Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

[James Salsman]

> categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual
> orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do
> not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria,
> especially for categories, are often not defined

Absolutely correct, Yaroslav. Compare the original design plan from 2003:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categorization_requirements

and the current set of conventions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization

with bona-fide academic scholarship on subject categorization:

https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ital/article/view/8930/pdf

Wikipedians have a long way to go to achieve a reputable
classification scheme that cares more about the essential
characteristics of subjects including living people and doesn't
classify them by non-noteworthy incidentals like ethnicity.



On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>>It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every
>>instance is cited to best BLP standards?
>
> no, likely not (nobody has gone through the cat). In my experience,
> categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual
> orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do
> not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria,
> especially for categories, are often not defined. For example, if we are
> talking about French jews - are we talking about observing religious jews,
> or anybody of Jewish origin, including those who are not religious or
> converted to other religions? The list is very clear that it is about the
> origin, the category does not say anything.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 1:41 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
>> I'm not 100% comfortable with the approach of doing it because we legally
>> can - we do a lot of stuff because it's the right thing, not just because
>> we're legally obliged to. The concern is a real one and worth giving
>> serious consideration.
>>
>> (As I noted in my email about the GDPR, we do a lot of stuff because it's
>> the right thing to do, not just because we're forced to - hence our
>> ridiculously low DMCA rate.)
>>
>> It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every
>> instance is cited to best BLP standards?
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 May 2018 at 00:33, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>
>> > "Privacy" is often censorship by another name. Seems so here too.
>> >
>> > Of course, if the information is not sourced, or is not well sourced, it
>> > can and should be removed as a potential BLP issue. But if it is sourced,
>> > we're not making anything available to the public that wasn't already
>> > publicly known--after all, our source already published the information!
>> >
>> > It has nothing to do with "humble" or not. We don't, and shouldn't, worry
>> > about the laws of countries with no jurisdiction. Be that France or
>> Vatican
>> > City, doesn't matter. We of course have to follow US law, because the US
>> > actually does have jurisdiction.
>> >
>> > Todd
>> >
>> > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 8:41 AM, sashi  wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hello again,
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for your input on this question!  I'll add a few clarifications
>> > > here to respond to points raised in the discussion so far.  (As I'm
>> > > subscribed in digest mode, I'll have to cut & paste.)
>> > >
>> > > ---
>> > > Nathan commented:  "I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia
>> > > should adhere to this law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If
>> France
>> > > passed a law banning Internet-published photos of living people, how
>> > would
>> > > we approach that law? If Germany barred publishing the place of birth,
>> > date
>> > > of birth or religious preference of public figures? If the United
>> States
>> > > banned publishing the name of individuals accused of mass murder?"
>> > > ---
>> > >
>> > > Since I quoted it the law of 6 January 1978 in French, I'm pretty sure
>> I
>> > > got it right. ^^ On the other hand, I didn't translate or interpret the
>> > law
>> > > in the context of current jurisprudence, so yes, maybe some more should
>> > be
>> > > said...
>> > >
>> > > It is  legal in France to write an article about a notable person and
>> > > mention their religious affiliation if they volunteer that information.
>> > > What is *not* legal is to extract that information about them and add
>> it
>> > to
>> > > a database which lists Catholics -- as was done during the Vichy regime
>> > > with punchcards.  How exactly were Jewish people rounded up and sent
>> off
>> > to
>> > > concentration camps? (How did prefects go about locating Freemasons
>> > during
>> > > the war?). While there was certainly some collaboration with the
>> National
>> > > Statistics Service (SNS) established during the Occupation, the most
>> > recent
>> > > research suggests that this collaboration was not as significant as was
>> > > once commonly 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

[James Salsman]

It's also important to point out that Wikidata can be used to
semi-automatically replace the wikipedias' manual category trees:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Ontology

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Ontology/Classes

It looks like some of the Wikidata people discussing such solutions
are semi-active on this list. I'm sure the Foundation would prefer
that volunteers address this issue, but I wonder how much can happen
without concerted behavior between enwiki admins and legal.

Until we get a Foundation official clearly stating that ethnicity
isn't an essential characteristic of living people, relative to their
accomplishments and the events for which they are notable, I doubt
anyone is going to actually put in the effort.



