What? Yours sincerely Princess Rebecca
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org Sender: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:27:52 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: foundation-l Digest, Vol 81, Issue 37
Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content (Andreas Kolbe) 2. Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Andreas Kolbe) 3. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Fred Bauder) 4. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (David Gerard) 5. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Andreas Kolbe) 6. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (David Moran) 7. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Cool Hand Luke)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:39:04 +0000 (GMT) From: Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 833994.88374.qm@web29608.mail.ird.yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
People don't read they react.
Here is a real-life example. I asked a German mate of mine why he had opposed the policy, with the following oppose rationale:
"Oppose No need to go beyond existing legal obligations, just follow the laws that apply." (Oppose 114)
When I asked him in which way he thought the policy went beyond obscenity and privacy law, his reply was that he hadn't bothered to read it:
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Fossa&acti...
"I have no idea what's in the policy, but the most liberal policy feasible is a policy that adheres to the laws that apply. If, say, the servers are located in Guinea, they should adhere to Guniean law, if they are located in Tulsa, US/Oklahoma law applies. No need for redundancies here."
What the policy tried to do was make editors aware of existing laws, incl. privacy, because at the moment, if you nominate a blow-job or similar picture imported a few weeks ago from a "no longer active" Flickr account, it is as likely as not that three people will turn up for the deletion discussion.
One says, "You can't see all of her face." Another says, "It's in use in a project, so we can't delete it". Another says the nominator is a prude, and a fourth says, "It has educational value."
As Scott said, it's a chat-show phone-in.
Andreas
--- On Sat, 11/12/10, ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
From: ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, 11 December, 2010, 8:57 On 10/12/2010 20:37, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:08:37 PM Pacific
Standard Time,
jayen466@yahoo.com
writes:
Suggest you read the draft policy, rather than the
votes.
You're suggesting that all the no votes are simply
trolls then?
That's a lot of no votes to just cast them off as
people who didn't read
the draft, isn't it?
People don't read they react. In the UK a couple of years ago there was a petition that gathered 50,000 signatures against a proposal to ban all photography in public spaces. As a point of fact there was no such proposal.
This received over 10,000 responses and a huge number of point ny point rebuttals despite the fact that it is obviously a joke based around the Brady Bunch. http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html
As the respondents to the above were pretty much the same constituents as wikipedians (young, male, technically savvy) why would any one think that exactly the same thing isn't going on with those currently voting?
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:59:30 +0000 (GMT) From: Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 271444.65772.qm@web29618.mail.ird.yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
This might need some eyes and attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content of the recent Wikileaks releases, notably
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencies...
Andreas
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:20:59 -0700 (MST) From: "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 58152.66.243.193.108.1292170859.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example information about a troop movement, but once something has been published on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good idea. The disclosed primary documents will come under intense analysis in reliable sources; those analyses are notable and properly included in Wikipedia despite their source in classified primary documents. Copying a list of potential military targets from a classified document would seem out of bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has widely distributed the list.
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
This might need some eyes and attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content of the recent Wikileaks releases, notably
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencies...
Andreas
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 16:49:06 +0000 From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: AANLkTinTde9-KK7hESJ8v1hrrMwQumb+9rGYOtykENO_@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 12 December 2010 16:20, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example information about a troop movement, but once something has been published on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good idea. The disclosed primary documents will come under intense analysis in reliable sources; those analyses are notable and properly included in Wikipedia despite their source in classified primary documents. Copying a list of potential military targets from a classified document would seem out of bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has widely distributed the list.
Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely unsuitable for en:wp.
The raw data is, however, US government public domain and therefore suitable for Wikisource as an important historical text (which it is). Possibly when the whole collection has been released and there is context to give. Particularly notable cables might be worth curating for their importance.
(Note that although impact in the US of the actual information is minimal, it's proving interesting in countries outside the US as people discover what their elected leaders have actually been up to. So there will in fact be individual documents that will be noteworthy in themselves.)
- d.
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:09:09 +0000 (GMT) From: Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 610484.82397.qm@web29617.mail.ird.yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Fred,
I agree. However, any [[WP:UNDUE]] argument of the kind you are making,
Copying a list of potential military targets from a classified document would seem out of bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has widely distributed the list.
will not win the day. See the section "laughs maniacally" on the article's talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Critical_Foreign_Dependencies_Initiative#....
