Re: [Wikimedia-l] YouTube shooting and risk assessment

[James Alexander]

Hi all,

Thanks for bringing this up. As you can imagine, we've been considering
this on an ongoing basis as well as specifically after the recent
shootings—and as Philippe and Gnangarra have pointed out, there are good
reasons we can't share complete specifics. Still, here's a bit on our
current strategy.

First, from an office perspective: we recently moved to a new building (as
was discussed here earlier), and the change is a significant improvement
from a security perspective. I will personally admit to some concerns in
how difficult the last one was to secure, but the new one has a multiple
person security team on duty 24/7. They have a complete plan for threats to
the building, including active shooters or bomb threats. They work closely
with us and have helped to train a group of staff to help in the case of
emergency. In addition, we've started looking at additional staff training
options after the recent attacks (one example is
https://www.alicetraining.com/, though we're looking at multiple).

Second, I'm sure many of you know Support & Safety's emerge...@wikimedia.org
system[1], which also plays an important role here. We have close
relationships with both the FBI and the local police department, and when
we receive reports such as Vito linked (threats to the office, to others,
or to themselves)  we evaluate based on criteria we've worked with the FBI
on and pass even remotely credible/imminent threats to the appropriate
authorities quickly. Having dealt with a number of threats against the
office and against others, I have seen the quick and professional response
we get.

Third, events. These are obviously a bit more complicated, since it's hard
to give blanket advice when specific policies are very venue specific. That
said, this has been an increasing and ongoing focus of ours. While these
kinds of threats are rare for us, they are important to think about before
they happen. So far this work has included training modules[2] and a new
handy booklet for organizers that we're creating which will be shared and
tested with affiliates at the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin later this
month.  Both in these materials and elsewhere, we've always recommended
that organizers get to know the security and management of their venue and
that's especially important when thinking about threats of harm at an
event. The first line of defense will be venue support and the local law
enforcement (911, 999 etc) but emergency@ will also be available to help
guide event organizers in crisis situations like that.

James


1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Threats_of_harm
2.
https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/training/support-and-safety/keeping-events-safe


*James Alexander*
Manager, Trust & Safety
Wikimedia Foundation

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:01 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> en:wp has a very good concept
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_stuff_beans_up_your_nose
>
> >
>
>
> > ​" In our zeal to head off others' unwise action, we may put forth ideas
> > they have not entertained before. It may be wise not to caution against
> > such possibilities
> >  theories:_intrinsic_and_extrinsic_motivation>
> > . Prophylactic  admonition
> > may trigger novel mischief. As the popular saying goes, "don't give 'em
> any
> > ideas". In other words, "​
> >
>
> On 6 April 2018 at 10:34, Philippe Beaudette 
> wrote:
>
> > I can not speak to current practice at the WMF, but I can speak to
> > practice when I was there (ancient history, long ago, I know) when I say
> > that this is something that was carefully considered and there were
> > appropriate experts consulted at the time.  Knowing the team there like i
> > do, I'm confident that those plans have not lapsed, and that they
> continue
> > to give appropriate (though not paranoiac) consideration to the realities
> > of the world.
> >
> > I also know that when I was there, we would have considered it
> > inappropriate to share detail about those plans publicly, and I continue
> to
> > believe that is good practice.
> >
> > Philippe
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Safety of attendees has for a long time been a criteria ... agree, but
> >> the risk assesement we are discussing here is not about safety, but
> >> security. I am sure we might not use them all properly, I am also not a
> >> native English speaker, but they are not the same concept, right?
> >>
> >> Now, there were examples where looking at a dossier where the
> information
> >> was about only the first one... that's the point here. I am talking
> about
> >> events, the first email was about the place of the office... but the
> >> motivation of a criminal act in both case can be overlapping, so they
> are
> >> an unicum in a proper evaluation, IMHO. I am not expert in the field,
> but
> >> if you start to assess 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] YouTube shooting and risk assessment

[Alphos OGame]

I heartily agree : build that firewall, and let Cisco pay for it !
Wait, what were you suggesting in your incipit ? Oh, right, "a way that's
rational, avoiding to create unnecessary panic of course".
I'd rather not ask of people organizing conventions (which is already
time-consuming by itself) that they *solve terrorism in their town*, which
is what the police are probably more suited for, if you don't mind ; as a
matter of fact, it is not one of their duties as convention holders, plain
and simple, and neither are they doctors, police officers, judges, jesters,
masseuses, nannies, yoga instructors, cooks, indentured servants, etc
(except of course if they are, which may happen).

