I started a policy which was subsequently rejected by Wikiality based
concensus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Native_American_Tribes
The basic problem here is that non-Federally recognized groups claiming
to be Indian Tribes can expose the Foundation and Wikipedia to
considerable liability and negative publicity. By way of example, when
James Mooney was indicted in Utah for impersonating an Indian not only
was he charged, so was the person running his websites and posting the
false information. Mooney was indicted for 19 first degree felony
counts for operating a CEE (Continuing Criminal Enterprise) for the
purposes of distributing peyote. The Southern Cherokee Nation (which is
not a real tribe) under currently operating illegal riverboat casinos
and using their claims of being a Federally recognized tribe to justify
their activities.
Wikipedia needs to exclude these fake tribe from the project. Any of
these tribes can bring legal action against the Foundation, as can the
Federal Government if fake groups are allowed to claim they are indian
tribes, then use Wikipedia as a basis to claim credibility and break the
law. This can have two possible outcomes. The genuine tribes (who
have Federal support and Federal funding) can withdraw financial support
from the project and/or Wikipedia can be exposed to negative publicity
and loss of public trust by the legitimate tribes, as well as being
exposed to Federal Prosecution if these groups use the project to
violate US laws.
I am of Cherokee, German, and English ancestry, but I do not claim I am
a citizen of Germany or the UK., even though I am of these bloodlines as
well as Cherokee. The same applies to Native Tribes recognized by the
US Government. These tribes are sovereign governments, and members are
citizens. For someone who claims Indian ancestry to set themselves up
as a tribe purports claims they are citizens of a non-recgnized
sovereign. It would be the same as for me to claim I am a German or UK
citizen just because I have ancestry from these groups, which would be a
false claim. The same applies to Indian Nations.
I will be unable to garner support from the tribes to publicly support
Wikipedia from other tribes if such a policy does not exist, since any
fake group can claim they are an indian tribe when they are not. Please
read the text of the policy, and the Foundation needs to make a decision
about this matter. Tribes which are not Federally recognized in the US
are NOT indian tribes, and numerous legal liabilities are created if we
allow these groups to post false information into the project.
Jeff
I've drafted a survey on Wikimedia's brands: their perception, use,
protection, and various potential reorganization options. I'd
appreciate edits/feedback on the current survey questions:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_brand_survey
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
Okay, right, I think it's time for some explanation from me about
what, quite rightly, prompted you to make this suggestion. I think I
need to clarify a few things and apologise.
I have got a pretty efficient system going with the script on the
toolserver that gathers requests and checks them for validity. It has
improved things vastly and my thanks pour over to GeorgeMoney for
helping me to code it. I enforce pretty stringent cloak requirements
in terms of requiring e-mail addresses and alt nicks etc., and this
means that before I was getting huge numbers of invalid requests. Now,
only about one in every ten is a request I have to refuse for whatever
reason.
However, this all went wrong a few weeks ago and this meant that a
large number of people are waiting in vain, and this is what I intend
to apologise for. When I changed my username I got my toolserver
username changed from xyrael to swhitton but didn't realise the
database credentials hadn't been moved properly by the admin who
renamed the account (my fault for not checking, not theirs for doing
it wrongly), This meant that a load of requests that were memo'ed and
talk paged correctly are not in the database and so I can't really do
them. Yes, I could try and piece together the different parts myself,
but I don't think this is very efficient, and it wouldn't always work.
Instead, I am going to be asking all those I have partial requests for
to re-do their requests from the top, which is rather unfortunate, but
I think it's probably going to be faster overall.
***PLEASE DO NOT JUST GO AND DO THIS YET*** (indeed, this is the
reason I didn't post to the list before to avoid a deluge of requests
with a system in a bit of a mess)
I will send memos out to those I have memos but no database, and those
in the database with no memo should get something similar. When you
get a memo, that should tell you do redo your request.
If this plan works then the system will become efficient again and I
will get back to rattling through cloaks at the speed you have kindly
praised me for in this thread :)
I would also like to address the issue with the other side of
group-contacting which is managing channels as an oversight.
