http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/06/wikipedia_otrs_volunteers/
They're criticizing the fact that the [[Lava lamp]] article got blanked out for a lengthy period due to an unexplained "OTRS ticket".
Those OTRS and WP:OFFICE actions, though sometimes necessary for legal reasons, can be rather frustrating when articles are blanked out without explanation. Dan Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 7/8/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/06/wikipedia_otrs_volunteers/
They're criticizing the fact that the [[Lava lamp]] article got blanked out for a lengthy period due to an unexplained "OTRS ticket".
Those OTRS and WP:OFFICE actions, though sometimes necessary for legal reasons, can be rather frustrating when articles are blanked out without explanation.
Confidentiality of email to Wikipedia means we cannot be as transparent as some editors assume we ought to be. OTRS actions can be checked by any editor with access to the OTRS system, of whom there are quite a few on English Wikipedia. The procedure for querying an OTRS action is outlined on the "Wikipedia:OTRS2 page on English Wikipedia.
I notice that this Register story is written up by Cade Metz, rather than Andrew Orlowski, who has made no secret of his dislike of Wikipedia.
On 7/7/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/06/wikipedia_otrs_volunteers/
They're criticizing the fact that the [[Lava lamp]] article got blanked out for a lengthy period due to an unexplained "OTRS ticket".
Those OTRS and WP:OFFICE actions, though sometimes necessary for legal reasons, can be rather frustrating when articles are blanked out without explanation. Dan Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
We should at least have some sort of substub about the subject so readers can at least see SOMETHING. I find it difficult to believe that something like "lava lamps are lamps with heated wax inside" would be controversial, though http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lava_lamp&oldid=139811701was reverted, so I guess there must be something odd in this case.
As much as I hate to admit it, they have a point this time. We can't just accept every demand to take down a page and leave it down for a fortnight. I don't have access to OTRS, so I don't know what this was about, but from the talk page it would appear to be related to trademark issues. Since when have encyclopedias been restricted from using trademarked terms? We're not selling lava lamps, we're just talking about them - IANAL, but I'm pretty sure trademark law does not apply.
Before complaining about this... why wouldn't you look to see what user blanked it? Don't fall for the register's irresponsible journalism without checking your work.
On 7/7/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As much as I hate to admit it, they have a point this time. We can't just accept every demand to take down a page and leave it down for a fortnight. I don't have access to OTRS, so I don't know what this was about, but from the talk page it would appear to be related to trademark issues. Since when have encyclopedias been restricted from using trademarked terms? We're not selling lava lamps, we're just talking about them - IANAL, but I'm pretty sure trademark law does not apply.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Before complaining about this... why wouldn't you look to see what user blanked it? Don't fall for the register's irresponsible journalism without checking your work.
A legal intern? What difference does that make? In fact, it makes it worse - someone with no legal experience could justifiably say they needed to blank it while they got legal advice. Someone employed for their legal experience should know better from the start.
On 7/7/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Before complaining about this... why wouldn't you look to see what user blanked it? Don't fall for the register's irresponsible journalism without checking your work.
Eating my words: Their story is inflammatory, and it is overplaying a rare event... but it's not outright inaccurate.
The article was blanked by a experienced Wikipedian but a brand new and inexperienced OTRS user, shortly after being given access to OTRS.
He did not come to through the normal community channels, he stopped in to visit the office. For some reason which I can not fully comprehend he was given access to the legal queue, a subset of OTRS which is not available to the broad majority of OTRS users.
In it there was what appears to be a frivolous complaint about the use of the lavalamp trademark. Complaints like this at not infrequent, and they almost always come from the actual trademark holder, but they are almost always completely without merit. When there is merit to such complaints is is usually a matter which is not directly related... an unsourced negative comment in the article, or even outright vandalism. Issues like that are addressed by OTRS users acting in their capacity as regular editors, and the party with the trademark complaint is told to buzz off if they continue to push their meritless claims.
Some poking around indicates that the confusions have since been resolved...
I apologize for my initial quick response.
They're complaining about censorship of the *lava lamp* article? Who the hell would care enough to "censor" that? It's like censoring the Butter article. What nonsense. As for this disgruntled moron, he "acknowledges there will be cases where OTRS volunteers would be justified in keeping a complaint secret." Uh, did he just invalidate his own complaint there?
Plus, they're calling the lava lamp the "world's most famous novelty item"? Riiight. What's with the crap gossip-mongering at the end ("Are you having problems with Wikipedia community? Do let us know.") If these people are journalists, I don't want to be one anymore.
On 7/7/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Before complaining about this... why wouldn't you look to see what user blanked it? Don't fall for the register's irresponsible journalism without checking your work.
Eating my words: Their story is inflammatory, and it is overplaying a rare event... but it's not outright inaccurate.
The article was blanked by a experienced Wikipedian but a brand new and inexperienced OTRS user, shortly after being given access to OTRS.
He did not come to through the normal community channels, he stopped in to visit the office. For some reason which I can not fully comprehend he was given access to the legal queue, a subset of OTRS which is not available to the broad majority of OTRS users.
In it there was what appears to be a frivolous complaint about the use of the lavalamp trademark. Complaints like this at not infrequent, and they almost always come from the actual trademark holder, but they are almost always completely without merit. When there is merit to such complaints is is usually a matter which is not directly related... an unsourced negative comment in the article, or even outright vandalism. Issues like that are addressed by OTRS users acting in their capacity as regular editors, and the party with the trademark complaint is told to buzz off if they continue to push their meritless claims.
Some poking around indicates that the confusions have since been resolved...
I apologize for my initial quick response.
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 7/7/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
If these people are journalists, I don't want to be one anymore.
It's The Register - total pageview whores who'll say anything if it'll get people worked up enough to post the link anywhere. They've worked out that tweaking Wikipedians gets them pageviews.
IMO, they're no more than trolls, and commercial trolls at that.
-Matt
The sad thing is, before I knew that I argued that a tabloid-like story was notable because it was mentioned in the Register. I'm kicking myself now...
On 7/7/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
If these people are journalists, I don't want to be one anymore.
It's The Register - total pageview whores who'll say anything if it'll get people worked up enough to post the link anywhere. They've worked out that tweaking Wikipedians gets them pageviews.
IMO, they're no more than trolls, and commercial trolls at that.
-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 Jul 7, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
As much as I hate to admit it, they have a point this time.
No, actually they don't have much of a point at all.
We can't just accept every demand to take down a page and leave it down for a fortnight.
But see, this is exactly what happens when you trust the Register to report on anything accurately. We certainly do NOT "accept every demand to take down a page" nor is it normal or usual for a page to be "down for a fortnight".
