[Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 81, Issue 37
r.davey13 at gmail.com
r.davey13 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 12 17:32:47 UTC 2010
What?
Yours sincerely Princess Rebecca
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
Sender: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:27:52
To: <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: foundation-l Digest, Vol 81, Issue 37
Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
foundation-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
foundation-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content (Andreas Kolbe)
2. Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Andreas Kolbe)
3. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Fred Bauder)
4. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (David Gerard)
5. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Andreas Kolbe)
6. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (David Moran)
7. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material
(Cool Hand Luke)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:39:04 +0000 (GMT)
From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial
Content
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <833994.88374.qm at web29608.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> People don't read they react.
Here is a real-life example. I asked a German mate of mine why he had
opposed the policy, with the following oppose rationale:
"Oppose No need to go beyond existing legal obligations, just follow the
laws that apply." (Oppose 114)
When I asked him in which way he thought the policy went beyond obscenity
and privacy law, his reply was that he hadn't bothered to read it:
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Fossa&action=historysubmit&diff=82528083&oldid=82526835
"I have no idea what's in the policy, but the most liberal policy
feasible is a policy that adheres to the laws that apply. If, say, the
servers are located in Guinea, they should adhere to Guniean law, if they
are located in Tulsa, US/Oklahoma law applies. No need for redundancies
here."
What the policy tried to do was make editors aware of existing laws, incl.
privacy, because at the moment, if you nominate a blow-job or similar
picture imported a few weeks ago from a "no longer active" Flickr account,
it is as likely as not that three people will turn up for the deletion
discussion.
One says, "You can't see all of her face." Another says, "It's in use in
a project, so we can't delete it". Another says the nominator is a prude,
and a fourth says, "It has educational value."
As Scott said, it's a chat-show phone-in.
Andreas
--- On Sat, 11/12/10, ???? <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> From: ???? <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Saturday, 11 December, 2010, 8:57
> On 10/12/2010 20:37, WJhonson at aol.com
> wrote:
> > In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:08:37 PM Pacific
> Standard Time,
> > jayen466 at yahoo.com
> writes:
> >
> >
> >> Suggest you read the draft policy, rather than the
> votes.
> >>
> >
> > You're suggesting that all the no votes are simply
> trolls then?
> > That's a lot of no votes to just cast them off as
> people who didn't read
> > the draft, isn't it?
>
>
> People don't read they react. In the UK a couple of years
> ago there was
> a petition that gathered 50,000 signatures against a
> proposal to ban all
> photography in public spaces. As a point of fact there was
> no such
> proposal.
>
> This received over 10,000 responses and a huge number of
> point ny point
> rebuttals despite the fact that it is obviously a joke
> based around the
> Brady Bunch.
> http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html
>
> As the respondents to the above were pretty much the same
> constituents
> as wikipedians (young, male, technically savvy) why would
> any one think
> that exactly the same thing isn't going on with those
> currently voting?
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:59:30 +0000 (GMT)
From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com>
Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <271444.65772.qm at web29618.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
This might need some eyes and attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents
It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content of the recent
Wikileaks releases, notably
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencies_Initiative
Andreas
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:20:59 -0700 (MST)
From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks
material
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<58152.66.243.193.108.1292170859.squirrel at webmail.fairpoint.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example
information about a troop movement, but once something has been published
on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on
Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good idea. The
disclosed primary documents will come under intense analysis in reliable
sources; those analyses are notable and properly included in Wikipedia
despite their source in classified primary documents. Copying a list of
potential military targets from a classified document would seem out of
bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has widely
distributed the list.
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
> This might need some eyes and attention:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents
>
> It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content of the recent
> Wikileaks releases, notably
>
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencies_Initiative
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 16:49:06 +0000
From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks
material
To: fredbaud at fairpoint.net, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTinTde9-KK7hESJ8v1hrrMwQumb+9rGYOtykENO_ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 12 December 2010 16:20, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
> We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example
> information about a troop movement, but once something has been published
> on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on
> Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good idea. The
> disclosed primary documents will come under intense analysis in reliable
> sources; those analyses are notable and properly included in Wikipedia
> despite their source in classified primary documents. Copying a list of
> potential military targets from a classified document would seem out of
> bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has widely
> distributed the list.
Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely unsuitable for en:wp.
The raw data is, however, US government public domain and therefore
suitable for Wikisource as an important historical text (which it is).
Possibly when the whole collection has been released and there is
context to give. Particularly notable cables might be worth curating
for their importance.
(Note that although impact in the US of the actual information is
minimal, it's proving interesting in countries outside the US as
people discover what their elected leaders have actually been up to.
So there will in fact be individual documents that will be noteworthy
in themselves.)
- d.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:09:09 +0000 (GMT)
From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks
material
To: fredbaud at fairpoint.net, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <610484.82397.qm at web29617.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Fred,
I agree. However, any [[WP:UNDUE]] argument of the kind you are making,
> Copying a list of potential military targets from a classified document
> would seem out of bounds unless a source generally considered reliable
> has widely distributed the list.
will not win the day. See the section "laughs maniacally" on the article's
talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Critical_Foreign_Dependencies_Initiative#.2Alaughs_maniacally.2A
The editor "laughs maniacally" because they have found *one source*, i.e.
this news/blog site
http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-critical-foreign-dependencies-2010-12
that reproduces the Wikileaks list in full. Thereby, the reasoning goes,
it has been published by a secondary source, justifying its inclusion in
the article. Once included with a secondary source, it can and will
thereafter be defended under [[WP:NOTCENSORED]].