On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:50 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
>> categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual
>> orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do
>> not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria,
>> especially for categories, are often not defined
>
> Absolutely correct, Yaroslav. Compare the original design plan from 2003:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categorization_requirements
>
> and the current set of conventions:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization
>
> with bona-fide academic scholarship on subject categorization:
>
> https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ital/article/view/8930/pdf
>
> Wikipedians have a long way to go to achieve a reputable
> classification scheme that cares more about the essential
> characteristics of subjects including living people and doesn't
> classify them by non-noteworthy incidentals like ethnicity.
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>>>It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every
>>>instance is cited to best BLP standards?
>>
>> no, likely not (nobody has gone through the cat). In my experience,
>> categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual
>> orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do
>> not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria,
>> especially for categories, are often not defined. For example, if we are
>> talking about French jews - are we talking about observing religious jews,
>> or anybody of Jewish origin, including those who are not religious or
>> converted to other religions? The list is very clear that it is about the
>> origin, the category does not say anything.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 1:41 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not 100% comfortable with the approach of doing it because we legally
>>> can - we do a lot of stuff because it's the right thing, not just because
>>> we're legally obliged to. The concern is a real one and worth giving
>>> serious consideration.
>>>
>>> (As I noted in my email about the GDPR, we do a lot of stuff because it's
>>> the right thing to do, not just because we're forced to - hence our
>>> ridiculously low DMCA rate.)
>>>
>>> It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every
>>> instance is cited to best BLP standards?
>>>
>>>
>>> - d.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 May 2018 at 00:33, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>>
>>> > "Privacy" is often censorship by another name. Seems so here too.
>>> >
>>> > Of course, if the information is not sourced, or is not well sourced, it
>>> > can and should be removed as a potential BLP issue. But if it is sourced,
>>> > we're not making anything available to the public that wasn't already
>>> > publicly known--after all, our source already published the information!
>>> >
>>> > It has nothing to do with "humble" or not. We don't, and shouldn't, worry
>>> > about the laws of countries with no jurisdiction. Be that France or
>>> Vatican
>>> > City, doesn't matter. We of course have to follow US law, because the US
>>> > actually does have jurisdiction.
>>> >
>>> > Todd
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 8:41 AM, sashi  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hello again,
>>> > >
>>> > > Thanks for your input on this question!  I'll add a few clarifications
>>> > > here to respond to points raised in the discussion so far.  (As I'm
>>> > > subscribed in digest mode, I'll have to cut & paste.)
>>> > >
>>> > > ---
>>> > > Nathan commented:  "I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia
>>> > > should adhere to this law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If
>>> France
>>> > > passed a law banning Internet-published photos of living people, how
>>> > would
>>> > > we approach that law? If Germany barred publishing the place of birth,
>>> > date
>>> > > of birth or religious preference of public figures? If the United
>>> States
>>> > > banned publishing the name of individuals accused of mass murder?"
>>> > > ---
>>> > >
>>> > > Since I quoted it the law of 6 January 1978 in French, I'm pretty sure
>>> I
>>> > > got it right. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Hi David,

>It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every
>instance is cited to best BLP standards?

no, likely not (nobody has gone through the cat). In my experience,
categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual
orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do
not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria,
especially for categories, are often not defined. For example, if we are
talking about French jews - are we talking about observing religious jews,
or anybody of Jewish origin, including those who are not religious or
converted to other religions? The list is very clear that it is about the
origin, the category does not say anything.

Cheers
Yaroslav





On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 1:41 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> I'm not 100% comfortable with the approach of doing it because we legally
> can - we do a lot of stuff because it's the right thing, not just because
> we're legally obliged to. The concern is a real one and worth giving
> serious consideration.
>
> (As I noted in my email about the GDPR, we do a lot of stuff because it's
> the right thing to do, not just because we're forced to - hence our
> ridiculously low DMCA rate.)
>
> It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every
> instance is cited to best BLP standards?
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> On 28 May 2018 at 00:33, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > "Privacy" is often censorship by another name. Seems so here too.
> >
> > Of course, if the information is not sourced, or is not well sourced, it
> > can and should be removed as a potential BLP issue. But if it is sourced,
> > we're not making anything available to the public that wasn't already
> > publicly known--after all, our source already published the information!
> >
> > It has nothing to do with "humble" or not. We don't, and shouldn't, worry
> > about the laws of countries with no jurisdiction. Be that France or
> Vatican
> > City, doesn't matter. We of course have to follow US law, because the US
> > actually does have jurisdiction.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 8:41 AM, sashi  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello again,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your input on this question!  I'll add a few clarifications
> > > here to respond to points raised in the discussion so far.  (As I'm
> > > subscribed in digest mode, I'll have to cut & paste.)
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Nathan commented:  "I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia
> > > should adhere to this law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If
> France
> > > passed a law banning Internet-published photos of living people, how
> > would
> > > we approach that law? If Germany barred publishing the place of birth,
> > date
> > > of birth or religious preference of public figures? If the United
> States
> > > banned publishing the name of individuals accused of mass murder?"
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Since I quoted it the law of 6 January 1978 in French, I'm pretty sure
> I
> > > got it right. ^^ On the other hand, I didn't translate or interpret the
> > law
> > > in the context of current jurisprudence, so yes, maybe some more should
> > be
> > > said...
> > >
> > > It is  legal in France to write an article about a notable person and
> > > mention their religious affiliation if they volunteer that information.
> > > What is *not* legal is to extract that information about them and add
> it
> > to
> > > a database which lists Catholics -- as was done during the Vichy regime
> > > with punchcards.  How exactly were Jewish people rounded up and sent
> off
> > to
> > > concentration camps? (How did prefects go about locating Freemasons
> > during
> > > the war?). While there was certainly some collaboration with the
> National
> > > Statistics Service (SNS) established during the Occupation, the most
> > recent
> > > research suggests that this collaboration was not as significant as was
> > > once commonly assumed.  The 1978 law was written before this research.
> > >
> > > The fact that -- today on en.wp -- these religious categories are being
> > > overwhelmingly applied to Jews (and to a lesser degree to Freemasons)
> is
> > > certainly striking.  (cf.  the 862 members of Category:French Jews &
> the
> > 21
> > > members of the Category:French Christians).
> > >
> > > Regarding the hypothetical situations you evoke (the first of which, of
> > > course, being particularly relevant since people in France do have a
> > right
> > > to refuse the publication of their image (*unless* they are for some
> > reason
> > > newsworthy))...  I imagine that they will have to be dealt with on a
> case
> > > by case basis until national laws have been superseded by the
> > > new-wikiwiki-order of supranational arbitration.
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Todd commented: "We should no more follow French censorship laws than
> we
> > > should follow Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

