Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Hi Kevin, My comment here expresses my personal opinion only. I understand how bringing this issue to Wikimedia-l could seem appropriate because Commons is a project that has an unusual degree of cross-wiki influence and activity. While it's ok to notify Wikimedia-l that this issue is being discussed, the main body of the discussion should stay on-wiki on Commons [1]. Per the essay about wikidrama on English Wikipedia [2] and the Principle of Least Drama, it is best not to make the same point in multiple places, as split discussions are often more difficult to follow and spread the drama to more places. Also, when placing notices of discussions from other wikis to this list, I think it is best to follow the detailed guidelines for Requests for Comment from English Wikipedia [3] which ask users to write a brief, neutral statement of the issue. In general, cross-wiki and cross-list *advocacy* (not mere notification) from anywhere else to this mailing list could be considered canvassing [4]. I think you were well-intentioned in posting a notice to this list but I would ask you to do it a bit differently in the future. Thank you for raising the issue for discussion. I think you have good points, and you should make them on Commons, where it appears that other Commons contributors agree with you that this situation could have been handled differently [1]. Pine [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drama [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
I apologize for that formatting mess. Emails that look beautiful in my Hotmail editing window get mangled when I send them to lists, and this seems to happen on a regular basis. I'll try sending this again. -- Hi Kevin, My comment here expresses my personal opinion only. I understand how bringing this issue to Wikimedia-l could seem appropriate because Commons is a project that has an unusual degree of cross-wiki influence and activity. While it's ok to notify Wikimedia-l that this issue is being discussed, the main body of the discussion should stay on-wiki on Commons [1]. Per the essay about wikidrama on English Wikipedia [2] and the Principle of Least Drama, it is best not to make the same point in multiple places, as split discussions are often more difficult to follow and spread the drama to more places. Also, when placing notices of discussions from other wikis to this list, I think it is best to follow the detailed guidelines for Requests for Comment from English Wikipedia [3] which ask users to write a brief, neutral statement of the issue. In general, cross-wiki and cross-list *advocacy* (not mere notification) from anywhere else to this mailing list could be considered canvassing [4]. I think you were well-intentioned in posting a notice to this list but I would ask you to do it a bit differently in the future. Thank you for raising the issue for discussion. I think you have good points, and you should make them on Commons, where it appears that other Commons contributors agree with you that this situation could have been handled differently [1]. Pine [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drama [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:04 AM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote: Thank you for raising the issue for discussion. I think you have good points, and you should make them on Commons, where it appears that other Commons contributors agree with you that this situation could have been handled differently [1]. Pine [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drama [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing Hey Pine, I'd disagree with you here. Canvassing, the Request for comment link, drama...those are all English Wikipedia links. As noted in replies to this post there seems to be a general lack of manpower on Commons to sort out the process. The link you provide to the Commons discussion is, as you framed it, other Commons contributors agree with you that this situation could have been handled differently. There are exactly two participants in that discussion at this time. If there is an internal need on Commons we should all know about it. I'm certain there are those on this list who might have never participated on Commons in this regard (if at all) to be inspired to help out with editorial judgement based on Kevin's email. I get to be the jerk that says Not it! after bringing it up, but really it's because I'd be terrible at it :) -- ~Keegan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sue exit interview
done 2014-05-09 7:35 GMT+02:00, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com: Hi. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_exit_interview/Sue_Gardner is accepting questions until 23 May 2014, 12:01 UTC. Passing along institutional memory is important, so please participate! MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Hi Keegan, I looked for equivalent Meta policies before posting the links to English Wikipedia. Canvassing is referenced on Meta and Commons although there is no page on Meta or Commons specifically describing a canvassing policy that I see. Perhaps there should be, since both wikis seem to have an unwritten rule against canvassing. I believe I was clear that the RfC guidelines and the Drama essay are from English Wikipedia but I think they are the best practice to follow here, and that this is my opinion only. I agree that posting a notification to this list was appropriate, but not with forking or moving the discussion to here. Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cracking Wikipedia
Cometstyles, et al On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Comet styles cometsty...@gmail.com wrote: Well done Russ, hopefully we can get more government sites to release their images on a fully free licence...product placements aside, the goal for wikimedia Commons is to provide the best possible image available for use freely online and we should just focus on that..a good cropping can sometimes remove unwanted adverts from the background ;)v Indeed, whilst we on our projects should concentrate on getting the best possible photographs, we shouldn't be ignorant to the fact that often the best photographs are taken by those who have a professional interest in those subjects, and they have the budgets to be able to spend top dollar on getting those photos. We also shouldn't be ignorant of the fact that these companies obviously have an interest that may not correspond to our own, but there is no reason that we can't, and shouldn't, use that to the advantage of both us and them. We just shouldn't make promises to them (i.e guaranteed placement) that would be unethical for us to make. As you can see from the examples I've provided, all we need to do is make the photographs available on Commons, and natural editing will inevitably take place and the photos will be put into use in the best places possible. Having said that, I have now made contact with Pirelli, and am already discussing with them the possibility of getting a large image release. Cheers, Russavia ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles
Hello everyone, I think Wikimedia UK has an example project, related to medical articles, that may be of interest. John Byrne is the Wikimedian in Residence at Cancer Research UK, one of the UK's largest charities. He's put together the below message but isn't subscribed to this list so can't post. I am posting on his behalf. I'm happy to answer any questions about this and those I can't, I shall pass on to John. Thanks and regards, Stevie John's message: Cancer Research UK (CRUK), the world’s largest cancer research charity, have just taken me on as Wikipedian in Residence until mid-December 2014 (4/5 part time). Parts of the plan for the role are very relevant to this thread. We are aiming to improve WP articles on cancer to ensure they are accurate, up-to-date and accessible to the full range of WP’s readership, working closely with the existing English WP medical editing community, many of whom have already been supportive of the project. With the medical translation project also underway, this is great timing for us to improve important content across large numbers of language versions. We will be able to draw upon the expertise of both the medical research staff funded by CRUK (over 4000 in the UK) and the various kinds of staff they have with professional expertise in writing for a range of audiences, from patients to scientists ( their editorial policyhttp://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/utilities/about-cancerhelp-uk/cancerhelp-uk-policies/editorial-policy/ ). We are also planning to do research with the public into what they think of specific WP articles, perhaps before and after improvement, and into how they use WP and other sites at the top of search pages when looking for medical information on the internet. There has been little research into this area, and the results should be very useful in focusing the ways medical content generally can be improved. The CRUK position is funded by the Wellcome Trust and supported by Wikimedia UK, and the budget includes an element for this research. I will be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiki_CRUK_John in this role (Usually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnbod. Until early July I will also continue my role (1/5) as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for the Sciences) John Byrne On 8 May 2014 22:43, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote: On 08/05/2014 22:29, Andrew Gray wrote: Section 3.3 of the report covers article selection. They went about it backwards (at least, backwards to the way you might expect) - recruiting reviewers and then manually identifying relevant articles, as the original goal was to use relevant topics for individual specialists. Even this selective method didn't work as well as might be hoped, because the mechanism of the study required a minimum level of content - the articles had to be substantial enough to be useful for a comparison, and of sufficient length and comparable scope in both sets of sources - which ruled out many of the initial selections. After it was published I emailed both the epic and the Oxford team to understand why they chose the articles they did. I was unable to get a satisfactory answer. The method of selecting the most notable philosopher-theologians from a certain period is a good one. There is no reason it has to be random, so long as there is a clearly defined selection method. However, they were unable to explain why of the most notable subjects, they chose Aquinas and Anselm. I suspect there was a selection bias, as those were the articles which 'looked' the best. (The ones on Ockham and Scotus were so obviously vandalised that even a novice would have spotted the problem). Even then, as I have already pointed out above, they missed the fact that the Anselm article was plagiarised from Britannica 1911, so that instead of comparing Britannica to Wikiepedia, they were comparing Britannica 2011 with Britannica 1911. And they missed some bad errors that had been introduced by Wikipedia editors when they attempted to modernise the old Britannica prose. To give a simple example that even Geni will have to concede is not 'subjectively wrong', the Wikipedia article on Anselm said Anselm wrote many proofs within Monologion and Proslogion. In the first proof, Anselm relies on the ordinary grounds of realism, which coincide to some extent with the theory of Augustine. This is a mangled version of the B1911 which reads This demonstration is the substance of the Monologion and Proslogion. In the first of these the proof rests on the ordinary grounds of realism You see what went wrong? 'first of these' should refer to the first book, namely Monologion. But one editor removed This demonstration is the substance of the Monologion and Proslogion as being too difficult for ordinary readers, leaving 'first of these'. Another editor came along and thought it referred to the first