Every case is different, and while it is of course sensible to always be vigilant for ways to improve the OTRS system and practice, the Register was completely unfair in their "reporting".
I don't have access to OTRS, so I don't know what this was about, but from the talk page it would appear to be related to trademark issues. Since when have encyclopedias been restricted from using trademarked terms? We're not selling lava lamps, we're just talking about them - IANAL, but I'm pretty sure trademark law does not apply.
That's right, but real legal threats from real lawyers have to be taken seriously. I think this case could have been handled differently, and that's worth talking about. But the hysteria of the Register is well known, and should be taken into account here.
--Jimbo
On 7/8/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
On Jul 7, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
As much as I hate to admit it, they have a point this time.
No, actually they don't have much of a point at all.
We can't just accept every demand to take down a page and leave it down for a fortnight.
But see, this is exactly what happens when you trust the Register to report on anything accurately. We certainly do NOT "accept every demand to take down a page" nor is it normal or usual for a page to be "down for a fortnight".
Every case is different, and while it is of course sensible to always be vigilant for ways to improve the OTRS system and practice, the Register was completely unfair in their "reporting".
I agree, about that.
A lot of people say that every time they hear about OTRS it's because of some big frustrating action. This is largely because the small undramatic actions or the ones where the people writing are told "sorry, we don't do that" -- or the ones where people get into tense 20-message exchanges that amount to "sorry, we don't do that" -- no one hears about those.
I don't have access to OTRS, so I don't know what this was about, but from the talk page it would appear to be related to trademark issues. Since when have encyclopedias been restricted from using trademarked terms? We're not selling lava lamps, we're just talking about them - IANAL, but I'm pretty sure trademark law does not apply.
That's right, but real legal threats from real lawyers have to be taken seriously. I think this case could have been handled differently, and that's worth talking about. But the hysteria of the Register is well known, and should be taken into account here.
Again concur. People are human and make calls that aren't perfect. If the worst that happens as a result of a mistaken call is that a few articles out of a million or two are stubbed or blanked longer than they need to be, I think the system isn't working too badly.
-Kat
After reading all of this, I only have one question left...is the Register ever considered a reliable source per WP:Notability? Is there some way we can list it as being unsuitable for referencing?
On 7/7/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
On 7/8/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
On Jul 7, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
As much as I hate to admit it, they have a point this time.
No, actually they don't have much of a point at all.
We can't just accept every demand to take down a page and leave it down for a fortnight.
But see, this is exactly what happens when you trust the Register to report on anything accurately. We certainly do NOT "accept every demand to take down a page" nor is it normal or usual for a page to be "down for a fortnight".
Every case is different, and while it is of course sensible to always be vigilant for ways to improve the OTRS system and practice, the Register was completely unfair in their "reporting".
I agree, about that.
A lot of people say that every time they hear about OTRS it's because of some big frustrating action. This is largely because the small undramatic actions or the ones where the people writing are told "sorry, we don't do that" -- or the ones where people get into tense 20-message exchanges that amount to "sorry, we don't do that" -- no one hears about those.
I don't have access to OTRS, so I don't know what this was about, but from the talk page it would appear to be related to trademark issues. Since when have encyclopedias been restricted from using trademarked terms? We're not selling lava lamps, we're just talking about them - IANAL, but I'm pretty sure trademark law does not apply.
That's right, but real legal threats from real lawyers have to be taken seriously. I think this case could have been handled differently, and that's worth talking about. But the hysteria of the Register is well known, and should be taken into account here.
Again concur. People are human and make calls that aren't perfect. If the worst that happens as a result of a mistaken call is that a few articles out of a million or two are stubbed or blanked longer than they need to be, I think the system isn't working too badly.
-Kat
-- Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steven Walling wrote:
After reading all of this, I only have one question left...is the Register ever considered a reliable source per WP:Notability? Is there some way we can list it as being unsuitable for referencing?
Not a good idea. What would happen to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Register or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Orlowski? They both use references to The Register entirely validly.
In general, one should avoid drawing hard-edged lines where situation-by-situation judgments are just fine. The looniest, kookiest, most unreliable site in the universe can still be an important and useful reference when talking about that site.
On 7/8/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
After reading all of this, I only have one question left...is the Register ever considered a reliable source per WP:Notability? Is there some way we can list it as being unsuitable for referencing?
Its journalism is irresponsible, but that's a point of view. We can easily cite it without lending credence to its claims by saying, for example, "The Register asserts..." or "Andrew Orlowski asserts..." and presenting the opposing points of view.
Johnleemk
On 08/07/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
After reading all of this, I only have one question left...is the Register ever considered a reliable source per WP:Notability? Is there some way we can list it as being unsuitable for referencing?
...what? Is this some kind of "they wrote an article we don't like so we'll punish them?"
The Register is usually reasonably good, if editorially slanted, journalism in its chosen field. Being editorially slanted, there are some topics it doesn't report as well as one could hope, and one of those is us. It happens, and that's life.
On 08/07/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
After reading all of this, I only have one question left...is the Register ever considered a reliable source per WP:Notability? Is there some way we can list it as being unsuitable for referencing?
Oh no. They said bad things about me... I am now going to pretend they don't exist!
Notability is one of the bigger jokes in Wikipedia due primarily to these types of subjective personal observations.
Peter
G'day Steven,
After reading all of this, I only have one question left...is the Register ever considered a reliable source per WP:Notability? Is there some way we can list it as being unsuitable for referencing?
/The Register/ is a tabloid. It's trashy, chatty, often interesting[0], sometimes relevant, frequently inaccurate. So is /The Daily Telegraph/. So is /The New York Post/. So is /The Daily Mail/.
For our purposes, the only major difference between /The Register/ and, say, /The Herald Sun/ is that the Reg had the temerity to make mistakes in an article about Wikipedia[1], instead of in every other article.
I wouldn't trust it, but then I wouldn't trust most tabloids. And there are those who say the same about Wikipedia. Takes all kinds.
[0] "I only read it for the BOFH."
[1] Oh, and it publishes Andrew Orlowski. Hmm, there's a point.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Steven,
After reading all of this, I only have one question left...is the Register ever considered a reliable source per WP:Notability? Is there some way we can list it as being unsuitable for referencing?
/The Register/ is a tabloid. It's trashy, chatty, often interesting[0], sometimes relevant, frequently inaccurate. So is /The Daily Telegraph/. So is /The New York Post/. So is /The Daily Mail/.
For our purposes, the only major difference between /The Register/ and, say, /The Herald Sun/ is that the Reg had the temerity to make mistakes in an article about Wikipedia[1], instead of in every other article.
