Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
This might be silly, but can you set it so that IPs and non-members can only edit pages in the Talk: space or something? That would allow discussion to occur around important issues while keeping the integrity of things like the minutes and the constitution protected. Of course as Angela said there's no way of really defending against a rogue financial member changing the constitution to ENCYCLOPEDIAS ARE GAY, but I guess that's the price you pay for accessibility. On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: It seems there are a variety of arguments that have now been put forward against opening up editing to non-members: * It's a member benefit - I think we all agree that this is no longer held as a valid claim. IIRC this was the SOLE reason why we didn't have open editing to start with, but no matter. * There'll be lots of vandalism - This has been responded to with the proposal that only logged-in editing be allowed and some form of CAPTCHA/email confirmation be used to stop spambots. * We need to keep the official pages stable - The official pages (rules, minutes, donation info...) can be easily locked from editing in just the same way that the copyright notice page on Wikipedia is locked. We could even use some form of flagged-revs if we chose. * It will look bad to our potential partner organisations - I have heard many criticisms or complaints from external organisations/professionals about Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Wikimedia-Australia and none of them have been about the potential for unruly discussion on the chapter wiki. If an organisation is unwilling to work with the Chapter on the basis that there might be some disucssion on the wiki that they don't like, then they've obviously never heard of Wikipedia. Many organisations have some form of public discussion section on their website (e.g. comments on company blogs) and this does not meant that people think less of the company. If we hope to get more grassroots involvement in the chapter then IMO we cannot force people to pay $40 and register an account before they can engage in chapter activities. Volunteers should not be forced to pay money to volunteer. Any organisation that choses not to associate itself with WM-Au on the basis that we operate a wiki that members of the general public can edit is more than likely not ready to work with an organisation that promotes free-culture at all. And, just like on WP, we can indeed include layers of locks or tags that indicate 'this page is official policy' or 'this page is for general discussion'. -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Brian Salter-Duke b_d...@bigpond.net.au wrote: There has been a lot of discussion about the official wiki and who should be able to edit it. This is in response to the whole debate, so I have not kept any other comments. This wiki is the official wiki. It is how we present ourselves, not just to members, but to prospective members, to regulatory bodies, to Glam institutions who we hope to work with, with a range of other bodies and with the general public. It is the only place where our rules are displayed, where minutes of general and committee meetings are recorded, and a host of other official stuff. We are incorporated. We are a legal entity. We now have approval to fund raise in Victoria. We need to apply for fund raising approval to all other States and Territories, except the NT. We have an ABN. We will be applying for deductible gift recipient (DGR) status. All this has to be reflected in our official pages. We are trying hard to relate in a professional manner with a large range of GLAM institutions across the country. They will look to our official wiki for reliable information about us. They will judge how serious we are by how professional we present ourselves. The issue is not really about vandalism, but the integrity and professionalism of the whole official wiki. Vandalism with certainly destroy that, but so will edits that discuss ideas that are not officially approved, and edits that are inappropriate. If readers find information that they find to be inaccurate or inappropriate, they will conclude that we are not a serious professional body that they can work with, and they may doubt the accuracy of material on what are clearly official pages. This does not mean that we have to restrict editing to the committee, but we have to make sure that integrity and professionalism is preserved and indeed enhanced. It is not just a question of removing vandalism. There are some pages that must never be allowed to be vandalised. Karl has suggested that the committee does not need to be involved in removing vandalism, but this misses the point. Certainly non-committee members can assist with improving and preserving the wiki, but the committee has to be involved. That is what the committee is elected for. The
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
2009/12/14 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com If we hope to get more grassroots involvement in the chapter then IMO we cannot force people to pay $40 and register an account before they can engage in chapter activities. Volunteers should not be forced to pay money to volunteer. Why is it assumed that volunteering == editing the chapter wiki? It seems like a strange argument to me. We're getting projects happening here in Perth and as far as I know neither of our other financial members, both of whom are fully entitled to accounts, have one or have asked for one (if they did we'd certainly enable it, but my point stands.) Increasingly our future is likely going to be with a majority of members who support our mission who are not even from a WMF-project background, and are much more likely to engage with us through social media, messenger, email, telephone and in person. Additionally, there isn't enough people involved on the wiki as it is to justify an argument that more people should be at the table. We have 47 members - if I saw even 10 editing productively, I'd say there could be an argument for more open involvement. As it is, three already busy committee members are the main editors. cheers Andrew ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
