Re: [Wikimedia-l] An encyclopedia must be conservative (?)

[FRED BAUDER]

Conservative in the sense that it contains significant information limited to 
that derived from reliable sources.

Progressive, to the extent we can include information that is not that well 
sourced but is derived from traditional sources or personal experience. For 
example the Hopi creation story, or a person's knowledge about their home town. 
With respect to medicine, I like to see information included that goes beyond 
the standard of care, but not with some aura of reliability attached to it, 
just the facts surrounding it, such as it being recent research or anecdotal 
reports of practitioners.

Wikipedia long ago lost the battle with respect to inclusion of some 
information which in only included due to the persistence of biased editors who 
have acquired skill in manipulating our guidelines. Generally, that tends to 
the authoritarian left. 

Fred Bauder

 
- Original Message -
From: Ziko van Dijk 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: Wed, 27 May 2020 09:36:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] An encyclopedia must be conservative (?)

Dear fellows,

Some time ago, Joseph Reagle wrote that an encyclopedia must be
progressive. In my personal view, something "progressive" sounds to me
intuitively more sympathetic than something "conservative". But of course,
these are only two words loaden with meaning, and reality is always more
complex.

It seems to me that many Wikipedians or Wikimedians think of themselves as
being progressive and modern. Our wikis are a tribute to science and
enlightenment. Spontaneity and a laissez-faire-attitude are held in high
regard; "productive chaos" and "anarchy" are typical for wikis.

When I had a closer look at our values and ideas, I got the impression that
the opposite is true. Many attitudes and ideals sound to me more like
bureaucracy and traditionalism:
* being thorough, with regard to content and writing about it
* community spirit
* treating everyone equally without regard of the person (the highest ideal
of the Prussian civil servant)
* individual initiative
* reliability

What do you think? Is this just my personal or national background, or has
Wikipedia been build up on a different basis than we usually tell ourselves
and others?

Kind regards
Ziko
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

[FRED BAUDER]

An executive summary is common at the head of many reports and articles. Only 
sections in the body of the article would be cited. Somewhat like a lede but 
more detailed. The main body of the article would still have a lede.

Fred Bauder



___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Official disclaimers

[FRED BAUDER]

Institutional memory. Why it said what it said in the first place.

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Szymon Grabarczuk 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 04:51:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Official disclaimers

Or Jimbo? :D

On Wed, 27 Jun 2018, 10:36 FRED BAUDER,  wrote:

> If you edit that page you should be aware of the legal implications of
> what you write. You can consult our lawyers or Jimbo if you need to. It
> should be tailored to whatever is unique about your language or nation. Not
> sure if there is some global policy somewhere. It is legal. It limits
> liability by notifying users of various realities, such as, we cannot, and
> do not, guarantee reliability, so use at your own risk.
>
> Fred Bauder
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Amir E. Aharoni 
> To: wikimedia-l 
> Sent: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 03:50:02 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Official disclaimers
>
> Hi,
>
> All WMF wikis have a "Disclaimers" link at the bottom.
>
> The target page often includes language that sounds legal, but they can be
> edited by people who don't have any official legal role or certification.
>
> Is there a general, global policy about how the name of this link is
> translated, and about what is written on the page where it leads?
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Official disclaimers

[FRED BAUDER]

If you edit that page you should be aware of the legal implications of what you 
write. You can consult our lawyers or Jimbo if you need to. It should be 
tailored to whatever is unique about your language or nation. Not sure if there 
is some global policy somewhere. It is legal. It limits liability by notifying 
users of various realities, such as, we cannot, and do not, guarantee 
reliability, so use at your own risk.

Fred Bauder

- Original Message -
From: Amir E. Aharoni 
To: wikimedia-l 
Sent: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 03:50:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Official disclaimers

Hi,

All WMF wikis have a "Disclaimers" link at the bottom.

The target page often includes language that sounds legal, but they can be
edited by people who don't have any official legal role or certification.

Is there a general, global policy about how the name of this link is
translated, and about what is written on the page where it leads?

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

Very good. If any willing editor runs into trouble or is made to feel unwelcome 
or subjected to unfair criticism, that is the time to intervene. We are however 
not in a position to discourage women or minority editors from "recruiting" or 
encouraging other minority editors or women to edit. Any difficulties with that 
they will have to learn for themselves though experience with those they have 
recruited and feedback from them.

I think we can point out areas of knowledge that are poorly covered, as well as 
those that are overdone.

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Romaine Wiki 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: Mon, 14 May 2018 23:39:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

Was it the first time I noticed this subject in the Wikimedia movement, no.
It happens too many times that people get frustrated because the gender,
color of their skin or native background is the key reason to ask someone,
instead of the qualities that this person has.

There are two main reasons why I do not go into further detail:
1. the privacy of this individual is something I can't ignore
2. My previous email gives an example in a generic topic, and the topic is
not about an individual case.

Also is zooming in on an individual case not a solution, as we need to be
aware as movement how we are perceived by others.

I disagree that it is related to the attitude of an individual. The way how
someone will respond to it is depending on the attitude yes. But I think
that being asked for something just because of the colour of your face is
degrading you from being a person with various qualities and/or the work
you do. The possible demotivation is the result, but the core is in the
approach itself.

But yes, it is a difficult topic. But in this case it is much harder for
that individual who (temporarily?) gave up on editing/contributing.


I think it comes to inclusiveness, being able to include anyone independent
from how a face looks like. being inclusive to anyone, so that all the
knowledge of the world can be collected.
What we should not do is trying to be inclusive by being exclusive. We
should be making it possible for anyone to have a safe and pleasant space
and in that way bridge the gaps, instead of just trying to ask specific
people to come for the colour of their skin, etc. As said, that last thing
is creating gaps instead of closing them.

Romaine



2018-05-07 8:03 GMT+02:00 Amir E. Aharoni :

> This is a sensitive topic, and I'm a white man myself, so please slap me if
> I say something dumb.
>
> 2018-05-07 7:10 GMT+03:00 Romaine Wiki :
>
> >
> > What has happened?
> >
> > She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
> > 1. she is a woman
> > 2. she is from a minority
> > 3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
> > Europe/US)
> >
> > and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then
> > mine (Caucasian).
> >
> > At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the
> > Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.
> >
>
> By whom?
>
> By the people who invited her?
>
> By other participants in the event?
>
> By other editors in the same wiki site?
>
> By the readers?
>
>
>
> > She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she
> is
> > from a minority, nor ... etc. This is offensive.
> > She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on
> > Wikipedia/etc.
> >
>
> This makes a lot of sense to me, but that's just me and attitudes are
> different for each person.
>
>
> > Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches
> > to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this.
>
>
> Again, it's probably demotivating to some. Maybe to 98%, maybe to 30%,
> maybe to 5%. I honestly don't know.
>
> I believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as
> > movement.
> >
>
> I don't know if its the biggest problem. On this mailing list we are a
> small group of meta-active Wikimedians, and we are the minority among
> editors. We don't actually represent all the editors. And of course the
> editors are a tiny minority compared to the readers.
>
> I'd argue that the hard time that some editors are giving newcomers is a
> bigger problem. Gender is certainly a part of that, and there are many
> other parts.
>
> We meta-wikimedians can find a better way to invite people to events, and
> we can change ourselves. That doesn't sound too hard. Changing the wider
> editor culture is harder.
>
> I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism
> > .
> >
>
> Yes, that's when representation is given to a weakened group, but that
> representation is too weak to be meaningful, and may do more harm than
> good.
>
>
> > I believe the only way to close the gaps related to gender, minorities,
> > etc, is to create an atmosphere in what everyone is ap

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

Publishers employ people who check out information in books being published. 
For accuracy and to avoid legal problems.

When I used Angela Davis's autobiography to write her article, there was a 
passage about her encountering racial bias in Germany when she was going to 
school there. Is that just her perception, or a fact? Knowing people, I had no 
problem using it as a fact, but people have objected and it is gone now.

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Paulo Santos Perneta 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:53:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

It's reliable concerning the opinions and vision of the author on the
things he describes, not the facts themselves.

And unless I'm misunderstanding this, fact checkers (critics?) are actually
secondary sources, I believe?

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:48 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER :

> Autobiographical writing published by the mainstream press with editors
> and fact checkers is more reliable.
>
> Fred
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Paulo Santos Perneta 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> There is a difference between the two situations. The king's deed and the
> parish books are primary sources, but both are official documents, subject
> to peer review. Diaries and autobiographies are primary sources as well,
> but generally not subjected to any review. There should be some way to
> distinguish between the two types.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-12 13:40 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER :
>
> > And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in
> > preference to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule
> > though. A diary should not be used directly, and an autobiography with
> > great care, depending on how it was edited and published.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Paulo Santos Perneta 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> > reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
> reliable
> > than any secondary sources quoting it.
> >
> > As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> > sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
> >
> > There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
> be
> > used instead of a primary source in those situations.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood 
> :
> >
> > > Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and
> have
> > > similar problems. You will have to clarify:
> > > In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and
> > > verifiable?
> > > Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
> > sources
> > > produced by the subject?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
> > primary
> > > sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original
> sources,
> > as
> > > in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> > > should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> > > generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this
> confusion
> > in
> > > Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> > > articles.
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > >
> > > 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron :
> > >
> > > > Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
> > > traditions
> > > > come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an
> > > > encyclopedia using such sources.
> > > >
> > > > Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
> > use
> > > > primary sources quite often for papers, and proj

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

People often misinterpret the rules, occasionally in disingenuous ways. Best to 
not get too excited. Over the years there is a general gradual movement toward 
sane editing and a person who starts editing as a teenager should be a fairly 
good editor by the time they reach 50.

Fred


- Original Message -
From: Paulo Santos Perneta 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:50:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

Yes, it should be as you say. But my experience in Wikipedia is that the
confuse definition of primary source often leads to such egregious
situations as some newspaper saying what the director of an institution is,
is prefered to the very institution correcting the name. I've seen this
over and over.

