal?

[Cary Bass]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Chris Down wrote:
> Ipatrol has just came on IRC claiming that he has been told that
> the WMF is hiring people to "validate" articles, and that the
> foundation is doing it in secret by using thousands of IPs and
> academics. He claims that the WMF has contracted colleges all
> across the US have been recruiting academics to "validate"
> articles, and states that admins are involved in this 'cabal', or
> whatever.
IRC is hardly a credible medium, and individuals frequently show up on
various channels and make up things for whatever reason. "Trolling"
is but one name for it. I suggest if it happens again, you look for
one of the channel contacts and get more information. For example, a
list of people with access to the #wikimedia channel can be found by
typing:

/msg ChanServ access #wikimedia list


Admittedly, if you're a conspiracy theorist, it's reasonable to assume
that whoever responds is part of the conspiracy...

Cary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJrXt6yQg4JSymDYkRAsy0AJ95D01M+KT78Ur5ildHJj8u3ErxpACgxQXU
ZEpVC8PPhDpfeWbnMzWxGyA=
=TzEi
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Erik Moeller]

2009/3/3 Fred Bauder :
> With respect to biographies of living persons, unless there is sufficient
> reliable published information about a person to flesh out a well
> balanced article we shouldn't have one.

This is an important principle, I think. Not necessarily in this form
- but IMO the discussion has suffered a bit from a one-dimensional
focus on notability. Let's say there's a three-step test:

1) The article is not a balanced and complete biography of a person's
life an work;
2) The person is marginally notable;
3) The person wants the article deleted.

If all those three tests are met, the article would be deleted. If
only 1) and 2) are met, at the very least, the article would be
templated for improvement, with a clear note saying that if you're the
subject and you want it deleted, you can request that through a simple
process.

Essentially, we've often said that an article which only consists of
"An apple is a fruit" can become a masterpiece overtime, but I think
when it comes to one-sided biographies, we need to take into account
that our happy little article workshop is also used by nearly 300
million people as a one stop reference. What's the justification for
publishing poor quality biographies of marginally notable people, even
against the subject's wishes?
-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Cary Bass]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>> The English Wikipedia is probably the worst offender.  Until that
>> is sorted out a Wikipedia wide policy is premature.  The
>> qualities at the beginning of you paragraph are important, but a
>> level of common sense also needs to be applied.  In unbalanced
>> criticism any individual comment may be perfectly valid when
>> viewed in isolation.  The problem is with the effect of restating
>> details, or the injudicious use of adjectives in places where
>> they don't enlighten.
I would venture to say that some of our smaller Wikipedias in the
range of 1000 to 1 articles may be worse offenders, on a
per-biography basis, than the English Wikipedia; given that the
community standards of inclusion are highly varied.  The complaints I
used to receive about the Yiddish Wikipedia, to just cite one example,
were varied, and always involved biographies of people who would fail
inclusion rather well on the English, and most other larger Wikipedias.

Cary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJrXgVyQg4JSymDYkRAmYvAJ9BVgkMvnsYZTQje9gR9VYYiaIogQCfSbjU
ezPFIZEVW236OPSGManW6bc=
=GEmc
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Ziko van Dijk]

The whole issue might be approached in these steps:

1) Determine the role of the Foundation
We claim that WMF does not interfere with the content. How true is this, and
how true we want to make it? It is pretty easy to say that "our national
Wikimedia organisation" is not the owner, but WMF in a country far far away
and difficult to suit. And WMF claims that it is not responsible for
content, but the author in question. But if WMF establishes a policy about
BLP, there might rise doubt this.

2) Determine what the issue exactly is
If someone complaints about "his" article, his criticism can be reasonable
or not. So this is the policy itself. Maybe WMF could support (together with
other organizations) a group of experts that makes a policy proposal for
internet platforms in general.

3) Help the readers, "victims" and Wikipedians
Not only for the persons concerned, but also for the Wikipedians it is
important to know how to deal with the issue. I would welcome a brochure for
people who believe that their personality rights are inflicted, and training
lessons for Wikipedians. Those lessons could be organized by Wikimedia
organisations with a more general title, also interesting for a curriculum
vitae (resumé) of the participating Wikipedians.

Kind regards
Ziko


-- 
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Cary Bass]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Aude wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen 
> wrote:
>
>> Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies we have related
>> to BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more resource in
>> the inforcement of these policies. The meetings Philipp mentioned
>> in Germany are a very good start point. Perhaps the foundation
>> can help organize such OTRS-training-meetings in the US (because
>> the lack of a US chapter) and other countries, just as a
>> beginning. Later we maybe we can see how we can expand this to
>> more regions and countries. We should also encourage more people
>> to work and help on OTRS and give them due support.
>>
>> Ting
>
>
> I am a newer OTRS volunteer and am hesitant on handling tickets,
> except for the very easiest ones, because I'm not totally sure how
> to handle them. I did ask some questions a couple months ago on
> the OTRS mailing list about handling tickets, but never got a
> satisfactory response.
>
> A training workshop would be a welcome opportunity to raise
> questions and really understand better how to help on OTRS in a way
> that reading the online documentation can't/doesn't provide. A
> meeting in the US would be fine, but also something at Wikimania
> and/or if there are other regional wiki conferences.
>
> -Aude
I'm well aware that members of the Wikimania program committee are on
this list, and I'd be happy to lead a session on handling complaints
at Wikimania. This isn't exactly what the German OTRS team did last
year, but it's at least something. We may wish to try to organize
regional workshops as well.

