On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Sage Ross
<ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com<ragesoss%2Bwikipedia@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org
wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:58
PM, Sage Ross
> > <ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com <ragesoss%2Bwikipedia(a)gmail.com><
> ragesoss%2Bwikipedia(a)gmail.com <ragesoss%252Bwikipedia(a)gmail.com>>
> >
wrote:
> >
> >> For what it's worth, I agree with David Gerard that Open Wiki Blog
> >> Planet is not properly subject to Wikipedia policies;
> >
> >
> > Not even the policies at
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page ?
> > How's that going to work?
>
> I don't see anything there that applies to the way the Open Wiki Blog
> Planet feed list is done,
"there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space
material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute" I guess it
doesn't say anything about what you can include in someone else's user
space, but I think that can be assumed.
and if it did conflict, as David suggested,
the way to resolve it would be to move the page to another wiki rather
than censor bloggers.
Another wiki not run by the Wikimedia Foundation, fine. Of course, it's up
to Nick whether he'd prefer to do that. Personally I see no point in having
Open Wiki Blog Planet host personal attacks (nor for it to host posts having
nothing to do with Wikimedia projects), so if I were Nick I'd choose not to
do so.
But as John Vandenberg points out in the other thread,
the removal had
nothing to do with ArbCom, and we are of course free to decide which
blogs we as a community do and don't want as part of the feed.
Whoever runs Open Wiki Blog Planet (I assume it's Nick) is free to decide
which blogs he does and doesn't want as part of the feed.
It's
my view, though, that we shouldn't feel compelled to remove a blog
because of the policies of English Wikipedia.
On that, I agree. Though I assume the policies of English Wikipedia most
likely will overlap with the policies of Open Wiki Blog Planet.