[David Gerard]

I'm not 100% comfortable with the approach of doing it because we legally
can - we do a lot of stuff because it's the right thing, not just because
we're legally obliged to. The concern is a real one and worth giving
serious consideration.

(As I noted in my email about the GDPR, we do a lot of stuff because it's
the right thing to do, not just because we're forced to - hence our
ridiculously low DMCA rate.)

It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every
instance is cited to best BLP standards?


- d.



On 28 May 2018 at 00:33, Todd Allen  wrote:

> "Privacy" is often censorship by another name. Seems so here too.
>
> Of course, if the information is not sourced, or is not well sourced, it
> can and should be removed as a potential BLP issue. But if it is sourced,
> we're not making anything available to the public that wasn't already
> publicly known--after all, our source already published the information!
>
> It has nothing to do with "humble" or not. We don't, and shouldn't, worry
> about the laws of countries with no jurisdiction. Be that France or Vatican
> City, doesn't matter. We of course have to follow US law, because the US
> actually does have jurisdiction.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 8:41 AM, sashi  wrote:
>
> > Hello again,
> >
> > Thanks for your input on this question!  I'll add a few clarifications
> > here to respond to points raised in the discussion so far.  (As I'm
> > subscribed in digest mode, I'll have to cut & paste.)
> >
> > ---
> > Nathan commented:  "I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia
> > should adhere to this law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If France
> > passed a law banning Internet-published photos of living people, how
> would
> > we approach that law? If Germany barred publishing the place of birth,
> date
> > of birth or religious preference of public figures? If the United States
> > banned publishing the name of individuals accused of mass murder?"
> > ---
> >
> > Since I quoted it the law of 6 January 1978 in French, I'm pretty sure I
> > got it right. ^^ On the other hand, I didn't translate or interpret the
> law
> > in the context of current jurisprudence, so yes, maybe some more should
> be
> > said...
> >
> > It is  legal in France to write an article about a notable person and
> > mention their religious affiliation if they volunteer that information.
> > What is *not* legal is to extract that information about them and add it
> to
> > a database which lists Catholics -- as was done during the Vichy regime
> > with punchcards.  How exactly were Jewish people rounded up and sent off
> to
> > concentration camps? (How did prefects go about locating Freemasons
> during
> > the war?). While there was certainly some collaboration with the National
> > Statistics Service (SNS) established during the Occupation, the most
> recent
> > research suggests that this collaboration was not as significant as was
> > once commonly assumed.  The 1978 law was written before this research.
> >
> > The fact that -- today on en.wp -- these religious categories are being
> > overwhelmingly applied to Jews (and to a lesser degree to Freemasons) is
> > certainly striking.  (cf.  the 862 members of Category:French Jews & the
> 21
> > members of the Category:French Christians).
> >
> > Regarding the hypothetical situations you evoke (the first of which, of
> > course, being particularly relevant since people in France do have a
> right
> > to refuse the publication of their image (*unless* they are for some
> reason
> > newsworthy))...  I imagine that they will have to be dealt with on a case
> > by case basis until national laws have been superseded by the
> > new-wikiwiki-order of supranational arbitration.
> >
> > ---
> > Todd commented: "We should no more follow French censorship laws than we
> > should follow Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for compliance
> with
> > the laws in their jurisdiction."
> > ---
> >
> > First, the issue is privacy, not censorship.  Nobody has prosecuted or
> > will prosecute a newspaper for mentioning, for example, that Vincent
> > Bolloré is Catholic (since he is open about that fact and does not object
> > to having it reported).  However, when the CRIF (a Jewish foundation)
> > petitioned the CNIL for the right to compile a list of folks whose
> surnames
> > were the same as the 150 most common donors to the foundation for the
> > purposes of a survey they were told this would be a clear violation of
> the
> > law. (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCnil.do?oldAction=rech
> > ExpCnil=CNILTEXT17651919)
> >
> > What exists on en.wp is an ad-hoc categorization that does not guarantee
> > the quality of sourcing.  Anyone can add the category "French Jews" to
> 100s
> > of living people's biographies with hotcat in a matter of minutes (with
> or
> > without a source).  Only the vigilance of the community is a safeguard
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