We really should be more objective in our evaluation. Putting The Register on the same footing as these other publications doesn't help in places where these publications are not regularly circulated. Indeed, the broad online community may be more familiar with The Register than with these dead-tree publications. Blanket claims that they are trashy are not convincing to the critical thinker. Those claims are always someone's POV.
I wouldn't trust it, but then I wouldn't trust most tabloids. And there are those who say the same about Wikipedia.
If they said anything else they wouldn't be doing their jobs.
Ec
Kat Walsh wrote:
A lot of people say that every time they hear about OTRS it's because of some big frustrating action. This is largely because the small undramatic actions or the ones where the people writing are told "sorry, we don't do that" -- or the ones where people get into tense 20-message exchanges that amount to "sorry, we don't do that" -- no one hears about those.
Would it be feasible to periodically publish OTRS statistics? Something that appears, for example, as 80% refusal, 19% negotiation, 1% capitulation could give a clearer picture.
Ec
I think the answer, throughout the entire history of Wikipedia, is 0% "capitulation".
NPOV is non-negotiable. As ever.
On Jul 8, 2007, at 9:31 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Kat Walsh wrote:
A lot of people say that every time they hear about OTRS it's because of some big frustrating action. This is largely because the small undramatic actions or the ones where the people writing are told "sorry, we don't do that" -- or the ones where people get into tense 20-message exchanges that amount to "sorry, we don't do that" -- no one hears about those.
Would it be feasible to periodically publish OTRS statistics? Something that appears, for example, as 80% refusal, 19% negotiation, 1% capitulation could give a clearer picture.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That was hardly my point. There was never any suggestion of abandoning NPOV. How do you get that from a call for statistical information? Suggesting that no-one who makes an OTRS complaint is ever successful stretches credibility.
Ec
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I think the answer, throughout the entire history of Wikipedia, is 0% "capitulation".
NPOV is non-negotiable. As ever.
On Jul 8, 2007, at 9:31 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Kat Walsh wrote:
A lot of people say that every time they hear about OTRS it's because of some big frustrating action. This is largely because the small undramatic actions or the ones where the people writing are told "sorry, we don't do that" -- or the ones where people get into tense 20-message exchanges that amount to "sorry, we don't do that" -- no one hears about those.
Would it be feasible to periodically publish OTRS statistics? Something that appears, for example, as 80% refusal, 19% negotiation, 1% capitulation could give a clearer picture.
On Jul 8, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
That was hardly my point. There was never any suggestion of abandoning NPOV. How do you get that from a call for statistical information? Suggesting that no-one who makes an OTRS complaint is ever successful stretches credibility.
My point is that I have never seen a case of "capitulation". Of course people are sometimes successful. Why? Because, frequently, they are RIGHT.
This is one of the key points that is overlooked in the hysteria about OTRS. The people dealing with it quickly realize that a very significant number of the complainants have a point. Not all of them. But a significant number.
And fixing Wikipedia in response to a complaint is not "capitulation".
--Jimbo
On 11/07/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
On Jul 8, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
That was hardly my point. There was never any suggestion of abandoning NPOV. How do you get that from a call for statistical information? Suggesting that no-one who makes an OTRS complaint is ever successful stretches credibility.
My point is that I have never seen a case of "capitulation". Of course people are sometimes successful. Why? Because, frequently, they are RIGHT.
This is one of the key points that is overlooked in the hysteria about OTRS. The people dealing with it quickly realize that a very significant number of the complainants have a point. Not all of them. But a significant number.
Mmm. An awful lot of OTRS replies start with "Thanks for bringing this to our attention..."
(It is an interesting skill to write a reply which translates as "We have done pretty much what you asked for, but for our own damn good reasons, so don't get excited")
On 7/8/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think the answer, throughout the entire history of Wikipedia, is 0% "capitulation".
[[Daniel Brandt]]. Not formal OTRS, but we decided to delete it only because the article was "too much of a bother to have".
Gabe Johnson wrote:
On 7/8/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think the answer, throughout the entire history of Wikipedia, is 0% "capitulation".
[[Daniel Brandt]]. Not formal OTRS, but we decided to delete it only because the article was "too much of a bother to have".
Eh, I thought it was because Daniel Brandt really isn't a notable person, and there are few sources available in regards to him. Because of this, it was not possible to write a sourced, yet neutral, piece on the subject.
On 7/8/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think the answer, throughout the entire history of Wikipedia, is 0% "capitulation".
NPOV is non-negotiable. As ever.
not to belabor the point, but I *really* liked the formulation of NPOV that you signed off to, before Larry Sanger "clarified" it by great elaborations and was further obscured by spelling out ever more complex ways of saying yes, we hold NPOV, but we mean not what Jimbo signed off to, but are clarifying beyond that. I like your original signed statement, no necessarily the elaborated and "clarified versions" of that page. I am sorry. I wish I could say this more kindly. But I cannot.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
G'day Ray,
Would it be feasible to periodically publish OTRS statistics? Something that appears, for example, as 80% refusal, 19% negotiation, 1% capitulation could give a clearer picture.
Cuteness aside ("capitulation", heh!), I think this would be useful. The problem, though, is that it's very subjective. How do we deal with disagreements over how we characterise an OTRS resolution?
As much as I hate to admit it, they have a point this time.
No, actually they don't have much of a point at all.
You admit lower down that things weren't handled ideally, so they did have point. Yes, they blew that point out of all proportion, they're Register writers, it's what they get paid for, but they did have a point.
We can't just accept every demand to take down a page and leave it down for a fortnight.
But see, this is exactly what happens when you trust the Register to report on anything accurately. We certainly do NOT "accept every demand to take down a page" nor is it normal or usual for a page to be "down for a fortnight".
Every case is different, and while it is of course sensible to always be vigilant for ways to improve the OTRS system and practice, the Register was completely unfair in their "reporting".
Ok, "every" was a gross exaggeration, sorry. It does seem to happen a little more often than I'm happy with. I doubt OTRS hardly ever receives legitimate complaints that require blanking the entire article. Even if there is a marginally questionable legal issue with the article, it's likely only to be in one small section, and that small section is the part that should be blanked (and the article protected).
That's right, but real legal threats from real lawyers have to be taken seriously. I think this case could have been handled differently, and that's worth talking about. But the hysteria of the Register is well known, and should be taken into account here.
IANAL, but as far as I'm aware, the only kind of legal complaint that we need to worry about is libel. Real legal threats from real lawyers about libel need to be taken seriously. Other legal threats can, and should, be ignored. This legal threat was, apparently, about trademarks - just because the person complaining was a real lawyer doesn't mean they aren't talking complete nonsense.
