On 7/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 20:36:21 +0100, geni
<geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am one
of them, I know a lot of others, all we actually want is for
people to be prepared to wait a while for things to be cleared up.
Being able to
enforce this is office level powers.
Not having to "enforce" it is evidence of maturity in the project. We
received a complaint, naturally some people will automatically react
by pushing as hard as possible for inclusion of the material the
subject wants excluded, but these people are not likely to be our
finest contributors.
It would really rather depend on the situation and the context.
Step 1: remove the offending material to forestall
legal action;
Um I suspect that may be problematical in some situations because it
could be used as admission that there was a problem.
Maybe. But probably not. Leaving it in despite knowing that it is
contested is, in my view, far more likely to result in a real problem.
Eh that would be an area where I think some general advice from Mike
Godwin could come in handy
In the mean time,
volunteers is all we have. Yes, I know, having an encyclopaedia run
by unqualified volunteers is never going to work, God alone knows why
we even try.
The difference is open review. Any edit made on wikipedia is open to
review by anyone. If I state an image is a copyvio I would need to be
able to publicly back that up if challenged. The result is that if I
screw up with regards to copyright law we will likely find out that I
did and why.
> People are
genuinely upset when Wikipedia says bad things about them.
> Sometimes the bad things need to be said, albeit sometimes with
> somewhat less obvious spite, but it does us no harm to demonstrate at
> every point that we have listened respectfully to their concerns, even
> if we ultimately dismiss them as baseless.
Removing verifiable material is harmful.
And leaving it in may well be more harmful.
So it is a balance. your initial statement fails to acknowledge this.
Sometimes "verifiable
material" amounts to a tabloid story from a couple of local papers
being elevated to worldwide prominence on a top ten website by some
folks whose motivation is less than pure. Attempts to portray such
issues in black and White terms are rarely productive.
There is a difference between a sites and web pages.
Additionally I would argue that wikipedia is of greater value when it
includes stuff not previously online.
Everybody is invited to OTRS. You don't have to
be an admin.
No but the new admins are the logical recruitment targets. So have you
contacted them on their talk page? Email?
What
happened when you volunteered?
Eh volunteered of permissions way back. No response. Then real name
requirement kicked in.
False dilemma
logical fallacy
False dilemmas are indeed a logical fallacy. But you are on the
outside pissing in, here.
I'm hardly likely to accept that claim.
You are bitching about the system and not
actually offering any practical help in fixing it.
Can't. In order to fix something you need some level of control. The
board my have some level of control over OTRS. Perhaps the office
people. Anyone else? Not so much.
And no, "do
nothing" is not an option when hurt, upset people contact Wikipedia.
Just ask that nice Mr. Wales.
My experience was that explaining why we were doing nothing worked
surprisingly well. That was a while ago mind.
--
geni