Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation official response re Daily Mail issue

[Rogol Domedonfors]

David

Thanks for that.  I think the point might have been strengthened by
pointing out that the English-language Wikipedia standards for reliability
are so high, that its editors do not even consider Wikipedia itself to be a
reliable source!

"Rogol"

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:36 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 9 February 2017 at 15:13, Stephen Philbrick <
> stephen.w.philbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have a link to the recent Foundation Statement about the
> Daily
> > Mail? We are receiving inquires at OTRS, and it would be nice if I see
> see
> > our official position.
>
>
> Here's the current version that's going out as of a few minutes ago, may be
> useful for adaptation. You probably can't put HTML links in, so maybe paste
> some URLs :-)
>
> (Currently trying to find an editor in the UK who can make Newsnight
> *tonight*, I can't.)
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> Hi X,
>
> Thanks for reaching out. We’d be happy to share a comment from the
> Wikimedia Foundation on the recent outcome of a discussion among volunteer
> editors around the use of the Daily Mail as a reliable source on English
> Wikipedia.
>
> One point of clarity -- A number of outlets have called this move a “ban.”
> This is not a blanket ban, but a general statement from volunteer editors
> on the reliability of the source for use on English Wikipedia.
>
> Also, I should mention that as the nonprofit that supports Wikipedia and
> the other Wikimedia projects, the Wikimedia Foundation generally does not
> set editorial policy on Wikipedia. That is up to volunteer editors around
> the world who contribute to the site.
>
> Editors have discussed the reliability of the Daily Mail since at least
> early 2015
>  Potentially_unreliable_sources=642377260=642376102>.
> In January 2017, an RfC
>  sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Mail_RfC>
> (Request for Comment) discussion was proposed to evaluate the use of the
> Daily
> Mail as a reliable source on English Wikipedia. This is one of many
> community discussions that take place every day about a broad range of
> issues, including reliable sources.
>
> In this case, volunteer editors seem to have come to a consensus that the
> Daily
> Mail is “generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally
> prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.” This means
> that there is a general recommendation according to this discussion that
> the Daily Mail not be referenced as a "reliable source" on English
> Wikipedia or used to demonstrate an article subject’s notability.
>
> That said, I encourage you to read the comments in the RfC
>  sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Mail_RfC>
> itself. You will find considerable discussion on the topic, including views
> both for and against the proposal. Wikipedia is a living, breathing
> ecosystem where volunteers regularly discuss and evolve the norms that
> guide the encyclopedia. Among Wikipedia’s many policies and guidelines,
> there is even a policy to ignore all rules
> . It captures
> the
> open spirit of the community: “If a rule
>  prevents
> you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.”
>
> As a general guide to reliable sources, articles on Wikipedia should be
> based on reliable, third-party
> , published
> sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Editors assess
> the reliability of a source at these levels:
>
>-
>
>The piece of work itself (the article, book)
>-
>
>The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
>-
>
>The publisher of the work (for example, Random House
> or Cambridge University
>Press )
>
>
> They also use a variety of criteria to evaluate reliability within each of
> these levels. For example, one signal that a news organization engages in
> fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of
> corrections .
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation official response re Daily Mail issue

[David Gerard]

On 9 February 2017 at 15:13, Stephen Philbrick <
stephen.w.philbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does anyone have a link to the recent Foundation Statement about the Daily
> Mail? We are receiving inquires at OTRS, and it would be nice if I see see
> our official position.


Here's the current version that's going out as of a few minutes ago, may be
useful for adaptation. You probably can't put HTML links in, so maybe paste
some URLs :-)

(Currently trying to find an editor in the UK who can make Newsnight
*tonight*, I can't.)


- d.


Hi X,

Thanks for reaching out. We’d be happy to share a comment from the
Wikimedia Foundation on the recent outcome of a discussion among volunteer
editors around the use of the Daily Mail as a reliable source on English
Wikipedia.

One point of clarity -- A number of outlets have called this move a “ban.”
This is not a blanket ban, but a general statement from volunteer editors
on the reliability of the source for use on English Wikipedia.