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:45 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER :

> Just as we allow a firm to list their officers or a town to correct the
> name of the mayor, if there are no factual issues, any source is fine. With
> respect to significant disputed issues professional  academic analysis is
> vital, think cold fusion.
>
> Fred
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Todd Allen 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
> nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
>
> However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
> primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
> come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
> sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
> than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
> primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
> factual.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> > reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
> reliable
> > than any secondary sources quoting it.
> >
> > As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> > sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
> >
> > There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
> be
> > used instead of a primary source in those situations.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood 
> :
> >
> > > Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and
> have
> > > similar problems. You will have to clarify:
> > > In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and
> > > verifiable?
> > > Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
> > sources
> > > produced by the subject?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
> > primary
> > > sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original
> sources,
> > as
> > > in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> > > should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> > > generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this
> confusion
> > in
> > > Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> > > articles.
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > >
> > > 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron :
> > >
> > > > Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
> > > traditions
> > > > come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an
> > > > encyclopedia using such sources.
> > > >
> > > > Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
> > use
> > > > primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those
> are
> > > > generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an
> > > > encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are
> typic

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

Autobiographical writing published by the mainstream press with editors and 
fact checkers is more reliable.

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Paulo Santos Perneta 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

There is a difference between the two situations. The king's deed and the
parish books are primary sources, but both are official documents, subject
to peer review. Diaries and autobiographies are primary sources as well,
but generally not subjected to any review. There should be some way to
distinguish between the two types.

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:40 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER :

> And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in
> preference to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule
> though. A diary should not be used directly, and an autobiography with
> great care, depending on how it was edited and published.
>
> Fred
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Paulo Santos Perneta 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable
> than any secondary sources quoting it.
>
> As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
>
> There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be
> used instead of a primary source in those situations.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood :
>
> > Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have
> > similar problems. You will have to clarify:
> > In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and
> > verifiable?
> > Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
> sources
> > produced by the subject?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
> primary
> > sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources,
> as
> > in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> > should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> > generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion
> in
> > Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> > articles.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron :
> >
> > > Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
> > traditions
> > > come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an
> > > encyclopedia using such sources.
> > >
> > > Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
> use
> > > primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are
> > > generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an
> > > encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically
> > > sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
> > >
> > > Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and
> > > traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My
> > > personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and
> > > notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
> include
> > > far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
> > >
> > > - Cameron C.
> > > Cameron11598
> > >
> > >  On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > > wrote 
> > >
> > > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

 > > > credibility we have.
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Peter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > On
> > > > > > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > >
> > > > > > notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
> > > > language
> > > > > > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
> > > > manage
> > > > > > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
> > western
> > > > > styles
> > > > > > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
> is
> > > how
> > > > > do
> > > > > > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
> > > them,
> > > > > > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > > the only.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
> > current
> > > > > > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
> citations
> > > > from
> > > > > > books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
> > > value
> > > > > > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
> > question
> > > > is
> > > > > do
> > > > > > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the
> > sum
> > > of
> > > > > all
> > > > > > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
> > > knowledge
> > > > > > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
> > wikipedia
> > > > but
> > > > > > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
> alternative
> > > > > > knowledge streams
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
> where
> > a
> > > > > member
> > > > > > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
> though:
> > > > > > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > > > > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
> as a
> > > > > > movement
> > > > > > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> > > > > > personally
> > > > > > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> > > > > > impressions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > > > > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > > > > > > escribió:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
> > > > produce
> > > > > > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
> > > opens
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
> > remain
> > > > > open
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
> > > alternatives.
> > > > > > Other
> > > > > > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
> probably
> > > not
> > > > be
> > > > > > > open
> > > > > > > &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

t; > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > > > > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
> > spite
> > > of
> > > > > > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
> > > verifiability
> > > > > > > requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith
> are
> > > > > things
> > > > > > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
> > > > evidence,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
> > > > intangible,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
> > > track
> > > > > > > record and proof of identity.
> > > > > > > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not
> see
> > > it
> > > > as
> > > > > > > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as
> a
> > > > > reliable
> > > > > > > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
> > destroying
> > > > the
> > > > > > > credibility we have.
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Peter
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> > lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > > On
> > > > > > > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > > > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
> > > > > language
> > > > > > > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These
> culture
> > > > > manage
> > > > > > > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
> > > western
> > > > > > styles
> > > > > > > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
> > is
> > > > how
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we
> respect
> > > > them,
> > > > > > > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently
> do
> > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > the only.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
> > > current
> > > > > > > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
> > citations
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider
> and
> > > > value
> > > > > > > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
> > > question
> > > > > is
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share
> the
> > > sum
> > > > of
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
> > > > knowledge
> > > > > > > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
> > > wikipedia
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
> > alternative
> > > > > > > knowledge streams
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
> > where
> > > a
> > > > > > member
> > > > > > > > of Wikimedia Chile was i

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

gt; > value
> > > > > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
> question
> > > is
> > > > do
> > > > > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the
> sum
> > of
> > > > all
> > > > > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
> > knowledge
> > > > > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
> wikipedia
> > > but
> > > > > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> > > > > knowledge streams
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where
> a
> > > > member
> > > > > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > > > > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > > > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> > > > > movement
> > > > > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> > > > > personally
> > > > > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> > > > > impressions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > > > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > > > > > escribió:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
> > > produce
> > > > > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
> > opens
> > > > the
> > > > > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
> remain
> > > > open
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
> > alternatives.
> > > > > Other
> > > > > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably
> > not
> > > be
> > > > > > open
> > > > > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Peter
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> > lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > > On
> > > > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
> canon
> > of
> > > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> > > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> > > > saying
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
> notable
> > > > > enough,
> > > > > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon
> > of
> > > > > > > knowledge.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > JP
> > > > > > > User:Amqui
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
> > > fredb...@fairpoint.net>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Original Message -
> > > > > > > > From: Jane Darnell 
> > > > > &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

t; impressions.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers!
> > > > >
> > > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > > > > escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
> > produce
> > > > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
> opens
> > > the
> > > > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
> > > open
> > > > to
> > > > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
> alternatives.
> > > > Other
> > > > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably
> not
> > be
> > > > > open
> > > > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Peter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > On
> > > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
> of
> > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> > > saying
> > > > > that
> > > > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> > > > enough,
> > > > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon
> of
> > > > > > knowledge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JP
> > > > > > User:Amqui
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
> > fredb...@fairpoint.net>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Original Message -
> > > > > > > From: Jane Darnell 
> > > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > > > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
> never
> > > be
> > > > > able
> > > > > > > to correct it."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
> > of
> > > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
> > Wikipedia
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
> > > bias
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
> full
> > > > > > correction
> > > > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fred
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ___
> > > > > > > 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] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

oducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
>>> the
>>>> authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
>>>> record and proof of identity.
>>>> This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
>>>> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
>> reliable
>>>> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
>>>> credibility we have.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Peter
>>>> 
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Gnangarra
>>>> Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>>>> 
>>>> notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and
>> language
>>>> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture
>> manage
>>>> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
>>> styles
>>>> were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how
>>> do
>>>> we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
>>>> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
>> not
>>>> the only.
>>>> 
>>>> There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
>>>> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
>> from
>>>> books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
>>>> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
>> is
>>> do
>>>> we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
>>> all
>>>> knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
>>>> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
>> but
>>>> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
>>>> knowledge streams
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
>>> member
>>>>> of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
>>>>> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
>>>>> 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
>>>> movement
>>>>> or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
>>>> personally
>>>>> do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
>>>> impressions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>> 
>>>>> El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
>>>>> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
>>>>> escribió:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
>> produce
>>>>>> reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
>>> the
>>>>>> doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
>>> open
>>>> to
>>>>>> anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
>>>> Other
>>>>>> projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
>> be
>>>>> open
>>>>>> for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
>>> On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
>>>>>> Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
>>>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
>>>>>> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted k

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

ch causing problems
> > >
> > >  notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and
> language
> > > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture
> manage
> > > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
> > styles
> > > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how
> > do
> > > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
> > > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
> not
> > > the only.
> > >
> > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> > > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
> from
> > > books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
> > > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
> is
> > do
> > > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
> > all
> > > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
> > > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> > >
> > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
> but
> > > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> > > knowledge streams
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
> > member
> > > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > > >
> > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> > > movement
> > > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> > > personally
> > > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> > > impressions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers!
> > > >
> > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
> produce
> > > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
> > the
> > > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
> > open
> > > to
> > > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
> > > Other
> > > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
> be
> > > > open
> > > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> > On
> > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > >
> > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > > > >
> > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> > saying
> > > > that
> > > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> > > enough,
> > > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > > > > knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > JP
> > > > > User:Amqui
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
> fredb...@fairpoint.net>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Original Message -
> > > > > > From: Jane Darnell 
> > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

Lucille B. Buchanan might make an article: 
http://www.blackpast.org/aaw/jones-lucy-lucile-berkeley-buchanan-1884-1989

Fred


___
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] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

 knowledge.  These culture manage
> > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
> styles
> > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how
> do
> > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
> > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not
> > the only.
> >
> > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from
> > books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
> > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is
> do
> > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
> all
> > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
> > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> >
> > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but
> > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> > knowledge streams
> >
> >
> > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
> member
> > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > >
> > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> > movement
> > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> > personally
> > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> > impressions.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers!
> > >
> > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce
> > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
> the
> > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
> open
> > to
> > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
> > Other
> > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be
> > > open
> > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > >
> > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > > >
> > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> > Wikipedia
> > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> saying
> > > that
> > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> > enough,
> > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > > > knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > JP
> > > > User:Amqui
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - Original Message -
> > > > > From: Jane Darnell 
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > >
> > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
> be
> > > able
> > > > > to correct it."
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > The knowledge industry could do b

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

- Original Message -
From: Jane Darnell 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be able
to correct it."

Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, 
the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.

The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia will 
reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias issues are 
noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full correction of all 
bias, but we can contribute or even lead.

Fred


___
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] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

Women editors might have something to add about nursing and the history of 
nursing that adds gender-specific value, increasing our coverage of the 
subject. So a workshop at a nursing convention might be valuable.

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Amir E. Aharoni 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: Mon, 07 May 2018 04:52:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

2018-05-07 9:55 GMT+03:00 Jane Darnell :

> Amir,
> It's funny - after reading your mail I wondered if I had read Romaine's
> mail correctly.


You had probably read it correctly.