'...As it is, three already busy committee members are the main editors.' cough cough !! ;-) (ps. I think Andrew's post sort of has cause and effect a bit bassackwards ;-) I see it this way - if engaging and growing membership is a priority then lowering the bar for engagement is a good thing. I have had quite a few conversations with folk who I believe would be quite interested in Chapter based activity, and I'd really like to say things like 'hey, head over to our wiki and you can sign up' or 'hey, that's a good idea, you should join our wiki, and we can work on it' - or even just organising having the ability to RSVP, leave a note or a question. I think wikis are wonderful collaborative environments, and (as others have said) it feels a bit odd to me to have to try and wave the flag for more open editing here - what about the old 'let's be bold, give it a go, and see!' approach? If the barbarians are at the gates, and the wiki gets taken over with nonsense we could just flip the switch back, no? Any Father Ted fans out there will know what I mean if I say 'ah go on... go on go on go on..' cheers, Peter, PM. ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Getting started
Hi Adam :-) I reckon this list is a pretty good starting point - and although it may seem like everyone is most interested in access rights to the wiki, I think that's probably also just a temporary thing - as you've probably seen, mailing lists can get all focussed on odd things for a while - perhaps getting a topic like this going will channel energies in a good direction too :-) Do you mind me asking where you're based, and roughly what sort of institutions you're interested in contacting? I have in past approached people (and institutions) just by saying 'I'm a wikipedia editor, and I have a few questions, have you got any spare time by any chance?' - there's a page on the wiki detailing some of this stuff here; http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Contacting_external_folk If by any chance you're Sydney based, and roughly Uni age - then there's a particular idea maybe worth talking over too... I agree with others that a regular event might help the Chapter a bit, and have been thinking about Manning Bar at Sydney Uni. or the UTS Campus nearer central - we might also be able to talk to some student associations to see if they're interested in hearing more about wiki (to be honest this could be a chapter thing, or a general wiki thing, it's all going in the same direction) - what do you think? Re : your comments about blog.s etc. - personally I quite like the connection that comes from using MediaWiki, although I take your point that it maybe doesn't look so crash hot - there's always the possiblity of using external tools for specific projects, but I don't think we've really got enough resources at the mo to explore this stuff more - our President and Vice President do have whizz bang blogs at http://brianna.modernthings.org/and http://www.wittylama.com/ respectively (there are probably more, but they're a good start!) cheers, Peter, PM. On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Adam Karpathakis a...@live.com.au wrote: Hi, I'm a fairly new Wikimedian. I hope this is the right place as there is two lists. I would like to get a discussion started on how to approach institutions. I am a confident speaker but to senior people to whom I am Mr Joe Blow off the street, I don't have any firm ideas on gaining trust then commitment from them. It does not help that Public Perception #1 is Wikipedia = unreliable, full of useless trivia. Telling them this isn't Wikipedia is likely to confuse them. So what ideas have others tried that have worked or that may work? Also as a new member while I received a very nice welcome email, and I am grateful for that, I think Wikimedia should have a standard pdf email as well to inform people of relevant contacts in their city, what the org is and what it stands for and why it exists, etc. This should be simple enough to show or pass on to potential members. Interesting fact from uni student associations - New members are your best recruiters, all you have to do is make it easy for them. As everybody seems to be very invested in who should edit the chapter wiki, which to me is an unimportant issue, I would say only that if you want people to support you, you have to look professional. Wikis are good for geekd but discourage tech newbies, so you get very 'filtered' feedback. People also get upset when their contribs get reverted or written over. The obvious solution is to start an open access blog - people love blogs, some of the ones I read attract over 100 comments a day and they are full of useful feedback and ideas while still being moderated spaces protected from spam. Visitors will not confuse a blog with the chapter's official website so you get the best of both worlds. Adam -- Check out Domain Radar NOW! A world FIRST in property search has arrived!http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/157631292/direct/01/ ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families
...I guess this topic is bound to come up - so no harm in a thread or two, I
reckon
No doubt press commentary is worth a look ( see
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html)
for example.
Dealing, as this proposal does, with solely 'RC' content (see
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/A9975715C45E4DE8CA25700D002EF639/$file/Code+26+May_to+attach.pdffor
full description) - it seems to relate to child porn, and the
promotion
of crime / violence (that's the b) and c) points - the a) is a rather vague
'offend.. general standards.. reasonable adult' sort of thing - I'd like to
know a bit more about how it's currently implemented to pass comment)
I suspect that generally speaking, 'RC' content is pretty horrible, and
should be limited as much as possible. I also suspect that I have less faith
in both the technical structure of the proposed filtering, and the
faesability of appropriate list maintainance than Senator Conroy - so I'm
rather of the opinion that it probably won't work very well, and probably
won't deliver on the intention which ('assuming good faith' !) is to try and
stop Australian's accessing material we'd likely all agree they shouldn't
be.