[Todd Allen]

"Privacy" is often censorship by another name. Seems so here too.

Of course, if the information is not sourced, or is not well sourced, it
can and should be removed as a potential BLP issue. But if it is sourced,
we're not making anything available to the public that wasn't already
publicly known--after all, our source already published the information!

It has nothing to do with "humble" or not. We don't, and shouldn't, worry
about the laws of countries with no jurisdiction. Be that France or Vatican
City, doesn't matter. We of course have to follow US law, because the US
actually does have jurisdiction.

Todd

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 8:41 AM, sashi  wrote:

> Hello again,
>
> Thanks for your input on this question!  I'll add a few clarifications
> here to respond to points raised in the discussion so far.  (As I'm
> subscribed in digest mode, I'll have to cut & paste.)
>
> ---
> Nathan commented:  "I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia
> should adhere to this law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If France
> passed a law banning Internet-published photos of living people, how would
> we approach that law? If Germany barred publishing the place of birth, date
> of birth or religious preference of public figures? If the United States
> banned publishing the name of individuals accused of mass murder?"
> ---
>
> Since I quoted it the law of 6 January 1978 in French, I'm pretty sure I
> got it right. ^^ On the other hand, I didn't translate or interpret the law
> in the context of current jurisprudence, so yes, maybe some more should be
> said...
>
> It is  legal in France to write an article about a notable person and
> mention their religious affiliation if they volunteer that information.
> What is *not* legal is to extract that information about them and add it to
> a database which lists Catholics -- as was done during the Vichy regime
> with punchcards.  How exactly were Jewish people rounded up and sent off to
> concentration camps? (How did prefects go about locating Freemasons during
> the war?). While there was certainly some collaboration with the National
> Statistics Service (SNS) established during the Occupation, the most recent
> research suggests that this collaboration was not as significant as was
> once commonly assumed.  The 1978 law was written before this research.
>
> The fact that -- today on en.wp -- these religious categories are being
> overwhelmingly applied to Jews (and to a lesser degree to Freemasons) is
> certainly striking.  (cf.  the 862 members of Category:French Jews & the 21
> members of the Category:French Christians).
>
> Regarding the hypothetical situations you evoke (the first of which, of
> course, being particularly relevant since people in France do have a right
> to refuse the publication of their image (*unless* they are for some reason
> newsworthy))...  I imagine that they will have to be dealt with on a case
> by case basis until national laws have been superseded by the
> new-wikiwiki-order of supranational arbitration.
>
> ---
> Todd commented: "We should no more follow French censorship laws than we
> should follow Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for compliance with
> the laws in their jurisdiction."
> ---
>
> First, the issue is privacy, not censorship.  Nobody has prosecuted or
> will prosecute a newspaper for mentioning, for example, that Vincent
> Bolloré is Catholic (since he is open about that fact and does not object
> to having it reported).  However, when the CRIF (a Jewish foundation)
> petitioned the CNIL for the right to compile a list of folks whose surnames
> were the same as the 150 most common donors to the foundation for the
> purposes of a survey they were told this would be a clear violation of the
> law. (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCnil.do?oldAction=rech
> ExpCnil=CNILTEXT17651919)
>
> What exists on en.wp is an ad-hoc categorization that does not guarantee
> the quality of sourcing.  Anyone can add the category "French Jews" to 100s
> of living people's biographies with hotcat in a matter of minutes (with or
> without a source).  Only the vigilance of the community is a safeguard
> against this sort of action.  The state of the database at the moment is,
> again, telling: there are not 40 times more Jews in France than Christians
> nor are Freemasons likely to be 7 times more numerous than Christians. Yet
> this is precisely the *deformed* picture that emerges from this ad-hoc
> categorization system.  As James and Yarsolav both observed, this is likely
> due to a problem of "bad editing" on en.wp.  (I didn't mention it in my OP,
> but just as there are no such categories on French Wikipedia, Wikidata also
> does not seem to have categories based on the religion of living French
> people. Based on my limited research into the question, the ontology at
> Wikidata does indeed seem more respectful of personal privacy.)
>
> Second, concerning legally 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

[Benjamin Lees]

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 10:41 AM, sashi  wrote:
> The fact that -- today on en.wp -- these religious categories are being
> overwhelmingly applied to Jews (and to a lesser degree to Freemasons) is
> certainly striking.  (cf.  the 862 members of Category:French Jews & the 21
> members of the Category:French Christians).

