It's also important to point out that Wikidata can be used to semi-automatically replace the wikipedias' manual category trees:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Ontology https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Ontology/Classes It looks like some of the Wikidata people discussing such solutions are semi-active on this list. I'm sure the Foundation would prefer that volunteers address this issue, but I wonder how much can happen without concerted behavior between enwiki admins and legal. Until we get a Foundation official clearly stating that ethnicity isn't an essential characteristic of living people, relative to their accomplishments and the events for which they are notable, I doubt anyone is going to actually put in the effort. On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:50 AM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote: >> categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual >> orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do >> not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria, >> especially for categories, are often not defined > > Absolutely correct, Yaroslav. Compare the original design plan from 2003: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categorization_requirements > > and the current set of conventions: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization > > with bona-fide academic scholarship on subject categorization: > > https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ital/article/view/8930/pdf > > Wikipedians have a long way to go to achieve a reputable > classification scheme that cares more about the essential > characteristics of subjects including living people and doesn't > classify them by non-noteworthy incidentals like ethnicity. > > > > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi David, >> >>>It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every >>>instance is cited to best BLP standards? >> >> no, likely not (nobody has gone through the cat). In my experience, >> categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual >> orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do >> not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria, >> especially for categories, are often not defined. For example, if we are >> talking about French jews - are we talking about observing religious jews, >> or anybody of Jewish origin, including those who are not religious or >> converted to other religions? The list is very clear that it is about the >> origin, the category does not say anything. >> >> Cheers >> Yaroslav >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 1:41 AM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