Generally, I'm wondering whether direct invitations to women or people of
color (or women of color, etc.) work as they should. Many people say that
they work. They may be right, at least in part. If I understand correctly,
Romaine says that he has doubts about it, and he's probably right, too, at
least for some people.

I'm just trying to say that diversity is important. How do we reach it? I
don't have very good answers. Probably not "one size fits all".

I mean, I want that woman about whom Romaine was speaking to contribute her
knowledge. I want everybody to contribute their knowledge. Unless I missed
it, Romaine didn't write what is her expertise, but just for the sake of
the example, let's make something up and say that it's Astronomy.

Do I want her to contribute her knowledge about Astronomy? Of course I do.
Should I tell her that I hope that she contributes her knowledge about
Astronomy? I probably should. (Do correct me if I'm wrong.)

Do I think that she has something to say about Astronomy that men don't?
Yes, it's quite possible. Should I tell her that? Hmm, I don't know. Maybe,
maybe not. I think that this is the question that Romaine is trying to
raise. And again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
___
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

Women and other unrepresented people are invited to edit, to become skilled in 
editing (lots of practice and experience needed), and get well-deserved credit 
for excellence, but it is a process. Everyone stumbles at first, the point is 
not run anyone off or blame the difficulties associated with getting up to 
speed on gender or whatever.

Fred Bauder

- Original Message -
From: Romaine Wiki 
To: Wikimedia 
Cc: Wikimedia Gendergap mailing list 
Sent: Mon, 07 May 2018 00:10:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

Hi all,

On Wikipedia and in our movement we are aware of the gendergap that exists
and all kinds of activities are organised to make the gap smaller. I think
this is great as no single gap should exist in collecting all the knowledge
in the world, as well as our movement should be diverse as the world's
population is diverse.

The statistics are clear on this matter, this is something to take care of.
However, a part of the approach is causing problems, because general
statistics should not be applied on individuals as that reduces humans to
numbers only.

The reason why I bring this up is because I recently received an e-mail
from a user in the Wikimedia movement who has (temporarily?) stopped
contributing as she is not happy with a specific aspect of the atmosphere
in Wikimedia.

She does not speak out at loud, but I think we must be aware as movement of
the silent cry, therefore this e-mail to bring awareness (but with respect
for the privacy of this individual).


What has happened?

She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
1. she is a woman
2. she is from a minority
3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
Europe/US)

and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then
mine (Caucasian).

At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the
Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.

She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she is
from a minority, nor ... etc. This is offensive.
She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on
Wikipedia/etc.



Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches
to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this. I
believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as movement.


I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism>.


I believe the only way to close the gaps related to gender, minorities,
etc, is to create an atmosphere in what everyone is appreciated for what
she/he is doing, completely unrelated to the gender someone appears to
have, the ethnicity, race, area of the world, etc etc etc etc.

Thank you!

Romaine
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Defamation of Wikipedia in a Telugu (te) Motion Picture

[FRED BAUDER]

We should sue Billy the Kid while we are at it. And Hitler... Imagine the 
bragging he does down in Hell.

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga 
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:45:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Defamation of Wikipedia in a Telugu (te) Motion  Picture

Greetings,

Introducing myself, I am Krishna Chaitanya Velaga from Andhra Pradesh,
India. My user name is "Krishna Chaitanya Velaga", I've been actively
contributing to en Wikipedia and Commons since December 2014. I also form
the Executive Committee of Wikimedia Chapter (India). My mother tongue is
Telugu (te).

A Telugu movie titled Paisa Vasool
 was released on 1
September 2017. In the movie, male lead boasts himself by referring to
Wikipedia. His statement in the movie is as follows: *"36 brawls, 24
murders, 36 stabbings, This is visible record in Wikipedia" *(The same may
be observed from the trailer of the movie, between 0:22 to 0:32 at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVUZ-jG_i3c). As far I am concerned I feel
this as serious defamation of the brand, the community and the work we do.
It really degrades the reality and the efforts we put to produce
encyclopedic content to the readers.

In this context, I request the community to take interest in their to voice
their opinions, and also discuss any legal action to be enforced.


Regards,

[image: photo]
*Krishna Chaitanya Velaga*
Member | Executive Committee

Wikimedia Chapter (India) 
+91 94948 65420 | kcvelaga.blogspot.in
___
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[FRED BAUDER]

I think we could hire professional fact checkers and target articles 
that have gotten off track. I don't think a great deal of money would 
be necessary to set an example, and illustrate some of our notorious 
problems. In general more money, however, draws flies even better than 
shit.


Fred Bauder

On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:08:08 +0100
 David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
Are there any activities that could have a meaningful impact if we 
ask

donors for such amount of seed money? Are there reasons to do so?

Do we have the guts to do so?

Do we have the organizational capital to handle it? Or can we get 
there

soon?

Do we have the moral right to take a lead in the world and ask for 
as much

resources as needed?

Is our leader and our members willing to take big undertakings?

Are most of us ready to live in fear while the values that we cherry 
most

would crumble under our own eyes?

Would it matter much if we as a movement would disappear? Or is it a
struggle always a positive answer against the shadows in the world?

Can we offer anything else in this world than truth, free knowledge, 
and an

open inclusive environment?

Would you take best wishes from a stranger like me?


Micru
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

[FRED BAUDER]

"The Whopper, also known as America’s favorite burger, " is a problem 
as it implies that the Whopper is the favorite burger of the American 
public. Perhaps it is, but that is a trademark, not the result of a 
survey. The other stuff, "a flame-[[grilling|grilled]] patty made with 
100% beef with no preservatives, no fillers and is topped with daily 
sliced tomatoes and onions, fresh lettuce, pickles, ketchup and mayo, 
served on a soft sesame seed bun." happens to be factually true and 
cannot be said of the products of, say, McDonalds where the "fixings" 
arrive in delivery trucks.


Fred Bauder

On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 08:06:50 +0200
 "Peter Southwood"  wrote:
James, 
Which parts of those statements to you consider factually 
inaccurate, and which parts do you consider misleading in some other 
way?
Cheers, 
Peter


-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
Behalf Of James Heilman

Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 5:32 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing 
companies that offer paid editing services


Wikipedia is not for sale. We are not simply another advertising 
venue available to the corporations of the world. We have mechanisms 
for corporations to suggest changes to our content and it is called 
the talk page.


Lets look at the changes likely made by Burger King staff in more 
detail:


In this edit this sentence "The Whopper is a burger, consisting of a 
flame-grilled patty made with 100% beef with no preservatives, no 
fillers and is topped with daily sliced tomatoes and onions, fresh 
lettuce, pickles, ketchup and mayo, served on a soft sesame seed 
bun."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&type=revision&diff=773836335&oldid=773833110>
was
added not once but twice. And than was added again following its 
first removal.


In this edit this sentence "The Whopper, also known as America’s 
favorite burger, has a flame-[[grilling|grilled]] patty made with 
100% beef with no preservatives, no fillers and is topped with daily 
sliced tomatoes and onions, fresh lettuce, pickles, ketchup and mayo, 
served on a soft sesame seed bun. Whopper and America’s Favorite 
Burger are trademarks of Burger King Corporation.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&diff=773807497&oldid=773585358>"
was added.

One of the accounts did not disclosed their relationship to the 
company in question. And yes this is spam, so they did spam 
Wikipedia. See [[WP:PEACOCK]] 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery>
and [[WP:NPOV]] 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars>, the latter of 
which is pillar number 2.



This is not the first time the marketing department at a multi 
billion dollar company has tried to adjust our content for the 
company's / shareholder's gains. A few years back a couple of the 
heads of marketing at Medtronic 
<https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/>,
along with a number of physicians one of whom they had paid more 
than a quarter of a million dollars, tried to remove the best 
available evidence regarding vertebroplasty, a procedure which 
medicare spent at the time more than a billion dollars a year on. 
Half a dozen paid editors working together can easily get a majority 
in many of our decision making processes.


Our readers deserve a Wikipedia which is written independently of 
the subject mater in question. Our readers have been harmed by 
undisclosed paid editing in the past. These are individuals typically 
less savvy and less wealthy than the executives at a large 
corporation. I am sorry but our readers are the ones that deserve our 
attention and our protection. We already have the Wifione case 
<http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/manipulating-wikipedia-promote-bogus-business-school-316133.html>
were Wikipedia was used to promote an unethical Indian university 
and therefore we played a role in misleading the students who 
applied. We must do better.


James

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Gnangarra  
wrote:


but they didnt spam, nor did they introduce any false hoods, or 
remove 
controversial content, they just put a description of the Whopper 
for 
the opening sentence.  As Andy said rather than biting and creating 
arguments amongst ourselves would it not be better to have used the 
opportunity to benefit the community in a positive way.


On 14 April 2017 at 18:44, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 14 April 2017 at 11:38, Andy Mabbett 


wrote:
>
> > A far better (and less WP:BITEy) outcome would be to get then to
>
>
> Pretty sure WP:BITE doesn't apply in the case of deliberate abuse 
> for clear purposes of spamming.

>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
&g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

[FRED BAUDER]

Volunteers who have access to advanced tools are required to identify 
themselves.


The problem with volunteers dealing with extremely sensitive matters 
is that they have to answer to a committee. When the committee starts 
demanding pre-approval it becomes impossible for a volunteer to 
function because the procedure is too cumbersome and punishing. Which 
is why certain matters have gradually shifted to staff who can make 
quick decisions and have clear authority to do so. Some things are 
done by, or at the direction of, the legal department, for example.


Fred Bauder

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 21:02:13 -0800
 Adrian Raddatz  wrote:
I don't lack faith in the community, I just recognize that not 
everything
needs to be dealt with by us. Building an encyclopedia and dealing 
with
these sensitive cases are very different things, and community 
volunteers

lack both the resources and the responsibility to deal with them.
Volunteers with the most advanced permissions on the site only need 
to sign
an agreement - the WMF doesn't know who they are, and there is no 
way to
hold them accountable for properly using the information they have 
access
to beyond removing their access. Staff, on the other hand, are known 
and
can have legal action taken against them beyond their termination in 
cases

of abuse. Simple as that.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Pine W  wrote:


AJ,

> "Just because volunteers are competent enough to deal with 
something

doesn't
> mean that they should be."

Can you clarify that, please?

