[Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki at gmail.com
Tue May 24 06:40:45 UTC 2011

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:58 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with the point you make, but still think it's the right thing.
>> Essentially the counter argument boils down to "if they don't know there's
>> a
>> BLP they can't make work for us about it". Whatever is in the BLP will be
>> there whether they know it or not. So the question is, is it ethically
>> better, and likely to improve quality, if they do know about it? Probably
>> yes. We will for sure get some irate replies or requests that we simply
>> can't meet (ie demands or expectations that won't work with a neutral
>> reference site).  But we will also be recognized as trying to do right in
>> a
>> way few other sources do. I don't think that the problem outweighs the
>> clear
>> benefits of doing so.
> I discussed this idea with FT2 at length a little over a year ago on Skype,
> a couple hours I think.  This was while I was facilitating the Living
> Persons task force on strategy (plug here[1]).
> Our resources can only stretch so far, and in my opinion, as expressed
> previously in this thread, is that contacting websites/press agents/subjects
> directly would create much more discord than to reward.  The noted issues
> with explaining, now after invitation, how Wikipedia works and what you
> can't do after we've invited you to do it is much more probable than
> successful resolution.  Our solutions must be internal, from the Board and
> the communities.
> 1. <http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_persons>  Still
> awaiting board approval.
> --
> ~Keegan
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan


 Apologies, it seems the lowercase p version didn't get a redirect.  I'll
fix that.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list