No, French Christians are just tagged with subcategories of
Category:French Christians. The "requiring diffusion" category that
you complain of is in fact a way to tell editors that pages in the
category should really be in subcategories instead.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

[sashi]

Hello again,

Thanks for your input on this question!  I'll add a few clarifications 
here to respond to points raised in the discussion so far.  (As I'm 
subscribed in digest mode, I'll have to cut & paste.)


---
Nathan commented:  "I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia 
should adhere to this law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If 
France passed a law banning Internet-published photos of living people, 
how would we approach that law? If Germany barred publishing the place 
of birth, date of birth or religious preference of public figures? If 
the United States banned publishing the name of individuals accused of 
mass murder?"

---

Since I quoted it the law of 6 January 1978 in French, I'm pretty sure I 
got it right. ^^ On the other hand, I didn't translate or interpret the 
law in the context of current jurisprudence, so yes, maybe some more 
should be said...


It is  legal in France to write an article about a notable person and 
mention their religious affiliation if they volunteer that information.  
What is *not* legal is to extract that information about them and add it 
to a database which lists Catholics -- as was done during the Vichy 
regime with punchcards.  How exactly were Jewish people rounded up and 
sent off to concentration camps? (How did prefects go about locating 
Freemasons during the war?). While there was certainly some 
collaboration with the National Statistics Service (SNS) established 
during the Occupation, the most recent research suggests that this 
collaboration was not as significant as was once commonly assumed.  The 
1978 law was written before this research.


The fact that -- today on en.wp -- these religious categories are being 
overwhelmingly applied to Jews (and to a lesser degree to Freemasons) is 
certainly striking.  (cf.  the 862 members of Category:French Jews & the 
21 members of the Category:French Christians).


Regarding the hypothetical situations you evoke (the first of which, of 
course, being particularly relevant since people in France do have a 
right to refuse the publication of their image (*unless* they are for 
some reason newsworthy))...  I imagine that they will have to be dealt 
with on a case by case basis until national laws have been superseded by 
the new-wikiwiki-order of supranational arbitration.


---
Todd commented: "We should no more follow French censorship laws than we 
should follow Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for compliance 
with the laws in their jurisdiction."

---

First, the issue is privacy, not censorship.  Nobody has prosecuted or 
will prosecute a newspaper for mentioning, for example, that Vincent 
Bolloré is Catholic (since he is open about that fact and does not 
object to having it reported).  However, when the CRIF (a Jewish 
foundation) petitioned the CNIL for the right to compile a list of folks 
whose surnames were the same as the 150 most common donors to the 
foundation for the purposes of a survey they were told this would be a 
clear violation of the law. 
(https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCnil.do?oldAction=rechExpCnil=CNILTEXT17651919)


What exists on en.wp is an ad-hoc categorization that does not guarantee 
the quality of sourcing.  Anyone can add the category "French Jews" to 
100s of living people's biographies with hotcat in a matter of minutes 
(with or without a source).  Only the vigilance of the community is a 
safeguard against this sort of action.  The state of the database at the 
moment is, again, telling: there are not 40 times more Jews in France 
than Christians nor are Freemasons likely to be 7 times more numerous 
than Christians. Yet this is precisely the *deformed* picture that 
emerges from this ad-hoc categorization system.  As James and Yarsolav 
both observed, this is likely due to a problem of "bad editing" on 
en.wp.  (I didn't mention it in my OP, but just as there are no such 
categories on French Wikipedia, Wikidata also does not seem to have 
categories based on the religion of living French people. Based on my 
limited research into the question, the ontology at Wikidata does indeed 
seem more respectful of personal privacy.)


Second, concerning legally responsibility: of course!  The WMF only 
supplies the platform. The anonymous individuals who make use of it are 
legally responsible for their contributions.  As a result, living people 
not wanting to have their religion included in a system of automatic 
list-generation would need to file a complaint against X (porter plainte 
contre X) in order to try to get the WMF to react to the violation of 
their privacy if they cannot convince the anonymous volunteer they 
contact in order to enforce their privacy rights (by deleting the 
ethnic/religious category from their Wikipedia entry).