> "Again, the difference here is between these
> sensitive cases being handled by trained, experienced, legally
accountable
> professionals, or by volunteers who are part-time at best."

I am puzzled by your lack of faith in the quality of work of our 
peers

in the community. Why be so negative? We have produced Wikipedia;
surely that is evidence that volunteers can be highly capable.

Certainly not all volunteers are, of course, and some of them end up
banned for good reason. But in general, I think there is good
reason to have faith in our peers.

I'm not sure how volunteers are not "legally accountable"; perhaps 
you

could clarify that point.

> How much time are you expecting the community-vetted volunteers to 
put in

> here? Do we not already have our own responsibilities?

I agree with you that a good use of WMF funds is to pay staff to 
work on

investigations and enforcement. This can be done in such a way that
there is always some kind of community element in a decision-maker 
role

regarding whether to ban a member of the community.

In addition to staff resources, I would like to see WMF put more 
effort

into
expanding the population of the volunteer community, particularly 
long-term

volunteers who gain sufficient knowledge and experience to serve in
higher-skill roles such as CU/OS, technical development, outreach to
GLAM+STEM organizations, and mentorship of new Wikimedians.

> You say that the current
> system is broken, because... why?

I say that the current system is inappropriate (not broken) because
WMF should not be making decisions about who is banned from the 
community.
The purpose of WMF is to serve and nurture the community, not to 
rule it.


> The community doesn't deal with it?
> That's a good thing. The community shouldn't need to deal with 
this

stuff.
> It's a blessing, not a curse.

I agree that having staff involved in investigations and enforcement 
is a

good thing.
But as I said, I find it inappropriate and unwise for WMF to (1) 
have a

largely opaque
process for making these decisions and (2) exclude the community 
from

the decision-making process.

> It might be worth explaining some more of the
> bans process publicly, perhaps on a wiki page, to alleviate fears 
that

it's
> just being used to get rid of people that the Foundation doesn't 
like.


I agree with you.

I think that global bans are reasonable options in some cases. In 
terms of
quantity, I would like to see more of them and to see bans initiated 
more
quickly, such as against undisclosed COI editors who violate the 
terms of

service.
I would also like to see better technical tools for enforcing bans. 
But I

want the
community, in some fashion (probably through some kind of committee, 
as
has been suggested elsewhere in this thread) to make the decision 
about

whether to impose a global ban, in consultation with WMF.

Pine
___
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,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


__

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[FRED BAUDER]

A blanket ban sweeps in possible contributors and potential employees.

A well-crafted policy, properly administered, generally, would not.

Fred Bauder

On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 04:15:33 -0500
 Yair Rand  wrote:
When and how the Wikimedia Foundation should associate itself 
publicly on

policy and political issues is not a new topic, and (as I have quite
recently discovered) official guidelines have been around for nearly 
five
years now. The Guidelines on Foundation Policy and Political 
Association
[1], established by WMF Legal for internal use, specifically bring 
up the
issue of "public endorsement or critique" of political policies, 
listing
several requirements for doing so, and further requiring that they 
"should
protect and advance Wikimedia’s mission “to empower and engage 
people
around the world to collect and develop educational content under a 
free
license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively 
and

globally.” Accordingly, we will not support causes unrelated to or
inconsistent with that mission." The document goes on to list 
several

examples such as anti-war activism and animal rights.

I think this is an excellent and necessary policy.

The recent blog post says "We strongly urge the U.S. administration 
to

withdraw the recent executive order ... closing the doors to many
refugees." I have yet to hear any arguments regarding how that 
statement

specifically protects and advances our mission.

I have, on the other hand, heard on this list many arguments by 
people
explaining reasons why they feel very strongly that actions must be 
taken
against a certain country's administration, about how they expect 
that many
expected policies on general issues will cause harm in areas that 
they

value. Areas that are not directly related to our mission.

I can imagine that some may feel that certain areas of immigration 
and
travel policy may be so closely associated to Wikimedia's 
functioning that
action on that front must be taken. I would expect such an issue to 
be
discussed independently of the personal political wishes of those 
arguing.
If decisions are made on the basis that the only relevant issue is 
whether

any action would further Wikimedia's goals, I would trust that such
decisions were sufficiently reasonable.

However, if that is not the basis used, and some in the community 
and WMF
are willing to have their own independent individual values and 
goals
override those of the movement, to harm Wikimedia goals to support 
their
own political goals... I would find it very difficult to support 
such a
decision. I don't mean to speak too harshly, but the united goals 
and

vision of the movement are the _only_ thing that holds this diverse
community together, the only means by which Wikimedia exists, and if
outside aims can take priority, we would likely find that many would 
not
appreciate some using Wikimedia as yet another bullet in someone's 
arsenal

to be sacrificed in a political crusade, to say the least.

"Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public 
park. It
is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, 
to

learn, to share our knowledge with others."

Please let us keep it that way.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_
and_Political_Association_Guideline
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[FRED BAUDER]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 13:35:30 +0100
 Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
Well, there were speakers who were not able to attend Wikimanias in 
Haifa
and Cairo, to start with, because of similar bans, and the general 
response
then was "Whatever place we choose, someone is always 
discriminated". I am
not sure whether this is a healthy attitude or not, but I do not see 
why
the US travel ban leads to a statement whereas existing bans say in 
Arab

world, or Armenia-Azerbaijan or whatever do not.

Cheers
Yaroslav


The US ban is fragile, poorly supported in law; the others are 
entrenched and what we do is not likely to influence them.


Fred


___
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] don't run away from the mess we've made, fix it (Re: Concerns in general)

[FRED BAUDER]

Whatever the earliest editors did has long been superseded by liberal 
bias. (It was nearly impossible to insert even neutral information 
about Hillary Clinton into her article) It is important to stay in the 
US unless you wish to experience what lack of an enforced 
constitutional guarantee of free speech means in practice.


Fred Bauder




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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] "Can Wikipedia save the internet?": Wikipedia and political neutrality

[FRED BAUDER]

Craig,

That was what I was thinking. After the election, when there is little 
reason to have a article in that shape, would be a good time to 
extensively review it.


Fred

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:59:09 -0400
 Craig Newmark  wrote:

Fred, thanks!

Worth reviewing, after people have recovered from the election. How
about...reminding me two weeks from today. I might've recovered by 
then,

seriously...

Thanks!

Craig Newmark

founder, craigslist

On Nov 2, 2016 12:44 PM, "FRED BAUDER"  
wrote:



Craig,

I don't expect you to do anything about it, but Hillary Clinton
presidential campaign, 2016 has been so much an object of political 
editing
by Clinton supporters that it looks more like an ad for Hillary than 
a

Wikipedia article.

Fred Bauder

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:43:32 -0400
 Craig Newmark  wrote:


Wikipedia is where facts go to live.


It helps that folks on US Capitol Hill are receptive to quiet 
suggestions

that Wikipedia avoid becoming a partisan battleground.

Craig Newmark

founder, craigslist

On Nov 1, 2016 7:35 PM, "Olatunde Isaac" 
wrote:

Hoi,


Pine, thanks for sharing this article. I found the entire article 
very

interesting. I am glad that Wikipedia is not seen as a vehicle for
political campaign. Sometimes, people create account on Wikipedia 
with

the
aim to use the encyclopedia for political campaign and a good number 
of
them end up getting blocked either for POV pushing or other 
disruptive

editing/behavior.

BTWI have a few question. Is it a good idea to protect a page 
from

creation if there are indications that the overall intention of the
creator
is to use Wikipedia as a platform for political campaign? If yes, 
how is

such protection necessary if the page is neutrally written?

There was an incident that happened sometimes last year when an 
article

on
"Akinwunmi Ambode"  was protected from creation and unprotected 
after his

election.

Is this really a good idea?

Best,

Isaac
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.

-Original Message-
From: Pine W 
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date:
Wed,
26 Oct 2016 20:31:59
To: Wikimedia Mailing List; 
Wikimedia

Education; Wiki
Research-l
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] "Can Wikipedia save the internet?": Wikipedia 
and

political neutrality

Hello colleagues,

Some of you might be interested in this news article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/
can-wikipedia-save-the-internet-a7380786.html

When we know that we have countless shortcomings in Wikimedia, I 
found it
refreshing to hear that some aspects of our content and community 
are

performing well and, on the whole, are serving the public interest.

Regards,

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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
New messages to: 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/wik

i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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
New messages to: 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] "Can Wikipedia save the internet?": Wikipedia and political neutrality

[FRED BAUDER]

Craig,

I don't expect you to do anything about it, but Hillary Clinton 
presidential campaign, 2016 has been so much an object of political 
editing by Clinton supporters that it looks more like an ad for 
Hillary than a Wikipedia article.


Fred Bauder

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:43:32 -0400
 Craig Newmark  wrote:

Wikipedia is where facts go to live.


It helps that folks on US Capitol Hill are receptive to quiet 
suggestions

that Wikipedia avoid becoming a partisan battleground.

Craig Newmark

founder, craigslist

On Nov 1, 2016 7:35 PM, "Olatunde Isaac"  
wrote:



Hoi,

Pine, thanks for sharing this article. I found the entire article 
very

interesting. I am glad that Wikipedia is not seen as a vehicle for
political campaign. Sometimes, people create account on Wikipedia 
with the
aim to use the encyclopedia for political campaign and a good number 
of
them end up getting blocked either for POV pushing or other 
disruptive

editing/behavior.

BTWI have a few question. Is it a good idea to protect a page 
from
creation if there are indications that the overall intention of the 
creator
is to use Wikipedia as a platform for political campaign? If yes, 
how is

such protection necessary if the page is neutrally written?

There was an incident that happened sometimes last year when an 
article on
"Akinwunmi Ambode"  was protected from creation and unprotected 
after his

election.

Is this really a good idea?

Best,

Isaac
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.

-Original Message-
From: Pine W 
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date: 
Wed,

26 Oct 2016 20:31:59
To: Wikimedia Mailing List; 
Wikimedia
Education; Wiki 
Research-l
lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] "Can Wikipedia save the internet?": Wikipedia 
and

political neutrality

Hello colleagues,

Some of you might be interested in this news article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/
can-wikipedia-save-the-internet-a7380786.html

When we know that we have countless shortcomings in Wikimedia, I 
found it
refreshing to hear that some aspects of our content and community 
are

performing well and, on the whole, are serving the public interest.

