On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Practically speaking, how would such a verification system work? Would it be a specific OTRS queue (similar to the way we get proof that a photo's copyright release is correct) or would it be an email to Cary at the WMF (similar to the way we make sure people with specific tools are over a certain age)? Or, would it be a different thing altogether (e.g. the verification process is via the local chapter who "vouches" for the GLAM)?
-Liam [[witty lama]]
Perhaps we could start out modestly with just a handful of GLAMs, run through a chapters "vouching" system, and move on from there.
If Wikimedia Australia were able to take the initiative on this and start a pilot project, I personally think that would be fantastic.
Thanks, Pharos
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.comwrote:
The spirit of the one person per account policy was to prevent people from disclaiming responsibility by claiming another person did it. I feel that allowing accounts for GLAMs would not violate the intent of the policy, but suggest that the account be required to verify, maintain a valid email and provide the Foundation with the identities of the authorized users.
From: Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, December 9, 2009 4:16:54 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees
I believe that a "verified" account system for GLAMs specifically doing encyclopedic work (not for businesses, etc) would not be too difficult to work out, and would be well worth any such effort.
Such systems, though nothing is 100%, have worked quite well for many other websites.
Thanks, Pharos
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When they are blocked like it happened with the Tropenmuseum, I will ask
the
person who did this to reconsider... There has to be a reason for a block and these organisations do what they do and they do it very well. The
notion
that a block on sight is always good is .... not reasonable. Thanks, GerardM
2009/12/5 John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I want to give you two different group / company accounts that I think
are
valuable..
Tropenmuseum... If you do not know about it, read the Tropenmuseum
article
on Commons Calcey - a company from Sri Lanka has adopted the localisation of the Sinhala language. We are really grateful for their work.
There are more great examples of companies, groups that make a
difference
... I would like to know more good examples..
You say that now, but what happens when they are blocked.
Or maybe they say something that sounds like a legal threat; are they speaking for the company?
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l