Unfortunately, the evidence by Theresa knott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch/Evi... and my own experience with Jim62sch and OrangeMarlin does not lead me to believe it was a polite warning. Rather than simply stating that they have to do it, and following through, they repeated the threat (one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice... ).
I read this as an attempt to drive off an opponent in a content dispute, pure and simple. Sxeptomaniac
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:43:19 -0500, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
There are many, many different professions with affirmative reporting requirements. I've been using the word 'warning' instead of 'threat' because threat implies a particular tone that is entirely different. A warning might be "You've mentioned you work in the Air Force, but please be aware that if you provide more completely identifying information about yourself I or others may have to report you." Now, thats polite, isn't a threat and is issued in a situation where "just go ahead and do it" doesn't apply.
The reason the "whole conversation has been about the former" in this case is because that is most closely what happened (between OM and VO) *and* it is the situation with policy implications. (On-wiki incivility is dealt with by policy, off-wiki non-harassing incivility is irrelevant). I'm satisfied with what Mike Godwin wrote, which is that if politely issued it is wrongheaded to construe policy as prohibiting warnings of a legal obligation.
For examples of some professions who must report information in various situations: Physicians, lawyers, judges, psychologists, school administrators, teachers, social workers, guidance counselors, essentially all law enforcement, military personnel. This class obviously includes many millions of people, so it makes sense to adjust the policy to account for the affirmative reporting requirement issue. Nathan
On Jan 3, 2008 5:15 PM, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008 2:00 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
(Unless you were told to make the threat in exchange for your family's life? ... Yes, I'm being facetious. :) )
It still wouldn't be ethical. It might be necessary, but it wouldn't be ethical.
-- --jpgordon ????
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Message: 6 Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:47:37 -0500 From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability etymology and history (was Re: WP:EPISODE) To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 71cd4dd90801031447x656bce6ck4fa66b148456e728@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 1/3/08, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008 9:19 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I also thought of something while waiting for your response. If maintenance is the problem, wouldn't protection be better than deletion? Instead of deleting 80% of articles on "universities" to reduce the maintenance load, why not protect them on a rotating schedule where 20% are unprotected each day during a five day period?
WP:CREEP aside, sounds like a maintenance nightmare, unless it could be done by bots. IMHO it would be better to coordinate maintenance in a useful way rather than skipping a coordination attempt and going right to protection.
It'd definitely have to be done by bots, if not coded into the software. And yeah, doing a better job of maintenance would be a much better solution. I only presented protection as a better solution than deletion for dealing with problems of vandalism.
Message: 7 Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:06:24 -0500 From: gwern0@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting fact To: kmw@armory.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 20080103230624.GC10702@localhost Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On 2007.12.30 11:03:14 -0600, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com scribbled 0.7K characters:
On Sunday 30 December 2007 07:33, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:58:39 +0000, "Thomas Dalton"
thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/12/2007, Nachman nachman.chayal@gmail.com wrote:
The quote was "Hello, we found your name on Wikipedia. You're the new CIA job fair representative."
That would be an extremely stupid policy... so it's probably true.
After all, the "intelligence" in their name doesn't refer to the sort that is measured by IQ tests.
Has it ever occurred to you all that perhaps people whose life work is intelligence gathering might actually know more about it than a bunch of random jokers on the Internet? -- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
[[Open Source Intelligence]].
No. No, not really. I suspect I dropped that idea somewhere along the line - although I couldn't tell you whether it was the cyborg cats, the remote viewing, the MKULTRA and more covert programs, the sponsorship of heroin and cocaine criminal syndicates (to say nothing of the right-wing dictatorships), the poisoned cigar and wetsuits, or what which specifically disabused me of that idea.
-- gwern OIR man transfer Meade ADIU Team VGPL DST plutonium MD5