Regards,

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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
New messages to: 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

New messages to: 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
New messages to: 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] Why are articles being deleted?

[FRED BAUDER]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:04:54 +0100
 Lilburne  wrote:

On 25/06/2016 06:49, Mitar wrote:

Hi!

I am an occasional editor of Wikipedia, I read it a lot, I edit
sometimes, and I am at all not familiar with bureaucracies and rules
Wikipedia community has developed through years (call me lazy, but
they simply always look too scary and too many for me to even start
reading them, walls and walls of text). When I interact with 
Wikipedia

I thus try to assume what reasonable rules for creating a
collaborative source of all human knowledge would be.



That is one of the meanings of "Ignore all rules:" Assume the rules 
are reasonable and edit.


Fred Bauder


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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] "Harvard Law Library Readies Trove of Decisions for Digital Age"

[FRED BAUDER]

The Harvard data base will be available to anyone after 8 years, and 
"Under the agreement with Harvard, the entire underlying database, not 
just limited search results, will be shared with nonprofit 
organizations and scholars that wish to develop specialized 
applications." That's us, if we can use it.


Fred Bauder

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 06:24:01 -0400
 "FRED BAUDER"  wrote:
I have started the article Ravel Law on en. Basic access is free to 
the public; however, we could ask for "professional" access which is 
offered free to "law students and legal academics"


Fred Bauder

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:48:51 -0700
 Pine W  wrote:

Good news for open access:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/harvard-law-library-sacrifices-a-trove-for-the-sake-of-a-free-database.html?_r=0

I hope that Wikimedians will get access to the collection via TWL. 
(:


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>



___
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] "Harvard Law Library Readies Trove of Decisions for Digital Age"

[FRED BAUDER]

I have started the article Ravel Law on en. Basic access is free to 
the public; however, we could ask for "professional" access which is 
offered free to "law students and legal academics"


Fred Bauder

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:48:51 -0700
 Pine W  wrote:

Good news for open access:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/harvard-law-library-sacrifices-a-trove-for-the-sake-of-a-free-database.html?_r=0

I hope that Wikimedians will get access to the collection via TWL. 
(:


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>



___
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] Building a "we" in the wikimedia movement

[FRED BAUDER]

Video is not necessary.

Fred

On Sat, 23 May 2015 09:42:34 -0700
 David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

I third that!

However we are entering the field of privacy, because as useful the 
virtual
meetings can be, they might be intrusive if you are in your home and 
you
show your whole house to the world. As long as people are happy 
about that,
then I do not see any problem in increasing the number of meetings 
having a

virtual component in Wikimania.

I wonder if it is possible to organize a virtual conference first 
using
something like Google Hangouts to test if it would work at a bigger 
scale

like wikimania.

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Fæ  wrote:


How?

Default to open meetings, not closed or invitation only.

Default to open wikis and lists, not closed.

Virtual attendance at meetings and conferences. Wikimania has always 
been
an opportunity to showcase virtual meetings, and encourage those of 
us
unable to fly (or not rich enough to pay) to feel part of the 
exclusive

"we".

Fae
On 23 May 2015 17:19, "Andy Mabbett"  
wrote:


> On 23 May 2015 at 17:08, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > I like the idea of fostering more and friendlier connections 
among

> > community member
>
> So do I.
>
> However, the coreallry to this is the firamtion of cliques, which 
can

> be equally unwlecoming to new editors and can entrench systemic
> biases. We see this, and "ownership", in some en.WP wikiprjcts, 
for

> example.
>
> How can we itigate against this, while making our projects more 
social?

>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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,
> 


___
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,







--
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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, 





___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia community health: strategic opportunities and threats

[FRED BAUDER]

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 11:27:09 -0700
 Pine W  wrote:

Hi all,

Since WMF is doing a strategy update (with which I'm not involved, 
but hope
that the community can influence), I'm wondering what others 
thoughts are
on Wikipedia's strategic opportunities and threats. 


What do others think about how Wikipedia's community health can 
transform

from threatened to thriving?

Pine


Here's a down home truth: People ARE entitled to their own facts, 
including those people who prefer our version. Self-conconsious 
recognition of this truth may be helpful in understanding and 
planning. We need to be aware of the complexes which have a need to 
maintain a version of reality which differs from that Wikipedia, by 
operation of its policies, produces. Such a viewpoint takes the 
surprise out of such things making them more an exercise in diplomacy 
than of moral outrage. In terms of knowledge diplomacy we occupy the 
role played by Switzerland in political diplomacy, weak but protected.


Fred


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

[FRED BAUDER]

I am optimistic that some great proposals might surface.

Fred

On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 18:30:08 +0200
 "Peter Southwood"  wrote:
If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive. 
As I have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't 
comment on its accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for 
it.

Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fæ

Sent: 08 January 2015 06:17 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month 
gender gap project-related decision


On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, "FRED BAUDER"  wrote:
...
 I've noticed that women are often quite motivated and good at 
writing

grant proposals.

Extending good faith I would presume this is irony. It does not 
transmit well by email. Please keep in mind how offensive this sort 
of thing appears.


Fae
___
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>


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 
01/08/15



___
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] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

[FRED BAUDER]

It's a rhetorical question, but, based on experience, I would probably 
chime in if a similar proposal was floated about native people such as 
African tribes or American Indians; most hardly ever edit, even in 
their own language, and throwing money at the problem is unlikely to 
be productive. It may be that a few clever effective proposals about 
gender participation might surface. I've noticed that women are often 
quite motivated and good at writing grant proposals.


Fred

On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:43:40 +0200
 "Peter Southwood"  wrote:

How is it possible to give a realistic answer to that question?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Risker

Sent: 08 January 2015 02:42 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month 
gender gap project-related decision


I have one simple question:  if the Grants program was to focus on 
some other  key area rather than the gender gap, would we be having 
this discussion about how horrible it is to waste time this way? 
Would we see throwing up of hands in this way if the focus was, say, 
requests from the Global South? A focus on getting great bots built 
and working across wikis?  A focus on events and processes for media 
collection? (Incidentally the latter more or less happens anyway with 
several groups applying for funding for WLM within a narrow 
period...)



Frankly, there's not a single thing I've read, or a single objection 
I've seen raised, that wasn't about how unnecessary it is to focus on 
women.  I don't think we've ever heard that about the global south, 
or non-European languages, or a lot of other areas where there are 
acknowledged biases.


Risker/Anne




On 8 January 2015 at 02:07, mcc99  wrote:


Dear fellow Wikipedia devotees,

While I'm new to this list, I've been an avid fan and proponent of 
Wikipedia and all the great service it gives people since it 
launched.
People can learn not just all the basics of nearly any topic 
imaginable, but for a large number, readers can with diligence 
become 
expert on more than a few and save themselves the cost of 
tuition/training.  All this, in addition to satisfying their 
curiosity about millions of subjects.


That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so 
long as it's relevant and factual.  Unlike the published, 
single-authority edited encyclopediae of the past, Wikipedia allows 
anyone with relevant information to contribute to it.  Their 
additions 
or other edits are checked by volunteers to make sure the edit isn't 
a 
defacement, irrelevant, patently unfactual, or unverifiable.  They 
are 
typically left as written or maybe edited only for grammar/spelling. 

Wikipedia is a rare success story in democracy of knowledge.  If one 
feels moved to contribute, they do.  If not, they don't.  It's like 
voting in a sense, though it's true people in democracies should 
perhaps take the opportunity to do so more often.  But it's up to 
them.


Like voting or anything else, to single out a particular group of 
people based on their indelible characteristics as being desirable 
as 
contributors to any field implicitly devalues the contributions not 
just of those currently contributing who don't fall into that 
category, but also says to any other group of a particular identity 
that you care more about the group you're trying to get more 
involvement from than them.  "Identity politics"
is unfortunately a fact of our current political climate and I hope 
one day we can, as MLK Jr. hoped, judge one another not by skin 
color 
(and I'd add gender, sexuality, and a few others), but by content of 
character.  In the context of Wikipedia, this would translate to the 
veracity and applicability of contributions made to the vast 
Wikipedia 
knowledge-base -- not who in particular is doing the contributing, 
nor 
their indelible characteristics of person.


Because identity politics is today part of general electoral 
politics 
doesn't mean it need be for anything else, and especially given how 
such things as a person's ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc., say 
nothing about what they know about or can do, I don't see how it's 
relevant to the veracity and applicability of Wikipedia's knowledge 
base.  I don't care that, for example, a black person (Charles Drew, 
MD) came up with the process of creating blood plasma, an innovation 
that has saved millions of lives.  He was tragically and mortally 
injured in a car accident, however, and so his potential future 
achievements were lost to humanity.  (He was not refused treatment 
for 
his injuries at the hospital he was taken to because of his 
ethnicity, 
as is widely but falsely believed; he was just so badly injured that 
he died.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Drew#Death ). 
I 
also don't care that Adm Grace Hopper (USN) wad female, only that 
she 
wrote the firs

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

[FRED BAUDER]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:29:57 +0100
 Liam Wyatt  wrote:

As this thread demonstrates, what discussions about the massive
gender imbalance in Wikimedia editorship need is more men discussing 
why it

might or might not be important.




Radical feminist notions that men should reduce editing or 
participation are counter-productive. The solution is OR not NOT; 
anyone should be able to edit without struggle.


Fred


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

[FRED BAUDER]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:25:23 +0100
 Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

I partially disagree with this vision.

Without the North American and European men there would not be any
opportunity to say: "we would share the sum of the human knowledge".

Probably Wikimedia would not exist.


True, but our goal was to make knowledge and the opportunity to 
contribute to making knowledge available to everyone.


Fred


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

[FRED BAUDER]

Thank you for this thoughtful response. In the United States, at 
least, girls routinely test higher than boys on verbal skills and have 
recently surpassed young men in attaining higher education in nearly 
all fields. There is a lot of dead time in the lives of many women. 
They are all over Facebook. Routine child care and housework give 
ample opportunity to research and edit as do many jobs. Objective 
factors which might limit editing are minimal.


Fred

On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 10:47:22 +0100
 Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

I think that the realistic point of view should be another.

There is a potential number of people who can be contributors 
(contributors

and not readers) but this potential number must be *realistic*.

