If there is consensus that there is no deliberate InterWiki Map favoritism,
then the only concern is to prevent the appearance of InterWiki Map
favoritism. This could be accomplished by clearer criteria for InterWiki
Map inclusion.
For instance, a short paragraph at the top of
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interwiki_map could do the trick. In
fact, a simple paragraph of explanation is currently curiously absent from
the InterWiki Map.
I'll take a shot in the dark here:
INTERWIKI MAP CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION:
"The InterWiki Map exists to allow a more efficient syntax for linking
between wikis, and thus promote the cooperation and proliferation of wikis
providing free information on the internet. Sites considered for inclusion
should probably 1) be a wiki 2) be a free content site 3) be reasonably
developed 4) be trusted not to produce spam links and 5) provide a clear and
relevant value to the mediawiki community.
The process for determining inclusion is similar to [[AfD.]] Members of the
community may present pro's and con's, with a Meta administrator determining
consensus and acting accordingly.
Sites included in the InterWiki Map are considered to be trusted sites by
the MediaWiki community and thus "nofollow" is removed from InterWiki
links."
A short paragraph like the above could be sufficient to assuage the concerns
of those who suspect Wikipedia/Wikia nepotism. This sort of fix may be all
that is necessary to quell concerns of a Nefarious Wikia Conspiracy!
In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Morris Osipovich]], some
users are arguing that BIographies of Living Persons issues do not
apply since they have looked her up in the US' Social Security Death
Index and found that she died in 1992.
I have a few concerns about this:
1) Finding that she died in 1992 involved discovering a 'Nadia M.
Osipovich' of the correct approximate age died in Oregon in 1992.
Oregon is the recorded state of residence of this person in the 1940s.
Is it enough to simply match name, approximate age, and state of
residence in death records to prove someone is dead for BLP concerns?
2) Are such lookups in SSDI legitimate sourcing for articles, or are
they original research? I incline towards the latter, since there is
a leap between getting a name and making the decision that it is the
same person that feels like more of one than we should be making
without support from a source.
-Matt
I agree. Kat hit the nail on the head. It's time to go back to basics and
remember what we are really here for--building a free (as in freedom)
encyclopedia to serve as a resource for people everywhere. By doing that, we are the
true activisits, not skirmishers in the copyright battlefield. We are
challenging the assumption that copyright = quality. Let's get back to our core
mission, which will do more to weaken the restraints of copyright than any
single-day squabble and yesterday's news ever will be.
Danny
In a message dated 5/2/2007 12:49:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
makwik(a)gmail.com writes:
Right on, Kat. Wikipedia is not about this sort of "civil
disobedience", which is not helping us build an encyclopedia or
increasing the circle of free content. Posting this silly key all over
the place just encourages the companies to flex their legal muscles
and find better encryption methods. What we need to be doing is be
consumers and supporters of free content and free, unencumbered
software. This silliness isn't helping our mission, and it isn't
helping free content.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Kat Walsh sez:
If deleting something illegal is "out of process", process is broken
and should be ignored. (And possibly changed. Either way, the result
should be the same.)
I see posts further in the thread going on about how admins can't be
trusted to determine what's illegal. This is no argument, however, for
not requiring that what actually is illegal shouldn't be deleted. If
someone makes a mistake in judging that, correct it. The world doesn't
end if something is down for a few hours or a few days that in the
long run shouldn't be.
Look, I'm no fan of the DMCA anti-circumvention rules; neither, I
suspect, are most of us. But Wikipedia is not a venue for unrestricted
free speech or for copyfight activism through civil disobedience;
that's just not what we do. We're a venue to create an encyclopedia
under a free content license, as an alternative to the content only
available within the current heavy-handed and wasteful system of
copyright, and we're actively trying to encourage more content be
created with the same freedoms -- which people on all sides of these
disputes should be able to support.
