date:20090303

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

2009-03-03 Thread Sue Gardner

2009/3/2 philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com



 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

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

2009-03-03 Thread Aude

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org 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 livingpeople

2009-03-03 Thread 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 sgard...@wikimedia.org

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

2009/3/2 philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com

 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

2009-03-03 Thread Aude

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de 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_administratorsdiff=272252709oldid=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.

48 matches

Mail list logo