WikiEN-l June 2009

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

85 participants
92 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
by Rjd0060 30 Jun '09

30 Jun '09

I'd just like to clarify one point. The NYT article does make it seem as if the entire reason that the actions were done were because Jimmy asked or requested it. This is not the case and I know this first-hand, of course being one of those administrators involved. I did what I did because I felt it was appropriate. I did not do it for any other reason. Of course I cannot speak for others but I would only assume that they have similar thoughts. --- Rjd0060 rjd0060.wiki(a)gmail.com

6 7

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
by WJhonson＠aol.com 30 Jun '09

30 Jun '09

In a message dated 6/30/2009 11:35:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, scs(a)eskimo.com writes: > But we suppress news *all the time*. > If I added to our [[Shawarma]] article the news that I had one > for lunch today, that fact would be suppressed in a heartbeat, > and rightly so.>> > ---------------------------------- Different issue. We're talking about the suppression of news which does not violate any policy. Your example violates at least two. Will ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
by WJhonson＠aol.com 30 Jun '09

30 Jun '09

In a message dated 6/30/2009 11:21:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com writes: > Most (or almost all) people would enforce a rule > like do no harm much more strongly when the harm is to named > individuals whom they are aware of , and who are similar to them, and > when they judge the person involved as not being guilty of harming > others. The current statement of BLP ignores this, presumably taking > it for granted.>> > ----------------- Which parts of the above are you advocating? Will ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
by WJhonson＠aol.com 30 Jun '09

30 Jun '09

In a message dated 6/30/2009 10:34:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, apoc2400(a)gmail.com writes: > The reason to suppress the news > of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to > protect Rohde.>> > ------------------------------- Suppressing the news can't be said to "improve" Wikipedia in any reasonable way. ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)

4 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
by WJhonson＠aol.com 30 Jun '09

30 Jun '09

Or since reporting on people and events can have negative effects in general including death, are we now not to report on people and events if those effects are negative toward us or ours? But it's evidently OK using the NYT double-standard to report on them if they are negative toward "the other". Will ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
by Matt Jacobs 30 Jun '09

30 Jun '09

There's a second challenge, in that we don't want to confirm information we are avoiding releasing by replying with, "Shhh. This is being kept quiet." As I'm sure most here realize, various idiots will then spread such a response all over Digg and various blogs, therefore defeating the original purpose. If they use a unique or unusual response, it's not going to work as well as just saying the source is unreliable. Stating that the source was unreliable was actually probably the most effective route. I dislike the fact that this was very top-down and the response was misleading, but would OTRS really have been more effective? Sxeptomaniac Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:30:04 -0700 > From: Durova > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > > Agreed. The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step upon > the slippery slope of censorship. > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com > >wrote: > > > On 30/06/2009, Durova <nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that > > > causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing. Surely, > > when > > > a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be > more > > > careful rather than less careful > > > > Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs > > to be codified. > > > > Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly > > endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may > > be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's > > a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the > > wikipedia. > > > > > -Durova > > > > -- > > -Ian Woollard > > > > "All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually." > > > > _______________________________________________ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > > > > -- > http://durova.blogspot.com/ > >

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
by WJhonson＠aol.com 30 Jun '09

30 Jun '09

So instead what we did, instead of merely reporting it and moving on, is to make it into another front-page example of Wikipedia censorship, so it can go around the world in the opposite direction as well. And for twice as long. Smart thinking. Let's raise the profile by trying to suppress it. Has.. that.. ever... worked... before? No it hasn't. Will ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)

5 6

Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 71, Issue 74
by Matt Jacobs 29 Jun '09

29 Jun '09

> > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:03:33 +0100 > From: Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer(a)googlemail.com> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <e75b49f70906290903m485a5e6bo285d4216cc2dc993(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com>: > > > ?We were really helped by the fact that it hadn?t appeared in a place > > > we would regard as a reliable source,? he said. ?I would have had a > > > really hard time with it if it had.?" > > > ... > > > > The question is though is is > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a > > reliable source? > > > What was that underlying principle which was codified after the Brian > Peppers deletion debates? Ah yes, 'basic human dignity', now to be found at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_dignity. > > This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be > endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely > reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way > of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And > that > would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news > agencies were reliable. > > -- > Sam Blacketer > Thank god common sense won out over the egotism of those who insist they must know everything as soon as it happens, and also to tell everyone in every forum possible. It would be utterly absurd to even take the self-centered whining regarding censorship seriously. Waiting several months for the conclusion of the incident in no way harmed WP. It really doesn't matter what policy administrators used to keep it quiet, or even if they abused the rules. The information had a very real probability of affecting whether a man lived or died, so that takes obvious precedence over internal rules on an online website. Sxeptomaniac

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
by WJhonson＠aol.com 29 Jun '09

29 Jun '09

In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:42:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com writes: > It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken > notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the > kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic > value if executed).>> > ---------------------- So we're now going to set a "higher" moral position than any other information outlet does? Because I'm pretty darn sure that they would report it, if they had a reliable source from which to do so. Or maybe someone can point out another situation where an information outlet suppressed information of this import because it might "endanger someone's life". I'm not talking about outing secret agents here. Will ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)

5 6

Wikimedia in the UK
by Michael Peel 29 Jun '09

29 Jun '09

What Wikimedia events or activities would you like to see take place in the UK? We're currently trying to pull together ideas for "initiatives" that Wikimedia UK can support, at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Initiatives/Proposals There have been lots of ideas posted at: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Initiatives/Ideas which need fleshing out before they can be taken forward. We've also got a list of things that we've already supported at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Initiatives We're having an open IRC meeting to discuss possible initiatives, which will take place this coming Tuesday, the 30th June 2009, at 8.30PM BST (19:30 GMT), in #wikimedia-uk on irc.freenode.net . For more information, and to say that you'll be coming, please visit: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/Discussions/Initiatives Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, and is set up as a membership-run non-profit UK company limited by guarantee. To find out more information, to join or to donate, please visit our website at http://uk.wikimedia.org/ . Thanks, Mike Peel Chair, Wikimedia UK - http://uk.wikimedia.org/ Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL, United Kingdom

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l June 2009