A wonderful and thoughtful oldtime Wikipedian pointed out to me that I was getting a bit blunt in my emails yesterday about WP:OFFICE.
I apologize for that.
Here are the main points I want to empahasize:
1. This policy merely extends longstanding practice, previously not questioned, becuase I did it myself.
2. Nothing about this policy changes anything about our NPOV policies for any article in Wikipedia. WP:OFFICE in no way implies that some articles or some people are given any special treatment in the handling of their biography.
3. WP:OFFICE is intended to be used only temporarily as a courtesy in certain highly delimited circumstances. In some cases, this will be cases involving a threat of legal action, but in other cases it may be simply as a courtesy while we sort something out.
4. In all cases, we will communicate the maximum possible information in the shortest possible time period, subject to legal constraints and also time constraints.
5. Danny has, in my own opinion, formed in long experience, excellent judgment.
6. In some cases so far, WP:OFFICE was used for a longer period than I would have liked, due to various circumstances. I'm sorry about that. However, I remind everyone that Assume Good Faith is absolutely important to our community.
I am frankly shocked and saddened to see some of the accusations I have seen in this thread, but it is always and everywhere my intention to respond with kindness even to the most dishonest provocation, and I'm sorry I was snippy in some of my responses.
--Jimbo
On 3/12/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
- Nothing about this policy changes anything about our NPOV policies
for any article in Wikipedia. WP:OFFICE in no way implies that some articles or some people are given any special treatment in the handling of their biography.
[[Jack Thompson (attorney)]] fails to follow NPOV by any reasonable standards. It also probably has a copyvio in it in it's present form. It also fails to cite it's sources and uses weasel words.
- In all cases, we will communicate the maximum possible information
in the shortest possible time period, subject to legal constraints and also time constraints.
It appears we know the contents of the email Jack Thompson sent to the wikimedia foundation. Information that is theoreticaly of use to editors who may want to fix the article. The foundation was not the source of this information
In other news last I cheaked there were edit wars on two different articles as a result of the actions taken over the [[Jack Thompson (attorney)]] article.
-- geni
How can we know the content of an email to the foundation, if neither Jack or the foundation have revealed the content of the letter in question?
On 3/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
It appears we know the contents of the email Jack Thompson sent to the wikimedia foundation. Information that is theoreticaly of use to editors who may want to fix the article. The foundation was not the source of this information
On 3/12/06, Carl Fûrstenberg azatoth@gmail.com wrote:
How can we know the content of an email to the foundation, if neither Jack or the foundation have revealed the content of the letter in question?
No one has stated that this is not genuine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jack_Thompson_%28attorney%29#Here.27s_Why_...
-- geni
Of course, the best thing about WP:OFFICE is that you can easily go into [[Category:Office Protected]] and look at the history of the articles in there. It's an easy way to highlight what's controversial and bring it to greater attention!
OK, I'm being cheeky, but this does seem to be a flaw in the process.
Jon
Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
A wonderful and thoughtful oldtime Wikipedian pointed out to me that I was getting a bit blunt in my emails yesterday about WP:OFFICE.
I apologize for that.
Here are the main points I want to empahasize:
1. This policy merely extends longstanding practice, previously not questioned, becuase I did it myself.
2. Nothing about this policy changes anything about our NPOV policies for any article in Wikipedia. WP:OFFICE in no way implies that some articles or some people are given any special treatment in the handling of their biography.
3. WP:OFFICE is intended to be used only temporarily as a courtesy in certain highly delimited circumstances. In some cases, this will be cases involving a threat of legal action, but in other cases it may be simply as a courtesy while we sort something out.
4. In all cases, we will communicate the maximum possible information in the shortest possible time period, subject to legal constraints and also time constraints.
5. Danny has, in my own opinion, formed in long experience, excellent judgment.
6. In some cases so far, WP:OFFICE was used for a longer period than I would have liked, due to various circumstances. I'm sorry about that. However, I remind everyone that Assume Good Faith is absolutely important to our community.
I am frankly shocked and saddened to see some of the accusations I have seen in this thread, but it is always and everywhere my intention to respond with kindness even to the most dishonest provocation, and I'm sorry I was snippy in some of my responses.
--Jimbo