Cary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJrXXGyQg4JSymDYkRAuNAAJ4g//tGWutMCDONI8aG4grXEhMdXQCgnnCW
ZKFeLGoOuIfvcirZuWF0sKw=
=GaCk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Cary Bass]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Fred Bauder wrote:
>> I asked whether raising the notability bar would improve the
>> overall quality of BLPs. Do we have other ideas for preventative
>> measures?
>
> The start of a poor biography is good news coverage of some
> incident that occurred to a person, their 15 minutes of fame, or
> infamy. Any other information about the person is not available, at
> least not from any reliable published source. To avoid this would
> require exclusion of biographies regarding persons about whom
> information about their life, apart from an incident, is
> unavailable.
This would exclude a great deal of pornographic actresses and actors.
Which I don't think is a bad thing, in fact. I'm far from a prude,
but someone who is solely notable for appearing in a few pornographic
films seems to contradict what our policy is regarding other inclusion
categories; and these articles seem to have a higher-than-average
incident of compliant rate, notably when personal information begins
to appear on their articles.

Cary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJrXMoyQg4JSymDYkRAt5CAJ9sOYAFCHxhM3rFbztoMTggdh1iogCffadt
khnNvLaW51LtevFDpDWxMyU=
=ZXP5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report a problem link

[Michael Snow]

David Gerard wrote:
> Michael, is there any reason not to put Anthony on moderation?
>   
Actually, the problem is the thread, which is a complaint about Wikia 
practices that is off-topic for this list. Anthony didn't start the 
discussion, it's the thread that should be moderated.

--Michael Snow

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report a problem link

[David Gerard]

2009/3/3 Anthony :

> Really?  You think Wikia's lawyers told Wikia's management that their
> "strong belief is that [Wikia] can make *suggestions* to the community about
> what content policy should be, but that *it must remain up to the community
> whether to adopt such policies and how to enforce them*"?  If so, I'd love
> to hear from someone at Wikia about it, as well as why and to what extent
> they chose not to follow it.
> Or do you think the advice gave to "your managers" is different from that
> which he gave in this recent email?


Stop trolling.

Michael, is there any reason not to put Anthony on moderation?


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report a problem link

[Anthony]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/3/3 Anthony :
> > Are Wikia's lawyers as paranoid as Mike Godwin, or do they allow staff to
> > get involved in enforcing policy violations?
>
> I think paranoia is a significant part of what lawyers are paid for.


See, it was a neutral term I was using after all!

I expect Wikia's lawyers have given their managers the same advice as
> Mike has given ours, although the respective managements may have
> different ideas about what is and isn't an acceptable risk (that isn't
> generally up to the lawyers).


Really?  You think Wikia's lawyers told Wikia's management that their
"strong belief is that [Wikia] can make *suggestions* to the community about
what content policy should be, but that *it must remain up to the community
whether to adopt such policies and how to enforce them*"?  If so, I'd love
to hear from someone at Wikia about it, as well as why and to what extent
they chose not to follow it.

Or do you think the advice gave to "your managers" is different from that
which he gave in this recent email?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Birgitte SB]

--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Aude  wrote:

> From: Aude 
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living 
> people
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
> Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 2:52 AM
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen
>  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies
> we have related to
> >> BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more
> resource in the
> >> inforcement of these policies. The meetings
> Philipp mentioned in Germany
> >> are a very good start point. Perhaps the
> foundation can help organize
> >> such OTRS-training-meetings in the US (because the
> lack of a US chapter)
> >> and other countries, just as a beginning. Later we
> maybe we can see how
> >> we can expand this to more regions and countries.
> We should also
> >> encourage more people to work and help on OTRS and
> give them due support.
> >>
> >> Ting
> >
> >
> 
> Regarding putting more resources into enforcement of BLP
> policies, what
> resources are you talking about?  I have seen problems
> reported to the BLP
> and other noticeboards, with no response or inadequate
> responses from admins
> and editors.


One problem I encountered is that the BLP noticeboard on en.WP is regularly 
archived by date, whether or not a thread has been resolved.  I frankly don't 
do much work in this area, but I occasionally stumble across something and 
report it there.  The lack of feedback about whether the issue I reported was 
significant is discouraging. I imagine casual reporters who do not see the 
issues they report resolved nor get feedback on why the issues is not a concern 
simply stop making reports there. 