So let's please not overreact, and stick to the current discussion instead
of having the next WikiConvention in a flying fortress with armed guards,
sniffing dogs, and metal detectors at every door…

Roger / Alphos



2018-04-05 18:40 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>:

> I remember we discussed 2 or 3 years about this scenario with some
> wikimedians off wiki. I strongly support to discuss at least once openly
> about that. In a way that it's rational, avoiding to create unnecessary
> panic... of course.
>
>
> Despite the claimed neutrality of the communities, reality always bites.
> Now, a terrorist can imagine that we will not put a black banner if someone
> kill a lot of people somewhere... but if same amount of wikimedians are
> killed at a international rally the probability that a block ribbon, an
> editnotice with a statement appear on many language edition is higher. it's
> an attack at the community like it is a proposal of a law somewhere, and we
> naturally react stronger.
>
>
> It would be a bigger impact, if you think about it. You can get the
> attention of billions of people every time they connect to the 5th or 6th
> largest website in the world. Cynically speaking, if you also consider the
> facts that it's about free knowledge and volunteers, than a mass murder at
> at a wikimedian event might be more "effective" than at a discotheque or
> the seat of a multinational conglomerate.
>
>
> If i remember correctly. in the months before a certain wiki-event, many
> people linked to radical activities were arrested in the area, in the same
> country. So, when you organize an event, it's not just about safety but
> also security. Even if it is not nice to think about it, and of course you
> try to do it mostly in private, you should clearly write down at least at a
> certain point that you are preparing to all scenario, contacting the police
> and so on. it should be a paragraph in a candidature for an event, IMHO.
> but it should be done.
>
> A.M.
>
> Il Giovedì 5 Aprile 2018 18:09, Vi to  ha
> scritto:
>
>
>  I read/receive related craps
>  Vituzzu&diff=prev&oldid=831949995>
> on
> a daily basis but it's hard to tell an idiot from a psychopath, so it may
> become a risk for WMF offices.
>
> Vito
>
> 2018-04-05 17:33 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett :
>
> > I'm sure most of you will be aware of the unfortunate events at
> > YouTube's HQ a couple fo days ago:
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_headquarters_shooting
> >
> > Without giving away anything that might reveal vulnerabilities, does
> > the WMF have contingency plans for such an incident? What about at
> > community events in the US, and elsewhere?
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > 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: 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] YouTube shooting and risk assessment

[Gnangarra]

en:wp has a very good concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_stuff_beans_up_your_nose

>


> ​" In our zeal to head off others' unwise action, we may put forth ideas
> they have not entertained before. It may be wise not to caution against
> such possibilities
> 
> . Prophylactic  admonition
> may trigger novel mischief. As the popular saying goes, "don't give 'em any
> ideas". In other words, "​
>

On 6 April 2018 at 10:34, Philippe Beaudette  wrote:

