As Gnangarra has stated and what I want to state, the reasonable man test has
in it a bias. I have also stated that we may use some equivalent words, not a
must for using "common sense". I understand the limitation of "common sense",
and would like to state such a word is definitely not the
Congrats to everyone (and I'm talking about 50+ people here) who helped to
make this possible!
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 at 15:00, Dan Garry (Deskana) wrote:
> It's so great to see the Universal Code of Conduct come to fruition. As a
> movement we were severly lagging behind others in adopting a code
It's so great to see the Universal Code of Conduct come to fruition. As a
movement we were severly lagging behind others in adopting a code of
conduct, and I'm glad to see we've reached parity. This is a step in the
right direction.
Dan
On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 11:59, María Sefidari wrote:
> Hi
uary 2021 20:33
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Ratification of Universal Code of
> Conduct
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please allow me to add a solution to issue 1 as a brilliant colleague
> reminded my mistake for not putting
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Arthur Cheung
Sent: 20 February 2021 20:33
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Ratification of Universal Code of Conduct
Dear all,
Please allow me to add a solution to issue 1 as a brilliant colleague reminded
my
Dear all,
Please allow me to add a solution to issue 1 as a brilliant colleague reminded
my mistake for not putting any solution for that problem.
My ideal solution is to replace the word "reasonable person" with some
equivalent words like "common sense" though that is not accurate as
Dear all,
I would like to share some ideas regarding UCoC and experience while I was
acting as an administrator of Chinese Wikipedia chatting groups. Please first
allow me to introduce myself: I used to be a former drafter of Chinese
Wikipedia IRC protocol (Zhwiki’s IRCPOL) but abandoned to
Perhaps it is the buoyancy and resilience at large wikis (in terms of
participants' nationality and political tenancy) that seem to shade the
importance of UCoC.
The problem at other languages of Wikipedia where the language is used
primarily at only one or free country, the need quickly surfaces
Thanks for sharing for the WMF board María,
Though I have been highly critical of aspects of the Universal Code of
Conduct, the consultation process has been widely cast and approached
using reasonable, logical, methods. Those WMF employees running those
consultations have tried to keep an open
The servers are owned by WMF. And they can then state basic rules that
all must apply to. And especially for hatred and threats they must by
law enforce a proper policy
We have seen Facebook and Twitter be more proactive and the law in EU
goes further with demanding basic acceptable
>
> the WMF also does not "administer Wikipedia", a mistake they have made for
> the second time now.
a very risky mistake too, hope legal is taking note as it also demonstrates
why its necessary to have a practical and public difference in naming
between Wikimedia and Wikipedia
On Wed, 3 Feb
@Risker: The Global sysop policy was created through a sequence of
proposals, considerable debate and editing, and a vote in which over 1800
contributors participated. The Global ban policy had an RFC on Meta. Afaik,
the Board also had no involvement in the Steward policy, the global
checkuser and
Anne/Risker:
> I've never been convinced that including a mixture of required, forbidden,
> and aspirational standards all in one document is a good idea, and I
> personally struggle to see how including essentially unenforceable aspects of
> the UCoC will do anything other than weaken the
While I often agree with you, Yair Rand, in this case I think you're
mistaken. Aside from the long-ago "community vote" on licensing (which was
pretty much required based on the prior licensing scheme), every
Wikimedia-wide policy has been authorized by the WMF Board of Trustees.
That includes
The WMF continues its steady departure from the community.
It is quite sad to see.
> On Feb 2, 2021, at 2:27 PM, Yair Rand wrote:
>
> The community has not approved the WMF's UCoC. It is not a Wikimedia policy,
> it is not binding, it has no authority. The WMF does not control the
>
The community has not approved the WMF's UCoC. It is not a Wikimedia
policy, it is not binding, it has no authority. The WMF does not control
the Wikimedia projects, and has no jurisdiction in this area.
The community rejected this over and over again. It is harmful that the
Board is pretending
Excellent! My brother in Chile sent me a news story about this, so... word
is already getting around.
Thank you Maria + all who worked on this. S
On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 6:59 AM María Sefidari wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I’m pleased to announce that the Board of Trustees has unanimously
>
gt;
> *- Original Message -*
> *From:* María Sefidari
> *Reply-To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List , <
> wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> *Sent:* 02/02/2021 11:58:26
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Board Ratification of Universal Cod
,
Sent: 02/02/2021 11:58:26
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board Ratification of Universal Code of Conduct
Hi everyone,
I’m pleased to announce that the Board of Trustees has unanimously approved a
Universal Code of Conduct for the Wikimedia projects and movement.[1] A
Universal Code of Conduct
Dear Maria, this is great news and thank you for this announcement!
Really happy to see that happening at last.
Warm regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
> Le 2 févr. 2021 à 12:59, María Sefidari a écrit :
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I’m pleased to announce that the Board of Trustees has
Hi everyone,
I’m pleased to announce that the Board of Trustees has unanimously approved
a Universal Code of Conduct for the Wikimedia projects and movement.[1] A
Universal Code of Conduct was one of the final recommendations of the
Movement Strategy 2030 process - a multi-year, participatory
21 matches
Mail list logo