Essentially, James and I try and be pretty laid-back and prefer
channel owners and ops with access already to deal with things because
they know more about specific channels than us: I go to a specific
person for #wikipedia issues, for example. This is nothing new and has
long been the case that we try and let things handle themselves the
vast majority of the time.
On the other hand there are cases where things can't be dealt for
technical and social reasons and in such a situation please don't be
afraid to to e-mail me, or if appropriate drop me a talk page message.
I'm always happy to help and because I'm also a freenode staffer I'm
always willing to dispense general IRC advice, outside of my contact
role: I try to be a helpful person!
So, to summarise: once the cloak request system is fixed then things
will probably move a lot faster, and then all concerns presented here
will be lifted. Isn't it nice when things work?
Sean
Your friendly IRC group contact
On 16/05/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Group_Contacts
>
> This is not a concern about the quality of the contacts' work, which is
> fantastic, but rather the fact that we have only two people in this role and
> their availability is sometimes limited. We currently only have two
> contacts, but sometimes their other Wikimedia and real-life commitments
> create delays.
>
> We also have to look at the nature of the job itself and the size of our IRC
> network. The job entails setting up cloaks and coordinating the Wikimedia
> Foundation and its users with the Freenode staff. Handing out cloaks itself
> is a rather labor-intensive process and there are many that need to be done.
> Sean is rather inactive and while he always replies, it is sometimes days
> later.
>
> For a group as large as Wikimedia, I believe we need at least 4 or 5 active
> contacts. The Foundation and the community need to figure whether or not we
> do need more contacts and, if so, who we want these users to be.
>
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
--
—Sean Whitton (seanw)
<sean(a)silentflame.com>
http://seanwhitton.com/
> Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 06:19:12 -0400
> From: "Casey Brown" <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] IRC Group Contacts
> To: "'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'"
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <mailman.9.1179316803.7535.foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Out of respect for him, I've never really measured out the
> time it takes for
> him to reply. :)
>
> Cbrown1023
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
> Of Guillaume
> Paumier
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:52 AM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] IRC Group Contacts
>
> Hello,
>
> On 5/16/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Group_Contacts
> >
> > This is not a concern about the quality of the contacts'
> work, which is
> > fantastic, but rather the fact that we have only two people
> in this role
> > and
> > their availability is sometimes limited. We currently only have two
> > contacts, but sometimes their other Wikimedia and real-life
> commitments
> > create delays.
>
>
> Afaik, the problem doesn't come from the Foundation but from
> Freenode, who
> is very reticent about opening this position to other people.
>
> Sean is doing a great work and he is very efficient ; "some
> days" is an
> acceptable delay, it used to be several weeks some months ago.
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
> [[m:User:guillom]]
> "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the
> life you have
> imagined." Henry David Thoreau
I think it would be good to have more contacts if Freenode is willing to
allow it, even though I think the current volunteers are doing well given
the time demands... The turnaround from Sean is awesome compared to what it
used to be before Sean started helping out. Not that my assent is required
but I want to say I would be comfortable with any of the folks I saw
volunteer (Cbrown1023, Majorly, Drini) and apologise if I missed some ...
Can Freenode be asked if they would allow more contacts given our sizeable
IRC userbase?
Larry Pieniazek
[[User:Lar]] in many places
Hobby mail: lar at miltontrainworks.com
Hello,
On 5/16/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Group_Contacts
>
> This is not a concern about the quality of the contacts' work, which is
> fantastic, but rather the fact that we have only two people in this role
> and
> their availability is sometimes limited. We currently only have two
> contacts, but sometimes their other Wikimedia and real-life commitments
> create delays.
Afaik, the problem doesn't come from the Foundation but from Freenode, who
is very reticent about opening this position to other people.
Sean is doing a great work and he is very efficient ; "some days" is an
acceptable delay, it used to be several weeks some months ago.
--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have
imagined." Henry David Thoreau
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge@telus.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 05:48 PM
>To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Native American Tribes Policy
>
>Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Ilario Valdelli [mailto:valdelli@gmail.com]
>>>
>>>Sorry... I don't understand this thread.