> I can not speak to current practice at the WMF, but I can speak to
> practice when I was there (ancient history, long ago, I know) when I say
> that this is something that was carefully considered and there were
> appropriate experts consulted at the time.  Knowing the team there like i
> do, I'm confident that those plans have not lapsed, and that they continue
> to give appropriate (though not paranoiac) consideration to the realities
> of the world.
>
> I also know that when I was there, we would have considered it
> inappropriate to share detail about those plans publicly, and I continue to
> believe that is good practice.
>
> Philippe
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Safety of attendees has for a long time been a criteria ... agree, but
>> the risk assesement we are discussing here is not about safety, but
>> security. I am sure we might not use them all properly, I am also not a
>> native English speaker, but they are not the same concept, right?
>>
>> Now, there were examples where looking at a dossier where the information
>> was about only the first one... that's the point here. I am talking about
>> events, the first email was about the place of the office... but the
>> motivation of a criminal act in both case can be overlapping, so they are
>> an unicum in a proper evaluation, IMHO. I am not expert in the field, but
>> if you start to assess the risk of someone harming you in SFO, that could
>> happen also in another place where many of the same people gather annually,
>> and that you also inform millions of people with sitenotices about it.
>>
>> Now, I don't say that you must inform a lot. But if you are not the
>> police you are also not the fire brigade, but you wouldn't write in a
>> candidature nothing or simply "if there is a fire someone is paid to
>> extinguish it"... you would make more effort, and we do. If you don't want
>> to add another paragraph in the final document, rename it "safety and
>> security" but start to think organically about it.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> Il Venerdì 6 Aprile 2018 1:59, Gnangarra  ha
>> scritto:
>>
>>
>>  Safety of attendees has for a long time been a criteria that needs to be
>> addressed when bidding for any WMF event, the people bidding are the better
>> placed to assess the reality of the local situation.  Open bidding
>> processes enable others to also critically look at the options,  ultimately
>> we are more at risk at home where feel comfortable then when travelling.
>>  Every location has its risks, its undesirables, and crime, just getting a
>> taxi to and from the airport is a risk reality is its also more likely than
>> a terrorist event
>> On 6 April 2018 at 03:24, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>> That's why people offwiki say they don't discuss this thing on meta or
>> here, because you always have an "answer" like this... this sarcasm. in
>> it's way, an example of an unhealthy community.
>>
>>  Look at what I wrote:
>>
>> "Even if it is not nice to think about it, and of course you try to do it
>> mostly in private, you should clearly write down at least at a certain
>> point that you are preparing to all scenario, contacting the police and so
>> on. it should be a paragraph in a candidature for an event, IMHO. but it
>> should be done."
>> that's it. it's not complicated... I know because of partially direct
>> experience... it's part of the world, when you are professional. You can't
>> prepare an event of certain scale and in a certain areas and ignore it in
>> the final dossier. There will be someone who take a look at that. So, who
>> talked about "solving terrorism"? just the one who wanted to make a joke.
>>
>> Maybe people are not big babies and even without constant reminder they
>> don't exaggerate. You have no idea with whom I discuss this aspect so far,
>> what such wikimedians do in their real life.  They are able to focus on the
>> point... the point is security and if you replied this way to this question
>> in many situations, you will be considered unprepared.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>> Il Giovedì 5 Aprile 2018 20:29, Alphos OGame 
>> ha scritto:
>>
>>
>>  I heartily agree : build that firewall, and let Cisco pay for it !
>> Wait, what were you suggesting in your incipit ? O

Re: [Wikimedia-l] YouTube shooting and risk assessment

[Philippe Beaudette]

I can not speak to current practice at the WMF, but I can speak to practice
when I was there (ancient history, long ago, I know) when I say that this
is something that was carefully considered and there were appropriate
experts consulted at the time.  Knowing the team there like i do, I'm
confident that those plans have not lapsed, and that they continue to give
appropriate (though not paranoiac) consideration to the realities of the
world.

I also know that when I was there, we would have considered it
inappropriate to share detail about those plans publicly, and I continue to
believe that is good practice.