I'm glad you agree that things weren't handled ideally. Could you elaborate on what you think should have been done in this case?
On 7/8/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, "every" was a gross exaggeration, sorry. It does seem to happen a little more often than I'm happy with. I doubt OTRS hardly ever receives legitimate complaints that require blanking the entire article. Even if there is a marginally questionable legal issue with the article, it's likely only to be in one small section, and that small section is the part that should be blanked (and the article protected).
The problem is that certain OTRS people appear to want WP:OFFICE level powers without either gaining community support or a board ruling.
IANAL, but as far as I'm aware, the only kind of legal complaint that we need to worry about is libel. Real legal threats from real lawyers about libel need to be taken seriously. Other legal threats can, and should, be ignored. This legal threat was, apparently, about trademarks - just because the person complaining was a real lawyer doesn't mean they aren't talking complete nonsense.
IANAL but # wikipedia can't afford one.
Quite a selection of legal complaints that I suspect may have some basis (ie the courts would not throw the case straight out):
Content based: Copyvio Born secret issues Various stuff to do with child porn Various stuff relating to bypassing encryption software Certain images could require certain forms of record keeping (those depicting sexual acts) Death threats Some stuff based around privacy laws
Software based:
Copyvio Patent vio Various stuff relating to bypassing encryption software
Not all of these will be handled by OTRS of course.
Of these:
Copyvio- we have a lot of processes in place to neutralise these.
Born secret issues- If we hit by that we may be hitting NOR issues otherwise eh any resulting court case would be interesting to watch. ACLU might be interested
Various stuff relating to bypassing encryption software- Lack of useful caselaw. EFF might be interested.
Various stuff to do with child porn- kill. Issues related to lolicon are more complex again ACLU may be interested. Main problem with this area is that it can be hard to figure out the exact borderline without expensive court cases with some seriously negative PR.
Patent vio- I don't know enough about the validity of software patents to comment.
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:19:55 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that certain OTRS people appear to want WP:OFFICE level powers without either gaining community support or a board ruling.
{{fact}}
I am one of them, I know a lot of others, all we actually want is for people to be prepared to wait a while for things to be cleared up. Step 1: remove the offending material to forestall legal action; step 2: tell people as much about why as you can. Step 3: when possessed of as many of the facts as possible, proceed with caution.
People are genuinely upset when Wikipedia says bad things about them. Sometimes the bad things need to be said, albeit sometimes with somewhat less obvious spite, but it does us no harm to demonstrate at every point that we have listened respectfully to their concerns, even if we ultimately dismiss them as baseless.
As with any trusted position in Wikipedia, isolation and burnout are a risk. Do be sure to be as kind and supportive as you can to the volunteers, because there are barely enough to keep on top of the flood of email, some of which requires a very great deal of work to get to the bottom of.
Or of course you could always stand on the outside pissing in, but since all that will do is increase the siege mentality about which you appear to be complaining I don't consider it a smart alternative.
Guy (JzG)
Step 1: remove the offending material to forestall legal action;
Too often OTRS people remove *all* the material, not just the offending stuff. If just one paragraph was removed, I'm sure you would get very few complaints from the community. It's blanking whole pages without (significant) explanation which annoys people.
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:57:07 +0100, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Too often OTRS people remove *all* the material, not just the offending stuff. If just one paragraph was removed, I'm sure you would get very few complaints from the community. It's blanking whole pages without (significant) explanation which annoys people.
Ahem. Too often, complainants are insufficiently explicit about which material causes a problem.
Remember, we are talking about volunteers here, with comparatively large volumes of messages to get through in their limited available time. To help fix the perceived problem, you could always volunteer.
Guy (JzG)
Ahem. Too often, complainants are insufficiently explicit about which material causes a problem.
Then you ask for more information before acting.
To help fix the perceived problem, you could always volunteer.
I did. I was rejected for having insufficient experience of BLP matters.
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:39:53 +0100, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Ahem. Too often, complainants are insufficiently explicit about which material causes a problem.
Then you ask for more information before acting.
Is the wrong answer. Remember, we are dealing with hurt and upset people. Remember /people/? You might know them as meatware...
OK, sarcasm is unhelpful. But it's true. We should go out of our way to be kind to people, not least because that way when we finally dismiss their complaint as baseless they will have no grounds for complaint or action. Listen respectfully, show that we care, and then do the right thing. The problem with the lava lamp issue was that editors of the article were more concerned about getting it "right now" than getting it right. Who cares if the article is stubbed for a while? Sure, the volunteer could have done a better job, but their action was not in any way evil and a comprehensive explanation was given on Talk, from which concerned editors could certainly work to fix whatever problem might be perceived to exist.
Remember, these lawyers had succeeded in intimidating several other sites, so we had at the very least to give it serious consideration.
To help fix the perceived problem, you could always volunteer.
I did. I was rejected for having insufficient experience of BLP matters.
Try again now. We need people on the permissions queues, for example, which is easy and requires no special expertise. Also there is a mailing list and irc channel for peer review and support.
Guy (JzG)
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Step 1: remove the offending material to forestall legal action;
Too often OTRS people remove *all* the material, not just the offending stuff. If just one paragraph was removed, I'm sure you would get very few complaints from the community. It's blanking whole pages without (significant) explanation which annoys people.
When the perceived offence is that an article exists AT ALL on the given subject, there is little recourse in the short term but to completely blank the article. If further discussion decides to reinstate the article, no harm; if the decision is to reinstate under a different title, equally no harm done.
The thing is that in many of these cases, we have to be able to demonstrate that we are doing SOMEthing to prove our good faith, in order to assume the moral high ground. If we can later show that we bent over backwards to help people, outside observers are more likely to give us the benefit of the doubt. If we're up against the usual kind of querulous "vexatious litigant" this can be of great help.
HTH HAND
On 7/9/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
When the perceived offence is that an article exists AT ALL on the given subject, there is little recourse in the short term but to completely blank the article. If further discussion decides to reinstate the article, no harm;
Except a valid article has been removed from the project for a period of time.
On 09/07/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/9/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
When the perceived offence is that an article exists AT ALL on the given subject, there is little recourse in the short term but to completely blank the article. If further discussion decides to reinstate the article, no harm;
Except a valid article has been removed from the project for a period of time.
This is the live working draft encyclopedia, not a finished product. We don't need it perfect tomorrow.
- d.
On 7/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is the live working draft encyclopedia, not a finished product. We don't need it perfect tomorrow.
However that does not make something that make us worse ok and page blanking is widely accepted to be a form of vandalism.