Interestingly, I think it's possible that WMF projects do host 'Category 2
restricted' material (explicitly depict sexual or sexually related activity
between consenting adults in a way that is likely to cause offence to a
reasonable adult) but I don't really have any idea of the ramifications for
that - certainly it wouldn't seem relavent to the Conroy proposal at this
time
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Matt inbgn mattin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Does the chapter have a position on this
proposalhttp://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115
?
Should it have a position?
If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position?
Cheers,
Matt
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families
ps. This section from the 'FAQ' is probably relavent too;
In consultation with owners of popular overseas sites, *consideration is
being given to exempt high traffic sites* from having their material
included on the RC Content list if they implement arrangements to either
take down identified RC-rated content or to block it from access by internet
protocol (IP) addresses in Australia.
( from
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding_and_programs/cybersafety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering/isp_filtering_live_pilot/isp_filtering_-_frequently_asked_questions#14.0-
bolding mine )
It may be useful to look at whether or not WMF projects qualify / are
appropriate for such an exemption - I would think traffic may warrant it?
(whether our content does or not, is a different matter!)
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote:
...I guess this topic is bound to come up - so no harm in a thread or two,
I reckon
No doubt press commentary is worth a look ( see
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html)
for example.
Dealing, as this proposal does, with solely 'RC' content (see
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/A9975715C45E4DE8CA25700D002EF639/$file/Code+26+May_to+attach.pdffor
full description) - it seems to relate to child porn, and the promotion
of crime / violence (that's the b) and c) points - the a) is a rather vague
'offend.. general standards.. reasonable adult' sort of thing - I'd like to
know a bit more about how it's currently implemented to pass comment)
I suspect that generally speaking, 'RC' content is pretty horrible, and
should be limited as much as possible. I also suspect that I have less faith
in both the technical structure of the proposed filtering, and the
faesability of appropriate list maintainance than Senator Conroy - so I'm
rather of the opinion that it probably won't work very well, and probably
won't deliver on the intention which ('assuming good faith' !) is to try and
stop Australian's accessing material we'd likely all agree they shouldn't
be.
Interestingly, I think it's possible that WMF projects do host 'Category 2
restricted' material (explicitly depict sexual or sexually related activity
between consenting adults in a way that is likely to cause offence to a
reasonable adult) but I don't really have any idea of the ramifications for
that - certainly it wouldn't seem relavent to the Conroy proposal at this
time
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Matt inbgn mattin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Does the chapter have a position on this
proposalhttp://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115
?
Should it have a position?
If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position?
Cheers,
Matt
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families
pps. because, in my view, wiki's are better for brainstorming and consensus
building than mailing lists... see
http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/ISP_Filtering too :-)
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:51 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote:
ps. This section from the 'FAQ' is probably relavent too;
In consultation with owners of popular overseas sites, *consideration is
being given to exempt high traffic sites* from having their material
included on the RC Content list if they implement arrangements to either
take down identified RC-rated content or to block it from access by internet
protocol (IP) addresses in Australia.
( from
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding_and_programs/cybersafety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering/isp_filtering_live_pilot/isp_filtering_-_frequently_asked_questions#14.0-
bolding mine )
It may be useful to look at whether or not WMF projects qualify / are
appropriate for such an exemption - I would think traffic may warrant it?
(whether our content does or not, is a different matter!)
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM, private musings
thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote:
...I guess this topic is bound to come up - so no harm in a thread or two,
I reckon
No doubt press commentary is worth a look ( see
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html)
for example.
Dealing, as this proposal does, with solely 'RC' content (see
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/A9975715C45E4DE8CA25700D002EF639/$file/Code+26+May_to+attach.pdffor
full description) - it seems to relate to child porn, and the promotion
of crime / violence (that's the b) and c) points - the a) is a rather vague
'offend.. general standards.. reasonable adult' sort of thing - I'd like to
know a bit more about how it's currently implemented to pass comment)
I suspect that generally speaking, 'RC' content is pretty horrible, and
should be limited as much as possible. I also suspect that I have less faith
in both the technical structure of the proposed filtering, and the
faesability of appropriate list maintainance than Senator Conroy - so I'm
rather of the opinion that it probably won't work very well, and probably
won't deliver on the intention which ('assuming good faith' !) is to try and
stop Australian's accessing material we'd likely all agree they shouldn't
be.