Hosting illegal content doesn't help us do that. Doing so would only
give fodder to the people who want to accuse us of being bad citizens
or socially irresponsible, and we depend on the perception that we're
trying to act responsibly within the current system to have some of
the leverage that we have in encouraging the creation of free content.
The community deletes things it believes to be illegal and always has,
though it strikes more of a nerve in some cases than others.
To the extent that Wikipedia is fighting the current system of
copyright, we do it through making alternatives viable -- accepting
only free content that can't legally be locked up with DRM, using only
formats that don't require proprietary software or patent licenses.
That method is weakened if people try to take on the current system
head-on through the site, also.
-Kat
"To enjoy freedom, [...] we have of course to control ourselves." --
Virginia Woolf
-----
Right on, Kat. Wikipedia is not about this sort of "civil
disobedience", which is not helping us build an encyclopedia or
increasing the circle of free content. Posting this silly key all over
the place just encourages the companies to flex their legal muscles
and find better encryption methods. What we need to be doing is be
consumers and supporters of free content and free, unencumbered
software. This silliness isn't helping our mission, and it isn't
helping free content.
Makemi
Stephen Bain wrote:
> I've done another patch which should allow discrimination between
> local and nonlocal interwiki sites (ie, we can have nofollow on most
> interwikis but not on links between Wikimedia projects):
>
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8753
Yep, that should do it.
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
| The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|
https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/
custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107
--------------------------------
Jeff Raymond wrote:
> basic non-legalese CSD policy
This is a rather strange phrasing. The criteria for speedy deletion
effectively turned into legalese long ago. That's half the problem with
them, as Andrew pointed out, because people try to apply them
mechanically and without actually thinking about what's desirable and
appropriate for the project.
--Michael Snow
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arromdee@rahul.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2007 08:48 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] HD DVD key mess - OFFICE/Foundation?
>
>On Wed, 2 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
>> I urge you to read and respond to my post earlier today about this
>> precise problem:
>>
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-May/070335.html
>>
>> The Tyranny Of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman -
>
>The solution is obviously to use a structure. Or in other words, delete it
>through process.
The problem is that to have lengthy discussion about something like this we would have to publish it. Thus the harm is done.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arromdee@rahul.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2007 08:03 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] HD DVD key mess - OFFICE/Foundation?
>
>On Wed, 2 May 2007, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> I don't recall any official stance. It was the responsible thing to delete it and oversight it, however. While this particular instance is not terribly risky due to its widespread distribution, there can be very serious legal liabilities. When one of our anonymous editors posts a bond sufficient to cover likely damages, I'll back down.
>
>This is ridiculous. By your reasoning, any admin could delete any article out
>of process at any time for "legal reasons", regardless of whether
>Wikipedia's lawyer, or any lawyer, has been consulted. People, we *have* a
>process for deleting articles that are legally questionable. It's called
>[[WP:OFFICE]]. Out of process speedy deletion is not it.
I would encourage administrators to take responsibility. Someday a substantial legal liability may show up and someone who takes responsibility may save our bacon.
Fred
On 5/2/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
> >> Sure I would. I significant chunk of them can't read basic non-legalese
> >> CSD policy as is, and we expect them to be able to make legal
> >> distinctions?
> >>
> > No, I don't. I'm advocating allowing any admin who recognizes
> > blatantly illegal stuff to "delete" it (i.e. temporarily remove it
> > from the view of non-admins pending a further discussion). I'm not
> > advocating forcing all admins to do so.
>
> Which gets back to the basic protest - I don't trust admins to
> accurately recognizer "blatantly illegal stuff."
>
And I still don't see how that is relevant.
If we had a speedy deletion criterion that said that you could delete
articles about apples, would you oppose that because you don't trust
admins to accurately recognize apples?
The rule is what it is. You're allowed to delete blatantly illegal
stuff. If you delete something that isn't illegal, then you haven't
followed the rule. You might get away with it, but not because of the
rule.
Anthony