On 08/09/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I think making the pages available in high-ranking Google results is more than 'transparency', it's shouting out to the world.
Google's rankings are Google's responsibility. Wikipedia has never worried about search engine rankings, we just do what we think best and let the search engines do what they think best. Fortunately, those generally coincide, so Wikipedia has very high rankings, but we don't make any special effort to achieve those rankings. We also don't make any special effort to get rid of them.
This appears to be sound reasoning. Basing our activity on "What does Google think?" is a cyber-equivalent to letting your home decisions be guided by what the neighbours think. It relinquishes control to outside elements who have no vested interest in your efforts.
Ec
Wikipaedia is posting negative information about relatively private individuals... or are banned users considered so notable now that BLP does not apply? Are you so determined to take revenge on those that are banned that you must destroy their online and offline reputations as much as possible?
Wikipaedia does control its robots.txt files. The encyclopaedic namespaces are the main namespace and the image namespace. What does the rest contain that so needs to be indexed by Google that you do not care how many people's reputations are destroyed, or how many Wikipaedians are tracked by other websites?
On 9/8/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Wikipaedia is posting negative information about relatively private individuals... or are banned users considered so notable now that BLP does not apply? Are you so determined to take revenge on those that are banned that you must destroy their online and offline reputations as much as possible?
We are not in control of how people ruin their own reputations by being assholes on Wikipedia. My sympathy for banned users is generally slight.
-Matt
On 09/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/8/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Wikipaedia is posting negative information about relatively private individuals... or are banned users considered so notable now that BLP does not apply? Are you so determined to take revenge on those that are banned that you must destroy their online and offline reputations as much as possible?
We are not in control of how people ruin their own reputations by being assholes on Wikipedia. My sympathy for banned users is generally slight.
-Matt
All banned users are assholes all of the sudden?
Then again, now that I think of it, show me someone who has never been an 'asshole', and I'll show you a hermit.
So I suppose, by the same logic, you would support welcoming links to 'attack sites' and 'outing sites' on Wikipaedia?
On 9/9/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
All banned users are assholes all of the sudden?
Not necessarily, but unless our ban of them was mistaken, there was a reason to ban them. This was generally connected to their behavior on the project.
I see no reason why that behavior should not, in general, be documented and indeed searchable. I'm not in the business of enabling antisocial behavior by ensuring lack of consequences.
-Matt
Not necessarily, but unless our ban of them was mistaken, there was a reason to ban them. This was generally connected to their behavior on the project.
I see no reason why that behavior should not, in general, be documented and indeed searchable. I'm not in the business of enabling antisocial behavior by ensuring lack of consequences.
And if it were mistaken, one'd want it to be searchable such that the fact it was mistaken can be seen and corrected.
KTC
On 10/09/2007, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
Not necessarily, but unless our ban of them was mistaken, there was a reason to ban them. This was generally connected to their behavior on the project.
I see no reason why that behavior should not, in general, be documented and indeed searchable. I'm not in the business of enabling antisocial behavior by ensuring lack of consequences.
And if it were mistaken, one'd want it to be searchable such that the fact it was mistaken can be seen and corrected.
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
Ask anyone who's been libelled if they want everyone in the world to be able to read said libel.
Ask anyone who's been libelled if they want everyone in the world to be able to read said libel.
Libel is another matter entirely. If the accusations against someone are false, then something should, of course, be done about it. I don't expect there are many such false accusations that haven't been shown to be false (or, at least, unproven)
On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Ask anyone who's been libelled if they want everyone in the world to be able to read said libel.
Libel is another matter entirely. If the accusations against someone are false, then something should, of course, be done about it. I don't expect there are many such false accusations that haven't been shown to be false (or, at least, unproven)
The bar for libel of non-public figures is very low if I understand it correctly. And that bar varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, truth is not a defense. And then there are right to privacy laws, which are often intermixed with libel laws, and to which truth is not a defense. Further, I'm sure there's lots of stuff on the arb com "evidence" pages which are downright false.
I'm also not sure to what extent US libel laws cover opinion pieces of non-public figures.
So I wouldn't use the word libel, as I'm not sure it does apply. But I'm not sure it doesn't apply either.
