On 5/16/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/16/07, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry... I don't understand this thread.
I live in Europe. This thread is concerning the foundation... I don't understand Indians... tribes... I don't understand.
Is this the correct ML?
I wonder why moderators allowed the originator to begin this thread here.
I actually do not see a reason to step in here. List administrators have the task to deal with personal attacks and flame wars. Of course, if a discussion went completely off-topic (say, people would start discussing US politics en large on foundation-l), we might remind people that this is not the right place to discuss it or we might even declare a thread to be "closed". The very last sanction would be to moderate people who are constantly trying to raise off-topic issues on this list. However, I'm not willing to exert any kind of further "censorship" on the topic raised here. If list subscribers think that this is a matter for foundation-l (and obviously they do, as many have responded), then so be it. If a discussion is out of place here, it's best not to take part in it, because if nobody takes part in it, it won't continue (what a beautiful piece of logic, isn't it?)
Michael, speaking as list moderator/administrator/whatever
Ilario
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Here's a great article on the topic with an explanation of the legal issues surrounding this debate.
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1055857097
Jeff
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
I have to tell you, as a former employee of an organization that dealt with Indian Sovereignty on a daily basis, I'm loathe to recommend that Wikipedia get involved in the recognized/non-recognized battle. Particularly given that tripes are having recognition stripped and given even today - just google "Tribe Sovereignty stripped" for some interesting reading.
There are too many uncertainties in this area, and frankly, I don't want to be the one (or suggest that anyone else is) to involve us in tribal policies. I don't want to call the Chief/Chairman/Chief Executive of any of these tribes and say we're going to alter their article and this is why, and I think it's not good policy for us to get in the middle of this one.
Federal recognition does not equal validity. Until the BIA is straightened out, and the Department of the Interior, and ancient treaties, this is a field full of landmines, and I think we're best to stay the heck off of it.
Philippe
Well, I can see I am wasting time with this debate. Federal recognition = verifiability (not validity). I think perhaps the policies may already be in place to deal with these issues under WP:V. One such fake tribe already has had an article purged out and deleted without the policy, so it appears folks have gotten the point. It does not matter if Wikipedia is involved in the debate or not. If a fake tribe gets listed, they use WP for misinformation and something happens, Wikipedia can retroactively deal with it the same way it handled the "fake professor" fiasco -- lots of bad publicity and public scrutiny. I guess it will get dealt with if and when it happens.
Jeff
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
- habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l