Interestingly, I think it's possible that WMF projects do host 'Category 2
restricted' material (explicitly depict sexual or sexually related activity
between consenting adults in a way that is likely to cause offence to a
reasonable adult) but I don't really have any idea of the ramifications for
that - certainly it wouldn't seem relavent to the Conroy proposal at this
time
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Matt inbgn mattin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Does the chapter have a position on this
proposalhttp://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115
?
Should it have a position?
If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position?
Cheers,
Matt
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families
I don't see this exception applying, as I don't see WMF (or the
community) agreeing to take down this sort of material, as it has not
in the past. I refer to the English Wikipedia article Virgin Killer
(a mid-1970s record album from German heavy metal band the Scorpion),
which has not been taken down despite being considered child porn by
some authorities:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/
As for the WMF's or WMA's positions, I have no idea what they are or
what they should be. I just hope the doctrine of the whole is
considered (as it wasn't generally for Bill Henson's photography)
Peter.
PS. For some reason I cannot edit the Wiki.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:51 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote:
ps. This section from the 'FAQ' is probably relavent too;
In consultation with owners of popular overseas sites, consideration is
being given to exempt high traffic sites from having their material included
on the RC Content list if they implement arrangements to either take down
identified RC-rated content or to block it from access by internet protocol
(IP) addresses in Australia.
( from
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding_and_programs/cybersafety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering/isp_filtering_live_pilot/isp_filtering_-_frequently_asked_questions#14.0
- bolding mine )
It may be useful to look at whether or not WMF projects qualify / are
appropriate for such an exemption - I would think traffic may warrant it?
(whether our content does or not, is a different matter!)
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com
wrote:
...I guess this topic is bound to come up - so no harm in a thread or two,
I reckon
No doubt press commentary is worth a look ( see
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html
) for example.
Dealing, as this proposal does, with solely 'RC' content (see
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/A9975715C45E4DE8CA25700D002EF639/$file/Code+26+May_to+attach.pdf
for full description) - it seems to relate to child porn, and the promotion
of crime / violence (that's the b) and c) points - the a) is a rather vague
'offend.. general standards.. reasonable adult' sort of thing - I'd like to
know a bit more about how it's currently implemented to pass comment)
I suspect that generally speaking, 'RC' content is pretty horrible, and
should be limited as much as possible. I also suspect that I have less faith
in both the technical structure of the proposed filtering, and the
faesability of appropriate list maintainance than Senator Conroy - so I'm
rather of the opinion that it probably won't work very well, and probably
won't deliver on the intention which ('assuming good faith' !) is to try and
stop Australian's accessing material we'd likely all agree they shouldn't
be.
Interestingly, I think it's possible that WMF projects do host 'Category 2
restricted' material (explicitly depict sexual or sexually related activity
between consenting adults in a way that is likely to cause offence to a
reasonable adult) but I don't really have any idea of the ramifications for
that - certainly it wouldn't seem relavent to the Conroy proposal at this
time
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Matt inbgn mattin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Does the chapter have a position on this proposal?
Should it have a position?
If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position?
Cheers,
Matt
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families
Matt, thanks - good question. As yet, no it doesn't have an official position - I have forwarded this to the committee list so one can be reached promptly. Cheers Andrew On 16/12/2009, Matt inbgn mattin...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Does the chapter have a position on this proposalhttp://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115 ? Should it have a position? If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position? Cheers, Matt ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families
Yes, indeed this is a good question and an important issue. On a personal basis I am completely opposed to the filter and I imagine most Wikimedians in Australia are. However, I would caution that the Chapter cannot be seen in word or deed to be responsible for Wikipedia. This was a problem faced by Wikimedia UK in both the virgin killer and the National Portrait Gallery issues - the UK chapter was very careful not to place itself as the official spokesperson for Wikipedia. Of course, the mandate of the Chapter is to advocate for Free Cultural Works and in that sense being involved in political lobbying is something that it can/could/should do. We have previously made a submission to a government inquiry for example. Making a statement about the filter or similar actions is within the chapter's powers. But... in the event that Wikipedia were to become blocked or was caught up in some scandal around this issue, the Chapter can only describe what Wikipedia policies and practices are - it cannot be seen as responsible for the content and have a policy for how to make Wikipedia unblocked or what-have-you. my 2 cents, -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Andrew orderinchao...@gmail.com wrote: Matt, thanks - good question. As yet, no it doesn't have an official position - I have forwarded this to the committee list so one can be reached promptly. Cheers Andrew On 16/12/2009, Matt inbgn mattin...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Does the chapter have a position on this proposalhttp://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115 ? Should it have a position? If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position? Cheers, Matt ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