The bar for libel of non-public figures is very low if I understand it correctly. And that bar varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, truth is not a defense. And then there are right to privacy laws, which are often intermixed with libel laws, and to which truth is not a defense. Further, I'm sure there's lots of stuff on the arb com "evidence" pages which are downright false.
Where is truth not a defence? By my understanding, libel is defined as publishing damaging lies about someone. Privacy is another matter entirely, and truth isn't a defence there. However, for something to be a violation of privacy (at least under UK law) you have to have a reasonable expectation of privacy (eg. someone takes a picture of you sunbathing naked in your garden and sells it to a tabloid, that's a violation of privacy, if they take a similar picture of you on a nude beach, it isn't). There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet. The only way privacy law can become relevant to Wikipedia is if the person publishing the information knows the person in question in real life (which includes stalkers) - we do have problems with those kinds of cases, but not very often.
On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The bar for libel of non-public figures is very low if I understand it correctly. And that bar varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, truth is not a defense. And then there are right to privacy laws, which are often intermixed with libel laws, and to which truth is not a defense. Further, I'm sure there's lots of stuff on the arb com "evidence" pages which are downright false.
Where is truth not a defence? By my understanding, libel is defined as publishing damaging lies about someone. Privacy is another matter entirely, and truth isn't a defence there. However, for something to be a violation of privacy (at least under UK law) you have to have a reasonable expectation of privacy (eg. someone takes a picture of you sunbathing naked in your garden and sells it to a tabloid, that's a violation of privacy, if they take a similar picture of you on a nude beach, it isn't). There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet. The only way privacy law can become relevant to Wikipedia is if the person publishing the information knows the person in question in real life (which includes stalkers) - we do have problems with those kinds of cases, but not very often.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Indeed, I'd be very curious about this too. Mistake of fact is not always a defense to libel, but I'm unaware of any jurisdiction where truth is not a defense of libel accusations.
Is anyone really alledging that I'm liable for libel for telling Mister Shabadoo that I indef block'd him for creating [[Brian Pepper on Wheels!]] anywhere? I know I'm not in my country of origin ... but am I in Malawi or someplace?
WilyD
On 11/09/2007, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The bar for libel of non-public figures is very low if I understand it correctly. And that bar varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, truth is not a defense. And then there are right to privacy laws, which are often intermixed with libel laws, and to which truth is not a defense. Further, I'm sure there's lots of stuff on the arb com "evidence" pages which are downright false.
Where is truth not a defence? By my understanding, libel is defined as publishing damaging lies about someone. Privacy is another matter entirely, and truth isn't a defence there. However, for something to be a violation of privacy (at least under UK law) you have to have a reasonable expectation of privacy (eg. someone takes a picture of you sunbathing naked in your garden and sells it to a tabloid, that's a violation of privacy, if they take a similar picture of you on a nude beach, it isn't). There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet. The only way privacy law can become relevant to Wikipedia is if the person publishing the information knows the person in question in real life (which includes stalkers) - we do have problems with those kinds of cases, but not very often.
Indeed, I'd be very curious about this too. Mistake of fact is not always a defense to libel, but I'm unaware of any jurisdiction where truth is not a defense of libel accusations.
WilyD
Try striking out 'libel' and writing in 'defamation'.
Try Great Britain. http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_uk_british_web_internet_punblshers_defamation.ht...
Also Guatemala, where defamation is actually a criminal offence. http://www.speaktruth.org/defend/profiles/profile_03.asp
Indeed, I'd be very curious about this too. Mistake of fact is not always a defense to libel, but I'm unaware of any jurisdiction where truth is not a defense of libel accusations.
Indeed. I remember the phrase "reckless disregard for the truth" from somewhere - possibly the legal definition of defamation, which is pretty similar to libel. You don't have to know it's false, but if you didn't take reasonable steps to verify that it was true, you are still liable (under UK law, anyway). If it's actually true, though, then you're fine.
On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, I'd be very curious about this too. Mistake of fact is not always a defense to libel, but I'm unaware of any jurisdiction where truth is not a defense of libel accusations.