Birgitte SB




  


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Birgitte SB]

--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Sue Gardner  wrote:

> From: Sue Gardner 
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living 
> people
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
> Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 2:17 AM
> 2009/3/2 philippe 
> 
> >
> >
> > On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM, private musings wrote:
> >
> > > basically there's a sensible three stage plan
> to follow to help drive
> > > quality and minimise 'BLP' harm;
> > >
> > > 1) Semi-protext all 'BLP' material
> > > 2) Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects
> (eg. non public figures, or
> > > those
> > > not covered in 'dead tree sources' for
> example) - note this is more
> > > inclusive than a simple higher threshold for
> notability
> > > 3) 'Default to delete' in discussions
> about BLP material - if we can't
> > > positively say that it improves the project,
> it's sensible and
> > > responsible
> > > to remove the material in my view.
> >
> >
> > As a general rule, I think pm has given us a
> common-sense place to
> > begin discussions about how to cleanup existing BLPs. 
> There will
> > always be situations that don't fit within this,
> but as a starting
> > point for guidelines, I support these.
> 
> 
> It seems obvious to me from the conversation on this thread
> that part of the
> reason the German Wikipedia seems better able to manage its
> BLPs (assuming
> that is true - but it seems true) is because there is a
> smaller number of
> them. Presumably a smaller number of BLPs = fewer to
> maintain and
> problem-solve = a higher quality level overall. (And
> possibly also, OTRS
> volunteers who are less stressed out, resulting in a higher
> level of
> patience and kindness when complaints do get made.)
> 
> Assuming that's true, allowing BLP subjects to opt-out
> seems like it would
> have a direct positive increase on the quality of remaining
> BLPs, in
> addition to eliminating some BLPs entirely.  Clearly, there
> would still be a
> notability threshold above which people would never be
> allowed to opt out -
> there will always be articles about people such as Hillary
> Clinton and J.K.
> Rowling and Penelope Cruz. But a decision to significantly
> raise that
> threshold, as well as default to deletion upon request,
> seems like it would
> have a positive effect on quality.
> 
> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising
> the notability
> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion
> upon request is a
> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other
> Wikipedias should shift
> closer to the German Wikipedia's
> generally-less-permissive policies and
> practices, particularly WRT BLPs?

1) Raising the notability threshold is not an intrinsically bad idea, but it is 
hard to agree without knowing the new threshold. 

2) Defaulting to delete should be for all BLPs or none.  I disagree that it  be 
any different because it was requested. It will only lead to false hopes and 
greater disappointment if we have a special rule for "per request". Personally 
I support defaulting to delete on all BLPs

3) I disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift to follow 
anyone's policy or practices.  They need to work out what will work best in the 
culture of their own community. Although the goal of protecting living people 
from being harmed by Wikipedia needs to be universal, I don't that it should be 
put in terms of de-style or en-style.


Birgitte SB


  


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Michael Snow]

Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/3/3 David Gerard :
>   
>> 2009/3/3 Sue Gardner :
>> 
>>> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
>>> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
>>> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
>>> closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and
>>> practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
>>>   
>> Deletion upon request is a terrible idea. It will lead to only
>> hagiographies - violations of NPOV - being kept. (This has been
>> discussed at length on wikien-l, fwiw.)
>> 
> That said, reacting the other way and *prohibiting* deletion on
> request is also counterproductive - we've skirted close to this on
> enwp in the past, where people have interpreted "subject has asked us
> to delete it" as being an automatic cast-iron reason to keep it in
> place. I mean, I've seen cases where someone's stood up and said "this
> article is atrocious, subject wants it deleted" and it's been kept
> (with a variety of snide comments), whereas had they just said "this
> article is atrocious", it'd have been killed with no objections.
>   
I agree with all of this. Fundamentally, our work as a community is to 
exercise editorial judgment, and we have a responsibility not to 
abdicate it. That gives me a dislike of default deletion upon request. 
But someone making a request is a sign that the article really needs a 
hard look, and quite possibly should be removed for not meeting our 
standards. So the reversed presumption of "default to delete, unless 
consensus to keep" is a good idea for living subjects. I would add that 
when this is in question, arguments that make excuses for the current 
state of the article are not valid reasons to keep it.

--Michael Snow

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report a problem link

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/3/3 Anthony :
> Are Wikia's lawyers as paranoid as Mike Godwin, or do they allow staff to
> get involved in enforcing policy violations?

I think paranoia is a significant part of what lawyers are paid for. I
expect Wikia's lawyers have given their managers the same advice as
Mike has given ours, although the respective managements may have
different ideas about what is and isn't an acceptable risk (that isn't
generally up to the lawyers).

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report a problem link

[Geoffrey Plourde]

We should have him teach a Wikiversity class on how to be like Mike! 





