Marc, I am sure you are aware of the discussion here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection Those concerns were raised not by banned trolls, but by members of the English Wikipedia's arbitration committee, and other users with advanced permissions. They were raised over a year ago, and as far as I am aware, the situation is unchanged. You said earlier, "In practice, everything of value that bubbles up from WO will reach 'mainstream' venues soon enough if it was legitimate." In a sense you're right: this was brought up by mainstream players, in a mainstream locale: Sue's talk page. However, the fact of the matter is that *nothing has been done to address the concern*. You say, "WO (nor WR before it) has nothing to do with this, isn't even actually aware of the nature of the issues, nor has it uncovered anything significant on the matter". You may remember the case on Commons of Beta-M, a man who newspapers reported was jailed in the US for distribution of child pornography and deported, and who subsequently took on a key role as a curator of adult content on Commons. He also left messages on dozens of Commons user talk pages inviting them to send him nude pictures of themselves for use on his private website. He was eventually removed from Wikimedia projects by WMF office action – one of very few of this kind ever taken – against the will of the Commons community. The sole reason for the office action was that the matter of his prior conviction was brought up by WR/WO critics. I have no doubt that he would have carried on much as before otherwise. Another self-described pedophile recently offered nude pictures of his wife to Commons, as discussed on this mailing list a few days ago. At one point, he was trying to re-write the child protection policy on Meta, a fact which was brought up on Geoff Brigham's user talk page on Meta. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geoffbrigham#Leucosticte He is still free to contribute to Wikimedia projects, despite a number of people now having raised his contributions as problematic. The recent terms-of-use change proposal to address paid editing came in the wake of reporting on Wiki-PR's sockpuppet army by the Daily Dot. The situation had been festering on-wiki for months. One longstanding bureaucrat resigned over it. Qworty contributed for over half a decade. What complaints there were about him over the years never led to action, until a journalist wrote an exposé of him. I do not see self-regulation working effectively. Sometimes, outside criticism is vital, as it is for *any organisation in society*. In that sense, I see our effort as making a productive contribution. On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> wrote: > Hello again, Wil. > > It's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind - nor is it my place > to do so. But there /is/ one question of you that I would be remiss to > not answer: > > On 05/23/2014 11:49 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > > If they are exposing serious problems > > that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their > > motives are? > > Because their priorities are out of whack. By their obsession over nits > and trying to find things to hold against the projects and their > participants, they necessarily will uncover things that need fixing... > > Over and before the numerous much larger, much more complicated and much > more *important* things that need fixing that are plain for everyone to > see but just don't happen to be usable as weapons against others. > (Systemic bias, participation by women, the changing editor landscape, > increasing PR manipulation... I could go on all day). > > Also, they harp repeatedly on the same points over and over that have > been "asked and answered" by the community, the discussion of which has > repeatedly shown to be both unproductive and cause for strife. Given > that strife is their *objective* that is perfectly predictable -- but > that's not a worthwhile endeavor for someone who wants to be a > productive participant in the movement. > > Case in point is their obsession with imagining that the project are > replete with pedophiles and pedophile-enablers, focusing on what they > hallucinate is a lack of diligence in handling the matter because we do > so discretely. > > So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions > about "child protection" rang all sort of alarm bells. You didn't look > like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one > of their calls for war. Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been > dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else. > > Like it or not, you are the spouse of the most visible person of the > movement and what you do will always be associated with what Lila does. > Imagine a little what your reaction would be if the spouse of your > local chief of police was publicly socializing with known gang members? > > Yes, you are your own person -- but you do not live in isolation and the > motives of who you hang out with *does* matter. > > -- Marc > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