Philippe

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Safety of attendees has for a long time been a criteria ... agree, but the
> risk assesement we are discussing here is not about safety, but security. I
> am sure we might not use them all properly, I am also not a native English
> speaker, but they are not the same concept, right?
>
> Now, there were examples where looking at a dossier where the information
> was about only the first one... that's the point here. I am talking about
> events, the first email was about the place of the office... but the
> motivation of a criminal act in both case can be overlapping, so they are
> an unicum in a proper evaluation, IMHO. I am not expert in the field, but
> if you start to assess the risk of someone harming you in SFO, that could
> happen also in another place where many of the same people gather annually,
> and that you also inform millions of people with sitenotices about it.
>
> Now, I don't say that you must inform a lot. But if you are not the police
> you are also not the fire brigade, but you wouldn't write in a candidature
> nothing or simply "if there is a fire someone is paid to extinguish it"...
> you would make more effort, and we do. If you don't want to add another
> paragraph in the final document, rename it "safety and security" but start
> to think organically about it.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> Il Venerdì 6 Aprile 2018 1:59, Gnangarra  ha
> scritto:
>
>
>  Safety of attendees has for a long time been a criteria that needs to be
> addressed when bidding for any WMF event, the people bidding are the better
> placed to assess the reality of the local situation.  Open bidding
> processes enable others to also critically look at the options,  ultimately
> we are more at risk at home where feel comfortable then when travelling.
>  Every location has its risks, its undesirables, and crime, just getting a
> taxi to and from the airport is a risk reality is its also more likely than
> a terrorist event
> On 6 April 2018 at 03:24, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> That's why people offwiki say they don't discuss this thing on meta or
> here, because you always have an "answer" like this... this sarcasm. in
> it's way, an example of an unhealthy community.
>
>  Look at what I wrote:
>
> "Even if it is not nice to think about it, and of course you try to do it
> mostly in private, you should clearly write down at least at a certain
> point that you are preparing to all scenario, contacting the police and so
> on. it should be a paragraph in a candidature for an event, IMHO. but it
> should be done."
> that's it. it's not complicated... I know because of partially direct
> experience... it's part of the world, when you are professional. You can't
> prepare an event of certain scale and in a certain areas and ignore it in
> the final dossier. There will be someone who take a look at that. So, who
> talked about "solving terrorism"? just the one who wanted to make a joke.
>
> Maybe people are not big babies and even without constant reminder they
> don't exaggerate. You have no idea with whom I discuss this aspect so far,
> what such wikimedians do in their real life.  They are able to focus on the
> point... the point is security and if you replied this way to this question
> in many situations, you will be considered unprepared.
>
> Alex
>
>
> Il Giovedì 5 Aprile 2018 20:29, Alphos OGame 
> ha scritto:
>
>
>  I heartily agree : build that firewall, and let Cisco pay for it !
> Wait, what were you suggesting in your incipit ? Oh, right, "a way that's
> rational, avoiding to create unnecessary panic of course".
> I'd rather not ask of people organizing conventions (which is already
> time-consuming by itself) that they solve terrorism in their town, which is
> what the police are probably more suited for, if you don't mind ; as a
> matter of fact, it is not one of their duties as convention holders, plain
> and simple, and neither are they doctors, police officers, judges, jesters,
> masseuses, nannies, yoga instructors, cooks, indentured servants, etc
> (except of course if they are, which may happen).
>
> So let's please not overreact, and stick to the current discussion instead
> of having the next WikiConvention in a flying for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] YouTube shooting and risk assessment

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

Safety of attendees has for a long time been a criteria ... agree, but the risk 
assesement we are discussing here is not about safety, but security. I am sure 
we might not use them all properly, I am also not a native English speaker, but 
they are not the same concept, right?

Now, there were examples where looking at a dossier where the information was 
about only the first one... that's the point here. I am talking about events, 
the first email was about the place of the office... but the motivation of a 
criminal act in both case can be overlapping, so they are an unicum in a proper 
evaluation, IMHO. I am not expert in the field, but if you start to assess the 
risk of someone harming you in SFO, that could happen also in another place 
where many of the same people gather annually, and that you also inform 
millions of people with sitenotices about it.

Now, I don't say that you must inform a lot. But if you are not the police you 
are also not the fire brigade, but you wouldn't write in a candidature nothing 
or simply "if there is a fire someone is paid to extinguish it"... you would 
make more effort, and we do. If you don't want to add another paragraph in the 
final document, rename it "safety and security" but start to think organically 
about it. 

Alex

 

Il Venerdì 6 Aprile 2018 1:59, Gnangarra  ha scritto:
 

 Safety of attendees has for a long time been a criteria that needs to be 
addressed when bidding for any WMF event, the people bidding are the better 
placed to assess the reality of the local situation.  Open bidding processes 
enable others to also critically look at the options,  ultimately we are more 
at risk at home where feel comfortable then when travelling.   Every location 
has its risks, its undesirables, and crime, just getting a taxi to and from the 
airport is a risk reality is its also more likely than a terrorist event
On 6 April 2018 at 03:24, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
 wrote:

That's why people offwiki say they don't discuss this thing on meta or here, 
because you always have an "answer" like this... this sarcasm. in it's way, an 
example of an unhealthy community.
 
 Look at what I wrote:

"Even if it is not nice to think about it, and of course you try to do it 
mostly in private, you should clearly write down at least at a certain point 
that you are preparing to all scenario, contacting the police and so on. it 
should be a paragraph in a candidature for an event, IMHO. but it should be 
done."
that's it. it's not complicated... I know because of partially direct 
experience... it's part of the world, when you are professional. You can't 
prepare an event of certain scale and in a certain areas and ignore it in the 
final dossier. There will be someone who take a look at that. So, who talked 
about "solving terrorism"? just the one who wanted to make a joke.