From: Gerard Meijssen 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:30:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Report a problem link

Hoi,
I doubt that it is worth our while to discuss Wikia policies.. certainly
with loaded questions like this one. Then again, it might be considered a
compliment .. "as paranoid as Mike Godwin" .. I like Mike :)
Thanks,
 GerardM

2009/3/3 Anthony 

> Are Wikia's lawyers as paranoid as Mike Godwin, or do they allow staff to
> get involved in enforcing policy violations?
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



  
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report a problem link

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I doubt that it is worth our while to discuss Wikia policies.. certainly
with loaded questions like this one. Then again, it might be considered a
compliment .. "as paranoid as Mike Godwin" .. I like Mike :)
Thanks,
 GerardM

2009/3/3 Anthony 

> Are Wikia's lawyers as paranoid as Mike Godwin, or do they allow staff to
> get involved in enforcing policy violations?
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report a problem link

[Anthony]

Are Wikia's lawyers as paranoid as Mike Godwin, or do they allow staff to
get involved in enforcing policy violations?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Report a problem link

[Gregory Kohs]

*Angela* beesley at gmail.com said:

+

Problem Reports are used quite successfully on Wikia.

+

Yes, I used the convenient Wikia links to report several problems with Green
Wikia articles plagiarizing copyrighted content (verbatim) from other
environmental websites across the Internet.  I then tried to assist Wikia by
deleting or earmarking those pages that were in violation.  Green Wikia's
very own "Angies" then "quite successfully" blocked my Wikia user account
for one year, for "‎Intimidating behaviour/harassment".  I look forward to
helping Wikia find more copyright violations when my block expires later in
September 2009.

Gregory Kohs
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/3/3 Erik Moeller :
> Hello all,
>
> as some of you may have seen, I've run a small survey over the
> weekend, scattered via a 5% site-notice on the English Wikipedia for
> signed in users. The result is a self-selected sample of authors. I'll
> publish the full anonymous raw data later this week, and I also intend
> to run it on the German Wikipedia to get some comparative data. Please
> note that I'll probably turn off the English version before doing so,
> so if you feel you still want to take the survey yourself, you can do
> so at: http://survey.wikimedia.org/index.php?sid=69514

Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their interpretation of it is
highly relevant. Community opinion is only relevant within the bounds
of what is acceptable under the license.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Fred Bauder]

> 2009/3/3 Fred Bauder :
>
>> With respect to biographies of living persons, unless there is
>> sufficient
>> reliable published information about a person to flesh out a well
>> balanced article we shouldn't have one.
>
>
> The question them becomes "reliable." "Reliable sources" usually print
> whatever the subject tells them, even if it's a damn lie. (See the
> Polish example earlier in this thread.)
>
>
> - d.
>

Well, that is the "fact laundering" phenomenon I've explored in the past.
Information is no better than its actual source. And if the actual source
is gossip, rumor, or self dealing, no amount of publishing in The Times
(or other reliable source) changes its essential nature.

Fred



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[David Gerard]

2009/3/3 Fred Bauder :

> With respect to biographies of living persons, unless there is sufficient
> reliable published information about a person to flesh out a well
> balanced article we shouldn't have one.


The question them becomes "reliable." "Reliable sources" usually print
whatever the subject tells them, even if it's a damn lie. (See the
Polish example earlier in this thread.)


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Fred Bauder]

>
> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the
> notability
> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request
> is a
> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should
> shift
> closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and
> practices, particularly WRT BLPs?

With respect to biographies of living persons, unless there is sufficient
reliable published information about a person to flesh out a well
balanced article we shouldn't have one.

Having said that I am left with remorse regarding people involved in
interesting incidents. In such cases, the article should be about the
incident. That results in their name being mentioned, but not in the
context of a flawed biography. The key is discipline regarding creating
red links regarding persons about whom little reliable information is
available.

Fred



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Andrew Gray]

2009/3/3 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/3 Sue Gardner :
>
>> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
>> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
>> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
>> closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and
>> practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
>
> Deletion upon request is a terrible idea. It will lead to only
> hagiographies - violations of NPOV - being kept. (This has been
> discussed at length on wikien-l, fwiw.)

That said, reacting the other way and *prohibiting* deletion on
request is also counterproductive - we've skirted close to this on
enwp in the past, where people have interpreted "subject has asked us
to delete it" as being an automatic cast-iron reason to keep it in
place. I mean, I've seen cases where someone's stood up and said "this
article is atrocious, subject wants it deleted" and it's been kept
(with a variety of snide comments), whereas had they just said "this
article is atrocious", it'd have been killed with no objections.

We can go too far; after all, when someone says "delete this please",
it's at least as common that they're reflecting that the article has
major fundamental problems as that they're making a frivolous request!

We do need to recognise that the subject of an article is often one of
the people (counting readers and editors together) who has the closest
knowledge *of the article*, and is well-placed to see real problems -
finding some way of using that is potentially an excellent tool in
identifying the real dross that we ourselves don't want, and keeping
the material we *do* want up to a high standard.

The trick is taking advantage of their perspective, without turning it
into a (real or imagined) conflict-of-interest issue, or letting it
degenerate into the kind of thing that breeds automatic assumptions of
bad faith.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report a problem link

[Angela]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Robert Rohde  wrote:
> I'm breaking this specific idea out of the main thread, in order to focus on 
> it.
>
> There seems to be considerable support for adding some kind of "Report
> a problem" link to pages, (probably not necessarily) to the sidebar.

