Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 12:27 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure you're correct about what is being disappeared, Fae. I believe that the Guardian is referring to an article of theirs that is now not seen in Google search results for certain terms. The article makes it pretty clear that The Guardian does not known which article is involved. As it says anonymous applicant, it does seem likely they dont know which article, or maybe the status of the applicant is officially 'anonymous' but the details are known and unable to be reported. Anyway, I've asked in the off-chance they can give clues. https://twitter.com/jayvdb/status/495802112429682688 We have a reply: https://twitter.com/JulietteGarside/status/496644233580003328 @jayvdb @guardian @Wikipedia @wikisignpost We won't know unless Wikipedia chooses to make that information public -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On 05/08/2014, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: ... We have a reply: https://twitter.com/JulietteGarside/status/496644233580003328 @jayvdb @guardian @Wikipedia @wikisignpost We won't know unless Wikipedia chooses to make that information public Unless I'm missing something, this means that WMF senior management can tell us exactly which Wikipedia articles are suppressed after RTV requests to Google. What do we (the unpaid volunteer community) want to do with this information? Ethically this is difficult territory, but openness is one of our core values, so this should not all be stitched up in back-rooms without explaining what is going on to the whole community and aiming for a consensus on action. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
I would prefer decency as a core value. Fred On 05/08/2014, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: ... We have a reply: https://twitter.com/JulietteGarside/status/496644233580003328 @jayvdb @guardian @Wikipedia @wikisignpost We won't know unless Wikipedia chooses to make that information public Unless I'm missing something, this means that WMF senior management can tell us exactly which Wikipedia articles are suppressed after RTV requests to Google. What do we (the unpaid volunteer community) want to do with this information? Ethically this is difficult territory, but openness is one of our core values, so this should not all be stitched up in back-rooms without explaining what is going on to the whole community and aiming for a consensus on action. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
I would prefer decency as a core value. Fred On 05/08/2014, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: ... We have a reply: https://twitter.com/JulietteGarside/status/496644233580003328 @jayvdb @guardian @Wikipedia @wikisignpost We won't know unless Wikipedia chooses to make that information public Unless I'm missing something, this means that WMF senior management can tell us exactly which Wikipedia articles are suppressed after RTV requests to Google. What do we (the unpaid volunteer community) want to do with this information? Ethically this is difficult territory, but openness is one of our core values, so this should not all be stitched up in back-rooms without explaining what is going on to the whole community and aiming for a consensus on action. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On July 7th, Katherine Maher of the WMF said that they had not received any notifications and had not made a decision as to how or whether to publicize them. She did say that she thought it would be on next year's transparency report (the first instance of which either came out recently or is coming out shortly). My guess is the report will only describe these notifications in aggregate. On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/08/2014, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: ... We have a reply: https://twitter.com/JulietteGarside/status/496644233580003328 @jayvdb @guardian @Wikipedia @wikisignpost We won't know unless Wikipedia chooses to make that information public Unless I'm missing something, this means that WMF senior management can tell us exactly which Wikipedia articles are suppressed after RTV requests to Google. What do we (the unpaid volunteer community) want to do with this information? Ethically this is difficult territory, but openness is one of our core values, so this should not all be stitched up in back-rooms without explaining what is going on to the whole community and aiming for a consensus on action. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
We don't know yet for sure what the disappeared page is. I would advise caution before spreading it across the Net and back. Remember that Wikipedia is *big and scary* to people outside it. It's quite possible this is something that really doesn't belong in a BLP, but the subject doesn't quite know what to do about it. Possibly, if/when the Foundation finds out, it should first pass the issue to the OTRS volunteers who handle BLP problems to examine. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On 4 August 2014 10:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Possibly, if/when the Foundation finds out, it should first pass the issue to the OTRS volunteers who handle BLP problems to examine. Why would that need to be dealt with by OTRS volunteers, and not the community at large? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On 04/08/2014, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 4 August 2014 10:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Possibly, if/when the Foundation finds out, it should first pass the issue to the OTRS volunteers who handle BLP problems to examine. Why would that need to be dealt with by OTRS volunteers, and not the community at large? The Streisand effect and just plain old oh, be nice which is much easier to manage in a non-public discussion (albeit on the record). For notable people this is a tricky balance, one of public interest versus intrusion. We are not journalists (exempting Wikinews for a moment) and so I would much rather see a lean towards avoiding intrusion into personal lives wherever reasonable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect As an OTRS volunteer I am especially sympathetic for subjects of photography that have been accidentally compromised in public places. We are not *always* talking about nudity - two memorable cases were when someone was worried that their image was being used as an illustration