I don't see the point of paying for legal and community safety experts if we aren't going to allow them to engage in their area of professional expertise. Transparency, due process, and community governance are important values, but they are not the skills you need to bring to bear when it comes to issues such as, for example, predatory individuals victimizing underage editors. I know this sounds like "won't somebody think of the children!" but the thought of untrained volunteers, however sensitive and well meaning they are, attempting to deal with an issue like this frightening, and the thought of what passes for community governance on the English Wikipedia attempting to deal with this is positively bonechilling. It has very real consequences for the real, offline lives of victims and opens volunteers and projects to significant legal jeopardy.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > * Based on what I currently know, I disagree with WMF's choice to site-ban > individuals instead of leaving that decision to the community, particularly > when the evidence is not public. It seems to me that this practice is > incompatible with transparency, due process, and community governance of > Wikimedia content sites (which notably excludes the Foundation wiki). _______________________________________________ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
