>-----Original Message-----
>From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 04:03 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy
>
>On 10/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:50:16 -0700, Ray Saintonge
>> <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
>>
>> < snip a lot, but in particular: >
>>
>> >There's a big difference between clarifying policy and expanding policy.
>>
>> Yes. And in this case they *clarified* policy. Policy is: no privacy
>> violations, no attacks, no stalking, no harassment. Clarification is:
>> not even by writing it elsewhere and then linking to it.
>
>I don't see any arguments against the banning of linking to web
>*pages* that contain personal attacks, etc., on Wikipedia users.
>
>What I see are arguments against the banning of links to entire web
>*sites* that happen to contain some such pages. I also haven't seen
>any justification for such a ban.
OK, here you are:
It is helpful to support productive editors and administrators and protect them from harassment both on and off Wikipedia. Certain sites contain little or no critical discussion, but a great deal of material which either attempts to identify anonymous Wikipedia editors or to harass them in some way.
You complain about the justification being repeated, but continue to say you see no justification...
Fred
Well, you see the occasional note about the future of WikiProjects being
short because they just don't work...well, I see a fair few of these
messages, as I do a good deal of project work. So what do others think of
the future? Will WikiProjects still be around and kicking in...say...6
months?
[[User:Giggy]]
Hi all. Could I get a quick clarification on how to become a "member" of
this list, and thus not receive moderation messages every time I post?
Thanks!
[[User:Giggy]]
Durin,
I admire that you stuck with doing the fair use stuff for as long as you did. I was promoted to admin largely because I was interested in helping clean up the fair use image problem and burned out on all the noise a lot quicker than you did.
As much as I hate edicts on most issues, I think it's going to take one on this issue that says in no ifs, ands or buts what images are okay and what images are not okay ... that is as specific as possible. This needs to have some sort of arbcom stamp of approval so that the first (and next, and next) revert and wheel war that occurs goes on the side of the admin, beaurocrat or steward upholding the policy.
Sue Anne
sreed1234(a)yahoo.com
The Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee hereby gives notice of the results of the 2007 Board of Trustees election. The winners are Erik Möller, Kat Walsh and Frieda Brioschi. They are known also by the usernames Eloquence, Mindspillage and Frieda respectively. The Board of Trustees endorses the results and appoints Möller, Walsh and Brioschi effective today, on July 12, 2007. Erik and Kathleen will continue on the board for another term. Brioschi will be invited to join the Board, effective today. The term to which Möller, Walsh and Brioschi are appointed will end with the regular 2009 election.
In total, 4170 valid single ballots were cast and accepted; the specific results are as follows:
1. Eloquence (Erik Möller) 1671 votes2. Mindspillage (Kathleen Walsh) 1427 votes3. Frieda (Frieda Brioschi) 1254 votes4. Oscar (Oscar van Dillen) 1234 votes5. Michael Snow 1229 votes6. Danny (Danny Wool) 1217 votes7. Yann (Yann Forget) 1153 votes8. Kim Bruning 1124 votes9. UninvitedCompany (Steve Dunlop) 1047 votes10. Kate (River Tarnell) 889 votes11. Kingboyk (Stephen Kennedy) 864 votes12. Ausir (Pawel Dembowski) 693 votes13. ^demon (Michael "Chad" Horohoe) 672 votes14. WarX (Artur Jan Fijalkowski) 571 votes15. DragonFire1024 (Jason Safoutin) 495 votesWe would like to take this opportunity to give our thanks to all the candidates. We, on behalf of the community, appreciate the frank and honest debate. We further thank all of the voters who participated in this election as well as the developers, translators, and others who supported and promoted the election.
We further wish to thank Software in the Public Interest for hosting the election website, and particularly Michael Schultheiss, Vice President, who took responsibility for tallying and reporting the results to the Committee. Without the support of both SPI and Michael this election would have been much more difficult.
Yours,
The Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee, 2007
Aphaia
Philippe
Newyorkbrad
Jon Harald Søby
Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Results/source"
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> JodyB wrote:
>
>
>> The Cunctator wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The problem is that Bios of Living Persons policy is too draconian --
>>> there's no flexibility in it as stated. As stated it's a pretty good
>>> standard for new additions, but it encourages people to lazily delete
>>> massive amounts of content from existing articles long after material
>>> was added.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not sure it's too draconian especially when the issue is
>> "contentious" material. While I agree that we should encourage all
>> people to help with sourcing, the onus is still on the author to get it
>> right and get sourced right too. Unfortunately, there is no way to
>> codify and encouragement. There's also no way I can think of that would
>> "grandfather" in contentious material dating from before BLP was
>> implemented.
>>
>>
> I don't think that any realistic editor expects a soft ride for
> contentious or derogatory material. There will always be need to be
> unrelenting about that. Determining whether something is contentious or
> derogatory should always be the question that a reviewer asks himself
> about a libing person article.
>
> If the answer is "No," a more relaxed approach can be taken. Sure the
> onus ultimately falls on the cotributing author to establish sources for
> information, but using that as the only excuse for removing information
> is just being a dick, or trying to make a Point.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the original message about rewriting
the section on unsourced contentious statements? If not, I apologize
because that was the intent of my comment. As I read it, the policy
toward non-contentious statements is already more relaxed.
Jody
Wikipedia is goingto be a safe and pleasant place for people to work. We will respect ourusers and do what we can to protect them from harassment.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Steve Summit [mailto:scs@eskimo.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2007 06:54 PM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
>
>jayjg wrote:
>> On 7/3/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not talking about wiki-drama, I'm talking about hypertext.