Anyway these persons should have something to contribute to 
wikimedia

projects an basically:

a) ability to write (so a sufficient capacity to be "active" users 
and not

"passive", it means a valid education and knowledge)
b) connection to the network (in order to have a continuous 
contribution to

the projects)
c) time to spent (volunteers must have time... a woman with children
probably will dedicate her free time to the family)

So there is a digital divide and a gender gap and so on but probably 
the

barriers cannot be solved within Wikimedia.

For this reason I don't think that "half the humans" could 
contribute.
There are barriers (education, digital divide, freetime, etc.) that 
can

only be "partially" solved by Wikimedia.

Please don't do the same simpler association "number of speakers" =
"potential number of contributors" because that strategy will be 
*surely*

wrong.

Regards


On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:56 AM, FRED BAUDER  
wrote:





That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so 
long

as it's relevant and factual.



That's the point; it would not matter if women contributed so long 
as it's

relevant and factual. Half the humans that could contribute are not.
Actually many more than half, as there are barriers other than 
gender.


Fred




___
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>





--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario>
Skype: valdelli
Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli>
Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli>
Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli 
<http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469>

Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
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] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

[FRED BAUDER]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 14:53:47 +0530
 Srikanth Ramakrishnan  wrote:

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
Need I say anything else?


I think you've hit the nail on the head. It should not be easier to 
dominate a player-killing MUD than to edit an article on Wikipedia. In 
other words, one should not need to adopt the persona of a snarling 
dog to successfully edit.


Fred


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

[FRED BAUDER]

 
That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so 
long as it's relevant and factual.


That's the point; it would not matter if women contributed so long as 
it's relevant and factual. Half the humans that could contribute are 
not. Actually many more than half, as there are barriers other than 
gender.


Fred



___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google

[Fred Bauder]

I would prefer decency as a core value.

Fred

> On 05/08/2014, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
> ...
>> We have a reply:
>> https://twitter.com/JulietteGarside/status/496644233580003328
>>
>> "@jayvdb @guardian @Wikipedia @wikisignpost We won't know unless
>> Wikipedia chooses to make that information public"
>
> Unless I'm missing something, this means that WMF senior management
> can tell us exactly which Wikipedia articles are "suppressed" after
> RTV requests to Google.
>
> What do we (the unpaid volunteer community) want to do with this
> information? Ethically this is difficult territory, but openness is
> one of our core values, so this should not all be stitched up in
> back-rooms without explaining what is going on to the whole community
> and aiming for a consensus on action.
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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,
> 



___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google

[Fred Bauder]

I would prefer decency as a core value.

Fred

> On 05/08/2014, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
> ...
>> We have a reply:
>> https://twitter.com/JulietteGarside/status/496644233580003328
>>
>> "@jayvdb @guardian @Wikipedia @wikisignpost We won't know unless
>> Wikipedia chooses to make that information public"
>
> Unless I'm missing something, this means that WMF senior management
> can tell us exactly which Wikipedia articles are "suppressed" after
> RTV requests to Google.
>
> What do we (the unpaid volunteer community) want to do with this
> information? Ethically this is difficult territory, but openness is
> one of our core values, so this should not all be stitched up in
> back-rooms without explaining what is going on to the whole community
> and aiming for a consensus on action.
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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,
> 



___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google

[Fred Bauder]

> On 4 August 2014 10:49, David Gerard  wrote:
>> Possibly, if/when the Foundation finds out, it should first pass the
>> issue to the OTRS volunteers who handle BLP problems to examine.
>
> Why would that need to be dealt with by OTRS volunteers, and not the
> community at large?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>

That would be because the inmates are not good at running the asylum.

Fred


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google

[Fred Bauder]

The title of the article above an image of Jimmy Wales, is: Wikipedia
link to be hidden in Google under 'right to be forgotten' law
Request for blocking of search results granted to anonymous applicant is
first to affect an entry in the online encyclopaedia

Fred

> Re:
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/02/wikipedia-page-google-link-hidden-right-to-be-forgotten
>
> If Google "disappearing" a Wikipedia article is a notable news event,
> wouldn't that meet the Wikipedia notability requirements to make an
> article about it?
>
> The information being disappeared is the 2009 Muslim conversion of
> Adam Osborne, brother of the chancellor, George Osborne.
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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,
> 



___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google

[Fred Bauder]

Google's motto is "Do no evil"

I suppose you would have ours be "do all notable evil"

Fred

> Re:
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/02/wikipedia-page-google-link-hidden-right-to-be-forgotten
>
> If Google "disappearing" a Wikipedia article is a notable news event,
> wouldn't that meet the Wikipedia notability requirements to make an
> article about it?
>
> The information being disappeared is the 2009 Muslim conversion of
> Adam Osborne, brother of the chancellor, George Osborne.
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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,
> 



___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

[Fred Bauder]

Once the money an organization obtain from grants out matches anything
they get from anywhere else they become autonomous. "Community support"
just becomes a box to check.

Fred

> This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly
> shocking news about the opinion of a "prominent female Wikimedian (...)
> about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters" as
> expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between
> March 1-2 in London.
>
> The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland,
> Steffen Prößdorf, as saying: "if we can buy free knowledge, we should
> do
> that [and] just forget about the communities" and "Fuck the community,
> who cares."
>
> I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given
> that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me
> just say that the idea that chapters can "fuck the community" is
> absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters
> immediately.
>
> Read more at:
> *
> 
> *
> 
>
>  Tomasz
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata, templates, Modules Lua

[Fred Bauder]

> On sv:wp we are several hundreds of competent and active contributers.
> Many of these have limited technical competence, so it will only be
> about a third of these able to enter iw links in wikidata and writing a
> template. This still leaves a few hundreds who easily supports the other
> 2/3rds with this competence
>
> But when in comes understand the other parts of Wikidata and how to get
> that data into articles and templates, the number dwindles leaving only
> about 50 understanding this. It is still enough to discuss and give
> general broader support but it is starting to become a bottleneck in
> implementing broader usage of Wikidata. Then we come to the fact that
> for a successful implementation you need to develop Modules written i
> Lua. And here it is needed full programming comptence, and on sv:wp
> there will only be 5-10 having this level of competence. And this then
> becomes a subcritical mass as these persons  do not have the ambition to
> develop Modules for others. Also two of these competent ones are
> employed by WMSE, perhaps this is typical, if you have that level of
> competence you will be very busy in your paid profession as sw developer.
>
> We are now in a discussions in WMSE and the community if it would be
> acceptable that chapter resources help in writing Lua code in Modules
> for people in the community in need but lacking that competence? It is
> not a volume or cost issue as it is still no major effort, but more a
> principle one  if if can be Ok in this way to make the Chapter not only
> support the community but also in this direct way creating thing for
> Wikipedia.
>
> Are there experince from other communities or chapters on this dilemma?
>
> Anders

If I can do it by myself on Wikinfo, a few people fluent in Swedish and
English can do it for the Swedish Wikipedia; all you need to do is copy
the Wikipedia modules and suitably translate English language into
Swedish where needed.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Rules of engagement for companies in Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Danish?

[Fred Bauder]

> I'm not sure. Someone who posts deficient article that they obviously
> have
> a special relationship to, where the language in addition is deficient,
> may
> easily be meet by a deletion request. The difficulty with promoting a
> company in Wikipedia is the promotion part, not the identity of the
> author.
> For a well sourced, well written, well structured article that takes a
> neutral point of view about a clearly relevant subject, I cannot see that
> the identity of the author should make much difference. That said,
> obviously there may be someone who disagrees with me in this.
>
> Hans
>

What you are saying, in practice, is that a major firm that hires a
professional public relations firm that writes the best sort of article,
from the viewpoint of the firm, that could be expected to be acceptable
is OK, but a crude amateur effort by an inexperienced free-lancer is not.
What makes a Wikipedia article better for a firm if serious attention by
a public relations firm is regularly paid to it is rather subtle. The
brights are a little brighter, the dulls a little less boring, and the
pig is cute.

Fred


>
> On 21 October 2013 16:07, David Richfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the quick reply, Hans!  If our representatives would (for
>> example) translate an English company page into Norwegian, and then
>> explain the edits on the talk page, and identify their conflict of
>> interest on their user pages and also the article talk page, would you
>> expect that that would be seen as fair and transparent by the
>> Norwegian Wikipedia community?
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Hans A. Rosbach
>>  wrote:
>> > In no-wp we have a policy that usernames shall be for individuals and
>> thus
>> > typical company usernames are blocked and asked to request change of
>> names.
>> > These users then have no restrictions on which pages to edit. As long
>> as
>> we
>> > don't demand identification of users, restrictions on edits would IMO
>> be
>> > futile anyway.
>> >
>> > Hans A. Rosbach / User:Haros
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 21 October 2013 15:14, David Richfield 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> When I'm not editing Wikimedia projects, I work for Mondelez
>> >> International, and our Social Media team has contacted me for advice
>> >> on responsible engagement with Wikipedia.  I know that different
>> >> language projects have different rules on whether company
>> >> representatives should:
>> >>
>> >> * Edit pages directly or only ever edit talk pages
>> >> * Edit under their own names or under company names
>> >>
>> >> What are the rules for the Nordic languages?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> David
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> David Richfield
>> >> [[:en:User:Slashme]]
>> >> +491723724440
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> >> 
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Richfield
>> [[:en:User:Slashme]]
>> +491723724440
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Global East

[Fred Bauder]

And that explains an article on the United States full of misinformation
and an article on the Ottoman Empire that is somewhat better? Actually it
does: we have considerable distance from the Ottoman Empire; and little
ability to be objective about ourselves.