Maybe people are not big babies and even without constant reminder they don't 
exaggerate. You have no idea with whom I discuss this aspect so far, what such 
wikimedians do in their real life.  They are able to focus on the point... the 
point is security and if you replied this way to this question in many 
situations, you will be considered unprepared.

Alex


    Il Giovedì 5 Aprile 2018 20:29, Alphos OGame  ha 
scritto:


 I heartily agree : build that firewall, and let Cisco pay for it !
Wait, what were you suggesting in your incipit ? Oh, right, "a way that's 
rational, avoiding to create unnecessary panic of course".
I'd rather not ask of people organizing conventions (which is already 
time-consuming by itself) that they solve terrorism in their town, which is 
what the police are probably more suited for, if you don't mind ; as a matter 
of fact, it is not one of their duties as convention holders, plain and simple, 
and neither are they doctors, police officers, judges, jesters, masseuses, 
nannies, yoga instructors, cooks, indentured servants, etc (except of course if 
they are, which may happen).

So let's please not overreact, and stick to the current discussion instead of 
having the next WikiConvention in a flying fortress with armed guards, sniffing 
dogs, and metal detectors at every door…

Roger / Alphos



2018-04-05 18:40 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
:

I remember we discussed 2 or 3 years about this scenario with some wikimedians 
off wiki. I strongly support to discuss at least once openly about that. In a 
way that it's rational, avoiding to create unnecessary panic... of course.


Despite the claimed neutrality of the communities, reality always bites. Now, a 
terrorist can imagine that we will not put a black banner if someone kill a lot 
of people somewhere... but if same amount of wikimedians are killed at a 
international rally the probability that a block ribbon, an editnotice with a 
statement appear on many language edition is higher. it's an attack at the 
community like it is a proposal of a law somewhere, and we naturally react 
stron

Re: [Wikimedia-l] YouTube shooting and risk assessment

[Gnangarra]

Safety of attendees has for a long time been a criteria that needs to be
addressed when bidding for any WMF event, the people bidding are the better
placed to assess the reality of the local situation.  Open bidding
processes enable others to also critically look at the options,  ultimately
we are more at risk at home where feel comfortable then when travelling.
 Every location has its risks, its undesirables, and crime, just getting a
taxi to and from the airport is a risk reality is its also more likely than
a terrorist event

On 6 April 2018 at 03:24, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> That's why people offwiki say they don't discuss this thing on meta or
> here, because you always have an "answer" like this... this sarcasm. in
> it's way, an example of an unhealthy community.
>
>  Look at what I wrote:
>
> "Even if it is not nice to think about it, and of course you try to do it
> mostly in private, you should clearly write down at least at a certain
> point that you are preparing to all scenario, contacting the police and so
> on. it should be a paragraph in a candidature for an event, IMHO. but it
> should be done."
> that's it. it's not complicated... I know because of partially direct
> experience... it's part of the world, when you are professional. You can't
> prepare an event of certain scale and in a certain areas and ignore it in
> the final dossier. There will be someone who take a look at that. So, who
> talked about "solving terrorism"? just the one who wanted to make a joke.
>
> Maybe people are not big babies and even without constant reminder they
> don't exaggerate. You have no idea with whom I discuss this aspect so far,
> what such wikimedians do in their real life.  They are able to focus on the
> point... the point is security and if you replied this way to this question
> in many situations, you will be considered unprepared.
>
> Alex
>
>
> Il Giovedì 5 Aprile 2018 20:29, Alphos OGame 
> ha scritto:
>
>
>  I heartily agree : build that firewall, and let Cisco pay for it !
> Wait, what were you suggesting in your incipit ? Oh, right, "a way that's
> rational, avoiding to create unnecessary panic of course".
> I'd rather not ask of people organizing conventions (which is already
> time-consuming by itself) that they solve terrorism in their town, which is
> what the police are probably more suited for, if you don't mind ; as a
> matter of fact, it is not one of their duties as convention holders, plain
> and simple, and neither are they doctors, police officers, judges, jesters,
> masseuses, nannies, yoga instructors, cooks, indentured servants, etc
> (except of course if they are, which may happen).
>
> So let's please not overreact, and stick to the current discussion instead
> of having the next WikiConvention in a flying fortress with armed guards,
> sniffing dogs, and metal detectors at every door…
>
> Roger / Alphos
>
>
>
> 2018-04-05 18:40 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>:
>
> I remember we discussed 2 or 3 years about this scenario with some
> wikimedians off wiki. I strongly support to discuss at least once openly
> about that. In a way that it's rational, avoiding to create unnecessary
> panic... of course.
>
>
> Despite the claimed neutrality of the communities, reality always bites.
> Now, a terrorist can imagine that we will not put a black banner if someone
> kill a lot of people somewhere... but if same amount of wikimedians are
> killed at a international rally the probability that a block ribbon, an
> editnotice with a statement appear on many language edition is higher. it's
> an attack at the community like it is a proposal of a law somewhere, and we
> naturally react stronger.
>
>
> It would be a bigger impact, if you think about it. You can get the
> attention of billions of people every time they connect to the 5th or 6th
> largest website in the world. Cynically speaking, if you also consider the
> facts that it's about free knowledge and volunteers, than a mass murder at
> at a wikimedian event might be more "effective" than at a discotheque or
> the seat of a multinational conglomerate.
>
>
> If i remember correctly. in the months before a certain wiki-event, many
> people linked to radical activities were arrested in the area, in the same
> country. So, when you organize an event, it's not just about safety but
> also security. Even if it is not nice to think about it, and of course you
> try to do it mostly in private, you should clearly write down at least at a
> certain point that you are preparing to all scenario, contacting the police
> and so on. it should be a paragraph in a candidature for an event, IMHO.
> but it should be done.
>
> A.M.
>
> Il Giovedì 5 Aprile 2018 18:09, Vi to  ha
> scritto:
>
>
>  I read/receive related craps
>  Vituzzu&diff=prev&oldid= 831949995>
> on
> a daily basis b