>>> Wikipedia is a website. Websites link to each other. It turns
>>> out it's an incredibly powerful and useful concept.
>>
>> It's only useful to link to sites that have useful content. Wikipedia
>> has all sorts of rules about not linking to useless sites.
>
>Wikipedia has rules about the insertion of useless *links*.
>And even if every link to a site is useless, we don't need
>an additional rule saying, never link to this site. The
>no-useless-links rule is both necessary and sufficient.
>
>>> I wish you'd answer the question. Why do we need a blanket ban?
>>> How does it prevent Personal Attacks (in ways that WP:NPA can't)?
>>> How does it help us build an encyclopedia?
>>
>> That has been explained at length.
>
>(But this is still no explanation:)
>
>> Wikipedians volunteer their time to
>> help in this project; as a result of that volunteer work, they are
>> exposed to often vicious harassment by a small number of banned
>> editors on websites. We should not in any way bring attention to those
>> websites. It's common sense, good policy, and basic decency.
>
>(I should really decline to take another turn on this
>merry-go-round, but:) Links to the vicious harassment, for
>the purpose of additional harassment, are vile and should be
>prohibited. But you still haven't shown why other kinds of links
>must be prohibited. You still haven't shown why a blanket ban is
>necessary.
>
>The argument in favor of a blanket ban seems to rest on one or
>two assumptions:
>
> 1. that a link to site X is an "endorsement" of site X, and/or
> 2. that a viciously harassed volunteer Wikipedia editor,
> once harassed, is further wounded by every mention of
> the harasser, in any context.
>
>>>> What cost? I've seen none so far.
>>>
>>> An illogical, censorious policy exacts a significant (albeit
>>> intangible) cost in that observers are left with the impression
>>> that our policies are driven by emotion, not logic. One begins
>>> to trust and respect our policymaking process less.
>>
>> I'm talking about real costs, not radical philosophy.
>
>You'll have to define "real cost", then. The cost in terms of
>rational people throwing up their hands and walking away from a
>madhouse is at least as great as the cost in terms of thin-skinned
>victims wailing that the bully's name got mentioned again. It's
>not "radical philosophy" to point out that irrational, emotion-laden
>policies weaken a project that's supposed to welcome rational,
>mature contributors.
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Recently, [[User:Kamryn Matika]] asked on the RfA page for
clarification regarding the ban on linking to attack sites imposed in
the MONGO arbitration; the specific situation she was involved in was
the insertion of a link to source the [[Essjay controversy]] article.
Fred Bauder has now responded:
-- begin response --
Arbitration rulings are not policy. They apply only to the specific
situation considered, in this case, a link to dem attic. Inserting
such a link into Wikipedia is a blockable offense, although, a
warning is appropriate if it seems the user was unaware of the status
of that site. In your case, the 24 hour block seems appropriate as
you were apparently both aware and warned. Fred Bauder 21:31, 30 June
2007 (UTC)
Attempts to generalize the remedy in that case into more general
policy have not been happy. I don't think it is good general policy.
Such a remedy should only be applied in egregious circumstances,
after a hearing which considers the particular site. Fred Bauder
21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
-- end response --
Unfortunately, this response is full of contradictions. Bauder is
claiming that the ruling in question is "not policy", that it applies
only to a "specific situation", and shouldn't be "generalized" and is
not "good general policy"; furthermore, it should be applied only in
"egregious circumstances" to particular sites that have been
considered in a hearing. However, he is also saying that it's proper
to block Kamryn because she was "warned"... regardless of the facts
that:
1) the link she inserted was not to a site that has been the subject
of a specific hearing
2) the link was arguably a relevant and proper reference for the
article in which it was being inserted, and not an "egregious
circumstance"
3) a "warning" that is not backed by valid policy is not a valid
basis for a block, or else anybody could "warn" anybody about
anything based on their own pet peeves, and expect it to be enforced.
Can I just order people not to use the letter "w" any more, if I
don't like it?
4) "Enforcing" this non-policy on relevant links to source an article
seem to be precisely the sort of thing that's an 'attempt to
generalize' the ruling in ways that are not 'good general policy'.
Furthermore, Bauder followed up his response by editing Kamryn's
original posting to remove the link to the particular instance she
was discussing. This link was to a Wikipedia diff, not directly to a
so-called "attack site", and was necessary for readers to understand
exactly what is being discussed. In doing so, he also reworded
Kamryn's comments, putting in a reference to "the outlawed site" that
wasn't there before (and doesn't make sense, since the original link
wasn't actually to the specific site that was "outlawed" in the
original ruling). Of course, with the link to the diff removed, it's
hard for anybody to actually check on this, and see that the link was
to a different site than the one covered specifically in the ArbCom
ruling, and what context the link was made in.
Incidentally, today's New York Times Magazine article on Wikipedia
includes a specific mention of Encyclopedia Dramatica and its attacks
on Slim Virgin. I guess if anything that even refers to an attack
site is itself an attack site, then The New York Times is now an
attack site.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Here's an article about a crash that didn't happen, to two planes on
two different runways, although apparently one is in the take-off line
of the other, where there were no injuries or damages to either
aircraft that didn't crash into each other, with speculation about a
controller error, and no NTSB report yet issued.
I love Wikipedia, Britannica eat your hear out.
Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741
KP