This is a situation that occurs frequently. There may be 450 reputable news
outlets that have taken an editorial decision not to publish something, for
valid reasons, vs. one that has published it. Per [[WP:NOTCENSORED]],
editors get to go with the one source that has. By and large, we have
sacrificed editorial judgment, and the NPOV idea that we should reflect the
editorial judgment of our best sources, to [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. This applies
to articles of this sort as much as it does to the way we illustrate
articles on sexuality and pornography.
Andreas
--- On Sun, 12/12/10, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sunday, 12 December, 2010, 16:20
> We might suppress a leak made
> directly into Wikipedia, for example
> information about a troop movement, but once something has
> been published
> on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think
> links on
> Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good
> idea. The
> disclosed primary documents will come under intense
> analysis in reliable
> sources; those analyses are notable and properly included
> in Wikipedia
> despite their source in classified primary documents.
> Copying a list of
> potential military targets from a classified document would
> seem out of
> bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has
> widely
> distributed the list.
>
> Fred
>
> User:Fred Bauder
>
> > This might need some eyes and attention:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents
> >
> > It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content
> of the recent
> > Wikileaks releases, notably
> >
> > https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencies_Initiative
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:17:06 -0500
From: David Moran <fordmadoxfraud at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks
material
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTikHJj8rm1QqeEAu1FLZCz=SekgnqUL2zEcLPe57 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Taking the nonexistence of an article on a particular subject as positive
evidence of an editorial judgment by our "best sources" is an unsupportable
argument. Wikipedia is not here to index articles published in the NYT and
Washington Post. A reputable secondary source is a reputable secondary
source is a reputable secondary source.
FMF
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Fred,
>
> I agree. However, any [[WP:UNDUE]] argument of the kind you are making,
>
> > Copying a list of potential military targets from a classified document
> > would seem out of bounds unless a source generally considered reliable
> > has widely distributed the list.
>
> will not win the day. See the section "laughs maniacally" on the article's
> talk page:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Critical_Foreign_Dependencies_Initiative#.2Alaughs_maniacally.2A
>
> The editor "laughs maniacally" because they have found *one source*, i.e.
> this news/blog site
>
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-critical-foreign-dependencies-2010-12
>
> that reproduces the Wikileaks list in full. Thereby, the reasoning goes,
> it has been published by a secondary source, justifying its inclusion in
> the article. Once included with a secondary source, it can and will
> thereafter be defended under [[WP:NOTCENSORED]].
>
> This is a situation that occurs frequently. There may be 450 reputable news
> outlets that have taken an editorial decision not to publish something, for
> valid reasons, vs. one that has published it. Per [[WP:NOTCENSORED]],
> editors get to go with the one source that has. By and large, we have
> sacrificed editorial judgment, and the NPOV idea that we should reflect the
> editorial judgment of our best sources, to [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. This applies
> to articles of this sort as much as it does to the way we illustrate
> articles on sexuality and pornography.
>
> Andreas
>
> --- On Sun, 12/12/10, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
>
> > From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks
> material
> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Date: Sunday, 12 December, 2010, 16:20
> > We might suppress a leak made
> > directly into Wikipedia, for example
> > information about a troop movement, but once something has
> > been published
> > on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think
> > links on
> > Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good
> > idea. The
> > disclosed primary documents will come under intense
> > analysis in reliable
> > sources; those analyses are notable and properly included
> > in Wikipedia
> > despite their source in classified primary documents.
> > Copying a list of
> > potential military targets from a classified document would
> > seem out of
> > bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has
> > widely
> > distributed the list.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> > User:Fred Bauder
> >
> > > This might need some eyes and attention:
> > >
> > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents>
> > >
> > > It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content
> > of the recent
> > > Wikileaks releases, notably
> > >
> > >
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencies_Initiative
> > >
> > > Andreas
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:27:49 -0500
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks
material
To: fredbaud <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing
List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTim4q8R4dufu0u6=cbFGLAugWqJS7jo+4NW81_hQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Exactly right. Using the documents themselves prior to secondary analysis
is a WP:PSTS problem in the first place. Once secondary sources have
analyzed them, the sourcing problem will be resolved, and any secrecy
concern will be even more moot than it is already.
Frank
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>wrote:
> We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example
> information about a troop movement, but once something has been published
> on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on
> Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good idea. The
> disclosed primary documents will come under intense analysis in reliable
> sources; those analyses are notable and properly included in Wikipedia
> despite their source in classified primary documents. Copying a list of
> potential military targets from a classified document would seem out of
> bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has widely
> distributed the list.
>
> Fred
>
> User:Fred Bauder
>
> > This might need some eyes and attention:
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents>
> >
> > It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content of the recent
> > Wikileaks releases, notably
> >
> >
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencies_Initiative
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 81, Issue 37
********************************************
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list