en:wp has a very good concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_stuff_beans_up_your_nose
" In our zeal to head off others' unwise action, we may put forth ideas they have not entertained before. It may be wise not to caution against such possibilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Incentive_theories:_intrinsic_and_extrinsic_motivation . Prophylactic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophylactic admonition may trigger novel mischief. As the popular saying goes, "don't give 'em any ideas". In other words, "
On 6 April 2018 at 10:34, Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
I can not speak to current practice at the WMF, but I can speak to practice when I was there (ancient history, long ago, I know) when I say that this is something that was carefully considered and there were appropriate experts consulted at the time. Knowing the team there like i do, I'm confident that those plans have not lapsed, and that they continue to give appropriate (though not paranoiac) consideration to the realities of the world.
I also know that when I was there, we would have considered it inappropriate to share detail about those plans publicly, and I continue to believe that is good practice.
Philippe
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Safety of attendees has for a long time been a criteria ... agree, but the risk assesement we are discussing here is not about safety, but security. I am sure we might not use them all properly, I am also not a native English speaker, but they are not the same concept, right?
Now, there were examples where looking at a dossier where the information was about only the first one... that's the point here. I am talking about events, the first email was about the place of the office... but the motivation of a criminal act in both case can be overlapping, so they are an unicum in a proper evaluation, IMHO. I am not expert in the field, but if you start to assess the risk of someone harming you in SFO, that could happen also in another place where many of the same people gather annually, and that you also inform millions of people with sitenotices about it.
Now, I don't say that you must inform a lot. But if you are not the police you are also not the fire brigade, but you wouldn't write in a candidature nothing or simply "if there is a fire someone is paid to extinguish it"... you would make more effort, and we do. If you don't want to add another paragraph in the final document, rename it "safety and security" but start to think organically about it.
Alex
Il Venerdì 6 Aprile 2018 1:59, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> hascritto:
Safety of attendees has for a long time been a criteria that needs to be addressed when bidding for any WMF event, the people bidding are the better placed to assess the reality of the local situation. Open bidding processes enable others to also critically look at the options, ultimately we are more at risk at home where feel comfortable then when travelling. Every location has its risks, its undesirables, and crime, just getting a taxi to and from the airport is a risk reality is its also more likely than a terrorist event On 6 April 2018 at 03:24, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
That's why people offwiki say they don't discuss this thing on meta or here, because you always have an "answer" like this... this sarcasm. in it's way, an example of an unhealthy community.
Look at what I wrote:
"Even if it is not nice to think about it, and of course you try to do it mostly in private, you should clearly write down at least at a certain point that you are preparing to all scenario, contacting the police and so on. it should be a paragraph in a candidature for an event, IMHO. but it should be done." that's it. it's not complicated... I know because of partially direct experience... it's part of the world, when you are professional. You can't prepare an event of certain scale and in a certain areas and ignore it in the final dossier. There will be someone who take a look at that. So, who talked about "solving terrorism"? just the one who wanted to make a joke.
Maybe people are not big babies and even without constant reminder they don't exaggerate. You have no idea with whom I discuss this aspect so far, what such wikimedians do in their real life. They are able to focus on the point... the point is security and if you replied this way to this question in many situations, you will be considered unprepared.
Alex
Il Giovedì 5 Aprile 2018 20:29, Alphos OGame <alphos.ogame@gmail.com>ha scritto:
I heartily agree : build that firewall, and let Cisco pay for it ! Wait, what were you suggesting in your incipit ? Oh, right, "a way that's rational, avoiding to create unnecessary panic of course". I'd rather not ask of people organizing conventions (which is already time-consuming by itself) that they solve terrorism in their town, which is what the police are probably more suited for, if you don't mind ; as a matter of fact, it is not one of their duties as convention holders, plain and simple, and neither are they doctors, police officers, judges, jesters, masseuses, nannies, yoga instructors, cooks, indentured servants, etc (except of course if they are, which may happen).
So let's please not overreact, and stick to the current discussion instead of having the next WikiConvention in a flying fortress with armed guards, sniffing dogs, and metal detectors at every door…
Roger / Alphos
2018-04-05 18:40 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia. org>:
I remember we discussed 2 or 3 years about this scenario with some wikimedians off wiki. I strongly support to discuss at least once openly about that. In a way that it's rational, avoiding to create unnecessary panic... of course.
Despite the claimed neutrality of the communities, reality always bites. Now, a terrorist can imagine that we will not put a black banner if someone kill a lot of people somewhere... but if same amount of wikimedians are killed at a international rally the probability that a block ribbon, an editnotice with a statement appear on many language edition is higher. it's an attack at the community like it is a proposal of a law somewhere, and we naturally react stronger.
It would be a bigger impact, if you think about it. You can get the attention of billions of people every time they connect to the 5th or 6th largest website in the world. Cynically speaking, if you also consider the facts that it's about free knowledge and volunteers, than a mass murder at at a wikimedian event might be more "effective" than at a discotheque or the seat of a multinational conglomerate.
If i remember correctly. in the months before a certain wiki-event, many people linked to radical activities were arrested in the area, in the same country. So, when you organize an event, it's not just about safety but also security. Even if it is not nice to think about it, and of course you try to do it mostly in private, you should clearly write down at least at a certain point that you are preparing to all scenario, contacting the police and so on. it should be a paragraph in a candidature for an event, IMHO. but it should be done.
A.M.
Il Giovedì 5 Aprile 2018 18:09, Vi to <vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com> hascritto:
I read/receive related craps <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=User_talk: Vituzzu&diff=prev&oldid= 831949995> on a daily basis but it's hard to tell an idiot from a psychopath, so it may become a risk for WMF offices.
Vito
2018-04-05 17:33 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk:
I'm sure most of you will be aware of the unfortunate events at YouTube's HQ a couple fo days ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ YouTube_headquarters_shooting
Without giving away anything that might reveal vulnerabilities, does the WMF have contingency plans for such an incident? What about at community events in the US, and elsewhere?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia. org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@ lists.wikimedia.org?subject= unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia. org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@ lists.wikimedia.org?subject= unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia. org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@ lists.wikimedia.org?subject= unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia. org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@ lists.wikimedia.org?subject= unsubscribe>
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.comOut now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8, UWAP, 2017. Order here.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe