[Foundation-l] Wikipedia:Office Actions

[GerardM]

Hoi,
Peter, when you get a "take down" notice, this is presented to an
organisation. No project has the status of an organisation and consequently
the organisation embodied in the "Office" has to have a way to take the
action that it has to take by law.

What you describe is nice, it however does not work because it does not
scale. The organisation does not know all projects and, the organisation
does not have enough staff to get to know all projects. Furthermore there
are other things that this same staff has to do. Yes, in a perfect world you
would cooperate with the admins and community of the projects. Realistically
there are plenty people in any project that are irresponsible.

This thread started with the notion that this policy needs to be translated.
I would welcome it when the policy is described in such a way that there is
an "ambassador" for the organisation in each project. A person trusted to
communicate about issues and will be allowed to say by the community: "shut
up, this has to be".

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 4/26/07, Peter van Londen <londenp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wp:Office is until now only official on EN:WP (I mean by that: published
> only there); it has not been spread to the other projects; imho this was
> not
> a mistake, nobody found it necessary to do that (maybe because there was
> not
> a need for that policy elsewhere?).
>
> If it was meant to be foundation-wide, it would have meant that this
> policy
> would have been properly introduced to all the projects, which it was not.
>
> My proposal is a way to help the office in many ways:
> 1) make the problem a problem of that particular community. If left to the
> office it is their problem and it stays there problem, they need to
> follow-up on any deletion or change made (as it might be reverted, which
> does happen). My thought is that they have other things to do and should
> be
> able to delegate.
> 2) language problems: If the problematic content (and follow-up) is in a
> language the Office can not read, cooperation of that particular community
> would be needed anyway.
> 3) acceptance of Foundation-intrusion by communities is probably less than
> if trusted people delete the content (but it does not mean there won't be
> a
> problem with reverts, after all it is an open environment).
> 4) Sebastian: I think the authority of the Foundation will not be
> challenged
> by the trusted people: If the Foundation says it needs to be done, because
> the project is in danger: no one will ask for further explanation and just
> do what is required.
>
> In the end: the policy is workable for the English projects, I sincerely
> doubt this policy would work with languages the Office can not understand.
> It is better to use the structures already in place.
>
> Anyhow I will not go on with my preaching. If one doesn't want to, the
> future will tell how workable this policy is. After all it is really not a
> huge problem: we have bigger problems than this policy.
>
> By the way IRC and OTRS are different things.
>
> Kind regards, Londenp
>
>
> 2007/4/26, P. Birken <pbirken at gmail.com>:
> >
> > I find this discussion quite strange. Certainly, WP:OFFICE is valid on
> > all projects. Certainly, if this policy exists only in english and it
> > was never communicated to any projects except en that there is such a
> > policy, enforcing this policy on other projects except en will
> > inevitably result in a fight.
> >
> > In particular, there should be an office-account on every wiki, which
> > does only office actions. Asking an admin in IRC to do something is
> > IMHO not the right way to do this.
> >
> > Bye,
> >
> > Philipp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>