Problem Reports are used quite successfully on Wikia. The GPL code for
it is available at


Basically, readers report problems using the link at the end of each
article. Anyone can view and comment on the reports as you can see at
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Special:ProblemReports - click the
magnifying glasses for details.

Admins can reply to the reporter by email (if they gave an email
address) and can flag the report as "fixed", "closed", "needs staff
help", or "pending". Boilerplate responses can be added via the
MediaWiki namespace.

Reports are logged in Special:Log/pr_rep_log. You can get reports by
email or RSS if you want to.

Angela

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Cabal?

[David Gerard]

2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :

> A sub-cabal within the board? Now, what colour would *their* helicopters be?


We're a charity. They flap their arms really hard.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Cabal?

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/3/3 Domas Mituzas :
> Hi!
>
>> If there is anything like that going on, even in planning, the board
>> should be acknowledged. I know nothing of such a thing. So I suppose
>> it
>> is nonsence.
>
>
> Ditto. Unless there is a cabal there too! :) (For the record, I'm
> joking, even if it doesn't fit the general atmosphere of the whole
> thread! :)

A sub-cabal within the board? Now, what colour would *their* helicopters be?

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[P. Birken]

2009/3/2 Sue Gardner :

> So, two questions strike me:
> 2) When it comes to the German Wikipedia and other language versions which
> put an unusually high priority on quality . I am curious to know what
> quality-supportive measures (be they technical, social/cultural, or
> policy-level) those Wikipedia have in place.  Philipp says a high threshold
> for notability is one in the German Wikipedia. Are there others?

I'm afraid I should have been more precise. When I said: "When in
doubt about notability, delete BLPs. Do not make low notability
criterias for living persons.", that was not a description of what is
happening on de-WP, but my opinion on how things should be done.
Factually, notability criterias are noticably more strict on de-WP
than on en, but not all over the place actually lower regarding
scientists.

Policy-wise, we have adopted WP:BLP from en with "when in doubt,
respect privacy".

There are two factors where things are different from en as far as I
can see. The first is the community. There are dozens of "Stammtische"
in almost all major german towns, where wikipedians meet on a regular
basis. This helps spreading awareness about the problem and that is a
key thing in my eyes: the issue about BLP is always the conflict
between privacy and freedom of the press. I have the impression that
Wikipedians tend to take the stance that "We are wikipedia, we are
good, it is our duty to tell the public the truth", while ignoring the
detrimental effects this can have on living persons. Raising awareness
about the problems of BLP is important. Rub peoples nose in the effect
wikipedia articles have on the described persons live, make them
imagining how that person might feel and that even little things may
be an invasion of privacy. We all became experts on copyright, we
should all become experts on personality rights and ethics as well.

The second factor is freedom of the press. This is less strong in
Germany than in the UK and the US. Even things that are true may not
be written, for example people who have served their time in jail have
the right of not being named in the press. This makes discussion on
the wiki very streamlined. The difficult cases are where it is not
forbidden by law to write something, but only not useful, not
encyclopedic or even unethical.

Best,

Philipp

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Cabal?

[Domas Mituzas]

Hi!

> If there is anything like that going on, even in planning, the board
> should be acknowledged. I know nothing of such a thing. So I suppose  
> it
> is nonsence.


Ditto. Unless there is a cabal there too! :) (For the record, I'm  
joking, even if it doesn't fit the general atmosphere of the whole  
thread! :)

-- 
Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Mike Godwin]

I probably should have used the word "implement" rather than "enforce."

I agree that in some sense "the death penalty" qualifies as enforcement, but
it doesn't actually make any particular article adhere to NPOV.   It's the
community, not the Foundation, that is trusted with ensuring that individual
articles adhere to the NPOV standard.


--Mike



On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:36 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> 2009/3/2 Mike Godwin :
>
> > I'm unclear as to how it seems inconsistent to you. Can you explain what
> you
> > think is unreconciled? I assume you recognize that NPOV has been adopted
> by
> > the Wikipedia community and is enforced by it (and not by the
> Foundation).
>
>
> That statement is actually false - Wikipedias have been shut down by
> the Foundation for being grossly negligent of NPOV (Siberian,
> Moldovan).
>
>
> - d.
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Ting Chen]

Aude schrieb:
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies we have related to
>>> BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more resource in the
>>> inforcement of these policies. The meetings Philipp mentioned in Germany
>>> are a very good start point. Perhaps the foundation can help organize
>>> such OTRS-training-meetings in the US (because the lack of a US chapter)
>>> and other countries, just as a beginning. Later we maybe we can see how
>>> we can expand this to more regions and countries. We should also
>>> encourage more people to work and help on OTRS and give them due support.
>>>
>>> Ting
>>>   
>> 
>
> Regarding putting more resources into enforcement of BLP policies, what
> resources are you talking about?  I have seen problems reported to the BLP
> and other noticeboards, with no response or inadequate responses from admins
> and editors.
>   
Regarding more resource I think here at first point to encourage more 
people to work for OTRS, other possibility is hire more people dedicated 
for such and similar tasks from the foundation, if our financial 
situation allows us to do that. There could also be still other 
possibilities, from local communities for example. Naturally for all of 
us (except the foundation employees) this is a hobby and the real life 
has priority.

