Hi all,
Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance with things like this;
http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf
This is a german code of conduct - but there are many more (I've also spoken with these chaps =- http://www.iia.net.au/ - and I got the feeling that they'd very much like to engage with both communities, and the foundation as the 'service provider')
My interest stems from discussing sexual content on wikimedia foundation projects, but obviously engagement with such external bodies / codes of practice etc. is far from limited to that sphere,
best,
Peter, PM.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:59 PM, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.comwrote:
Hi all,
Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance with things like this;
http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf
This is a german code of conduct - but there are many more (I've also spoken with these chaps =- http://www.iia.net.au/ - and I got the feeling that they'd very much like to engage with both communities, and the foundation as the 'service provider')
My interest stems from discussing sexual content on wikimedia foundation projects, but obviously engagement with such external bodies / codes of practice etc. is far from limited to that sphere,
best,
Peter, PM.
The sexual content issue aside, that code prohibits, among other things: Propaganda and other material issued by anti-constitutional organisations, as defined in § 86 of the German Criminal Code, § 86 a of the same code, and § 4, sect.1, subsections 1 and 2 of the Interstate Treaty on the Protection of Minors in the Media Portrayals of violence, as defined in § 131 of the German Criminal Code, and § 4, sect. 1, subsection 5 of the Interstate Treaty on the Protection of Minors in the Media Affronts to human dignity, as defined in § 4, section. 1, subsection 8 of the Interstate Treaty on the Protection of Minors in the Media This doesn't seem consistent with our goals and principles.
2009/8/7 private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com:
Hi all,
Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance with things like this;
http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf
This is a german code of conduct - but there are many more (I've also spoken with these chaps =- http://www.iia.net.au/ - and I got the feeling that they'd very much like to engage with both communities, and the foundation as the 'service provider')
My interest stems from discussing sexual content on wikimedia foundation projects, but obviously engagement with such external bodies / codes of practice etc. is far from limited to that sphere,
best,
Peter, PM.
Is based on German law so no. There are rather a lot of other flaws but that one is a complete killer.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:21 AM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/7 private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com:
Hi all,
Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance with things like this;
http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf
This is a german code of conduct - but there are many more (I've also spoken with these chaps =- http://www.iia.net.au/ - and I got the feeling that they'd very much like to engage with both communities, and the foundation as the 'service provider')
My interest stems from discussing sexual content on wikimedia foundation projects, but obviously engagement with such external bodies / codes of practice etc. is far from limited to that sphere,
best,
Peter, PM.
Is based on German law so no. There are rather a lot of other flaws but that one is a complete killer.
We may consider to use Saudi Arabia and North Korea laws, too.
Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly.
I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at, Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?)
cheers,
Peter, PM.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:21 AM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/7 private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com:
Hi all,
Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance
with
things like this;
http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf
This is a german code of conduct - but there are many more (I've also
spoken
with these chaps =- http://www.iia.net.au/ - and I got the feeling that they'd very much like to engage with both communities, and the
foundation as
the 'service provider')
My interest stems from discussing sexual content on wikimedia foundation projects, but obviously engagement with such external bodies / codes of practice etc. is far from limited to that sphere,
best,
Peter, PM.
Is based on German law so no. There are rather a lot of other flaws but that one is a complete killer.
We may consider to use Saudi Arabia and North Korea laws, too.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musingsthepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly.
I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at, Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?)
I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't have to follow.
I quite agree (the analogy of paying taxes comes to mind!) - however I don't see any tension between that position and also feeling that it's a good idea to take a look at the principles involved in such codes of conduct etc. and to see where 'we' (the broad WMF family, I guess) fit in....
http://www.iia.net.au/ also publish codes of conduct which we're under no obligation to follow - it's just that we might like to take a look, and discuss.....
I'll carry on / explain a bit more, if you might agree?
cheers,
Peter, PM.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musingsthepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly.
I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting
at,
Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?)
I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't have to follow.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:15 AM, private musingsthepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
I quite agree (the analogy of paying taxes comes to mind!) - however I don't see any tension between that position and also feeling that it's a good idea to take a look at the principles involved in such codes of conduct etc. and to see where 'we' (the broad WMF family, I guess) fit in....
http://www.iia.net.au/ also publish codes of conduct which we're under no obligation to follow - it's just that we might like to take a look, and discuss.....
I'll carry on / explain a bit more, if you might agree?
Of course. Discussion is a much better option than many other ones :)
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Milos Rancicmillosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musingsthepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly.
I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at, Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?)
I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't have to follow.
We don't have to follow the internet norm that making your web page text BLINKING YELLOW ON BLUE is something you don't do… and yet we do.
Don't think of this has "obeying laws", think of it that there are some things we don't have to do, which aren't in conflict with our mission, and which would be in our interests.