Fred

> Hoi,
> Every Wikipedia has its own point of view. They are all not neutral if
> only
> by omission. Do consider the amount of effort that has gone in the
> creation
> of articles relating to the United States of America,. Compare this with
> the coverage of the Ottoman Empire, given that the English Wikipedia is
> used all over the world, its coverage should be of a higher standard. The
> Ottoman Empire represents one of the more relevant civilisations, now
> consider all the countries who are considered to be less relevant...
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
> On 14 October 2013 14:57, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>
>> A nationalist point of view is not neutral point of view. I can imagine
>> what the dictator of Kazakstan considers a suitable article.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> > Yesterday Yuri, ED of WMUA (and my college in FDC) was interviewed in
>> > the main morning program on Swedish Radio re the ua.wp contra ru:wp
>> in
>> > Ukraine and of Kazak WIkipedia
>> >
>> > The 8 minutes report is half in Swedish and half in English so a bit
>> > hard to listen to [1]
>> >
>> > The most interesting parts are
>> > *The Kazak dictator is making all academics in this country to update
>> > the Kazan version of Wikipedia, perhaps to get it POV but mostly so
>> they
>> > will not be dependent of ru:wp, ie he sees it as a must to have a
>> decent
>> > Wikipedia version in order to be independent of the culture from
>> Russia
>> > *In Ukraine the former education minister (pro eu and pro Ukrainian
>> > language) actively promoted the ua:wp so not be dependent on ru:wp.
>> The
>> > current minister have the opposite idea and has made Russian  an
>> > official second language in the eastern part of Ukraine
>> > *It seems the university students make it as almost a political
>> choice
>> > if to use ua:wp or ru:wp, and then in western Ukraine choose ua:wp
>> >
>> > The central role of Wikipedia in theses vital political issues I have
>> > not heard of from our ordinary "western" chapters/language versions
>> (or
>> > is catalonian/Amical an example)
>> >
>> > And reflecting on this, I also think, even if independent,  of the
>> > dramatic increase of use of arabic and indonesian wikipedia [2] .
>> Also
>> > of Vietnamese wikipedia which has a tremendous increase in number of
>> > article  by intellegent use of bots. Also of the very interesting
>> > development in India, with their many different language versions.
>> >
>> > We here very little (nothing?) from these interesting developments,
>> > where we all probably can have a lot to learn
>> >
>> > Asaf talks of the problem of getting Global South started as there
>> are
>> > very weak/missing wp communities. But are we as a movement doing
>> enough
>> > to support the active communities and developments in the Global
>> East?
>> > (I can not help also think of Sues words re elections within the
>> > movement. Do these processes conserve our existing dominance in Board
>> > and groups of representatives coming from western world?)
>> >
>> > Anders
>> >
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> http://sverigesradio.se/api/radio/radio.aspx?type=db&id=4725418&codingformat=.m4a&metafile=asx
>> > [2]
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htmtic
>> > increase of use of arabic wikipedia
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > 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
>> 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
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] Global East

[Fred Bauder]

A nationalist point of view is not neutral point of view. I can imagine
what the dictator of Kazakstan considers a suitable article.

Fred

> Yesterday Yuri, ED of WMUA (and my college in FDC) was interviewed in
> the main morning program on Swedish Radio re the ua.wp contra ru:wp in
> Ukraine and of Kazak WIkipedia
>
> The 8 minutes report is half in Swedish and half in English so a bit
> hard to listen to [1]
>
> The most interesting parts are
> *The Kazak dictator is making all academics in this country to update
> the Kazan version of Wikipedia, perhaps to get it POV but mostly so they
> will not be dependent of ru:wp, ie he sees it as a must to have a decent
> Wikipedia version in order to be independent of the culture from Russia
> *In Ukraine the former education minister (pro eu and pro Ukrainian
> language) actively promoted the ua:wp so not be dependent on ru:wp. The
> current minister have the opposite idea and has made Russian  an
> official second language in the eastern part of Ukraine
> *It seems the university students make it as almost a political choice
> if to use ua:wp or ru:wp, and then in western Ukraine choose ua:wp
>
> The central role of Wikipedia in theses vital political issues I have
> not heard of from our ordinary "western" chapters/language versions (or
> is catalonian/Amical an example)
>
> And reflecting on this, I also think, even if independent,  of the
> dramatic increase of use of arabic and indonesian wikipedia [2] . Also
> of Vietnamese wikipedia which has a tremendous increase in number of
> article  by intellegent use of bots. Also of the very interesting
> development in India, with their many different language versions.
>
> We here very little (nothing?) from these interesting developments,
> where we all probably can have a lot to learn
>
> Asaf talks of the problem of getting Global South started as there are
> very weak/missing wp communities. But are we as a movement doing enough
> to support the active communities and developments in the Global East?
> (I can not help also think of Sues words re elections within the
> movement. Do these processes conserve our existing dominance in Board
> and groups of representatives coming from western world?)
>
> Anders
>
>
> [1]
> http://sverigesradio.se/api/radio/radio.aspx?type=db&id=4725418&codingformat=.m4a&metafile=asx
> [2] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htmtic
> increase of use of arabic wikipedia
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

[Fred Bauder]

> I have posted 4 sentences, kind of a draft of a draft of a draft.
>
> It is very overwhelming for me to draft text with near-legal precision on
> my own.
>
>   -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)

I've added a bit. I'll do some copyediting later.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

[Fred Bauder]

> On Sat, 5 Oct 2013, at 18:47, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> I've been thinking about this. Wikipedia is a compilation of
>> information
>> from sources that are generally considered reliable. The trouble is
>> that
>> the information in those sources varies. Rather than deciding
>> ourselves,
>> after all most of us are amateurs, what the truth is, we present all
>> the
>> views in reliable sources without trying to decide which is right or
>> even
>> better, although there may be sourced information which does do that
>> which can be included.
>>
>> Fred
>
> This is simply false. If a third source says that one of two reliable
> sources is wrong or simply worse, the third source is not ignored.

It is not "simply" false. Provided such a criticism is found in a
reliable source, neutral point of view would require it be included. For
example, in a climate change article, information about the poor factual
basis of climate change denial should be included.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

[Fred Bauder]

I've been thinking about this. Wikipedia is a compilation of information
from sources that are generally considered reliable. The trouble is that
the information in those sources varies. Rather than deciding ourselves,
after all most of us are amateurs, what the truth is, we present all the
views in reliable sources without trying to decide which is right or even
better, although there may be sourced information which does do that
which can be included.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

[Fred Bauder]

> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
> ...
>> I, for one, share your perception that NPOV is a problem on some
>> (perhaps
>> most) Wikipedias,
>
> asaf, could you please elaborate a little bit what you mean by this?
> do you not share the experience that the editors were able to come up
> with reasonable and well thought out rules they follow, since
> wikipedia exists? and many of the rules were discussed. and most of
> them discussed again? isn't this one of the cores which made wikipedia
> so successful?
>
> rupert.

For the most part; however, and I speak only of the English Wikipedia,
there are topics where pov prevails due to the skill and power of its
advocates. I suspect much worse things elsewhere.

By the way, I regularly, and deliberately, engage in point of view
writing elsewhere; I know it when I see it.

Ask yourself, where is the article [[processed food]]? If you want an
good education in public relations techniques, try to write one...

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

[Fred Bauder]

>> I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta
>> sufficiently
>> achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you
>> stated
>> it
>> would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a
>> core
>> value.
>>
>>   -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
>
> Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of directors...
>
> Fred

That was snippy...

Editing a major meta policy page must be done with considerable caution,
starting by making suggestions on its talk page:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neutral_point_of_view

There is some, rather limited, discussion in section 3.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

[Fred Bauder]

> I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta sufficiently
> achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you stated
> it
> would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a core
> value.
>
>   -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)

Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of directors...

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

[Fred Bauder]

> I know that, you know that, people participating in this thread knows
that,
> but for all practical purposes that's a forgotten random pre-WMF edit.
I am
> not questioning the importance of Neutral Point of View, one of our
core values. While larger wikis have this value enshrined and well
enforced, smaller emerging wikis sometimes struggle with the concept.
If a wiki decides to ignore NPOV and decides to censor content or over
value a particular perspective, we lack a resolution to confront or
guide them.
>
> There exists at least one example of this
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/ace.wikipedia_and_Prophet_Muhammad_images
>
> As for the point of non-Wikipedia projects, I think it still applies.
If an
> entire language edition of wiktionary, wikiversity, etc entirely advocates
> a certain point of view we should have problems with it. Consider if
something like what happened to ace.wikipedia were to happen on a
wiktionary or wikiversity project.
>
>
>   -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)

It could be restated and emphasized, but it is policy, see:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view

Fred

By the way, I don't agree with it, but that is another discussion.
However, that is why I know about it, its origin, and its settled nature.

>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:56 AM, Fred Bauder 
wrote:
>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I realize Resolution:Biographies of living people[1] implies this but
>> I
>> > fail to see any resolution that establishes neutral point of view as
>> one
>> > of
>> > our non-negotiable values. I think there is merit in having an
over-arching
>> > resolution on a Neutral Point of View policy.
>> >
>> > I also feel Resolution:Biographies of living people suffers from the
absence of such a definition of what exactly "neutral point of view"
supposed to mean.
>> >
>> > [1]:
>> >
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people
>>
>> Neutral point of view is one of the founding principles of Wikipedia and
>> was promulgated by its founder, Jimmy Wales, and strongly supported by
its co-founder, Larry Sanger, see:
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=270453&oldid=270452#The_original_statement_of_the_neutral_point_of_view_policy
>>
>> The first edits to the page is dated November 10, 2001 but I think the
very first edits of that page are no longer available. It's not an
unwritten constitution...
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> 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
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] Suggestion to add sources to millions of (tagged) unsourced articles

[Fred Bauder]

I am certainly one of the guilty parties. When I first started editing
there were huge subjects on which there was nothing. I remember creating
[[Tucson, Arizona]]. There was a temptation to create and contribute to
articles on subjects you knew about due to experience or education. As
laypersons, rather than academics engaged in teaching daily about the
subject, sources were seldom at hand.

Today, I work almost exclusively from sources. I find a source then add
to an article. Although, I still sometimes cheat a bit; I do know from
personal experience which way is up, and might rotate an image that is
upside down...

Finding sources for information that you learned in school decades ago is
rather difficult, even impossible, and certainly tedious. As a volunteer
organization such a demand is not tenable.

I recently made an edit to [[Stream capture]] using a geography text I
bought for $3.95. It is an older edition of a college text that sells for
over $100. I didn't look down to check the reference section, but noticed
that someone had made an edit after I did, adding a reference section. I
had added the first source to this article, an article created, by me,
August 2, 2003:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stream_capture&oldid=3082210

That original information is not wrong, and I did get it from a source,
but at that time we had no regular mechanism for citing sources. Today I
don't remember the original source, but I do plan to use my geography
textbook to add a few more references should I have the time, which I
don't. I have no time, or life...just endless half-finished projects and
ideas.