On 09/07/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is the live working draft encyclopedia, not a finished product. We don't need it perfect tomorrow.
However that does not make something that make us worse ok and page blanking is widely accepted to be a form of vandalism.
This appears to be an "A is part of B therefore B is part of A" [[association fallacy]].
- d.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:59:36 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Except a valid article has been removed from the project for a period of time.
So? It might /not/ have been valid. And we /might/ have averted a lawsuit. Or we might not. Editors did what editors do: changed the content to reflect their (perhaps imperfect) understanding of the subject. If you want OTRS to e staffed only by trained lawyers, you will need to get your credit card out.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/10/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:59:36 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Except a valid article has been removed from the project for a period of time.
So? It might /not/ have been valid.
It was
And we /might/ have averted a lawsuit.
Prove it.
Or we might not. Editors did what editors do: changed the content to reflect their (perhaps imperfect) understanding of the subject.
Editors can't prevent other people from changeing stuff back. Editors are expected not to hide their evidence (you know citation needed and all that).
If you want OTRS to e staffed only by trained lawyers, you will need to get your credit card out.
No I'm suggesting that if OTRS people want an OFFICE type action they should file the request with those empowered to do so.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:46:24 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
And we /might/ have averted a lawsuit.
Prove it.
If that's your attitude then we are wasting our time. If we waited for the plaint to arrive before doing anything, we would probably be knee-deep in lawsuits by now.
Me, I think that our showing we take complaints seriously is one major reason we've got by this far without an army of lawyers.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/11/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:46:24 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
And we /might/ have averted a lawsuit.
Prove it.
If that's your attitude then we are wasting our time.
You would rather have it phrased as citation needed? One of the basic parts of logical debate is that you can provide evidence to support your assertions.
If we waited for the plaint to arrive before doing anything, we would probably be knee-deep in lawsuits by now.
The low number experenced by youtube suggests otherwise. Despite a policy of not doing anything untill the legal complaint arrived there have been a handful of lawsuits. (Viacom that one from the premiership that one from utube a few otheres) and that is despite being packed with copyvios and legaly dubius statements.
Me, I think that our showing we take complaints seriously is one major reason we've got by this far without an army of lawyers.
There are a number of different ways to give the appearence of takeing complaints seriously.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:17:40 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
And we /might/ have averted a lawsuit.
Prove it.
If that's your attitude then we are wasting our time.
You would rather have it phrased as citation needed? One of the basic parts of logical debate is that you can provide evidence to support your assertions.
No, I am saying that either one accepts that there is a risk that some complaints may result in litigation if not taken seriously, or one does not. If one does accept the possibility, then the judgemental has to be that of the person who handles the ticket, and if they make a mistake then we have to handle it tactfully and pleasantly as a learning experience.
You or I would undoubtedly have rejected this particular complaint as baseless straight away, but we have to accept that humans answer the queues and humans will sometimes make mistakes; where we err it is undoubtedly better we err on the side of safety.
The Register is missing that point. I think you are as well.
Even if the volunteer's judgment was so far out that we kick them from OTRS as a result, which I don't believe is so here, we still have to accept that OTRS is the system we have, and approach problems in a constructive way.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/11/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
No, I am saying that either one accepts that there is a risk that some complaints may result in litigation if not taken seriously, or one does not. If one does accept the possibility, then the judgemental has to be that of the person who handles the ticket, and if they make a mistake then we have to handle it tactfully and pleasantly as a learning experience.
Only if you can show it was thier personal judgement rather than structal issues that caused the proble,
You or I would undoubtedly have rejected this particular complaint as baseless straight away,
Eh not exactly I'd have to reread the relivant areas of trademark law first then send a reply asking for clarification.
but we have to accept that humans answer the queues and humans will sometimes make mistakes; where we err it is undoubtedly better we err on the side of safety.
Deletion is now considered safety?
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:37:48 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Deletion is now considered safety?
I checked Wikipedia, we have an article on Lava Lamp. The article was not deleted, and it's not deleted now. It was temporarily blanked.
Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, remember?
Even then, temporary blanking or even deletion may indeed be considered safety. The first time you get a lawyer's letter stating in what court you will be sued and for how much, it is pretty scary. By about the fiftieth you become a bit more cynical.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, remember?
Even then, temporary blanking or even deletion may indeed be considered safety. The first time you get a lawyer's letter stating in what court you will be sued and for how much, it is pretty scary. By about the fiftieth you become a bit more cynical.
Guy (JzG)
Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, but really if it's supposed to be an encyclopaedia, there shouldn't be public article content that's worse than an early 1990s website with "under construction" banners (editorial templates on articles?) And no, we aren't just talking about obscure topics, or even minor topics like Lava lamps. Rather major issues are frequently presented as a hideous mess, and I have not seen evidence after several years that this is becoming less common (even if say, it's more common for a given article to have much more content, indeed potentially useful content even if poorly presented).
Why is the project relying on unpaid amateurs for dealing with legal business? And why on earth would anyone volunteer for that. I read on another thread someone mention that under-18s can't, as they can't be held to account as agents of Wikimedia Foundation. Why should anyone else potentially be held to account for mistakes of random potentially anonymous Wikipedia editors, and the projects policies (written in an ad-hoc manner and changing from one day to the next).
Zoney
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:38:47 +0100, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
--8<-------
Yup, you're right, an encyclopaedia edited by amateur volunteers can't possibly work, and we're mad to even try. Better find a different project.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/07/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, but really if it's supposed to be an encyclopaedia, there shouldn't be public article content that's worse than an early 1990s website with "under construction" banners (editorial templates on articles?)
Aha. Here follows the crux.
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia"
"Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia"
We started off the latter; at some point, people started assuming the former. If you stick to the latter, then half-written drafts and pages with "needs cleanup" or "check this Tuesday" become a lot more understandable. We're a work in progress that lets people read the current draft, not a constantly updating work.
On 13/07/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Aha. Here follows the crux. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" "Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia" We started off the latter; at some point, people started assuming the former. If you stick to the latter, then half-written drafts and pages with "needs cleanup" or "check this Tuesday" become a lot more understandable. We're a work in progress that lets people read the current draft, not a constantly updating work.
Yep. See also: [[WP:WIP]].
I try to stress this in media contacts. If you remember it's a LIVE WORKING DRAFT and it's JUST WRITTEN BY PEOPLE and it's NOT A FINISHED PRODUCT, you'll get value from it as a reader. If you believe something because it's written on the Internet, you're in trouble.
Often I then mention things like the 0.5 CD or the 2007 Selection For Schools DVD - which are in fact finished static products, which can reasonably be assessed as finished products. The latter is an excellent example, actually, because SOS Children basically made it to use it in their own schools.