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:26 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com While acknowledging the likely truth of the flaws in scientific knowledge production as it stands (single studies in medicine being literally useless, as 80% are actually wrong) ... I think you'll have a bit of an uphill battle attempting to enforce stronger standards in Wikipedia than exist in the field itself. We could go to requiring all medical sourced to be Cochrane-level studies of studies of studies, That actually is the current best practice for medical articles in English, I believe, and I think it's a good one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDRS Indeed so, and I agree it is a good idea. Sourcing to reviews when possible is particularly relevant for a field (like medicine) that has a well-established tradition of conducting and publishing systematic reviews -- but I find it a useful practice in lots of areas, on the theory that reviews are generally more helpful for someone trying to find out more about a topic. This is of course part of the same scholarly system that I was referring to earlier in this discussion. Within Wikipedia, peer-reviewed publications and/or systematic reviews of such studies are considered among the most valuable and high-quality sources. They're a vital building block of the knowledge that Wikipedia seeks to disseminate. We know that all human methods are imperfect; but we're also agreed that the scholarly method is, by and large, superior to other methods of knowledge production. Now, when I suggested that the Foundation bring these established methods to bear on Wikipedia itself, you (and one or two others) chimed in with concerns about real and potential flaws of scholarly studies and the peer review system. It seemed to me as though underlying these comments there were some sense that, while scholarly methods were good to illuminate any topic under the sun that Wikipedia writes about, they wouldn't be welcome as a method to illuminate Wikipedia itself. I am well aware of the various documented problems with peer review, and its occasional failures. They haven't led Wikipedia to abandon its view that, by and large, peer-reviewed studies are among the best sources available. So I didn't think your raising problems with aspects of the scholarly method was particularly germane to this discussion of content quality studies. If we didn't believe in the scholarly method, we wouldn't privilege its output in Wikipedia. Anthony: I hear you about veracity being particularly important in medical articles; and I don't mean to get us too far in the weeds about what quality means -- there's lots to do on lots of articles that I think would be pretty obvious quality improvement, including straight-up fact-checking. I think any research programme evaluating the quality of Wikipedia content should first and foremost focus on such basics: veracity and fact checking. Given that the post that started this thread referenced medical content, are you telling me that you think it would be useless to have qualified medical experts reviewing Wikipedia's medical content, because the process would be opaque, messy, prone to failure and doesn't always support innovation? No, that is not what I am saying; and leaping to that conclusion seems like a rather pointy and bad-faith approach, which makes it just that much more of an effort to participate in this conversation -- if you want to have a dialog with other people, please try to be more generous in your assumptions. I hope I have explained why I reacted the way I did. Your comments led me to believe that you were simply not very keen on Wikipedia being subjected to a test, using the most objective method available. What I was trying to say is that I don't think your implication that there is already a well-designed solution that will fix all our problems is correct -- both because it's difficult to apply peer review in this context, and because peer review has plenty of problems itself. I think blind-review quality studies can be useful, but I don't think they're a panacea, anymore than scholarly peer review is itself a panacea for making sure good scholarly work gets published. There are well-established methods for assessing the quality of written work. I should think that a team composed of both academics well-versed in study design and statistics and Wikimedians familiar with Wikipedia content would over time be able to come up with a methodology that produces good results in assessing project content in various topic areas against the Wikimedia vision. Once the basic framework has been established, the academics concerned should be given full intellectual freedom to assess the content as they see fit. I think such efforts would demonstrate leadership, and reflect well on the Foundation. Anyway,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hello everyone, I think Wikimedia UK has an example project, related to medical articles, that may be of interest. John Byrne is the Wikimedian in Residence at Cancer Research UK, one of the UK's largest charities. He's put together the below message but isn't subscribed to this list so can't post. I am posting on his behalf. I'm happy to answer any questions about this and those I can't, I shall pass on to John. Thanks and regards, Stevie John's message: Cancer Research UK (CRUK), the world’s largest cancer research charity, have just taken me on as Wikipedian in Residence until mid-December 2014 (4/5 part time). Parts of the plan for the role are very relevant to this thread. We are aiming to improve WP articles on cancer to ensure they are accurate, up-to-date and accessible to the full range of WP’s readership, working closely with the existing English WP medical editing community, many of whom have already been supportive of the project. With the medical translation project also underway, this is great timing for us to improve important content across large numbers of language versions. We will be able to draw upon the expertise of both the medical research staff funded by CRUK (over 