On Dec 24, 2007 8:09 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The foundation sleeps. Wikipedia does not. For maximum speed contact will tend to need to be made by the first person in the right geographical area who is prepared to do so.
I really don't like this idea. Surely we can elevate certain people to responsible positions. What is some school supposed to do when someone claiming to be acting on behalf of "Wikipedia" rings up? What credentials do they have? Who can vouch for them? We are *not* all spokespeople for Wikipedia.
This is correct. You are simply private citizens carrying out your civic responsibility to make sure the reliant people are informed when such issues arise. That the issue has something to with wikipedia is a mere detail.
It is important for Wikipedia to not be seen to be impeding people who are concerned about a posting from making such reports, though. That was a thread I tried to weave into the current WP:SUICIDE essay - if you are concerned by something, on Wikipedia or in Real Life, you as a concerned citizen can and should report it to proper authorities for them to evaluate and respond if appropriate. We don't want to hinder your doing that. We would like you to tell the foundation and other admins via ANI or whatnot as well as the authorities.
I would not be opposed to shifting WP:SUICIDE from essay to guideline. I did it as an essay to document best policy as performed by admins and other concerned users, after two complete flops of normal policy process on "what to do". It may be easier to keep it as an essay, or it may have gelled with enough buy-in that making it official now will just work. But I don't want to wreck it by having another "policy process" fight over it.