Although the starting premise that we don't comply with a (multitude of) code(s) of conduct is a bit flawed. The projects clearly do— though they may not be ones written down by third parties and they may be inadequate...
actually - might a WMF 'code of conduct' for projects be a good idea? (as in something perhaps a dollop more pragmatic than 'comply with our mission statement'!) - sounds like an idea for the strategy wiki... :-)
(which just in case folk haven't seen is here --> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and looks really good to me!)
cheers,
Peter, PM.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Milos Rancicmillosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musingsthepmaccount@gmail.com
wrote:
Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly.
I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting
at,
Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?)
I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't have to follow.
We don't have to follow the internet norm that making your web page text BLINKING YELLOW ON BLUE is something you don't do… and yet we do.
Don't think of this has "obeying laws", think of it that there are some things we don't have to do, which aren't in conflict with our mission, and which would be in our interests.
Although the starting premise that we don't comply with a (multitude of) code(s) of conduct is a bit flawed. The projects clearly do— though they may not be ones written down by third parties and they may be inadequate...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, You morals are fine. They are not mine and I am glad that we have to live to the best of our abilities with what we can achieve. The problem that I have with your morals is that you want to impose them onto others with a multitude of justifications. You have been given to understand that there is no consensus to be had for your point of view. You continue to persue you objectives and that is fine however, with your insistence you make the chance of actually succeeding less.
It is ironic that I accuse you of something I am guilty off; never wavering in trying to achieve a goal. For me the support of the "other" languages, the support of the "other" cultures is what I am working for. It is the reason why I stand for election as a board member of the foundation. The big advantage that I have is that I can always work on achieving little things and making things ready to tacle the issues. that are big to me. The problem that you have is that you are in an all or nothing game. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/7 private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com
actually - might a WMF 'code of conduct' for projects be a good idea? (as in something perhaps a dollop more pragmatic than 'comply with our mission statement'!) - sounds like an idea for the strategy wiki... :-)
(which just in case folk haven't seen is here --> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and looks really good to me!)
cheers,
Peter, PM.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Milos Rancicmillosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musings<thepmaccount@gmail.com
wrote:
Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit
silly.
I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing
/
evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting
at,
Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?)
I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't have to follow.
We don't have to follow the internet norm that making your web page text BLINKING YELLOW ON BLUE is something you don't do… and yet we do.
Don't think of this has "obeying laws", think of it that there are some things we don't have to do, which aren't in conflict with our mission, and which would be in our interests.
Although the starting premise that we don't comply with a (multitude of) code(s) of conduct is a bit flawed. The projects clearly do— though they may not be ones written down by third parties and they may be inadequate...
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
On 8/7/09 12:25 AM, private musings wrote:
actually - might a WMF 'code of conduct' for projects be a good idea? (as in something perhaps a dollop more pragmatic than 'comply with our mission statement'!) - sounds like an idea for the strategy wiki... :-)
I'd say yes, but that a "code of conduct" is primarily about personal interaction, reminding people to treat other people reasonably.
This is traditionally covered by common-sense rules like http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick -- but sometimes we really need a few basics written down! ;)
As far as things apply to _types of content_ that's a much trickier road to navigate; we want to concentrate not on limiting _what_ can be posted but _how it's presented_ and discussed... preferably civilly and respectfully.
-- brion
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Gregory Maxwellgmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
We don't have to follow the internet norm that making your web page text BLINKING YELLOW ON BLUE is something you don't do… and yet we do.
Don't think of this has "obeying laws", think of it that there are some things we don't have to do, which aren't in conflict with our mission, and which would be in our interests.
Although the starting premise that we don't comply with a (multitude of) code(s) of conduct is a bit flawed. The projects clearly do— though they may not be ones written down by third parties and they may be inadequate...
Completely other thing is what do we want to follow, which is, actually, more restrictive than many legal systems. (A classical example for that are "just for Wikipedia" materials.)
private musings wrote:
Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly.
I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at, Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?)
I think the key factor is that *anyone* - really anyone - can voluntarily put up a mirror (or fork) that complies with whatever arbitrary code of conduct in terms of what they display.
The fact that such mirrors (and/or forks) will not have anything to do with our site but the fact that they may use all or some of our content, should not dissuade you from either financing such mirrors (A/OF) yourself, or encouraging others to finance such, nor should it cloud the fact that it would be quite untenable to attempt to try to make wikimedia go that route.
I think it is clear this has been said to you likely so many times that you would probably already have to money for your own server, if you got a dime for every time people told you were tilting at windmills.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
private musings wrote:
Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly.
I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at, Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?)
At its root the US standard would be based on the first amendment.
Ec
private musings wrote:
Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance with things like this; http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf
Are you saying that WMF is already heading in that direction (that would be news to me), and now you want our comments on that? Or are you suggesting that WMF should head in that direction?
Organizations that agree to such a code of conduct do it for some benefit, for example to avoid the threat of government censorship. I'm sure that if Wikipedia self-restricted itself enough, Chinese authorities would never need to block Wikipedia. But do we need any such benefit? We would rather speak freely (within the scope of encyclopedic knowledge) and be blocked.
So, if you are suggesting that any code of conduct would be appropriate, what benefit is it that you have in mind? Who threatens to block Wikipedia unless we voluntarily agree?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org