Well, Fae, since the only place that Adam Osborne is mentioned in Wikipedia is as the son of his father, and it does not mention anything more than his name, I am pretty certain that you're mistaken. The exact quote from the Guardian is: "Google has already begun to implement the ruling, with tens of thousands Nothing in that quote says that it is a Wikipedia article that is "hidden". Risker/Anne On 3 August 2014 00:12, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 3 August 2014 06:27, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote: Retweeted! We might get an answer with enough re-tweets. :-) It seems logical to suppose that there are senior managers in the WMF, or at least WMF Legal, that know which Wikipedia article(s) is being subject to Google's suppression in search engines. It seems also reasonable to supposed it is about a notable person rather than, say, some random school teacher, as in the latter case we would fix that through sensible discussion via OTRS and there would be a natural fairness in making person material either less visible in an article, or getting removed in compliance with project guidelines. Would any WMF Trustee or senior manager like to illuminate the community on this? Obviously Jimmy Wales has commented generally, but not explained what the WMF do about these RTV Google requests. As I understanding there is no legal requirement on the WMF to suppress itself when talking about Google's actions. Indeed there is nothing to stop a bot-writer like myself to craftily slowly sniff through results and pop out a public list of suppressed articles, it is public data by definition... Fae

On 05/08/2014, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote: ... Unless I'm missing something, this means that WMF senior management can tell us exactly which Wikipedia articles are "suppressed" after RTV requests to Google. What do we (the unpaid volunteer community) want to do with this information? Ethically this is difficult territory, but openness is one of our core values, so this should not all be stitched up in back-rooms without explaining what is going on to the whole community and aiming for a consensus on action. Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

I would prefer decency as a core value. Fred

On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote: Yes... This is tedious, but Fae's mistake was thinking content about Adam Osborne was what was being hidden on Wikipedia. It isn't; that's just the Guardian providing an example of something else that was removed from Google results.

On 04/08/2014, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: The Streisand effect and just plain old "oh, be nice" which is much easier to manage in a non-public discussion (albeit on the record). For notable people this is a tricky balance, one of public interest versus intrusion. We are not journalists (exempting Wikinews for a moment) and so I would much rather see a lean towards avoiding intrusion into personal lives wherever reasonable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect As an OTRS volunteer I am especially sympathetic for subjects of photography that have been accidentally compromised in public places. We are not *always* talking about nudity - two memorable cases were when someone was worried that their image was being used as an illustration of racism, and another for an illustration of homosexuality; both were identifiable in the photographs and neither apparently gave specific permission for their photograph to be freely released and so were surprised to see their face being used on Wikipedia. Even when copyright is fine, and the material has great educational value, our projects need to be sympathetic to the accidental damage or distress that repeating personal data or propagating photographs might have. Postscript: In the case of Wikinews, this boils down to local policies which reflect best practice for journalists. In general we still avoid intrusion and should take care to set very high standards for ethical treatment of biographical material about living people. That's which writing about historic figures rather than "celebrities" tends to be so much easier. :-) Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On 4 August 2014 11:03, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: Same way we deal with aggrieved emails from BLP subjects, rather than just posting them to BLPN - if there *is* a serious concern, it's much more likely to get the right answer without further damage. - d.

That would be because the inmates are not good at running the asylum. Fred

On 4 August 2014 19:15, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: We do still get lots of BLPs that basically shouldn't exist. Some are vanity, some are actually attack pieces. - d.