Hi Nathan,
For a moment, let's suppose that there is a global policy that all CU checks
must be disclosed to the person being checked, with the information
disclosed in private email, and only consisting of the date of the check and
the user who performed the check. What benefit does this
Two points that might help bring people on different sides of the
issue closer together.
1. How about notifying people that they have been check-usered 2
months after the fact? By that time I hope all investigations are
complete, and is the risk of tipping off the nefarious should be over.
2.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:52 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
Two points that might help bring people on different sides of the
issue closer together.
1. How about notifying people that they have been check-usered 2
months after the fact? By that time I hope all
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 June 2012 16:19, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 June 2012 20:36, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Least surprise is one way to try and get around this problem of not
relying on the
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Stephanie Daugherty
sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:52 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
Two points that might help bring people on different sides of the
issue closer together.
1. How about notifying people that
Am I correct to summorise here than that CU works because people don't
know it doesn't?
Almost. It works because people don't know how, don't care how, or don't
think they are attracting enough attention to avoid being targeted.
___
Wikimedia-l
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:22 AM, En Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Nathan,
For a moment, let's suppose that there is a global policy that all CU
checks must be disclosed to the person being checked, with the information
disclosed in private email, and only consisting of the date of
Am 14.06.2012 19:31, schrieb geni:
On 14 June 2012 18:01, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but this is called editorial judgement
No its called censorship. Or at least it will be called censorship by
enough people to make any debate not worth the effort.
It is called censorship right
On 15 June 2012 13:15, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
I argued at some time that if there was a strong need for such a filter that
there would already services in place that would filter the content or
images. So far i have seen some very week approaches using the Google
On Friday, 15 June 2012 at 13:21, David Gerard wrote:
I don't recall seeing any, but did anyone actually explain why the
market had not provided a filtering solution for Wikipedia, if there's
actually a demand for one?
Market failures do sometimes exist.
Also, because as far as I can tell,
On 15 June 2012 04:55, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Supposedly, the data only survives 3 months. If data is being
retained much longer than this for investigations that go on for months
on the checkuser wiki, that's concerning.
We have well-known trolls and repeat vandals who have been
Hi Nathan,
For a moment, let's suppose that there is a global policy that all CU
checks must be disclosed to the person being checked, with the
information
disclosed in private email, and only consisting of the date of the check
and the user who performed the check. What benefit does this
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 June 2012 13:15, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I argued at some time that if there was a strong need for such a filter
that
there would already services in place that would filter the
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:51 PM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Nathan,
For a moment, let's suppose that there is a global policy that all CU
checks must be disclosed to the person being checked, with the
information
disclosed in private email, and only consisting of the date
Looking into it. Thanks for the notice!
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:46 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
... == Visitors and Guests ==
Visitors to the WMF office in May 2012
1. Jocelyn Berl (NexGenEdu)
Jocelyn was visiting on behalf of hackthefuture.org, not NextGenEdu.
I would
15 matches
Mail list logo