Ting

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Aude]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:35 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> 2009/3/3 Aude :
>
> > Inclusion criteria, such as the "one news event" is helpful.  If we could
> > make the inclusion criteria for BLP more stringent in other such ways to
> > weed out some of the garbage or tabloidy BLPs, that would be welcome in
> my
> > opinion.
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information
>
>
> That's *not* what "indiscriminate collection of information" means.
> That you cite it to support your point shows you don't understand the
> term.


I suggest you actually read that section of WP:NOT.

-Aude



>
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Aude
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report a problem link

[David Gerard]

2009/3/3 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/3 Birgitte SB :

>> I there is simpler way to solicit these reports this without all the false 
>> positives that might come from a "report a problem"  link.  I imagine that 
>> all these people who have issues must click on the "Help" link in the 
>> sidebar while looking contact information. Why not have a banner on that 
>> page saying "If you have a problem with information about yourself that is 
>> on Wikipedia report it here."  And send it to a specific email address.

> 195468 hits on [[Help:Contents]] in Feb 2009 rank #466 - it's well
> worth a try. Propose it on [[Help talk:contents]] referring back to
> this discussion and those agreeing can support it there.


Proposed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Contents#Link_to_article_problems_page_or_.22Contact_Wikipedia.22_at_top

Please add "yea" or "nay" on this specific proposal there - consensus
on the talk page is the usual requirement before a change to a major
portal.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[David Gerard]

2009/3/2 Mike Godwin :

> I'm unclear as to how it seems inconsistent to you. Can you explain what you
> think is unreconciled? I assume you recognize that NPOV has been adopted by
> the Wikipedia community and is enforced by it (and not by the Foundation).


That statement is actually false - Wikipedias have been shut down by
the Foundation for being grossly negligent of NPOV (Siberian,
Moldovan).


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[David Gerard]

2009/3/3 Aude :

> Inclusion criteria, such as the "one news event" is helpful.  If we could
> make the inclusion criteria for BLP more stringent in other such ways to
> weed out some of the garbage or tabloidy BLPs, that would be welcome in my
> opinion.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information


That's *not* what "indiscriminate collection of information" means.
That you cite it to support your point shows you don't understand the
term.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Aude]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:

> Sue Gardner wrote:
> > Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the
> notability
> > threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request
> is a
> > bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should
> shift
> > closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and
> > practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
> >
>
> To the first question: I am not sure if this really helps solve the
> problem. We will always mention peoples inside or outside of BLP
> articles that are maybe not so notable. We will cite them, report what
> is reported about them, etc. Frankly, I think the notability threshold
> between de-wp and en-wp are quite similar. The german have different
> focus. For example all parliament members of Germany have their article
> on de-wp, but not all american congressmen or senators has an article on
> de-wp. And on en-wp, most german parliament members don't have an
> article, while all congressmen and senators have an article. But the
> principle threshold for both are the same. The notability threshold are
> radically different on other areas, for example fictional figures, but
> that is not our topic.
>
> To the second question: Yes. I think there should be NONE defaulting to
> deletion upon request. There is also no default deletion upon request on
> de-wp. A request for delete should always be checked.
>
> To the third question: Yes. Partly already answered in my other mails
> and partly above in the answer to the first question.
>
> Ting
>

When people are mentioned on other wiki pages, those pages don't necessarily
come up as prominently in Google searches.  However, their Wikipedia
biography article will be right at the top of search results.  Of course, we
want all articles to comply with BLP, but the impact of BLP problems on the
subject is magnified with biographical articles.

Inclusion criteria, such as the "one news event" is helpful.  If we could
make the inclusion criteria for BLP more stringent in other such ways to
weed out some of the garbage or tabloidy BLPs, that would be welcome in my
opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information

-Aude


> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Aude
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[David Gerard]

2009/3/3 Sue Gardner :

> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
> closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and
> practices, particularly WRT BLPs?


And yes, I think 3. is a very bad idea - en:wp's greatest strength is
its breadth of coverage. As I noted, de:wp seems to fit people's
ideals of an encyclopedia more, but en:wp is actually more useful in
any practical sense.

1. is an idea to be approached with profound caution - far too many
BLP policy proposals get a bit close to throwing out neutrality, i.e.
violating Wikipedia's greatest innovation in the encyclopedia space.

This thread has a bit of an air of "something must be done, this is
something, therefore we must do this." That is a logical fallacy.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[David Gerard]

2009/3/3 Sue Gardner :

> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
> closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and
> practices, particularly WRT BLPs?