- d.
When the perceived offence is that an article exists AT ALL on the given subject
Then the complaint is almost certainly groundless. What kind of subject has legal protection from being included in an encyclopedia?
How much harm would it do to wait until we have a chance to talk to a lawyer before acting in cases where there almost certainly isn't a problem with the article? Should be less than 24 hours, I would think - as long as we seek legal advice as soon as we are made aware of the issue, I can't see us appearing to be acting in bad faith.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:45:07 -0700 (PDT), Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
The thing is that in many of these cases, we have to be able to demonstrate that we are doing SOMEthing to prove our good faith, in order to assume the moral high ground. If we can later show that we bent over backwards to help people, outside observers are more likely to give us the benefit of the doubt. If we're up against the usual kind of querulous "vexatious litigant" this can be of great help.
Yes, exactly that. And sometimes the (self-)righteous indignation of those who would prefer to get one over on "the man" drowns out any rational debate.
Guy (JzG)
Andrew, a newssource is not "reasonably good" when it sensationalizes minor stories and even prints patent falsehoods. I arrived at the conclusion that the Register is not a reliable source after not just this awful mess of an article, but several others on varied topics. Such as one once used as the primary source of info in the FA-class Guinea pig article, about what they called "cultural persecution" by the city of NY, when no person was quoted as leveling such a charge. All news organizations could be argued to have an editorial slant. But slanting actual facts to place them in a different light, and printing things that were never said or done to lend notability to story that never existed, that isn't a reliable news source. It's a tabloid. Plain and simple.
Wikipedians know better to use other tabloids, say like the World Weekly News or The National Enquirer, as reliable sources for serious facts about events. But the use of this particular rag as "good" verification is still in practice. This is unacceptable.
On 7/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:19:55 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that certain OTRS people appear to want WP:OFFICE level powers without either gaining community support or a board ruling.
{{fact}}
I am one of them, I know a lot of others, all we actually want is for people to be prepared to wait a while for things to be cleared up. Step 1: remove the offending material to forestall legal action; step 2: tell people as much about why as you can. Step 3: when possessed of as many of the facts as possible, proceed with caution.
People are genuinely upset when Wikipedia says bad things about them. Sometimes the bad things need to be said, albeit sometimes with somewhat less obvious spite, but it does us no harm to demonstrate at every point that we have listened respectfully to their concerns, even if we ultimately dismiss them as baseless.
As with any trusted position in Wikipedia, isolation and burnout are a risk. Do be sure to be as kind and supportive as you can to the volunteers, because there are barely enough to keep on top of the flood of email, some of which requires a very great deal of work to get to the bottom of.
Or of course you could always stand on the outside pissing in, but since all that will do is increase the siege mentality about which you appear to be complaining I don't consider it a smart alternative.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
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 Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:07:20 -0700, "Steven Walling" steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedians know better to use other tabloids, say like the World Weekly News or The National Enquirer, as reliable sources for serious facts about events. But the use of this particular rag as "good" verification is still in practice. This is unacceptable.
Some of this is the old problem of "always use good sources unless you can't find any". Some of it is FUTON bias. And some of it is plain old-fashioned foolishness, or perhaps lack of maturity.
Guy (JzG)
On 08/07/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew, a newssource is not "reasonably good" when it sensationalizes minor stories and even prints patent falsehoods. I arrived at the conclusion that the Register is not a reliable source after not just this awful mess of an article, but several others on varied topics. Such as one once used as the primary source of info in the FA-class Guinea pig article ...
Um. I think this demonstrates the problem. You can be a good source on some topics and a terrible source on others...
...so why did anyone imagine a site known solely for specialist technical journalism would be dealing with *guinea pigs* as anything but "and in amusing filler news..."?
Steven Walling wrote:
Andrew, a newssource is not "reasonably good" when it sensationalizes minor stories and even prints patent falsehoods. I arrived at the conclusion that the Register is not a reliable source after not just this awful mess of an article, but several others on varied topics.
If that's going to be our criterion, then we might as well get rid of CNN, ABC, the BBC, _Liberation_, and dozens of other sources. All have a strong tendency to sensationalize minor stories and even print patent falsehoods, especially in certain areas.
It seems The Register is being singled out here because they printed an article about Wikipedia that we don't like, which seems silly.
-Mark
Haha! the BBC prints patent lies, or completely fabricates quotes? I don't think so.
On 7/8/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
Andrew, a newssource is not "reasonably good" when it sensationalizes
minor
stories and even prints patent falsehoods. I arrived at the conclusion
that
the Register is not a reliable source after not just this awful mess of
an
article, but several others on varied topics.
If that's going to be our criterion, then we might as well get rid of CNN, ABC, the BBC, _Liberation_, and dozens of other sources. All have a strong tendency to sensationalize minor stories and even print patent falsehoods, especially in certain areas.
It seems The Register is being singled out here because they printed an article about Wikipedia that we don't like, which seems silly.
-Mark
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 08/07/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Haha! the BBC prints patent lies, or completely fabricates quotes? I don't think so.
The BBC will happily write sensationalist misleading guff about any number of enthusiastically press-released science stories; they're notorious for it, in their own little way.
Every source has their speciality. Outside of that speciality, their quality and reliability can change sharply. This is the way the world works.
On 08/07/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Haha! the BBC prints patent lies, or completely fabricates quotes? I don't think so.
Er, yes.
- d.
On 7/9/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Haha! the BBC prints patent lies, or completely fabricates quotes? I don't think so.
Didn't somebody post to the list not too long ago an interesting piece on how the BBC frequently distorts science stories?
Moral of the story: Never assume a source is right. Just attribute the claim to the source and let the reader decide for themselves. That's how [[WP:NPOV]] works.
Oh yeah, and as others have said, The Register is actually quite good for technical stuff - their reports on computing are often quite good. I don't see why we should issue a blanket ban on particular sources just because they have proven to be wrong on a number of occasions. In such an event, their reputation should precede them - and we should trust our readers to know better than to trust a claim printed in, say, the BBC website, over a counter-claim published in the Lancet.
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
On 7/9/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Haha! the BBC prints patent lies, or completely fabricates quotes? I don't think so.
Didn't somebody post to the list not too long ago an interesting piece on how the BBC frequently distorts science stories?
Moral of the story: Never assume a source is right. Just attribute the claim to the source and let the reader decide for themselves. That's how [[WP:NPOV]] works.
It needs to be emphasized that this should be the case for ANY source.