Re: [Wikimedia-l] YouTube shooting and risk assessment

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

That's why people offwiki say they don't discuss this thing on meta or here, 
because you always have an "answer" like this... this sarcasm. in it's way, an 
example of an unhealthy community.
 
 Look at what I wrote:

"Even if it is not nice to think about it, and of course you try to do it 
mostly in private, you should clearly write down at least at a certain point 
that you are preparing to all scenario, contacting the police and so on. it 
should be a paragraph in a candidature for an event, IMHO. but it should be 
done."
that's it. it's not complicated... I know because of partially direct 
experience... it's part of the world, when you are professional. You can't 
prepare an event of certain scale and in a certain areas and ignore it in the 
final dossier. There will be someone who take a look at that. So, who talked 
about "solving terrorism"? just the one who wanted to make a joke. 

Maybe people are not big babies and even without constant reminder they don't 
exaggerate. You have no idea with whom I discuss this aspect so far, what such 
wikimedians do in their real life.  They are able to focus on the point... the 
point is security and if you replied this way to this question in many 
situations, you will be considered unprepared.

Alex


Il Giovedì 5 Aprile 2018 20:29, Alphos OGame  ha 
scritto:
 

 I heartily agree : build that firewall, and let Cisco pay for it !
Wait, what were you suggesting in your incipit ? Oh, right, "a way that's 
rational, avoiding to create unnecessary panic of course".
I'd rather not ask of people organizing conventions (which is already 
time-consuming by itself) that they solve terrorism in their town, which is 
what the police are probably more suited for, if you don't mind ; as a matter 
of fact, it is not one of their duties as convention holders, plain and simple, 
and neither are they doctors, police officers, judges, jesters, masseuses, 
nannies, yoga instructors, cooks, indentured servants, etc (except of course if 
they are, which may happen).

So let's please not overreact, and stick to the current discussion instead of 
having the next WikiConvention in a flying fortress with armed guards, sniffing 
dogs, and metal detectors at every door…

Roger / Alphos



2018-04-05 18:40 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
:

I remember we discussed 2 or 3 years about this scenario with some wikimedians 
off wiki. I strongly support to discuss at least once openly about that. In a 
way that it's rational, avoiding to create unnecessary panic... of course.


Despite the claimed neutrality of the communities, reality always bites. Now, a 
terrorist can imagine that we will not put a black banner if someone kill a lot 
of people somewhere... but if same amount of wikimedians are killed at a 
international rally the probability that a block ribbon, an editnotice with a 
statement appear on many language edition is higher. it's an attack at the 
community like it is a proposal of a law somewhere, and we naturally react 
stronger.