>>>
>>>I live in Europe. This thread is concerning the foundation... I don't
>>>understand Indians... tribes... I don't understand.
>>>
>>>Is this the correct ML?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>He's raised a legitimate question. An problem could occur in rare circumstances. For example we could permit an article about a "Navajo" rug weaver who makes great rugs, but is simply not a Navajo. People could view her beautiful rugs and rely on our article and lay out thousands of dollars. Whether we would actually be liable is questionable, but both genuine Navajo weavers and purchasers of fake rugs would have a legitimate grievance. One assumes these things would get caught, but considering the case of Ward Churchill, perhaps not. Being in Europe would not change this, one rug is genuine, the other not and they have value which reflects their status,
>>
>So when did we become rug merchants? Assuming that that weaver passed
>the usual verifiability standards there's no reason for us to do the
>original research to establish whether she really is Navajo. I at
>least assume that her patterns are consistent with traditional Navajo
>patterns. If someone is putting out thousands for this kind of thing it
>comes down to a question of "buyer beware". We agree with teachers who
>tell their students not to rely on Wikipedia as a sole source of
>information. Why should rug buyers be treated any differently.
>
>A blurb I saw a couple of years ago in "Utne Reader" spoke of a painting
>that was bought for $5.00 in a flea market. It bore a remarkable
>similarity to a typical Jackson Pollock painting, but was unsigned. A
>genuine Pollock would sell for more than $5.00. If a person pays big
>money to buy such a painting on speculation they need to accept the
>risks instead of trying to blame someone else for their own stupidity.
>
>Ec
That painting is an excellent example. In fact, it is so well known that we could probably have an article in Wikipedia about it. There is evidence, aside from its appearance, that it is genuine; there is a fingerprint on the back of the painting which matches a fingerprint on a paint can in Jackson Pollock's studio (It is preserved as a museum). It is considered an inferior painting, when compared to his famous paintings, so inferior that some experts doubt it is even a Pollack, but he is known to have discarded paintings he considered failures. However, the painting lacks provenance, a connection between Pollack and its current owner. The owner is holding out for a unrealistic price, but there have been substantial offers made to her. Our article would contain such information (I got it from 60 Minutes) and not attempt to market the painting, simply treating it as the curiosity it is.
Any article about a person or group whose status as Indian is questioned should contain analogous information.
If you Google "southern cherokee" you get a website:
http://southern-cherokee.com/about/about.htmhttp://southern-cherokee.com/about/sovereign.htmhttp://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/712134165?ltl=1179278573http://www.cherokee.org/home.aspx?section=phoenix&ID=H/yXnQ2HqDo=
Is it real or not? It sounds good, the names of the founders are real, but does all that stuff follow?
Fred
Casey Brown wrote:
>I would also be interested in volunteering (of course :)) and I know of a
>few others who would fit the position well.
>
>Cbrown1023
>
I would love to help out too if needed.
Alex (a.k.a. Majorly)
_________________________________________________________________
Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile.
https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/
On 5/15/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Group_Contacts
>
> This is not a concern about the quality of the contacts' work, which is
> fantastic, but rather the fact that we have only two people in this role and
> their availability is sometimes limited. We currently only have two
> contacts, but sometimes their other Wikimedia and real-life commitments
> create delays.
>
> We also have to look at the nature of the job itself and the size of our IRC
> network. The job entails setting up cloaks and coordinating the Wikimedia
> Foundation and its users with the Freenode staff. Handing out cloaks itself
> is a rather labor-intensive process and there are many that need to be done.
> Sean is rather inactive and while he always replies, it is sometimes days
> later.
>
> For a group as large as Wikimedia, I believe we need at least 4 or 5 active
> contacts. The Foundation and the community need to figure whether or not we
> do need more contacts and, if so, who we want these users to be.
>
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Well, I asked last year about volunteering as a group contact (to
jamesF and to essjay which were the active IRC contacts at the time),
but I never got a word back. So I offer my help again, in case it's
needed.