Still, it could be persuasively argued that a foundation has a *duty of 
care* to its volunteers and should not facilitate their contributors 
(whose age they don't verify) falling 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

[L3X1 en]

Todd is correct, en.wiki and the WMF operate out of the US and are not subject 
to other nation’s laws regarding content for the most part. Also, all entries 
should be blue-linked, else they must be in compliance with LISTN and V. For 
the rest, a inline citation is not required. 
Lexi
> On May 25, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
> 
> Whereas I absolutely agree with Todd, let me note that in the list many
> entries are unsourced or poorly sourced and can not be there according to
> the policies.
> 
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
> 
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
>> We should no more follow French censorship laws than we should follow
>> Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for compliance with the laws in
>> their jurisdiction.
>> 
>> Todd
>> 
>> On Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:53 PM sashi  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> I am writing to ask if there are any plans to render the English
>>> Wikipedia compliant with French privacy laws.  Currently, if a French
>>> high school student goes to a French library, reserves a computer, and
>>> types "List of French Jews" into Google, Duckduckgo, or Dogpile, an
>>> adhoc en.wikipedia list of over 850 people (approximately half of them
>>> living) appears in the #2 position (Category: French Jews). In the first
>>> position is the English Wikipedia page "List of French Jews" containing
>>> the following text, originally added in 2010, showing that the
>>> en.wikipedia community is aware that they are breaking French law:
>>> 
>>> "The French nationality law itself, strongly secular, forbids any
>>> statistics or lists based on ethnic or religious membership."
>>> 
>>> A French person tagging biographies of living people in en.wp with the
>>> category "French Jews" is a violation of French privacy law which would
>>> expose the Wikipedian to a penalty of €300,000 and/or 5 years
>> imprisonment:
>>> 
>>> "Le fait, hors les cas prévus par la loi, de mettre ou de conserver en
>>> mémoire informatisée, sans le consentement exprès de l’intéressé, des
>>> données à caractère personnel qui, directement ou indirectement, font
>>> apparaître les origines raciales ou ethniques, les opinions politiques,
>>> philosophiques ou religieuses, ou les appartenances syndicales des
>>> personnes, ou qui sont relatives à la santé ou à l’orientation ou à
>>> l'identité sexuelle de celles-ci, est puni de cinq ans d’emprisonnement
>>> et de 300 000 € d’amende." (source:
>>> https://www.cnil.fr/fr/les-sanctions-penales )
>>> 
>>> There is, to the best of my knowledge, no such category on fr.wp, as
>>> people in France are well aware of the law.
>>> 
>>> See also "List of West European Jews" / Category: French People of
>>> Jewish descent / Category: French People of Arab descent / Category:
>>> French Freemasons (167), Category: French Atheists (93 including a
>>> recent president), etc.
>>> 
>>> I noticed in researching the question that the Category "French rapists"
>>> (2 BLP) is associated with the hidden category "No indexed", whereas the
>>> category "French Jews" (100s of BLP) is associated with the hidden
>>> category: "categories requiring diffusion".  As a temporary measure (to
>>> avoid actively feeding this info into search engines), perhaps
>>> categories related to racial/ethnic origins, religious & philosophical
>>> opinions could be tagged "No indexed" rather than "requiring diffusion"?
>>> 
>>> The WMF hosts their servers in the US, the Netherlands and will soon
>>> also be hosting off-shore in Singapore, which probably leads WMF legal
>>> to believe that this grants them immunity from French privacy laws.
>>> Nevertheless, I thought I would mention that this is a potentially
>>> significant problem going forward.  Discussion leading to action
>>> correcting this potential avenue of abuse might help the WMF to avoid
>>> litigation, given that the current policies on English Wikipedia
>>> actively facilitate violation of French laws.
>>> 
>>> (data from petscan.wmflabs.org): French Christians (21 members), French
>>> Hindus (17 members), French Buddhists (9 members), French Muslims (0
>>> members), French Jews (862 members).
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your time considering how best to address this problem.
>>> 
>>> sashi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

[James Salsman]

Nathan, the Enwiki organic category system is not very good. For
example, there are no consistent ontological constraints placed on the
entire ontological tree (which should not be surprising because the
Library of Congress Card Number system, the Dewey decimal system, the
SIC ontology, and even Wordnet to some extent, are all insufficient
for topic subject matter classification as specializations increase.)
As ontologies go, it barely ranks in the fourth decile. Wikidata
already has inherent ontology patches to the organic category system,
and most if not all of them are compliant with European laws. I am
going to love what happens to Wikipedia's organic categories as they
meet normal forms.

Enjoy!