of racism, and another for an illustration of homosexuality; both were identifiable in the photographs and neither apparently gave specific permission for their photograph to be freely released and so were surprised to see their face being used on Wikipedia. Even when copyright is fine, and the material has great educational value, our projects need to be sympathetic to the accidental damage or distress that repeating personal data or propagating photographs might have. Postscript: In the case of Wikinews, this boils down to local policies which reflect best practice for journalists. In general we still avoid intrusion and should take care to set very high standards for ethical treatment of biographical material about living people. That's which writing about historic figures rather than celebrities tends to be so much easier. :-) Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On 4 August 2014 11:03, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 4 August 2014 10:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Possibly, if/when the Foundation finds out, it should first pass the issue to the OTRS volunteers who handle BLP problems to examine. Why would that need to be dealt with by OTRS volunteers, and not the community at large? Same way we deal with aggrieved emails from BLP subjects, rather than just posting them to BLPN - if there *is* a serious concern, it's much more likely to get the right answer without further damage. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On 4 August 2014 11:22, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/08/2014, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 4 August 2014 10:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Possibly, if/when the Foundation finds out, it should first pass the issue to the OTRS volunteers who handle BLP problems to examine. Why would that need to be dealt with by OTRS volunteers, and not the community at large? The Streisand effect and just plain old oh, be nice which is much easier to manage in a non-public discussion (albeit on the record). Which discussion would that be, and with whom? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On 4 August 2014 11:40, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 August 2014 11:03, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 4 August 2014 10:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Possibly, if/when the Foundation finds out, it should first pass the issue to the OTRS volunteers who handle BLP problems to examine. Why would that need to be dealt with by OTRS volunteers, and not the community at large? Same way we deal with aggrieved emails from BLP subjects, rather than just posting them to BLPN - if there *is* a serious concern, it's much more likely to get the right answer without further damage. That's because there's direct, private correspondence with the individual concerned (or their agent). I see no suggestion that that would apply in the case in question. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On 4 August 2014 10:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Possibly, if/when the Foundation finds out, it should first pass the issue to the OTRS volunteers who handle BLP problems to examine. Why would that need to be dealt with by OTRS volunteers, and not the community at large? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk That would be because the inmates are not good at running the asylum. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On 4 August 2014 10:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: We don't know yet for sure what the disappeared page is. I would advise caution before spreading it across the Net and back. Remember that Wikipedia is *big and scary* to people outside it. It's quite possible this is something that really doesn't belong in a BLP, but the subject doesn't quite know what to do about it. If I had to bet I'd say more likely its a passing mention in an article on a small village somewhere. In so far as we know what standards Google is working to BLP subjects would generally be too high profile. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On 4 August 2014 19:15, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 August 2014 10:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: We don't know yet for sure what the disappeared page is. I would advise caution before spreading it across the Net and back. Remember that Wikipedia is *big and scary* to people outside it. It's quite possible this is something that really doesn't belong in a BLP, but the subject doesn't quite know what to do about it. If I had to bet I'd say more likely its a passing mention in an article on a small village somewhere. In so far as we know what standards Google is working to BLP subjects would generally be too high profile. We do still get lots of BLPs that basically shouldn't exist. Some are vanity, some are actually attack pieces. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On Sun, 3 Aug 2014, at 08:27, Fæ wrote: Re: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/02/wikipedia-page-google-link-hidden-right-to-be-forgotten If Google disappearing a Wikipedia article is a notable news event, It is not. They had processed a lot of such requests in July. The real event is here: On Thursday, Google revealed that France, with 17,500 requests, had made more demands for changes to search results than any other European nation. Germany had made 16,500 requests, and 12,000 requests originated in the UK. Some 8,000 requests came from Spain, 7,500 from Italy, and 5,500 from the Netherlands. By 18 July, Google had received 91,000 takedown requests in total, relating to 300,000 pages. Its privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer, revealed it had refused around 32% of them, asked for more information on 15%, and removed 53%. And another (past) event here: In May, the European Court of Justice ruled that citizens could ask search engines to remove particular links from results for a search made under their name, if the material was deemed to be out of date, no longer relevant or excessive ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On 3 August 2014 06:27, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, I've asked in the off-chance they can give clues. https://twitter.com/jayvdb/status/495802112429682688 Retweeted! We might get an answer with enough re-tweets. :-) It seems logical to suppose that there are senior managers in the WMF, or at least WMF Legal, that know which Wikipedia article(s) is being subject to Google's suppression in search engines. It seems also reasonable to supposed it is about a notable person rather than, say, some random school teacher, as in the latter case we would fix that through sensible discussion via OTRS and there would be a natural fairness in making person material either less visible in an article, or getting removed in compliance with project guidelines. Would any WMF Trustee or senior manager like to illuminate the community on this? Obviously Jimmy Wales has commented generally, but not explained what the WMF do about these RTV Google requests. As I understanding there is no legal requirement on the WMF to suppress itself when talking about Google's actions. Indeed there is nothing to stop a bot-writer like myself to craftily slowly sniff through results and pop out a public list of suppressed articles, it is public data by definition... Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
What's the article on Wikipedia in question? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
I'm not sure you're correct about what is being disappeared, Fae. I believe that the Guardian is referring to an article of theirs that is now not seen in Google search results for certain terms. The article makes it pretty clear that The Guardian does not known which article is involved. Risker/Anne On 2 August 2014 23:27, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Re: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/02/wikipedia-page-google-link-hidden-right-to-be-forgotten If Google disappearing a Wikipedia article is a notable news event, wouldn't that meet the Wikipedia notability requirements to make an article about it? The information being disappeared is the 2009 Muslim conversion of Adam Osborne, brother of the chancellor, George Osborne. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On 2 August 2014 23:49, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure you're correct about what is being disappeared, Fae. I believe that the Guardian is referring to an article of theirs that is now not seen in Google search results for certain terms. The article makes it pretty clear that The Guardian does not known which article is involved. Risker/Anne The Guardian states in the first paragraph that: Google is set to restrict search terms to a link to a Wikipedia article, in the first request under Europe's controversial new right to be forgotten legislation to affect the 110m-page encyclopaedia. Wikipedia cannot be misread as the Guardian newspaper. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
Well, Fae, since the only place that Adam Osborne is mentioned in Wikipedia is as the son of his father, and it does not mention anything more than his name, I am pretty certain that you're mistaken. The exact quote from the Guardian is: Google has already begun to implement the ruling, with tens of thousands of links removed from its European search results to sites ranging from the BBC to the *Daily Express*. Among the data now hidden from Google is an article about the 2009 Muslim conversion of Adam Osborne, brother of the chancellor, George Osborne. Nothing in that quote says that it is a Wikipedia article that is hidden. Risker/Anne On 3 August 2014 00:12, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 August 2014 23:49, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure you're correct about what is being disappeared, Fae. I believe that the Guardian is referring to an article of theirs that is now not seen in Google search results for certain terms. The article makes it pretty clear that The Guardian does not known which article is involved. Risker/Anne The Guardian states in the first paragraph that: Google is set to restrict search terms to a link to a Wikipedia article, in the first request under Europe's controversial new right to be forgotten legislation to affect the 110m-page encyclopaedia. Wikipedia cannot be misread as the Guardian newspaper. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
Google's motto is Do no evil I suppose you would have ours be do all notable evil Fred Re: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/02/wikipedia-page-google-link-hidden-right-to-be-forgotten If Google disappearing a Wikipedia article is a notable news event, wouldn't that meet the Wikipedia notability requirements to make an article about it? The information being disappeared is the 2009 Muslim conversion of Adam Osborne, brother of the chancellor, George Osborne. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
The title of the article above an image of Jimmy Wales, is: Wikipedia link to be hidden in Google under 'right to be forgotten' law Request for blocking of search results granted to anonymous applicant is first to affect an entry in the online encyclopaedia Fred Re: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/02/wikipedia-page-google-link-hidden-right-to-be-forgotten If Google disappearing a Wikipedia article is a notable news event, wouldn't that meet the Wikipedia notability requirements to make an article about it? The information being disappeared is the 2009 Muslim conversion of Adam Osborne, brother of the chancellor, George Osborne. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: The title of the article above an image of Jimmy Wales, is: Wikipedia link to be hidden in Google under 'right to be forgotten' law Request for blocking of search results granted to anonymous applicant is first to affect an entry in the online encyclopaedia Fred Yes... This is tedious, but Fae's mistake was thinking content about Adam Osborne was what was being hidden on Wikipedia. It isn't; that's just the Guardian providing an example of something else that was removed from Google results. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure you're correct about what is being disappeared, Fae. I believe that the Guardian is referring to an article of theirs that is now not seen in Google search results for certain terms. The article makes it pretty clear that The Guardian does not known which article is involved. As it says anonymous applicant, it does seem likely they dont know which article, or maybe the status of the applicant is officially 'anonymous' but the details are known and unable to be reported. Anyway, I've asked in the off-chance they can give clues. https://twitter.com/jayvdb/status/495802112429682688 -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