Deletion upon request is a terrible idea. It will lead to only
hagiographies - violations of NPOV - being kept. (This has been
discussed at length on wikien-l, fwiw.)

Raise the threshold in a manner that does not violate fundamental
content policies. Any BLP policy that violates fundamental content
policies will be unworkable. Think of it as "unconstitutional".


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[David Gerard]

2009/3/3 Michael Snow :

> I've made this observation before, but I think it bears repeating. At
> least on the English Wikipedia, a frequent practice is to start a
> section called "Criticism and controversy" or some variation thereof.
> This indicates to me an utter failure to write an actual biographical
> article. If we can't figure out how to integrate something into the
> overall picture of someone's life, then we're definitely failing to
> provide the context to actually understand the controversy, probably
> giving it distorted emphasis, and possibly lacking the material to treat
> the person as the subject of an independent article. Quite often, of
> course, the back-and-forth in that section ends up overwhelming any
> other content instead.


If bad writing were curable by guidelines and policies, English
Wikipedia would be brilliant prose from end to end. It isn't - there's
a discernible "Wikipedia style" which is flat, grey and neutralised.
Useful for spotting plagiarism of it. Good writers are thin on the
ground - most editors are more skilled at researching and referencing,
and can write a decipherable sentence.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[David Gerard]

2009/3/3 Ting Chen :

> yes I think the english and the german wikipedias are two models and
> examples that are often used for the other language versions. I remember
> the talk from Harel in Taipei about the Hebrew Wikipedia and had the
> impression that they orient themselves more on the german model.
> Personally I believe that if German is more bigger language it this
> model would be used more often.


I have spoken to a few editors who speak both German and English, and
they say the German Wikipedia is better ... but they actually use the
English one more. Because it covers so much more. So German may be
"better" per an internal ideal, but English is actually more useful in
any practical sense.

(This is of course anecdotal. If anyone wants to compile a list and do
a survey of editors who contribute to both en:wp and de:wp ...)


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Ting Chen]

Sue Gardner wrote:
> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
> closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and
> practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
>   

To the first question: I am not sure if this really helps solve the 
problem. We will always mention peoples inside or outside of BLP 
articles that are maybe not so notable. We will cite them, report what 
is reported about them, etc. Frankly, I think the notability threshold 
between de-wp and en-wp are quite similar. The german have different 
focus. For example all parliament members of Germany have their article 
on de-wp, but not all american congressmen or senators has an article on 
de-wp. And on en-wp, most german parliament members don't have an 
article, while all congressmen and senators have an article. But the 
principle threshold for both are the same. The notability threshold are 
radically different on other areas, for example fictional figures, but 
that is not our topic.

To the second question: Yes. I think there should be NONE defaulting to 
deletion upon request. There is also no default deletion upon request on 
de-wp. A request for delete should always be checked.

To the third question: Yes. Partly already answered in my other mails 
and partly above in the answer to the first question.

Ting

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Aude]

>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:
>
>>
>> Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies we have related to
>> BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more resource in the
>> inforcement of these policies. The meetings Philipp mentioned in Germany
>> are a very good start point. Perhaps the foundation can help organize
>> such OTRS-training-meetings in the US (because the lack of a US chapter)
>> and other countries, just as a beginning. Later we maybe we can see how
>> we can expand this to more regions and countries. We should also
>> encourage more people to work and help on OTRS and give them due support.
>>
>> Ting
>
>

Regarding putting more resources into enforcement of BLP policies, what
resources are you talking about?  I have seen problems reported to the BLP
and other noticeboards, with no response or inadequate responses from admins
and editors.

My own wiki time is a very limited resource nowadays, so I can personally do
only so much to help.  I would love to have all the time in the world to
help on Wikipedia, but that's not realistic.  Resouces are our volunteers
and I see the number of former admins growing along with others editing more
infrequently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFormer_administrators&diff=272252709&oldid=261057788

Making the inclusion criteria more stringent for BLPs may make things more
managable for our volunteers (our resources) to handle in a satisfactory
way.

-Aude



>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Aude
>



-- 
Aude
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of livingpeople

[jokarwilis2005]

Any body help I have blog for publiser ...but my trafic is low 
Sent from my BlackBerry®
powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT

-Original Message-
From: Sue Gardner 

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 00:17:14 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living
people


2009/3/2 philippe 

>
>
> On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM, private musings wrote:
>
> > basically there's a sensible three stage plan to follow to help drive
> > quality and minimise 'BLP' harm;
> >
> > 1) Semi-protext all 'BLP' material
> > 2) Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects (eg. non public figures, or
> > those
> > not covered in 'dead tree sources' for example) - note this is more
> > inclusive than a simple higher threshold for notability
> > 3) 'Default to delete' in discussions about BLP material - if we can't
> > positively say that it improves the project, it's sensible and
> > responsible
> > to remove the material in my view.
>
>
> As a general rule, I think pm has given us a common-sense place to
> begin discussions about how to cleanup existing BLPs.  There will
> always be situations that don't fit within this, but as a starting
> point for guidelines, I support these.