Indeed. I remember the phrase "reckless disregard for the truth" from somewhere - possibly the legal definition of defamation, which is pretty similar to libel. You don't have to know it's false, but if you didn't take reasonable steps to verify that it was true, you are still liable (under UK law, anyway). If it's actually true, though, then you're fine.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hmm, interesting - I'll offer this ref http://www.cippic.ca/index.php?page=defamation-and-slapps/#faq_defences-to-d... Which notes that Canadians (sans Quebeckers, as is always the case) enjoy something being "substantially true" as a complete defense to libel, and defamation requires *either* slander or libel in Canada (possibly sans Quebec). There are a stack of other defenses, though none would apply here. Of course, the real damage for telling someone they're blocked indef, especially if you just note what they did in a non-derogitory way is likely to be very small - I could see nominal damages of $1 or less ...
That said, if someone wanted to sue me in Guatamala or other places with unusual defamation laws, I suppose my only defense would be that you can't get blood from a stone. I'm also unclear on the enforcability of such judgements. Anyone know?
WilyD
That said, if someone wanted to sue me in Guatamala or other places with unusual defamation laws, I suppose my only defense would be that you can't get blood from a stone. I'm also unclear on the enforcability of such judgements. Anyone know?
Do you think your country would extradite you to Guatamala to face such charges? I would imagine there is a requirement that the case be significant to warrant extradition.
On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That said, if someone wanted to sue me in Guatamala or other places with unusual defamation laws, I suppose my only defense would be that you can't get blood from a stone. I'm also unclear on the enforcability of such judgements. Anyone know?
Do you think your country would extradite you to Guatamala to face such charges? I would imagine there is a requirement that the case be significant to warrant extradition.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No - The Canadian Extradition Act of 1999 says it has to be a crime here too http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/crime/extradition.html Apart from which, extradition is really for criminal matters, not civil ones, although I've no knowledge of Guatamala's legal system, which may not make such a distinction (or most other countries, for that matter).
But the answer is just that - I can't be extradited for something that isn't a crime in Canada, (libel and slander are provincial jurisdiction, so actually a crime in Ontario, but I digress), even if I could, they probably wouldn't bother, and it definitely wouldn't be worth anyone's time and effort. I presume (but don't know) that the Feds or the Province wouldn't enforce a foreign monetary judgement, on the same principles, but I'm not positive.
Of course, the laws in Florida are of much more interest, I suspect. Being barred from travelling to the States would be annoying.
WilyD
Wily D wrote:
But the answer is just that - I can't be extradited for something that isn't a crime in Canada, (libel and slander are provincial jurisdiction, so actually a crime in Ontario, but I digress), even if I could, they probably wouldn't bother, and it definitely wouldn't be worth anyone's time and effort. I presume (but don't know) that the Feds or the Province wouldn't enforce a foreign monetary judgement, on the same principles, but I'm not positive.
Criminal libel and slander are federal matters in Canada, as are all criminal laws. Civil suits may be provincial.
Agreements relating to the enforcement of foreign monetary court judgements are mostly limited to the collection of commercial debt.
Ec
On 11/09/2007, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, I'd be very curious about this too. Mistake of fact is not always a defense to libel, but I'm unaware of any jurisdiction where truth is not a defense of libel accusations.
Indeed. I remember the phrase "reckless disregard for the truth" from somewhere - possibly the legal definition of defamation, which is pretty similar to libel. You don't have to know it's false, but if you didn't take reasonable steps to verify that it was true, you are still liable (under UK law, anyway). If it's actually true, though, then you're fine.
Hmm, interesting - I'll offer this ref http://www.cippic.ca/index.php?page=defamation-and-slapps/#faq_defences-to-d... Which notes that Canadians (sans Quebeckers, as is always the case) enjoy something being "substantially true" as a complete defense to libel, and defamation requires *either* slander or libel in Canada (possibly sans Quebec). There are a stack of other defenses, though none would apply here. Of course, the real damage for telling someone they're blocked indef, especially if you just note what they did in a non-derogitory way is likely to be very small - I could see nominal damages of $1 or less ...
You do not have to tell them they are indef blocked on a Google-indexed page on a top-ranking site.
