-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 04:45 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
On 02/07/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Information you have approved for publication in the New York Times is not "private information".
Define "private information".
If you're referring to the linking of real names to account names without authorisation by the person in question, this mailing list has been guilty of that at times. This would then make wikimedia.org unlinkable.
The Mongo ruling is a blunt instrument. It's not surprising it's hurting the encyclopedia.
It's a righteous decision applied to ED. Attempting to generalize it into a policy, whether by friend or foe, is troublesome.
Fred
On 03/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 04:45 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
On 02/07/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Information you have approved for publication in the New York Times is not "private information".
Define "private information".
If you're referring to the linking of real names to account names without authorisation by the person in question, this mailing list has been guilty of that at times. This would then make wikimedia.org unlinkable.
The Mongo ruling is a blunt instrument. It's not surprising it's hurting the encyclopedia.
It's a righteous decision applied to ED. Attempting to generalize it into a policy, whether by friend or foe, is troublesome.
The problem is, the way the decision is framed does not necessarily specifically apply to ED.
Principles (3): "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking."
This is clearly not specific to ED.
Now, ED is specifically mentioned in Remedies (1) and Enforcement, so it seems clear to me that ArbCom's intent was that the ruling shold apply only to ED; however, it's equally clear that certain individuals are keen to exploit the general nature of Principles (3), despite the reception that [[WP:BADSITES]] got from the community at large.
On 7/2/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 04:45 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
On 02/07/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Information you have approved for publication in the New York Times is not "private information".
Define "private information".
If you're referring to the linking of real names to account names without authorisation by the person in question, this mailing list has been guilty of that at times. This would then make wikimedia.org unlinkable.
The Mongo ruling is a blunt instrument. It's not surprising it's hurting the encyclopedia.
It's a righteous decision applied to ED. Attempting to generalize it into a policy, whether by friend or foe, is troublesome.
The problem is, the way the decision is framed does not necessarily specifically apply to ED.
Principles (3): "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking."
This is clearly not specific to ED.
Now, ED is specifically mentioned in Remedies (1) and Enforcement, so it seems clear to me that ArbCom's intent was that the ruling shold apply only to ED; however, it's equally clear that certain individuals are keen to exploit the general nature of Principles (3), despite the reception that [[WP:BADSITES]] got from the community at large.
Of incidental interest here may be the (later) ruling in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Philwelch, which does apply specifically to ED (and is broader than mere links, to boot). ED is (fortunately) a rather unique case; trying to generalize from it to any other site is problematic at best.
Kirill
On 7/2/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 04:45 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
On 02/07/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Information you have approved for publication in the New York Times is not "private information".
Define "private information".
If you're referring to the linking of real names to account names without authorisation by the person in question, this mailing list has been guilty of that at times. This would then make wikimedia.org unlinkable.
The Mongo ruling is a blunt instrument. It's not surprising it's hurting the encyclopedia.
It's a righteous decision applied to ED. Attempting to generalize it into a policy, whether by friend or foe, is troublesome.
The problem is, the way the decision is framed does not necessarily specifically apply to ED.
Principles (3): "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking."
This is clearly not specific to ED.
Right.
Now, ED is specifically mentioned in Remedies (1) and Enforcement, so it seems clear to me that ArbCom's intent was that the ruling shold apply only to ED;
No, it wasn't. I was there.
however, it's equally clear that certain individuals are keen to exploit the general nature of Principles (3), despite the reception that [[WP:BADSITES]] got from the community at large.
James, we've moved on to sensible discussion, no more straw-man policy hysteria labels.
On 03/07/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Now, ED is specifically mentioned in Remedies (1) and Enforcement, so it seems clear to me that ArbCom's intent was that the ruling shold apply only to ED;
No, it wasn't. I was there.
Then why do all the remedies apply only to ED? Why is there no mention of setting up an official list of recognised attack sites?
however, it's equally clear that certain individuals are keen to exploit the general nature of Principles (3), despite the reception that [[WP:BADSITES]] got from the community at large.
James, we've moved on to sensible discussion, no more straw-man policy hysteria labels.
Sorry, but [[WP:BADSITES]] explains quite clearly that the community rejected it.
On 7/2/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/07/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Now, ED is specifically mentioned in Remedies (1) and Enforcement, so it seems clear to me that ArbCom's intent was that the ruling shold apply only to ED;
No, it wasn't. I was there.
Then why do all the remedies apply only to ED? Why is there no mention of setting up an official list of recognised attack sites?
Because ED was the specific site linked to in this case.
however, it's equally clear that certain individuals are keen to exploit the general nature of Principles (3), despite the reception that [[WP:BADSITES]] got from the community at large.
James, we've moved on to sensible discussion, no more straw-man policy hysteria labels.
Sorry, but [[WP:BADSITES]] explains quite clearly that the community rejected it.
Again, we've moved on from the "WITCH, WITCH!!!" hysteria. We're not talking about the straw-man BADSITES policy..
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 7/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is, the way the decision is framed does not necessarily specifically apply to ED.
Principles (3): "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking."
This is clearly not specific to ED.
As I suggested in an earlier email on this topic (I can't find it just now, but it's in the main thread) it's necessary to read the principles together, and not just to read #3 on its own. The principles are not specific to ED, but together they do have a very strong focus on harassment and the disclosure of personal information as specific categories of behaviour, and sites which engage in those sorts of behaviour should not be linked to.
I should note that these specific behaviours are ones which have a pretty strongly established definition already, as behaviours which would be blockable if performed on-wiki. These few arbitration cases are really just making a logical extension from the existing approach to on-wiki behaviour.
Stephen Bain wrote:
I should note that these specific behaviours are ones which have a pretty strongly established definition already, as behaviours which would be blockable if performed on-wiki. These few arbitration cases are really just making a logical extension from the existing approach to on-wiki behaviour.
And this is one good reason why Arbcom cases need not (and, arguably, should not) set policy: it's unnecessary.
If the existing rules adequately support the decision, you don't need new rules. If, on the other hand, you insist that every decision and precedent needs to be enshrined in brand-new policy, you end up with classic instruction creep...