David Gerard says:
+++++++++++++
2009/12/15 Steven Walling <steven.walling at gmail.com https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>:
- Have you added your new blog to Open Wiki Blog Planet and the Wikimedia
*>* aggregator? *
The en:wp arbcom have started messing with the Open Wiki Blog Planet, on the pretext that if the control page is on en:wp then they must own it. Suggest moving control page to Meta.
- d.
+++++++++++++
David, could you please provide more detail to your characterization that ArbCom is "messing with" this aggregator?
-- Gregory Kohs
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard says:
+++++++++++++
2009/12/15 Steven Walling <steven.walling at gmail.com https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>:
- Have you added your new blog to Open Wiki Blog Planet and the Wikimedia
*>* aggregator?
The en:wp arbcom have started messing with the Open Wiki Blog Planet, on the pretext that if the control page is on en:wp then they must own it. Suggest moving control page to Meta.
- d.
+++++++++++++
David, could you please provide more detail to your characterization that ArbCom is "messing with" this aggregator?
He must have been talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ANickj%2Fopen-wikiblogplanet...
John Vandenberg removed David Shankbone's blog, with the comment "remove Shankbone's blog; feel free to add if it can be filtered to exclude posts that attack BLPs".
For what it's worth, I agree with David Gerard that Open Wiki Blog Planet is not properly subject to Wikipedia policies; David Shankbone and other bloggers have a responsibility to own their own words and deal with any consequences, but (unlike Planet Wikimedia, perhaps) I don't see any formal connection between Wikipedia and the aggregator except that the feed list happens to be hosted on en.wp.
-Sage
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.comragesoss%2Bwikipedia@gmail.com
wrote:
For what it's worth, I agree with David Gerard that Open Wiki Blog Planet is not properly subject to Wikipedia policies;
Not even the policies at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page ? How's that going to work?
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.comragesoss%2Bwikipedia@gmail.com
wrote:
For what it's worth, I agree with David Gerard that Open Wiki Blog Planet is not properly subject to Wikipedia policies;
Not even the policies at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page ? How's that going to work?
I don't see anything there that applies to the way the Open Wiki Blog Planet feed list is done, and if it did conflict, as David suggested, the way to resolve it would be to move the page to another wiki rather than censor bloggers.
But as John Vandenberg points out in the other thread, the removal had nothing to do with ArbCom, and we are of course free to decide which blogs we as a community do and don't want as part of the feed. It's my view, though, that we shouldn't feel compelled to remove a blog because of the policies of English Wikipedia.
-Sage
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.comragesoss%2Bwikipedia@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com ragesoss%2Bwikipedia@gmail.com<
ragesoss%2Bwikipedia@gmail.com ragesoss%252Bwikipedia@gmail.com>
wrote:
For what it's worth, I agree with David Gerard that Open Wiki Blog Planet is not properly subject to Wikipedia policies;
Not even the policies at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page ?
How's that going to work?
I don't see anything there that applies to the way the Open Wiki Blog Planet feed list is done,
"there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute" I guess it doesn't say anything about what you can include in someone else's user space, but I think that can be assumed.
and if it did conflict, as David suggested, the way to resolve it would be to move the page to another wiki rather than censor bloggers.
Another wiki not run by the Wikimedia Foundation, fine. Of course, it's up to Nick whether he'd prefer to do that. Personally I see no point in having Open Wiki Blog Planet host personal attacks (nor for it to host posts having nothing to do with Wikimedia projects), so if I were Nick I'd choose not to do so.
But as John Vandenberg points out in the other thread, the removal had nothing to do with ArbCom, and we are of course free to decide which blogs we as a community do and don't want as part of the feed.
Whoever runs Open Wiki Blog Planet (I assume it's Nick) is free to decide which blogs he does and doesn't want as part of the feed.
It's my view, though, that we shouldn't feel compelled to remove a blog because of the policies of English Wikipedia.
On that, I agree. Though I assume the policies of English Wikipedia most likely will overlap with the policies of Open Wiki Blog Planet.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
and if it did conflict, as David suggested, the way to resolve it would be to move the page to another wiki rather than censor bloggers.
Another wiki not run by the Wikimedia Foundation, fine.
That's not necessarily needed -- we could just do it on Meta-Wiki.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
and if it did conflict, as David suggested, the way to resolve it would be to move the page to another wiki rather than censor bloggers.
Another wiki not run by the Wikimedia Foundation, fine.
That's not necessarily needed -- we could just do it on Meta-Wiki.
You could, but I wouldn't call that "the way to resolve it". David's crap shouldn't be promoted on Meta-Wiki either.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org