I'm not 100% comfortable with the approach of doing it because we legally can - we do a lot of stuff because it's the right thing, not just because we're legally obliged to. The concern is a real one and worth giving serious consideration.
(As I noted in my email about the GDPR, we do a lot of stuff because it's the right thing to do, not just because we're forced to - hence our ridiculously low DMCA rate.) It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every instance is cited to best BLP standards? - d. On 28 May 2018 at 00:33, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote: > "Privacy" is often censorship by another name. Seems so here too. > > Of course, if the information is not sourced, or is not well sourced, it > can and should be removed as a potential BLP issue. But if it is sourced, > we're not making anything available to the public that wasn't already > publicly known--after all, our source already published the information! > > It has nothing to do with "humble" or not. We don't, and shouldn't, worry > about the laws of countries with no jurisdiction. Be that France or Vatican > City, doesn't matter. We of course have to follow US law, because the US > actually does have jurisdiction. > > Todd > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 8:41 AM, sashi <learn...@creoliste.fr> wrote: > > > Hello again, > > > > Thanks for your input on this question! I'll add a few clarifications > > here to respond to points raised in the discussion so far. (As I'm > > subscribed in digest mode, I'll have to cut & paste.) > > > > ------- > > Nathan commented: "I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia > > should adhere to this law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If France > > passed a law banning Internet-published photos of living people, how > would > > we approach that law? If Germany barred publishing the place of birth, > date > > of birth or religious preference of public figures? If the United States > > banned publishing the name of individuals accused of mass murder?" > > ------- > > > > Since I quoted it the law of 6 January 1978 in French, I'm pretty sure I > > got it right. ^^ On the other hand, I didn't translate or interpret the > law > > in the context of current jurisprudence, so yes, maybe some more should > be > > said... > > > > It is legal in France to write an article about a notable person and > > mention their religious affiliation if they volunteer that information. > > What is *not* legal is to extract that information about them and add it > to > > a database which lists Catholics -- as was done during the Vichy regime > > with punchcards. How exactly were Jewish people rounded up and sent off > to > > concentration camps? (How did prefects go about locating Freemasons > during > > the war?). While there was certainly some collaboration with the National > > Statistics Service (SNS) established during the Occupation, the most > recent > > research suggests that this collaboration was not as significant as was > > once commonly assumed. The 1978 law was written before this research. > > > > The fact that -- today on en.wp -- these religious categories are being > > overwhelmingly applied to Jews (and to a lesser degree to Freemasons) is > > certainly striking. (cf. the 862 members of Category:French Jews & the > 21 > > members of the Category:French Christians). > > > > Regarding the hypothetical situations you evoke (the first of which, of > > course, being particularly relevant since people in France do have a > right > > to refuse the publication of their image (*unless* they are for some > reason > > newsworthy))... I imagine that they will have to be dealt with on a case > > by case basis until national laws have been superseded by the > > new-wikiwiki-order of supranational arbitration. > > > > ------- > > Todd commented: "We should no more follow French censorship laws than we > > should follow Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for compliance > with > > the laws in their jurisdiction." > > ------- > > > > First, the issue is privacy, not censorship. Nobody has prosecuted or > > will prosecute a newspaper for mentioning, for example, that Vincent > > Bolloré is Catholic (since he is open about that fact and does not object > > to having it reported). However, when the CRIF (a Jewish foundation) > > petitioned the CNIL for the right to compile a list of folks whose > surnames > > were the same as the 150 most common donors to the foundation for the > > purposes of a survey they were told this would be a clear violation of > the > > law. (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCnil.do?oldAction=rech > > ExpCnil&id=CNILTEXT000017651919) > > > > What exists on en.wp is an ad-hoc categorization that does not guarantee > > the quality of sourcing. Anyone can add the category "French Jews" to > 100s > > of living people's biographies with hotcat in a matter of minutes (with > or > > without a source). Only the vigilance of the community is a safeguard > > against this sort of action. The state of the database at the moment is, > > again, telling: there are not 40 times more Jews in France than > Christians > > nor are Freemasons likely to be 7 times more numerous than Christians. > Yet > > this is precisely the *deformed* picture that emerges from this ad-hoc > > categorization system. As James and Yarsolav both observed, this is > likely > > due to a problem of "bad editing" on en.wp. (I didn't mention it in my > OP, > > but just as there are no such categories on French Wikipedia, Wikidata > also > > does not seem to have categories based on the religion of living French > > people. Based on my limited research into the question, the ontology at > > Wikidata does indeed seem more respectful of personal privacy.) > > > > Second, concerning legally responsibility: of course! The WMF only > > supplies the platform. The anonymous individuals who make use of it are > > legally responsible for their contributions. As a result, living people > > not wanting to have their religion included in a system of automatic > > list-generation would need to file a complaint against X (porter plainte > > contre X) in order to try to get the WMF to react to the violation of > their > > privacy if they cannot convince the anonymous volunteer they contact in > > order to enforce their privacy rights (by deleting the ethnic/religious > > category from their Wikipedia entry). > > > > Still, it could be persuasively argued that a foundation has a *duty of > > care* to its volunteers and should not facilitate their contributors > (whose > > age they don't verify) falling afoul of their national laws. Simply > > excluding members of Category:BLP & Category:French > > Jews/Catholics/Muslims/Freemasons/etc. from the hidden Category > > "requiring diffusion" and adding them to the hidden Category "noindex" > > would go a long way towards protecting privacy rights (at least as far as > > google is concerned). > > > > Finally -- again -- how useful are these automatically generated lists > > towards advancing the "freedom of knowledge" (as Nathan put it)? To > > repeat: these categories make it seem that there are/have been 40 times > > more notable Jewish people and five times more notable Muslims in France > > than notable Christians . This (derived) "knowledge" is patently false. > > Now, granted, the purpose of the automatically generated categories is > not > > to come up with a comparative tally of noteworthy people; but I think > what > > this tally shows is in itself revealing: Wikipedians are 40 times more > > likely to tag notable Jewish people as Jews and 5 times more likely to > tag > > notable Muslims as Muslim than they are to tag notable Christians as > > Christians. This is worth thinking about for a minute... > > > > Why would it be so hard to be humble and respect national laws by making > > it such that membership in the category would not be diffused concerning > > living people in countries where such lists are illegal? (As Yaroslav > > points out, there is no guarantee of the quality of the sourcing). En.wp > > might be wise to learn from the conservative approach to this question > > taken by fr.wp and wikidata. > > > > I hope this helps to clarify the original post. > > > > sashi > > > > ps: *Correction*: Contrary to what I mistakenly wrote in my OP there > are > > 96 members of the category French Muslims (not 0). > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > i/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> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > i/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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