Also, I should mention that as the nonprofit that supports Wikipedia and
the other Wikimedia projects, the Wikimedia Foundation generally does not
set editorial policy on Wikipedia. That is up to volunteer editors around
the world who contribute to the site.

Editors have discussed the reliability of the Daily Mail since at least
early 2015
.
In January 2017, an RfC

(Request for Comment) discussion was proposed to evaluate the use of the Daily
Mail as a reliable source on English Wikipedia. This is one of many
community discussions that take place every day about a broad range of
issues, including reliable sources.

In this case, volunteer editors seem to have come to a consensus that the Daily
Mail is “generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally
prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.” This means
that there is a general recommendation according to this discussion that
the Daily Mail not be referenced as a "reliable source" on English
Wikipedia or used to demonstrate an article subject’s notability.

That said, I encourage you to read the comments in the RfC

itself. You will find considerable discussion on the topic, including views
both for and against the proposal. Wikipedia is a living, breathing
ecosystem where volunteers regularly discuss and evolve the norms that
guide the encyclopedia. Among Wikipedia’s many policies and guidelines,
there is even a policy to ignore all rules
. It captures the
open spirit of the community: “If a rule
 prevents
you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.”

As a general guide to reliable sources, articles on Wikipedia should be
based on reliable, third-party
, published
sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Editors assess
the reliability of a source at these levels:

   -

   The piece of work itself (the article, book)
   -

   The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
   -

   The publisher of the work (for example, Random House
    or Cambridge University
   Press )


They also use a variety of criteria to evaluate reliability within each of
these levels. For example, one signal that a news organization engages in
fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of
corrections .
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation official response re Daily Mail issue

[MZMcBride]

Stephen Philbrick wrote:
>Does anyone have a link to the recent Foundation Statement about the Daily
>Mail? We are receiving inquires at OTRS, and it would be nice if I see see
>our official position.

I don't have such a link, but I did forward your e-mail to the various
e-mail addresses listed at
.

MZMcBride



___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Foundation official response re Daily Mail issue

[Stephen Philbrick]

Does anyone have a link to the recent Foundation Statement about the Daily
Mail? We are receiving inquires at OTRS, and it would be nice if I see see
our official position.


Sphilbrick

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:25 AM, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Hong Kong (Katie Chan)
>2. Thank you for your service, Wikimedia Hong Kong (Lodewijk)
>3. Re: Thank you for your service, Wikimedia Hong Kong (Vi to)
>4. Re: Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Hong Kong (Chris Keating)
>5. Re: Thank you for your service, Wikimedia Hong Kong
>   (Manuel Schneider)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:54:48 +
> From: Katie Chan 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Hong Kong
> Message-ID: <98f26c1a-2937-6869-ddf1-37ab30fcf...@ktchan.info>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> This particular decision has arguably been a long time coming, but I am
> sad that it has indeed happened. My best wishes to all Wikimedians in
> Hong Kong with whatever their plans are for the future.
>
> KTC
>
> On 08/02/2017 02:19, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic
> > organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent
> > group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia
> > mission. While most affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards
> set
> > forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has
> > been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia movement
> > affiliate does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued
> > recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate presents a risk to the
> > Wikimedia movement.
> >
> > On September 9, 2016, Wikimedia Hong Kong was notified of their
> suspension
> > as a Wikimedia affiliate due to long standing non-compliance with
> reporting
> > requirements, and was provided with an explicit list of tasks and
> deadlines
> > in order to return to compliance with their chapter agreement. The
> chapter
> > failed to complete these tasks by the deadline of November 1, 2016, and
> was
> > consequently notified that they would no longer be recognized as a
> > Wikimedia chapter after the termination of their Chapter Agreement on
> > February 1, 2017.
> >
> > If you have questions about what this means for the community members in
> > Wikimedia Hong Kong’s geographic area or language scope, we have put
> > together a very basic FAQ, which may be found at
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_
> affiliate_de-recognition_FAQ
>
>
> --
> Katie Chan
> Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the
> author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the
> author is associated with or employed by.
>
>
> Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
>  - Heinrich Heine
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:13:31 +0100
> From: Lodewijk 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List , Wong
> Rover 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Thank you for your service, Wikimedia Hong Kong
> Message-ID:
>