Best regards,
Jim


On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Nathan  wrote:
> I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia should adhere to this
> law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If France passed a law banning
> Internet-published photos of living people, how would we approach that law?
> If Germany barred publishing the place of birth, date of birth or religious
> preference of public figures? If the United States banned publishing the
> name of individuals accused of mass murder? Passionate arguments could be
> made in favor of each, but none of them would support the perspective of an
> educational organization dedicated to the freedom of knowledge.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

[Nathan]

I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia should adhere to this
law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If France passed a law banning
Internet-published photos of living people, how would we approach that law?
If Germany barred publishing the place of birth, date of birth or religious
preference of public figures? If the United States banned publishing the
name of individuals accused of mass murder? Passionate arguments could be
made in favor of each, but none of them would support the perspective of an
educational organization dedicated to the freedom of knowledge.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Whereas I absolutely agree with Todd, let me note that in the list many
entries are unsourced or poorly sourced and can not be there according to
the policies.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> We should no more follow French censorship laws than we should follow
> Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for compliance with the laws in
> their jurisdiction.
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:53 PM sashi  wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am writing to ask if there are any plans to render the English
> > Wikipedia compliant with French privacy laws.  Currently, if a French
> > high school student goes to a French library, reserves a computer, and
> > types "List of French Jews" into Google, Duckduckgo, or Dogpile, an
> > adhoc en.wikipedia list of over 850 people (approximately half of them
> > living) appears in the #2 position (Category: French Jews). In the first
> > position is the English Wikipedia page "List of French Jews" containing
> > the following text, originally added in 2010, showing that the
> > en.wikipedia community is aware that they are breaking French law:
> >
> > "The French nationality law itself, strongly secular, forbids any
> > statistics or lists based on ethnic or religious membership."
> >
> > A French person tagging biographies of living people in en.wp with the
> > category "French Jews" is a violation of French privacy law which would
> > expose the Wikipedian to a penalty of €300,000 and/or 5 years
> imprisonment:
> >
> > "Le fait, hors les cas prévus par la loi, de mettre ou de conserver en
> > mémoire informatisée, sans le consentement exprès de l’intéressé, des
> > données à caractère personnel qui, directement ou indirectement, font
> > apparaître les origines raciales ou ethniques, les opinions politiques,
> > philosophiques ou religieuses, ou les appartenances syndicales des
> > personnes, ou qui sont relatives à la santé ou à l’orientation ou à
> > l'identité sexuelle de celles-ci, est puni de cinq ans d’emprisonnement
> > et de 300 000 € d’amende." (source:
> > https://www.cnil.fr/fr/les-sanctions-penales )
> >
> > There is, to the best of my knowledge, no such category on fr.wp, as
> > people in France are well aware of the law.
> >
> > See also "List of West European Jews" / Category: French People of
> > Jewish descent / Category: French People of Arab descent / Category:
> > French Freemasons (167), Category: French Atheists (93 including a
> > recent president), etc.
> >
> > I noticed in researching the question that the Category "French rapists"
> > (2 BLP) is associated with the hidden category "No indexed", whereas the
> > category "French Jews" (100s of BLP) is associated with the hidden
> > category: "categories requiring diffusion".  As a temporary measure (to
> > avoid actively feeding this info into search engines), perhaps
> > categories related to racial/ethnic origins, religious & philosophical
> > opinions could be tagged "No indexed" rather than "requiring diffusion"?
> >
> > The WMF hosts their servers in the US, the Netherlands and will soon
> > also be hosting off-shore in Singapore, which probably leads WMF legal
> > to believe that this grants them immunity from French privacy laws.
> > Nevertheless, I thought I would mention that this is a potentially
> > significant problem going forward.  Discussion leading to action
> > correcting this potential avenue of abuse might help the WMF to avoid
> > litigation, given that the current policies on English Wikipedia
> > actively facilitate violation of French laws.
> >
> > (data from petscan.wmflabs.org): French Christians (21 members), French
> > Hindus (17 members), French Buddhists (9 members), French Muslims (0
> > members), French Jews (862 members).
> >
> > Thank you for your time considering how best to address this problem.
> >
> > sashi
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

[Todd Allen]

We should no more follow French censorship laws than we should follow
Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for compliance with the laws in
their jurisdiction.