It seems obvious to me from the conversation on this thread that part of the
reason the German Wikipedia seems better able to manage its BLPs (assuming
that is true - but it seems true) is because there is a smaller number of
them. Presumably a smaller number of BLPs = fewer to maintain and
problem-solve = a higher quality level overall. (And possibly also, OTRS
volunteers who are less stressed out, resulting in a higher level of
patience and kindness when complaints do get made.)

Assuming that's true, allowing BLP subjects to opt-out seems like it would
have a direct positive increase on the quality of remaining BLPs, in
addition to eliminating some BLPs entirely.  Clearly, there would still be a
notability threshold above which people would never be allowed to opt out -
there will always be articles about people such as Hillary Clinton and J.K.
Rowling and Penelope Cruz. But a decision to significantly raise that
threshold, as well as default to deletion upon request, seems like it would
have a positive effect on quality.

Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and
practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Aude]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:

>
> Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies we have related to
> BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more resource in the
> inforcement of these policies. The meetings Philipp mentioned in Germany
> are a very good start point. Perhaps the foundation can help organize
> such OTRS-training-meetings in the US (because the lack of a US chapter)
> and other countries, just as a beginning. Later we maybe we can see how
> we can expand this to more regions and countries. We should also
> encourage more people to work and help on OTRS and give them due support.
>
> Ting


I am a newer OTRS volunteer and am hesitant on handling tickets, except for
the very easiest ones, because I'm not totally sure how to handle them.  I
did ask some questions a couple months ago on the OTRS mailing list about
handling tickets, but never got a satisfactory response.

A training workshop would be a welcome opportunity to raise questions and
really understand better how to help on OTRS in a way that reading the
online documentation can't/doesn't provide.  A meeting in the US would be
fine, but also something at Wikimania and/or if there are other regional
wiki conferences.

-Aude


>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Aude
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Aude]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Sue Gardner  wrote:

>
> It seems obvious to me from the conversation on this thread that part of
> the
> reason the German Wikipedia seems better able to manage its BLPs (assuming
> that is true - but it seems true) is because there is a smaller number of
> them. Presumably a smaller number of BLPs = fewer to maintain and
> problem-solve = a higher quality level overall. (And possibly also, OTRS
> volunteers who are less stressed out, resulting in a higher level of
> patience and kindness when complaints do get made.)
>
> Assuming that's true, allowing BLP subjects to opt-out seems like it would
> have a direct positive increase on the quality of remaining BLPs, in
> addition to eliminating some BLPs entirely.  Clearly, there would still be
> a
> notability threshold above which people would never be allowed to opt out -
> there will always be articles about people such as Hillary Clinton and J.K.
> Rowling and Penelope Cruz. But a decision to significantly raise that
> threshold, as well as default to deletion upon request, seems like it would
> have a positive effect on quality.
>
> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is
> a
> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
> closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and
> practices, particularly WRT BLPs?


I think raising the notability threshold would certainly help, and would be
okay with allowing deletion upon request.  I have by far experienced the
most problems with BLPs for those of lesser notability.  Right now, BLPs on
those with lesser notability have more limited sources to build a proper
biography, and often the sources that do exist tend to emphasize controversy
about the person and thus the Wikipedia bio skews that way.

-Aude


>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Aude
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Sue Gardner]

2009/3/2 philippe 

>
>
> On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM, private musings wrote:
>
> > basically there's a sensible three stage plan to follow to help drive
> > quality and minimise 'BLP' harm;
> >
> > 1) Semi-protext all 'BLP' material
> > 2) Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects (eg. non public figures, or
> > those
> > not covered in 'dead tree sources' for example) - note this is more
> > inclusive than a simple higher threshold for notability
> > 3) 'Default to delete' in discussions about BLP material - if we can't
> > positively say that it improves the project, it's sensible and
> > responsible
> > to remove the material in my view.
>
>
> As a general rule, I think pm has given us a common-sense place to
> begin discussions about how to cleanup existing BLPs.  There will
> always be situations that don't fit within this, but as a starting
> point for guidelines, I support these.


It seems obvious to me from the conversation on this thread that part of the
reason the German Wikipedia seems better able to manage its BLPs (assuming
that is true - but it seems true) is because there is a smaller number of
them. Presumably a smaller number of BLPs = fewer to maintain and
problem-solve = a higher quality level overall. (And possibly also, OTRS
volunteers who are less stressed out, resulting in a higher level of
patience and kindness when complaints do get made.)

Assuming that's true, allowing BLP subjects to opt-out seems like it would
have a direct positive increase on the quality of remaining BLPs, in
addition to eliminating some BLPs entirely.  Clearly, there would still be a
notability threshold above which people would never be allowed to opt out -
there will always be articles about people such as Hillary Clinton and J.K.
Rowling and Penelope Cruz. But a decision to significantly raise that
threshold, as well as default to deletion upon request, seems like it would
have a positive effect on quality.

Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and
practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l