When someone is blocked, they do not find out they are blocked by reading their talk page - rather, when they try to edit, the Blockedtext displays the block reason that you enter. The block log, the other place where your block reason is displayed, is not indexed by Google.
Also, Wikipaedia can use robots.txt to tell Google et. al. not to index various namespaces... I suggest only mainspace and image space ought to be indexed.
That said, if someone wanted to sue me in Guatamala or other places with unusual defamation laws, I suppose my only defense would be that you can't get blood from a stone. I'm also unclear on the enforcability of such judgements. Anyone know?
WilyD
I am not blaming individual admins so much as the whole Wikipaedia community and the robots.txt file.
These things are not transient. Four years after the fact, and a Google search on a banned user still returns negative Wikipaedia pages about that user at the top of the results.
Wily D wrote:
Hmm, interesting - I'll offer this ref http://www.cippic.ca/index.php?page=defamation-and-slapps/#faq_defences-to-d... Which notes that Canadians (sans Quebeckers, as is always the case) enjoy something being "substantially true" as a complete defense to libel, and defamation requires *either* slander or libel in Canada (possibly sans Quebec). There are a stack of other defenses, though none would apply here. Of course, the real damage for telling someone they're blocked indef, especially if you just note what they did in a non-derogitory way is likely to be very small - I could see nominal damages of $1 or less ...
Whether this sort of thing applies to Quebec depends on whether defamation is a federal or provincial matter. If this is provincial there would clearly be problems in trying to impose the Quebec Civil Code on residents of other provinces.
That said, if someone wanted to sue me in Guatamala or other places with unusual defamation laws, I suppose my only defense would be that you can't get blood from a stone. I'm also unclear on the enforcability of such judgements. Anyone know?
They'd have to get you there to enforce anything. Effectively that prevents you from going to visit Maya ruins in Guatemala.
There have been successful UK cases against Americans that would have failed in the US courts. The US has typically refused to honour any such decisions. Of course, people so affected travel to the UK at their own risk.
Ec
On 11/09/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
There have been successful UK cases against Americans that would have failed in the US courts. The US has typically refused to honour any such decisions. Of course, people so affected travel to the UK at their own risk.
"Libel tourism" is a major failing of the UK court system; if you can show that the material was published *at all* in the UK, and that you have any standing *at all* in the UK which could potentially have been harmed by it, you have a potential case.
Neither the plaintiff or defendant has to be a UK citizen, or UK resident, or indeed have any significant UK connections. They just have to be able to show the defamation slipped into the UK somewhere - a dozen copies of an obscure book have been considered enough in the past. And UK law treats "publication" of online material as happening in the jurisdiction it is accessed in, not the one it was authored or hosted in. So the implications of this for defamation on the internet are... copious.
Once the court agrees to take it on, the plaintiff has a very easy time of it; defamation law here is very favourable to the putative victim. So you get quite a few of these cases, often with the defendant ignoring the case outright.
On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The bar for libel of non-public figures is very low if I understand it correctly. And that bar varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, truth is not a defense. And then there are right to privacy laws, which are often intermixed with libel laws, and to which truth is not a defense. Further, I'm sure there's lots of stuff on the arb com "evidence" pages which are downright false.
Where is truth not a defence?
Read [[libel]]. "In some systems, however, notably the Philippines truth alone is not a defense."
Also, "Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense." I thought in the US statements of opinion were always non-libelous, but now I'm not even sure that much is true. Maybe this is where the public figure/private figure comes into play?
"User X is a troll." That's probably an opinion that can't be proven true or false, and surely some of the arb com "evidence" pages contain that. Would that statement be considered libelous in any jurisdiction? I don't know enough about the law to say for sure.
By my understanding, libel is defined as publishing damaging lies about someone. Privacy is another matter entirely, and truth isn't a defence there.
I seem to remember reading US laws where right to privacy and libel of non-public figures were treated together.
However, for something to be a violation of privacy (at least under UK law) you have to have a reasonable expectation of privacy (eg. someone takes a picture of you sunbathing naked in your garden and sells it to a tabloid, that's a violation of privacy, if they take a similar picture of you on a nude beach, it isn't). There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet. The only way privacy law can become relevant to Wikipedia is if the person publishing the information knows the person in question in real life (which includes stalkers) - we do have problems with those kinds of cases, but not very often.
