2009/7/3 Delirium delir...@hackish.org:
Durova wrote:
With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious that
there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation.
At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the matter.
In practice this
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Deliriumdelir...@hackish.org wrote:
Durova wrote:
With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious that
there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation.
At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the
Durova wrote:
With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious that
there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation.
At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the matter.
In practice this is dealt with on a case-by-case basis
1/
when people should be protected, is not self-explanatory. Some may
feel that
people are best protected by knowing the full truth in all cases.
2/
doing right is even more ambiguous of a concept than improving the
encyclopedia;
the reason we have actual rules is that people will not always
Yes, there's a slippery slope nearby. Welcoming ideas that would give the
soil good traction.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:24 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
1/
when people should be protected, is not self-explanatory. Some may
feel that
people are best protected by knowing the
The best way is keeping this so exceptional that we do not even make
rules about it. People will always go outside of the rules if they
think there is a true emergency. Even were we to say, never do it,
yet people would if they think it justified.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
Agreed. We should legislate/codify/write rules to the norm, not to
the exception. That's the flaw found in too many organizing documents
(the constitution of the state of Oklahoma in the US comes to mind
immediately - they wrote it to the exception, ended up with several
hundred pages,
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, David Goodman wrote:
1/
when people should be protected, is not self-explanatory. Some may
feel that
people are best protected by knowing the full truth in all cases.
But it would at least *say* it.
2/
doing right is even more ambiguous of a concept than improving the
First define right.
In a message dated 7/1/2009 9:14:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arrom...@rahul.net writes:
-- Modify WP:IAR to say that rules can be violated if they prevent doing
what's right, rather than only if they prevent improving the encyclopedia.
**Make your
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, philippe wrote:
Agreed. We should legislate/codify/write rules to the norm, not to
the exception.
One of the suggestions I made was to fix IAR.
IAR is *entirely about exceptions already*.
And even with respect to changing WP:NOTCENSORED, what's so awful about just
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
First define right.
This is about IAR, you know. IAR is inherently about using personal judgment;
if we modify IAR so that IAR may be used to do the right thing, we should
*not* define right or even assume that it has one definition.
Isn't do what's right the same as assume good faith and assume the
assumption of good faith ?
The no-mans-land between don't try to inflict malicious harm and report
evidence-based statements is a big fat gray one.
In a message dated 7/1/2009 11:17:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Isn't do what's right the same as assume good faith and assume the
assumption of good faith ?
No, because in this context, do what's right means you may ignore rules for
reasons other than the ones just listed. (It only lists improving and
Protecting people is really very broad isn't it?
How about If the publication of certain information on a subject would
lead a reasonable person to believe that it poses a credible threat to the
subject's life.
Much narrower.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 7/1/2009 12:11:52 P.M.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Protecting people is really very broad isn't it?
How about If the publication of certain information on a subject would
lead a reasonable person to believe that it poses a credible threat to the
subject's life.
Much narrower.
For IAR, it's
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Protecting people is really very broad isn't it?
How about If the publication of certain information on a subject would
lead a reasonable person to believe that it poses a credible
Not that it matters, but over at WikiVoices we have only three rules.
They've served us well without modification for over a year.
1. Cluefulness is mandatory. If someone lacks clue, offer them one of
your spare clues. If clueless person refuses multiple offers of clue,
clueless person
Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression
The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the
right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia
article. It also aims to define when
Apoc 2400 wrote:
Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression
The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the
right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia
article. It
In a message dated 6/30/2009 10:34:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
apoc2...@gmail.com writes:
The reason to suppress the news
of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to
protect Rohde.
---
Suppressing the news can't be said to improve
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Apoc 2400 wrote:
Some would say that we need no rule for this as we have IAR. However,
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is about ignoring rules when they prevent
you from improving the encyclopedia.
I've complained about this for some time (to no avail). IAR may be short,
but
IAR is based on the premise that it will be actions with which every
reasonable person here would agree. Otherwise improve the
encyclopedia is much too broad a criterion, not to mention do what
is right.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Tue, Jun 30,
WJhonson wrote:
Suppressing the news can't be said to improve Wikipedia in any reasonable
way.
But we suppress news *all the time*.
If I added to our [[Shawarma]] article the news that I had one
for lunch today, that fact would be suppressed in a heartbeat,
and rightly so.
2009/6/30 Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com:
WJhonson wrote:
Suppressing the news can't be said to improve Wikipedia in any reasonable
way.
But we suppress news *all the time*.
If I added to our [[Shawarma]] article the news that I had one
for lunch today, that fact would be suppressed in a
In a message dated 6/30/2009 11:35:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
s...@eskimo.com writes:
But we suppress news *all the time*.
If I added to our [[Shawarma]] article the news that I had one
for lunch today, that fact would be suppressed in a heartbeat,
and rightly so.
2009/6/30 Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com:
Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression
I'd rather cover it using the expectation that editors not be stupid.
That's actually a rule listed on Meta.
“Keeping details out
With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious that
there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation.
At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the matter.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 5:26 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
27 matches
Mail list logo
