[Foundation-l] Wikipedia:Office Actions
titoxd.wikimedia at gmail.com
Tue Apr 24 16:22:17 UTC 2007
Considering that Platonides is a bibliotecario on es.wikipedia, that
questions seems a bit irrelevant.
Now, if you need to translate a policy to another language, particularly a
foundation-wide policy, it is not necessary for it to be in Meta. You can
copy it from en.wikipedia, BoardWiki, Commons, or heck, even the Siberian
Wikipedia, and that will not invalidate its status as a policy. So what is
the entire fuss about? You can always transwiki WP:OFFICE to Meta later,
that is not an obstacle.
From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of GerardM
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 5:40 AM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia:Office Actions
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 ?
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
> It ended stating that if not following them after being warned,
> Wikipedia could be demanded by "cultural associations and american
> 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
> There were three "replies" ,, 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 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 , 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 ;)
> 4-I keep a local copy of the original.
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
More information about the foundation-l