As an alternative to redirecting [[Michael Moore]] to [[clown]] we might consider modifying the article and placing a notice at the top of the article that at the demand of Michael Moore certain changes have been made in the article.
We could have a policy about that. When threatened or harassed we could conform the article to the demands made, but place a notice on it regarding the changes made.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com [mailto:charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 03:30 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
"David Gerard" wrote
On 15/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation. Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
Yes, but if it comes down to one or the other ... then what?
And let me say that I consider removing the michaelmoore.com link from [[Michael Moore]] to obviously constitute damage to the encyclopedia, and if the community comes up with a rule that makes that a good idea then the community is *wrong* and the rule needs removal. That's NPA vs NPOV, i.e. the BADSITES arbitration.
That's the basis, not of having a rule, but a diplomatic procedure. "You force our hand here, it's a lose-lose situation. Let's talk about this." And go on to explain that we can shrug off point-scoring, but we have internal ways of dealing with issues and feel that it would be bad not only for us if outside pressures played a part in those.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh hell no. We aren't modifying articles simply to make people happy. That way lies madness. We conform to NPOV. Period.
Quoting fredbaud@waterwiki.info:
As an alternative to redirecting [[Michael Moore]] to [[clown]] we might consider modifying the article and placing a notice at the top of the article that at the demand of Michael Moore certain changes have been made in the article.
We could have a policy about that. When threatened or harassed we could conform the article to the demands made, but place a notice on it regarding the changes made.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com [mailto:charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 03:30 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
"David Gerard" wrote
On 15/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation.
Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
Yes, but if it comes down to one or the other ... then what?
And let me say that I consider removing the michaelmoore.com link from [[Michael Moore]] to obviously constitute damage to the encyclopedia, and if the community comes up with a rule that makes that a good idea then the community is *wrong* and the rule needs removal. That's NPA vs NPOV, i.e. the BADSITES arbitration.
That's the basis, not of having a rule, but a diplomatic procedure. "You force our hand here, it's a lose-lose situation. Let's talk about this." And go on to explain that we can shrug off point-scoring, but we have internal ways of dealing with issues and feel that it would be bad not only for us if outside pressures played a part in those.
Charles
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 15/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
As an alternative to redirecting [[Michael Moore]] to [[clown]] we might consider modifying the article and placing a notice at the top of the article that at the demand of Michael Moore certain changes have been made in the article.
We could have a policy about that. When threatened or harassed we could conform the article to the demands made, but place a notice on it regarding the changes made.
Fred
I would love to see this implemented.
On 10/15/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
As an alternative to redirecting [[Michael Moore]] to [[clown]] we might consider modifying the article and placing a notice at the top of the article that at the demand of Michael Moore certain changes have been made in the article.
We could have a policy about that. When threatened or harassed we could conform the article to the demands made, but place a notice on it regarding the changes made.
Fred
I would love to see this implemented.
I would too. It seems rather simple, the sort of thing I wonder why we didn't implement it before.
KP
Quoting K P kpbotany@gmail.com:
On 10/15/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
As an alternative to redirecting [[Michael Moore]] to [[clown]] we might consider modifying the article and placing a notice at the top of the article that at the demand of Michael Moore certain changes have been made in the article.
We could have a policy about that. When threatened or harassed we could conform the article to the demands made, but place a notice on it
regarding
the changes made.
Fred
I would love to see this implemented.
I would too. It seems rather simple, the sort of thing I wonder why we didn't implement it before.
KP
Because the end result is that we will have thousands of articles that instead of being NPOV will have material missing with a note on the topic that at the subjects demand material is missing or altered. We cannot give in to POV pushing, whether it is POV pushing on the site by editors or by people using other means. We don't give in to legal threats, we don't give in to blackmail, and we don't give in to harrassement. As soon we do everyone will rush to take advantage of us since a few demands will be all they will need to get critical material removed.
On 10/15/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
We could have a policy about that. When threatened or harassed we could conform the article to the demands made, but place a notice on it regarding the changes made.
I'm not sure if this is meant as satire. This kind of policy may have a place in Wikinfo, which doesn't have an NPOV policy. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
Mind you, commitment to _neutral educational content_ is actually part of the core mission of the Foundation as determined by the Board of WMF: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Mission_and_Vision_statement
It's a cross-project, cross-language commitment.
That doesn't mean of course that we won't ever alter article in response to demands. But certainly it would be utterly wrong to give in to threats, harassment and demands by default.
Switching back to personal opinion:
I've refrained from commenting much in the whole BADSITES debate. For the record, I think the policy idea is understandable but ultimately deeply misguided. It's behavior that needs to be regulated, not the flow of hyperlinks. Ask not what you can do about hyperlinks that could lead to bad sites, ask what you can do about people who distract from our purpose of creating a useful knowledge resource.