The editor "laughs maniacally" because they have found *one source*, i.e. this news/blog site
http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-critical-foreign-dependencies-2010-...
that reproduces the Wikileaks list in full. Thereby, the reasoning goes, it has been published by a secondary source, justifying its inclusion in the article. Once included with a secondary source, it can and will thereafter be defended under [[WP:NOTCENSORED]].
This is a situation that occurs frequently. There may be 450 reputable news outlets that have taken an editorial decision not to publish something, for valid reasons, vs. one that has published it. Per [[WP:NOTCENSORED]], editors get to go with the one source that has. By and large, we have sacrificed editorial judgment, and the NPOV idea that we should reflect the editorial judgment of our best sources, to [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. This applies to articles of this sort as much as it does to the way we illustrate articles on sexuality and pornography.
Andreas
--- On Sun, 12/12/10, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, 12 December, 2010, 16:20 We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example information about a troop movement, but once something has been published on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good idea. The disclosed primary documents will come under intense analysis in reliable sources; those analyses are notable and properly included in Wikipedia despite their source in classified primary documents. Copying a list of potential military targets from a classified document would seem out of bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has widely distributed the list.
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
This might need some eyes and attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content
of the recent
Wikileaks releases, notably
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencies...
Andreas
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
------------------------------
Message: 6 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:17:06 -0500 From: David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: AANLkTikHJj8rm1QqeEAu1FLZCz=SekgnqUL2zEcLPe57@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Taking the nonexistence of an article on a particular subject as positive evidence of an editorial judgment by our "best sources" is an unsupportable argument. Wikipedia is not here to index articles published in the NYT and Washington Post. A reputable secondary source is a reputable secondary source is a reputable secondary source.
FMF
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Fred,
I agree. However, any [[WP:UNDUE]] argument of the kind you are making,
Copying a list of potential military targets from a classified document would seem out of bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has widely distributed the list.
will not win the day. See the section "laughs maniacally" on the article's talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Critical_Foreign_Dependencies_Initiative#....
The editor "laughs maniacally" because they have found *one source*, i.e. this news/blog site
http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-critical-foreign-dependencies-2010-...
that reproduces the Wikileaks list in full. Thereby, the reasoning goes, it has been published by a secondary source, justifying its inclusion in the article. Once included with a secondary source, it can and will thereafter be defended under [[WP:NOTCENSORED]].
This is a situation that occurs frequently. There may be 450 reputable news outlets that have taken an editorial decision not to publish something, for valid reasons, vs. one that has published it. Per [[WP:NOTCENSORED]], editors get to go with the one source that has. By and large, we have sacrificed editorial judgment, and the NPOV idea that we should reflect the editorial judgment of our best sources, to [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. This applies to articles of this sort as much as it does to the way we illustrate articles on sexuality and pornography.
Andreas
--- On Sun, 12/12/10, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks
material
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Sunday, 12 December, 2010, 16:20 We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example information about a troop movement, but once something has been published on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good idea. The disclosed primary documents will come under intense analysis in reliable sources; those analyses are notable and properly included in Wikipedia despite their source in classified primary documents. Copying a list of potential military targets from a classified document would seem out of bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has widely distributed the list.
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
This might need some eyes and attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents
It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content
of the recent
Wikileaks releases, notably
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencies...
Andreas
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
------------------------------
Message: 7 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:27:49 -0500 From: Cool Hand Luke User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material To: fredbaud fredbaud@fairpoint.net, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: AANLkTim4q8R4dufu0u6=cbFGLAugWqJS7jo+4NW81_hQ@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Exactly right. Using the documents themselves prior to secondary analysis is a WP:PSTS problem in the first place. Once secondary sources have analyzed them, the sourcing problem will be resolved, and any secrecy concern will be even more moot than it is already.
Frank
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.netwrote:
We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example information about a troop movement, but once something has been published on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good idea. The disclosed primary documents will come under intense analysis in reliable sources; those analyses are notable and properly included in Wikipedia despite their source in classified primary documents. Copying a list of potential military targets from a classified document would seem out of bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has widely distributed the list.
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
This might need some eyes and attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents
It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content of the recent Wikileaks releases, notably
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencies...
Andreas
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 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 81, Issue 37 ********************************************
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org