It would be a bigger impact, if you think about it. You can get the attention 
of billions of people every time they connect to the 5th or 6th largest website 
in the world. Cynically speaking, if you also consider the facts that it's 
about free knowledge and volunteers, than a mass murder at at a wikimedian 
event might be more "effective" than at a discotheque or the seat of a 
multinational conglomerate.


If i remember correctly. in the months before a certain wiki-event, many people 
linked to radical activities were arrested in the area, in the same country. 
So, when you organize an event, it's not just about safety but also security. 
Even if it is not nice to think about it, and of course you try to do it mostly 
in private, you should clearly write down at least at a certain point that you 
are preparing to all scenario, contacting the police and so on. it should be a 
paragraph in a candidature for an event, IMHO. but it should be done.

A.M.

    Il Giovedì 5 Aprile 2018 18:09, Vi to  ha scritto:


 I read/receive related craps

on
a daily basis but it's hard to tell an idiot from a psychopath, so it may
become a risk for WMF offices.

Vito

2018-04-05 17:33 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett :

> I'm sure most of you will be aware of the unfortunate events at
> YouTube's HQ a couple fo days ago:
>
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ YouTube_headquarters_shooting
>
> Without giving away anything that might reveal vulnerabilities, does
> the WMF have contingency plans for such an incident? What about at
> community events in the US, and elsewhere?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> __ _
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] YouTube shooting and risk assessment

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

I remember we discussed 2 or 3 years about this scenario with some wikimedians 
off wiki. I strongly support to discuss at least once openly about that. In a 
way that it's rational, avoiding to create unnecessary panic... of course. 


Despite the claimed neutrality of the communities, reality always bites. Now, a 
terrorist can imagine that we will not put a black banner if someone kill a lot 
of people somewhere... but if same amount of wikimedians are killed at a 
international rally the probability that a block ribbon, an editnotice with a 
statement appear on many language edition is higher. it's an attack at the 
community like it is a proposal of a law somewhere, and we naturally react 
stronger.


It would be a bigger impact, if you think about it. You can get the attention 
of billions of people every time they connect to the 5th or 6th largest website 
in the world. Cynically speaking, if you also consider the facts that it's 
about free knowledge and volunteers, than a mass murder at at a wikimedian 
event might be more "effective" than at a discotheque or the seat of a 
multinational conglomerate.


If i remember correctly. in the months before a certain wiki-event, many people 
linked to radical activities were arrested in the area, in the same country. 
So, when you organize an event, it's not just about safety but also security. 
Even if it is not nice to think about it, and of course you try to do it mostly 
in private, you should clearly write down at least at a certain point that you 
are preparing to all scenario, contacting the police and so on. it should be a 
paragraph in a candidature for an event, IMHO. but it should be done.

A.M. 

Il Giovedì 5 Aprile 2018 18:09, Vi to  ha scritto:
 

 I read/receive related craps

on
a daily basis but it's hard to tell an idiot from a psychopath, so it may
become a risk for WMF offices.

Vito

2018-04-05 17:33 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett :

> I'm sure most of you will be aware of the unfortunate events at
> YouTube's HQ a couple fo days ago:
>
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_headquarters_shooting
>
> Without giving away anything that might reveal vulnerabilities, does
> the WMF have contingency plans for such an incident? What about at
> community events in the US, and elsewhere?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] YouTube shooting and risk assessment

[Vi to]

I read/receive related craps

on
a daily basis but it's hard to tell an idiot from a psychopath, so it may
become a risk for WMF offices.

Vito

2018-04-05 17:33 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett :

> I'm sure most of you will be aware of the unfortunate events at
> YouTube's HQ a couple fo days ago:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_headquarters_shooting
>
> Without giving away anything that might reveal vulnerabilities, does
> the WMF have contingency plans for such an incident? What about at
> community events in the US, and elsewhere?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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] YouTube shooting and risk assessment

[Andy Mabbett]

I'm sure most of you will be aware of the unfortunate events at
YouTube's HQ a couple fo days ago:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_headquarters_shooting

Without giving away anything that might reveal vulnerabilities, does
the WMF have contingency plans for such an incident? What about at
community events in the US, and elsewhere?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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,