Ec
Steven Walling wrote:
Andrew, a newssource is not "reasonably good" when it sensationalizes minor stories and even prints patent falsehoods. I arrived at the conclusion that the Register is not a reliable source after not just this awful mess of an article, but several others on varied topics. Such as one once used as the primary source of info in the FA-class Guinea pig article, about what they called "cultural persecution" by the city of NY, when no person was quoted as leveling such a charge. All news organizations could be argued to have an editorial slant. But slanting actual facts to place them in a different light, and printing things that were never said or done to lend notability to story that never existed, that isn't a reliable news source. It's a tabloid. Plain and simple.
Wikipedians know better to use other tabloids, say like the World Weekly News or The National Enquirer, as reliable sources for serious facts about events. But the use of this particular rag as "good" verification is still in practice. This is unacceptable.
The National Enquirer has developed its reputation over an extended period of time that long predates the internet. Reputations are not built overnight, and reputation is not an objective measure of anything. It is just one more POV about something, even in the case of a publication as blatant as The National Enquirer.
Until I went there to see what the "lava lamp" issue was about, I had no idea what anybody meant by "The Register" You make a lot of general statements about them which may or may not be false perceptions. I don't have the time to check all that out. Others here may see the site in a completely different light. Why should I believe you any more than him? Saying that references must be from "reliable sources" requires a determination that the source be reliable, and we are not equipped to come to such conclusions without extensive original research. A generally disreputable source may still have reputable individual authors writing under their own by-lines..
Ec
On 7/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:19:55 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that certain OTRS people appear to want WP:OFFICE level powers without either gaining community support or a board ruling.
{{fact}}
I am one of them, I know a lot of others, all we actually want is for people to be prepared to wait a while for things to be cleared up.
Being able to enforce this is office level powers.
Step 1: remove the offending material to forestall legal action;
Um I suspect that may be problematical in some situations because it could be used as admission that there was a problem.
step 2: tell people as much about why as you can.
given the level of legal qualification on OTRS what makes you think you know what that is?
Step 3: when possessed of as many of the facts as possible, proceed with caution.
People are genuinely upset when Wikipedia says bad things about them. Sometimes the bad things need to be said, albeit sometimes with somewhat less obvious spite, but it does us no harm to demonstrate at every point that we have listened respectfully to their concerns, even if we ultimately dismiss them as baseless.
Removing verifiable material is harmful.
As with any trusted position in Wikipedia, isolation and burnout are a risk. Do be sure to be as kind and supportive as you can to the volunteers, because there are barely enough to keep on top of the flood of email, some of which requires a very great deal of work to get to the bottom of.
So get more people. En.pedia got seven new admins last week. How many have been invited to OTRS?
Or of course you could always stand on the outside pissing in, but since all that will do is increase the siege mentality about which you appear to be complaining I don't consider it a smart alternative.
False dilemma logical fallacy
"And some of it is plain old-fashioned foolishness, or perhaps lack of maturity."?
Thanks for failing to give myself and my arguments the same basic level of respect I give you and yours Guy. It always works to attack the contributor, not the contributions.
On 7/8/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:19:55 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that certain OTRS people appear to want WP:OFFICE level powers without either gaining community support or a board ruling.
{{fact}}
I am one of them, I know a lot of others, all we actually want is for people to be prepared to wait a while for things to be cleared up.
Being able to enforce this is office level powers.
Step 1: remove the offending material to forestall legal action;
Um I suspect that may be problematical in some situations because it could be used as admission that there was a problem.
step 2: tell people as much about why as you can.
given the level of legal qualification on OTRS what makes you think you know what that is?
Step 3: when possessed of as many of the facts as possible, proceed with caution.
People are genuinely upset when Wikipedia says bad things about them. Sometimes the bad things need to be said, albeit sometimes with somewhat less obvious spite, but it does us no harm to demonstrate at every point that we have listened respectfully to their concerns, even if we ultimately dismiss them as baseless.
Removing verifiable material is harmful.
As with any trusted position in Wikipedia, isolation and burnout are a risk. Do be sure to be as kind and supportive as you can to the volunteers, because there are barely enough to keep on top of the flood of email, some of which requires a very great deal of work to get to the bottom of.
So get more people. En.pedia got seven new admins last week. How many have been invited to OTRS?
Or of course you could always stand on the outside pissing in, but since all that will do is increase the siege mentality about which you appear to be complaining I don't consider it a smart alternative.
False dilemma logical fallacy
-- geni
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 Sun, 8 Jul 2007 20:36:21 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I am one of them, I know a lot of others, all we actually want is for people to be prepared to wait a while for things to be cleared up.
Being able to enforce this is office level powers.
Not having to "enforce" it is evidence of maturity in the project. We received a complaint, naturally some people will automatically react by pushing as hard as possible for inclusion of the material the subject wants excluded, but these people are not likely to be our finest contributors.
Step 1: remove the offending material to forestall legal action;
Um I suspect that may be problematical in some situations because it could be used as admission that there was a problem.
Maybe. But probably not. Leaving it in despite knowing that it is contested is, in my view, far more likely to result in a real problem.
step 2: tell people as much about why as you can.
given the level of legal qualification on OTRS what makes you think you know what that is?
You want to put your hand in your pocket to hire qualified lawyers? Great! The donate button is on your left. In the mean time, volunteers is all we have. Yes, I know, having an encyclopaedia run by unqualified volunteers is never going to work, God alone knows why we even try.
People are genuinely upset when Wikipedia says bad things about them. Sometimes the bad things need to be said, albeit sometimes with somewhat less obvious spite, but it does us no harm to demonstrate at every point that we have listened respectfully to their concerns, even if we ultimately dismiss them as baseless.
Removing verifiable material is harmful.
And leaving it in may well be more harmful. Sometimes "verifiable material" amounts to a tabloid story from a couple of local papers being elevated to worldwide prominence on a top ten website by some folks whose motivation is less than pure. Attempts to portray such issues in black and White terms are rarely productive.
As with any trusted position in Wikipedia, isolation and burnout are a risk. Do be sure to be as kind and supportive as you can to the volunteers, because there are barely enough to keep on top of the flood of email, some of which requires a very great deal of work to get to the bottom of.
So get more people. En.pedia got seven new admins last week. How many have been invited to OTRS?
Everybody is invited to OTRS. You don't have to be an admin. What happened when you volunteered?
Or of course you could always stand on the outside pissing in, but since all that will do is increase the siege mentality about which you appear to be complaining I don't consider it a smart alternative.
False dilemma logical fallacy
False dilemmas are indeed a logical fallacy. But you are on the outside pissing in, here. You are bitching about the system and not actually offering any practical help in fixing it. And no, "do nothing" is not an option when hurt, upset people contact Wikipedia. Just ask that nice Mr. Wales.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 20:36:21 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I am one of them, I know a lot of others, all we actually want is for people to be prepared to wait a while for things to be cleared up.