I think people tend to take more liberty over online social forums on the internet. Wikipedia, as an active community of users can be compared to such websites in more than one ways. And in no way, their "assholery" or misdeeds should be advertised on the internet by making them available in public archives.
It lends a bad name to the project as a whole, and dissuades active and valuable participants to spend their energies building the project. Not everyone can be expected to be on their best online. Please don't give them something that they'd regret later.
--Anirudh
On 9/10/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
All banned users are assholes all of the sudden?
Not necessarily, but unless our ban of them was mistaken, there was a reason to ban them. This was generally connected to their behavior on the project.
I see no reason why that behavior should not, in general, be documented and indeed searchable. I'm not in the business of enabling antisocial behavior by ensuring lack of consequences.
-Matt
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 9/10/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
I think people tend to take more liberty over online social forums on the internet. Wikipedia, as an active community of users can be compared to such websites in more than one ways. And in no way, their "assholery" or misdeeds should be advertised on the internet by making them available in public archives.
It lends a bad name to the project as a whole, and dissuades active and valuable participants to spend their energies building the project. Not everyone can be expected to be on their best online. Please don't give them something that they'd regret later.
I don't see why a valuable and active participant would be discouraged by the fact that bans and behavior records are publicly available. The type of contributor we want to keep around won't be doing anything that they wouldn't want others to be able to see. That is to say, if they're doing something that would result in an action hidden by the type of non-disclosure you're advocating, then they've already demonstrated a lack of valuable behavior.
--Darkwind
On 10/09/2007, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/10/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
I think people tend to take more liberty over online social forums on the internet. Wikipedia, as an active community of users can be compared to such websites in more than one ways. And in no way, their "assholery" or misdeeds should be advertised on the internet by making them available in public archives.
It lends a bad name to the project as a whole, and dissuades active and valuable participants to spend their energies building the project. Not everyone can be expected to be on their best online. Please don't give them something that they'd regret later.
I don't see why a valuable and active participant would be discouraged by the fact that bans and behavior records are publicly available. The type of contributor we want to keep around won't be doing anything that they wouldn't want others to be able to see. That is to say, if they're doing something that would result in an action hidden by the type of non-disclosure you're advocating, then they've already demonstrated a lack of valuable behavior.
--Darkwind
When the Wikipaedia community will jump down the throat of someone who has dedicated years to being the model of neutrality and helpfullness when a minor newbie mistake gets noticed years after the fact, resulting in a big huge RfC and BLP-ignorant article on said person....
When Wikipaedia outs people in the course of sockpuppetry and conflict of interest investigations which, while often right, are probabalistic and therefore sometimes wrong....
When someone who has been hurt in the past and therefore feels the need for privacy is assumed to be hiding something he or she has done wrong....
When, in the course of dispute resolution, the community talks only about what you did wrong and never about what you did right....
On 9/10/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
All banned users are assholes all of the sudden?
Not necessarily, but unless our ban of them was mistaken, there was a reason to ban them. This was generally connected to their behavior on the project.
I see no reason why that behavior should not, in general, be documented and indeed searchable. I'm not in the business of enabling antisocial behavior by ensuring lack of consequences.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
On 9/10/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
My real name is available on Wikipedia; while it's not my username, it's on my userpage and my signature. My overall record is public, both the stupid things and the smarter things. I try to ensure that the latter predominate.
-Matt
On 10/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/10/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
My real name is available on Wikipedia; while it's not my username, it's on my userpage and my signature. My overall record is public, both the stupid things and the smarter things. I try to ensure that the latter predominate.
-Matt
Just a shot in the dark here, but I'm guessing you don't have violent enemies.
On 9/10/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/10/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
My real name is available on Wikipedia; while it's not my username, it's on my userpage and my signature. My overall record is public, both the stupid things and the smarter things. I try to ensure that the latter predominate.
Surely you wouldn't like it if someone decided to gather up a list of the stupidest things you've done, throw in a few accusations of stuff that didn't actually happen, then got together with a bunch of friends and held a circus trial, found you guilty, and documented it all indefinitely on a website which was so loved by Google that it became the number one hit for anyone searching your name.
