[Foundation-l] Wikipedia:Office Actions

[GerardM]

Hoi,
A nice expose that is completely beside the point. The point of discussion
is: do we need to translate policies to other languages. Your example is
about an English language article.

What do you know/care about issues on projects in other languages ?

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 4/24/07, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > Why the overhead?
> >
> > Why don't we just wait for the need, "OMG we're doing X on jawiki!",
> > do what needs to be done "Brion, oversight cary on Jawiki now please!"
> > ... and then clean up and explain after the fact.
> >
> > Important cases are rare enough that I don't see the need to explain
> > something in a hundred languages that it will never be used in...
>
> I completely agree.
>
> "Wikimedia Foundation removing an article for a legal threat" is imho a
> concept simple enough for being understood by our Wikimedians.
>
>
> GerardM thinks it's not used due to "not knowing it's out there". I feel
> it's the other way round.
> If normal people doesn't know about it, they will only troll a bit at
> the Village Pump, Administrators Noticeboard and quit. Things are
> managed inside. While a person being serious about suing won't stop by
> not seeing a policy supporting it.
> So with current approach only important cases arrive to the office,
> which is good.
>
>
> Two weeks ago, a new user which had been trying to push his PV about
> canibalism in American natives, wrote a "letter to the Wikipedians" on a
> free host, where we were required to remove the content opposed to it
> from 50 articles (not mentioned which), adding them a chapter explaining
> why it was wrong and also have permanent excuses about it on the Main
> Page.
> It ended stating that if not following them after being warned,
> Wikipedia could be demanded by "cultural associations and american
> states".
> All of this was said as comng from the "the Raelian movement", as this
> man seems to be a local coordinator (note there was no relationship
> between Raelianism and the issue, nor any endorsement from the Raelian
> movement).
>
> There were three "replies" [1],[2],[3] and all of them mentioned the
> ability of referring to WMF.
>
> Not only there wasn't an Office action on our main page, as i'm now
> writing this i discovered the original webpage has been changed[4] into
> simply explaining his points.
>
> I don't really know if he really contacted foundation (i doubt) but
> impossible claims (suing an entity by a webpage) should be kept apart of
> normal work if possible.
>
> In an Internet which can be censored with a hotmail account [5], making
> policies of "we can be censored by the office" where in the office the
> case will be judged by someone which doesn't even read the language the
> dispute is on and has never heard of that "fascist communist censoring
> sysop" is *dangerous*.
>
> On the other hand, knowing we have the WMF with a lawyer able to defend
> NPV is a relief... but it's a knowledge only for advanced wikipedians ;)
>
>
> 1-http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikies-l/2007-April/001703.html
> 2-http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikies-l/2007-April/001714.html
> 3-
> http://nidododo.blogspot.com/2007/04/los-raelianos-amenazan-con-demandar.html
> 4-I keep a local copy of the original.
> 5-http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/10/09/1929259.shtml
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>