4000 in the UK) and the various kinds of staff they have with professional expertise in writing for a range of audiences, from patients to scientists ( their editorial policy http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/utilities/about-cancerhelp-uk/cancerhelp-uk-policies/editorial-policy/ ). We are also planning to do research with the public into what they think of specific WP articles, perhaps before and after improvement, and into how they use WP and other sites at the top of search pages when looking for medical information on the internet. There has been little research into this area, and the results should be very useful in focusing the ways medical content generally can be improved. The CRUK position is funded by the Wellcome Trust and supported by Wikimedia UK, and the budget includes an element for this research. I will be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiki_CRUK_John in this role (Usually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnbod. Until early July I will also continue my role (1/5) as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for the Sciences) John Byrne That's one project I was really glad to see Wikimedia UK supporting. More in that vein, please. :) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted
Hi Risker, It was indeed an unintentional mistake and thank you for pointing it out. I have corrected it in the assessment. Best, Kasia 2014-05-09 17:00 GMT+02:00 Risker risker...@gmail.com: Actually, Dariusz, if the FDC (which is not WMF/FDC staff) made the request, then the sentence is incorrect. As it is currently written, it states that WMF/ FDC staff contacted WMDE directly made the request, and implies that the FDC itself had no role in this decision. The WMF/FDC staff have made it very clear that they have not completed any assessment report in relation to the WMF request. [1] The sentence in the WMDE assessment should be corrected. Risker/Anne [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Staff_proposal_assessment On 9 May 2014 10:51, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: hi, let me clarify - asking WMDE was an independent decision of the FDC, and not of the FDC staff. The FDC reached out to WMDE regarding this request, and the FDC staff has assisted us since then. The sentence is thus true, although may sound misleading. best, dj pundit On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you Winifred. These appear to be very good, and I largely agree with the assessment. I know that the WMF FDC staff did not review the WMF submission; it was partially reviewed by WMDE. In the first sentence of the introduction to their report they say In order to avoid a potential bias assessing their own proposal, WMF/FDC staff have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal.[1] This is not consistent with what the FDC chair and members told us in the thread on Wikimedia-L. Did the WMF/FDC staff request that WMDE do the assessment? Risker/Anne [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V . ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- __ dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Kasia Odrozek Vorstandsreferentin / Consultant to the Executive Director Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 (030) 219 158 260 Mobil: +49 151 46752534 http://wikimedia.de http://www.wikimedia.de/ Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On 9 May 2014 21:13, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: The person who selected the image does not care that most of the people who viewed that image saw only dead bodies without context. The process on Commons for selecting what goes on the front page is very lightweight, and this was a decision made by one person, in the normal way. That’s going to mean that sometimes others might disagree. It would be perfectly possible to set up some sort of more labour-intensive system if people really want that. It would be easy to do: please, everyone, just come over to Commons and volunteer your time. Michael ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
*contradictory meanings, not ideas - I just woke up from a nap and am typing like a sleepy person. On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: Heh, I probably shouldn't have chosen a word with two more or less contradictory ideas that also refers to a mediawiki userright. I meant oversight as in scrutiny by other Wikimedians to ensure the process doesn't go off the rails, not oversight as in negligence or oversight as in what we do to especially nasty content instead of revdel. (I would consider any process that gets large graphics on to prominent pages on the projects with so few checks on it as lacking sufficient oversight.) - Kevin Gorman Wikipedian-in-Residence UC Berkeley On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: there's something seriously weird about the fact that a project that all other projects depend on has the media it displays on it's front page selected by pretty much one person with no I was with you up until the last word. Did you really mean: oversight. ??? -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Heh, I probably shouldn't have chosen a word with two more or less contradictory ideas that also refers to a mediawiki userright. I meant oversight as in scrutiny by other Wikimedians to ensure the process doesn't go off the rails, not oversight as in negligence or oversight as in what we do to especially nasty content instead of revdel. (I would consider any process that gets large graphics on to prominent pages on the projects with so few checks on it as lacking sufficient oversight.) - Kevin Gorman Wikipedian-in-Residence UC Berkeley On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: there's something seriously weird about the fact that a project that all other projects depend on has the media it displays on it's front page selected by pretty much one person with no I was with you up until the last word. Did you really mean: oversight. ??? -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