Surely you wouldn't like it if someone decided to gather up a list of the stupidest things you've done, throw in a few accusations of stuff that didn't actually happen, then got together with a bunch of friends and held a circus trial, found you guilty, and documented it all indefinitely on a website which was so loved by Google that it became the number one hit for anyone searching your name.
Like it? I very much doubt it. Accept it if he really had done some extremely stupid things? I expect so.
On 9/10/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Surely you wouldn't like it if someone decided to gather up a list of the stupidest things you've done, throw in a few accusations of stuff that didn't actually happen, then got together with a bunch of friends and held a circus trial, found you guilty, and documented it all indefinitely on a website which was so loved by Google that it became the number one hit for anyone searching your name.
Like it? I very much doubt it. Accept it if he really had done some extremely stupid things? I expect so.
One can accept something while still thinking that something is completely inappropriate and should be corrected.
One can accept something while still thinking that something is completely inappropriate and should be corrected.
To accept something, you have to consider it acceptable. If you think something is completely inappropriate and should be corrected, then you might put up with it, but you wouldn't accept it.
On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
One can accept something while still thinking that something is completely inappropriate and should be corrected.
To accept something, you have to consider it acceptable. If you think something is completely inappropriate and should be corrected, then you might put up with it, but you wouldn't accept it.
Interesting. I certainly believe you can consider something inappropriate and still accept it. But I guess you're right about the wanting to correct it part. From Wikipedia:
"Acceptance, in spirituality, mindfulness, and human psychology, usually refers to the experience of a situation without an intention to change that situation. Acceptance does not require that change is possible or even conceivable, nor does it require that the situation be desired or approved by those accepting it. Indeed, acceptance is often suggested when a situation is both disliked and unchangeable, or when change may be possible only at great cost or risk."
So I guess I'll modify what I said before to say, no, one shouldn't accept such a situation.
For slightly different reasons i would strongly support this. our internal operations are public, but there is a difference between public and in-your-face. I think user namespace should be unindexed; I think WP namespace should be unindexed. I would even go one step further, and say that talk pages in even article namespace should not be indexed. They would still of course be searchable from within WP. Nobody would lose access. the journalists looking for the dark secrets would still be able to find them. The material would still be in the database dump.
We talk about having a relatively stable public layer. The first step is to do something about the totally uncontrolled non-encyclopedic parts.
On 9/8/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 08/09/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I think making the pages available in high-ranking Google results is more than 'transparency', it's shouting out to the world.
Google's rankings are Google's responsibility. Wikipedia has never worried about search engine rankings, we just do what we think best and let the search engines do what they think best. Fortunately, those generally coincide, so Wikipedia has very high rankings, but we don't make any special effort to achieve those rankings. We also don't make any special effort to get rid of them.
This appears to be sound reasoning. Basing our activity on "What does Google think?" is a cyber-equivalent to letting your home decisions be guided by what the neighbours think. It relinquishes control to outside elements who have no vested interest in your efforts.
Ec
Wikipaedia is posting negative information about relatively private individuals... or are banned users considered so notable now that BLP does not apply? Are you so determined to take revenge on those that are banned that you must destroy their online and offline reputations as much as possible?
Wikipaedia does control its robots.txt files. The encyclopaedic namespaces are the main namespace and the image namespace. What does the rest contain that so needs to be indexed by Google that you do not care how many people's reputations are destroyed, or how many Wikipaedians are tracked by other websites?
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 09/09/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
For slightly different reasons i would strongly support this. our internal operations are public, but there is a difference between public and in-your-face. I think user namespace should be unindexed; I think WP namespace should be unindexed. I would even go one step further, and say that talk pages in even article namespace should not be indexed. They would still of course be searchable from within WP. Nobody would lose access. the journalists looking for the dark secrets would still be able to find them. The material would still be in the database dump.
We talk about having a relatively stable public layer. The first step is to do something about the totally uncontrolled non-encyclopedic parts.
: )
Consider, in anthropology, the difference between an outside observer and an active participant. Ideally, I believe an encyclopaedia should strive to be the former rather than the latter - this is especially true when active participation could cause damage to real, individual, living people. (BLP....)