Todd

On Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:53 PM sashi  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am writing to ask if there are any plans to render the English
> Wikipedia compliant with French privacy laws.  Currently, if a French
> high school student goes to a French library, reserves a computer, and
> types "List of French Jews" into Google, Duckduckgo, or Dogpile, an
> adhoc en.wikipedia list of over 850 people (approximately half of them
> living) appears in the #2 position (Category: French Jews). In the first
> position is the English Wikipedia page "List of French Jews" containing
> the following text, originally added in 2010, showing that the
> en.wikipedia community is aware that they are breaking French law:
>
> "The French nationality law itself, strongly secular, forbids any
> statistics or lists based on ethnic or religious membership."
>
> A French person tagging biographies of living people in en.wp with the
> category "French Jews" is a violation of French privacy law which would
> expose the Wikipedian to a penalty of €300,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment:
>
> "Le fait, hors les cas prévus par la loi, de mettre ou de conserver en
> mémoire informatisée, sans le consentement exprès de l’intéressé, des
> données à caractère personnel qui, directement ou indirectement, font
> apparaître les origines raciales ou ethniques, les opinions politiques,
> philosophiques ou religieuses, ou les appartenances syndicales des
> personnes, ou qui sont relatives à la santé ou à l’orientation ou à
> l'identité sexuelle de celles-ci, est puni de cinq ans d’emprisonnement
> et de 300 000 € d’amende." (source:
> https://www.cnil.fr/fr/les-sanctions-penales )
>
> There is, to the best of my knowledge, no such category on fr.wp, as
> people in France are well aware of the law.
>
> See also "List of West European Jews" / Category: French People of
> Jewish descent / Category: French People of Arab descent / Category:
> French Freemasons (167), Category: French Atheists (93 including a
> recent president), etc.
>
> I noticed in researching the question that the Category "French rapists"
> (2 BLP) is associated with the hidden category "No indexed", whereas the
> category "French Jews" (100s of BLP) is associated with the hidden
> category: "categories requiring diffusion".  As a temporary measure (to
> avoid actively feeding this info into search engines), perhaps
> categories related to racial/ethnic origins, religious & philosophical
> opinions could be tagged "No indexed" rather than "requiring diffusion"?
>
> The WMF hosts their servers in the US, the Netherlands and will soon
> also be hosting off-shore in Singapore, which probably leads WMF legal
> to believe that this grants them immunity from French privacy laws.
> Nevertheless, I thought I would mention that this is a potentially
> significant problem going forward.  Discussion leading to action
> correcting this potential avenue of abuse might help the WMF to avoid
> litigation, given that the current policies on English Wikipedia
> actively facilitate violation of French laws.
>
> (data from petscan.wmflabs.org): French Christians (21 members), French
> Hindus (17 members), French Buddhists (9 members), French Muslims (0
> members), French Jews (862 members).
>
> Thank you for your time considering how best to address this problem.
>
> sashi
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

[sashi]

Hello,

I am writing to ask if there are any plans to render the English 
Wikipedia compliant with French privacy laws.  Currently, if a French 
high school student goes to a French library, reserves a computer, and 
types "List of French Jews" into Google, Duckduckgo, or Dogpile, an 
adhoc en.wikipedia list of over 850 people (approximately half of them 
living) appears in the #2 position (Category: French Jews). In the first 
position is the English Wikipedia page "List of French Jews" containing 
the following text, originally added in 2010, showing that the 
en.wikipedia community is aware that they are breaking French law:


"The French nationality law itself, strongly secular, forbids any 
statistics or lists based on ethnic or religious membership."


A French person tagging biographies of living people in en.wp with the 
category "French Jews" is a violation of French privacy law which would 
expose the Wikipedian to a penalty of €300,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment:


"Le fait, hors les cas prévus par la loi, de mettre ou de conserver en 
mémoire informatisée, sans le consentement exprès de l’intéressé, des 
données à caractère personnel qui, directement ou indirectement, font 
apparaître les origines raciales ou ethniques, les opinions politiques, 
philosophiques ou religieuses, ou les appartenances syndicales des 
personnes, ou qui sont relatives à la santé ou à l’orientation ou à 
l'identité sexuelle de celles-ci, est puni de cinq ans d’emprisonnement 
et de 300 000 € d’amende." (source:  
https://www.cnil.fr/fr/les-sanctions-penales )


There is, to the best of my knowledge, no such category on fr.wp, as 
people in France are well aware of the law.


See also "List of West European Jews" / Category: French People of 
Jewish descent / Category: French People of Arab descent / Category: 
French Freemasons (167), Category: French Atheists (93 including a 
recent president), etc.


I noticed in researching the question that the Category "French rapists" 
(2 BLP) is associated with the hidden category "No indexed", whereas the 
category "French Jews" (100s of BLP) is associated with the hidden 
category: "categories requiring diffusion".  As a temporary measure (to 
avoid actively feeding this info into search engines), perhaps 
categories related to racial/ethnic origins, religious & philosophical 
opinions could be tagged "No indexed" rather than "requiring diffusion"?


The WMF hosts their servers in the US, the Netherlands and will soon 
also be hosting off-shore in Singapore, which probably leads WMF legal 
to believe that this grants them immunity from French privacy laws.  
Nevertheless, I thought I would mention that this is a potentially 
significant problem going forward.  Discussion leading to action 
correcting this potential avenue of abuse might help the WMF to avoid 
litigation, given that the current policies on English Wikipedia 
actively facilitate violation of French laws.


(data from petscan.wmflabs.org): French Christians (21 members), French 
Hindus (17 members), French Buddhists (9 members), French Muslims (0 
members), French Jews (862 members).


Thank you for your time considering how best to address this problem.

sashi



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,