Being able to enforce this is office level powers.
Not having to "enforce" it is evidence of maturity in the project. We received a complaint, naturally some people will automatically react by pushing as hard as possible for inclusion of the material the subject wants excluded, but these people are not likely to be our finest contributors.
It would really rather depend on the situation and the context.
Step 1: remove the offending material to forestall legal action;
Um I suspect that may be problematical in some situations because it could be used as admission that there was a problem.
Maybe. But probably not. Leaving it in despite knowing that it is contested is, in my view, far more likely to result in a real problem.
Eh that would be an area where I think some general advice from Mike Godwin could come in handy
In the mean time, volunteers is all we have. Yes, I know, having an encyclopaedia run by unqualified volunteers is never going to work, God alone knows why we even try.
The difference is open review. Any edit made on wikipedia is open to review by anyone. If I state an image is a copyvio I would need to be able to publicly back that up if challenged. The result is that if I screw up with regards to copyright law we will likely find out that I did and why.
People are genuinely upset when Wikipedia says bad things about them. Sometimes the bad things need to be said, albeit sometimes with somewhat less obvious spite, but it does us no harm to demonstrate at every point that we have listened respectfully to their concerns, even if we ultimately dismiss them as baseless.
Removing verifiable material is harmful.
And leaving it in may well be more harmful.
So it is a balance. your initial statement fails to acknowledge this.
Sometimes "verifiable material" amounts to a tabloid story from a couple of local papers being elevated to worldwide prominence on a top ten website by some folks whose motivation is less than pure. Attempts to portray such issues in black and White terms are rarely productive.
There is a difference between a sites and web pages.
Additionally I would argue that wikipedia is of greater value when it includes stuff not previously online.
Everybody is invited to OTRS. You don't have to be an admin.
No but the new admins are the logical recruitment targets. So have you contacted them on their talk page? Email?
What happened when you volunteered?
Eh volunteered of permissions way back. No response. Then real name requirement kicked in.
False dilemma logical fallacy
False dilemmas are indeed a logical fallacy. But you are on the outside pissing in, here.
I'm hardly likely to accept that claim.
You are bitching about the system and not actually offering any practical help in fixing it.
Can't. In order to fix something you need some level of control. The board my have some level of control over OTRS. Perhaps the office people. Anyone else? Not so much.
And no, "do nothing" is not an option when hurt, upset people contact Wikipedia. Just ask that nice Mr. Wales.
My experience was that explaining why we were doing nothing worked surprisingly well. That was a while ago mind.
geni wrote:
On 7/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 20:36:21 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Step 1: remove the offending material to forestall legal action;
Um I suspect that may be problematical in some situations because it could be used as admission that there was a problem.
Maybe. But probably not. Leaving it in despite knowing that it is contested is, in my view, far more likely to result in a real problem.
Eh that would be an area where I think some general advice from Mike Godwin could come in handy
I have this feeling his reply would be very like that of your more aggressive surgeon: "if in doubt, whip it out". Obviously we have the advantage over the sawbones that we can if necessary "put it back" without killing the patient in between.
HTH HAND
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:33:57 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Not having to "enforce" it is evidence of maturity in the project. We received a complaint, naturally some people will automatically react by pushing as hard as possible for inclusion of the material the subject wants excluded, but these people are not likely to be our finest contributors.
It would really rather depend on the situation and the context.
Not really. Most thoughtful contributors are content to wait a bit, or talk about it for a while, rather than press for content to be reinserted RIGHT NOW OR ELSE THE WHOLE PROJECT IS DOOMED AND YOU MIGHT AS WELL DELETE THE WHOLE WIKIPEDIA. Don't you think?
Leaving it in despite knowing that it is contested is, in my view, far more likely to result in a real problem.
Eh that would be an area where I think some general advice from Mike Godwin could come in handy
No need, we had exactly that advice from Brad, and from Jimbo before him, who has said many times that we should do no harm. Really, the idea of removing contentious content until we can be reasonably satisfied that having it in the encyclopaedia does not violate policy (including the intellectual property rights of others) would seem to me to be pretty uncontentious. The burden of proof is always on those seeking to include content, after all.
In the mean time, volunteers is all we have. Yes, I know, having an encyclopaedia run by unqualified volunteers is never going to work, God alone knows why we even try.
The difference is open review. Any edit made on wikipedia is open to review by anyone. If I state an image is a copyvio I would need to be able to publicly back that up if challenged. The result is that if I screw up with regards to copyright law we will likely find out that I did and why.
All OTRS volunteers' actions are open to review. Sometimes, unavoidably, that review is limited to those who have access to OTRS, for privacy reasons, but review is always an option, and Jimmy is active on the OTRS mailing list. You seem to be casting this as a people vs. evil censors situation, but it isn't, OTRS volunteers are just editors like any other - the main difference is that we get to see at first hand how hurt and upset people can be, and that makes us a little more cautious, but that's not a bad thing IMO.
---8<-------
You are bitching about the system and not actually offering any practical help in fixing it.
Can't. In order to fix something you need some level of control. The board my have some level of control over OTRS. Perhaps the office people. Anyone else? Not so much.
No, no control needed. You just need to make constructive comments instead of what looks suspiciously like bitching. OTRS volunteers are certainly not looking to be above any kind of peer review, and some have been firmly corrected for excessively heavy-handed actions. Here, all we had was one newish volunteer doing his best. The way to deal with that best being a bit sub-optimal is to offer informed critique with no assumption of ill-faith, not to portray it as a "sky is falling" incident.
Guy (JzG)
On Jul 7, 2007, at 4:58 PM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/06/wikipedia_otrs_volunteers/
They're criticizing the fact that the [[Lava lamp]] article got blanked out for a lengthy period due to an unexplained "OTRS ticket".
Those OTRS and WP:OFFICE actions, though sometimes necessary for legal reasons, can be rather frustrating when articles are blanked out without explanation.
Of course, in this case, the entire complaint is right there on the talk page for anyone to see, so it is pretty hard to see how much MORE of an explanation could be given.
I told The Register this quite plainly, which they admit: "Wales insisted that the reason for suppressing the article was posted to its "talk" page, but there doesn't seem to be a link between those discussions and the OTRS action."
That's total bullshit of course. I can tell you, having seen the OTRS ticket, and talked to the person who did the blanking, that there is an EXACT link between those discussions and the OTRS action. Not that the Register ever cared to report things fairly.
--Jimbo