On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Although it is a well known issue, this issue has finally made its way to spotlight with the ongoing CAMERA incident on English wikipedia... I am
sure
English wikipedia's arbcom will come up with a reasonable conclusion and
the
purpose of this email is not related to the CAMERA arbcom case directly.
Which is good because it is likely most editors on Foundation mailing have no idea what the CAMERA incident is...
Yes, I know that. Which is the reason why I posted it on Foundation-l as well as Wiki-en-l
[...]
I recommend that foundation pass a ruling on the matter of lobby
takeovers.
Which type of ruling are you thinking of ?
Ant
I am not entirely certain. Some sort of a *carefully worded* statement that unwelcome systematic pov pushing. Really should go without saying...
This has happened many times before. Just to refresh your memory the Danish Mohammed cartoon controversy, Youtube/Facebook based campaign to remove all depictions of Mohamed from wikipedia, CAMERA incident are a few of the more notable cases.
While English wikipedia is somewhat prepared to deal with such issues, other wikis are quite ill prepared. It would immensely help if there was a global rule on this issue.
Stewards will not be able to step in unless this is a general rule I think. Or at least such a ruling would untie the hands of stewards and locals alike.
- White Cat
Trying to game the system to push a point is disruptive. I believe most communities pretty much accept the standard of "disruption leads to blocking." Yes, they are subverting, but what difference would a Foundation resolution make? It's not as though it would make lobbyists suddenly admit themselves and say "Ah, you caught me."
-Chad
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Although it is a well known issue, this issue has finally made its way to spotlight with the ongoing CAMERA incident on English wikipedia... I am
sure
English wikipedia's arbcom will come up with a reasonable conclusion and
the
purpose of this email is not related to the CAMERA arbcom case directly.
Which is good because it is likely most editors on Foundation mailing have no idea what the CAMERA incident is...
Yes, I know that. Which is the reason why I posted it on Foundation-l as well as Wiki-en-l
[...]
I recommend that foundation pass a ruling on the matter of lobby
takeovers.
Which type of ruling are you thinking of ?
Ant
I am not entirely certain. Some sort of a *carefully worded* statement that unwelcome systematic pov pushing. Really should go without saying...
This has happened many times before. Just to refresh your memory the Danish Mohammed cartoon controversy, Youtube/Facebook based campaign to remove all depictions of Mohamed from wikipedia, CAMERA incident are a few of the more notable cases.
While English wikipedia is somewhat prepared to deal with such issues, other wikis are quite ill prepared. It would immensely help if there was a global rule on this issue.
Stewards will not be able to step in unless this is a general rule I think. Or at least such a ruling would untie the hands of stewards and locals alike.
- White Cat
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/5/9 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
Trying to game the system to push a point is disruptive. I believe most communities pretty much accept the standard of "disruption leads to blocking." Yes, they are subverting, but what difference would a Foundation resolution make? It's not as though it would make lobbyists suddenly admit themselves and say "Ah, you caught me."
Well, yeah. The thing I've seen most rein in PR company blog advice on how to get on Wikipedia is not "the Wikipedia community will be upset at you" but - in the wake of WikiScanner's media moment - "the public will lynch you and send your client's brand into the toilet."
Mission posters are of course much more Terminator-like in their persistence. But with that sort of persistence comes stupidity.
- d.
No, it means the smart ones are still out there undetected. The smart pr people in my subject area I can detect because I know perfectly well who would be editing the subject with the knowledge shown. And if they do it right i leave them alone.
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:15 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/9 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
Trying to game the system to push a point is disruptive. I believe most communities pretty much accept the standard of "disruption leads to blocking." Yes, they are subverting, but what difference would a Foundation resolution make? It's not as though it would make lobbyists suddenly admit themselves and say "Ah, you caught me."
Well, yeah. The thing I've seen most rein in PR company blog advice on how to get on Wikipedia is not "the Wikipedia community will be upset at you" but - in the wake of WikiScanner's media moment - "the public will lynch you and send your client's brand into the toilet."
Mission posters are of course much more Terminator-like in their persistence. But with that sort of persistence comes stupidity.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org