Fred

> Wikipedians have proven to be quite adept at creating scripts, software,
> bots etc to automate all kinds of things.
>
> We are now in a situation where anything added - a new article of
> information added to an existing article - immediately gets challenged if
> it has no sources, and often the sources get challenged.
>
> That's fair enough, it goes to the credibility of the project and the
> information we make available.
>
> However, at the same time, that are millions of older articles that 'got
> away'  without or with few sources when they were created. Some have
> since
> been tagged as being "without sources".
>
> SUGGESTION:
>
> Can't someone create something that will identify ACTIVE editors who at
> one
> point contributed significantly to each of those unsourced articles and
> alert them to see if they would show interest in going back and adding a
> few sources? I am working from the premise that someone who constribute
> more than a casual correction of a typo etc has some affinity with the
> subject and would be the most indicated person to quickly find valid
> sources.
>
> I included "(tagged)" in the subject line. This, because with my
> 'limited'
> knowledge, I presume that it would be easier for such would-be mechanism
> to pick out articles tagged as having no sources. At the same time, I
> recognise that it would not be impossible for the software or whatever to
> scan the whole article looking for surces and if none, add it a basket of
> unsourced articles.
>
>  Also, I remember reading about a bot created by the Ducth WP that has
> created about half of the articles in the Swedish WP. It apparently has -
> among aother things - the ability to find valid sources.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rui
> --
> _
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> ___
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

[Fred Bauder]

> Hi all,
>
> I realize Resolution:Biographies of living people[1] implies this but I
> fail to see any resolution that establishes neutral point of view as one
> of
> our non-negotiable values. I think there is merit in having an
> over-arching
> resolution on a Neutral Point of View policy.
>
> I also feel Resolution:Biographies of living people suffers from the
> absence of such a definition of what exactly "neutral point of view"
> supposed to mean.
>
> [1]:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people

Neutral point of view is one of the founding principles of Wikipedia and
was promulgated by its founder, Jimmy Wales, and strongly supported by
its co-founder, Larry Sanger, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=270453&oldid=270452#The_original_statement_of_the_neutral_point_of_view_policy

The first edits to the page is dated November 10, 2001 but I think the
very first edits of that page are no longer available. It's not an
unwritten constitution...

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

> привет Ярослав,
>
> Yes, I am very serious. I was though only arguing about the members of
> this instance, be it an 'arbitration committe' or an ombudsman or
> whatever, with the duty to protect users from mobbing and abuses in the
> Wikis.
>
> We must though be aware that there are very different countries in the
> world. What is possible in one part of the world is not possible in
> another. I am aware of the present situation in Russia and pity the
> Russians. I think the Wikis should at least reflect the society they are
> working in, not be worse, and it could be difficult to be better (I am
> still just talking about stopping mobbing and abuses in the Wikis).
>
> I am certain that a committe could help against mobbing in Wikis even in
> Russia and in other countries with similar kind of problems. You could
> though perhaps, for reason that you express, not get any help from the
> outside society. If the members of such a committe would have any
> problems with the authorities or hooligans in such a country I don't
> know, but that could be an argument for placing it outside Russia (and
> other countries). Perhaps even just have one international instance.
>
> Let me tell you a little about my own experiences to explain what I
> wrote. In my country we have a lot of ombudsmen to protect citizens from
> child abuse, harassment of immigrants and a lot of other things. The
> persons working with these questions are very public, you can find their
> names, photos etc. on the web. I have had a lot of contacts with these
> people during the last year. I have never heard of one single instance
> when they have been attacked, harassed or anything else. That is quite
> natural, I think, they have the protection of the surrounding society. If
> someone harassed or abused them, he/she be sued or arrested.
>
> The situation is the same for people working against mobbing in schools
> and companies. They are of course also public persons. Still I have never
> heard of anyone being attacked. The reason is the same as above. If these
> persons were anonymous it would partly look very stupid and partly they
> could not do their job properly.
>
> I do not see any reason why the situation wouldn't be the same for such
> an instance in the Wikis. As I said above the persons must be
> professional and hired by the Wikis, to get the right authority and
> respect. Where they are placed physically is not so important since there
> role is only to act within the Wikis (not in the society), perhaps one
> shouldn't choose Russia though.
>
> I really think that it also has a psychological role not to be anonymous.
> The method of mobbers and extreme political movements is to dehumanize
> it's opponents. They put a label on their enemies to make them not human.
> I think being anonymous works in the same direction. It deprives you of
> your identity and thus makes you easier to attack.
>
> Regards,
> Lars Gardenius

Indeed; however, a number of other strategies are also used to dominate.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

> On 07.09.2013 00:12, Lars Gardenius wrote:
>   People are much less willing to attack someone who they feel they
>> know. The persons who still attack are often mentally instable and
>> easy to track and report to the police.
>>
>> Regards,
>> lars Gardenius
>>
>
> Are you fucking serious? I was editing under my real name for three
> years, and even now my real name is pretty easy to figure out. At one
> point, in the Russian Wikipedia, I protected an article to prevent a
> vanity editing of a lady who claimed to be a psychologist and the
> chairwoman of some union of psychologist. As a revenge, she made a
> search, found my university website, and published a piece where she
> made, on the alleged claim she is a psychologist, some very suggestive
> (and wrong) statements about my sexual orientation, my IQ, and my mental
> health. What police you are talking about? Dutch police? They would not
> care about a piece written in Russian and published in Russia. Russian
> police? They are worse than ordinary criminals, and it would be crazy to
> go to them and ask for something. Formally, there is no attack anyway,
> but the piece was still published, indexed by search engines, and
> noticed by some of the people I know.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav

That is a good example. People with serious mental disability may be
obvious, but sociopaths and paranoids are not, at least not to the
authorities. They are often smart, capable, and mean; and can cause
almost anyone real grief. I suppose I should not refer to Hitler, of
course, as that would be proof that the conversation is over according to
Mike Godwin, but, in fact, he does not suggest that one should never cite
Hitler as an example of a paranoid psychopath.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

> Well that is because you are not forced to register your real name and
> address before starting an account in the Wikis. Of course you can still
> use a pseudonym while working, but the org. would know who the users are.
> While diminish the will to mob, abuse, and vandalise tremendously when
> your true identity is known.
>
> I personally have always noticed that it is much better to use ones real
> name. I notice that aggressive people are less willing to attack someone
> whose name they know. It is even better if you show your face. People are
> much less willing to attack someone who they feel they know. The persons
> who still attack are often mentally instable and easy to track and report
> to the police.
>
> Regards,
> lars Gardenius

Ok, here's someone who seems to share some of your ideas:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:John_Vandenberg/WMF_BoT_candidature_notes#Quality

"There are many members of 'our community' who have 10,000+ edits and are
maliciously controlling negative content about other people, and doing it
anonymously. There are regular complaints being made on the talk pages,
to OTRS, and in social media about these editors. The problem is made
worse by our culture of protecting anonymity, resulting in an assumption
that 'outing' anyone is a bannable offense, even if they are one of these
problem editors. I predict that Wikipedia will increasingly become
ridiculed for its current position of allowing anonymous edits to
biographies of living people unless we can build better systems of
identifying and preventing these problem editors. We need to innovate. We
need to warn existing and future problem editors that malicious editing
from an anonymous accounts is not safe, and the media is starting to
undertake real investigative journalism of Wikipedia editors where they
see problems.

The most important step in fixing the cultural problem is to introduce
the ability for Wikipedia accounts to be voluntarily linked to identities
in other systems, such as twitter, facebook, identica, etc. This could be
included in the account creation process, provided that it is optional
and the risks are clearly explained. With this in place, new accounts can
declare up front that they are not trying to hide their identity, and do
not mind their identity and COI being discussed publicly.

The next strategic measure that should be taken is the introduction of a
complaint system designed for average Internet users with no wiki editing
skills, and that complaint management system needs to support resolution
and escalation of complaints (i.e. 'mark resolved', with 'mark
unresolved' that ensures the complaint can't be 'resolved' again by the
same person who marked it resolved the first time; an escalate function
that feeds into a mediation process; rather than overusing the 'block' an
account functionality,..."

From one of the arbitrators who ran for the board.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

> The persons
> who still attack are often mentally instable and easy to track and report
> to the police.
>
> Regards,
> lars Gardenius

Dream on...

One point is correct; you WILL have something to report to the police.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

> Well not using your real name if your handling arbitration is I think out
> of the question, anywhere in the world but the Wikis.
>
> Regards,
> Lars Gardenius

We have discovered that users who are thwarted in using aggressive
behavior to control content will go after people who use their real name
and played a role in curbing their behavior; call their employer, call
their mother at home, it goes on. Using real names often does not work.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

> As said it was only an example. And a very small part of my
> argumentation.
>
> You must however understand that the average user has no reason to feel
> the way you do and he has no possibilty to know who these persons are.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lars Gardenius

Someone like NulearWarfare has made tens of thousands of publicly
viewable edits and participated in scores of arbitration cases; most of
which are also publicly viewable. The edits and decisions were also
available to the Wikipedia community which selected him for
responsibility.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

You see, that's the difference, when I see NuclearWarfare I think tried
trusted and true; he has a long track record on Wikipedia, whatever his
real name is. By the way, the actual identity of all arbitrators,
oversighters, etc are verified by the Foundation.

Fred

>
>
> The Arbitration Committe is a step in
> the right direction. I was probably never informed about it because
> it is only available for a small number of Wikis, and I speak about
> Wikis in general (including the Swedish Wikipedia).
>
> The Committe is obviously alive and
> kicking in the English Wikipedia. When I look at other Committes they
> seem dormant or "dead". As I said earlier I don't believe
> this problem is as big in the English Wikipedia as it is in some
> smaller Wikis, so it is more important that the others were alive.
>
> There are however some principal
> problems with the Arbitration Committee (and I will now use the
> English one as an example). I think these problems are symptomatic
> for the Wiki-org, and reflects what I meant by that the problem is
> not seriously addressed.
>
> I don't care if there is a committe for
> all Wikis or one for every Wiki, the import thing is that they work
> (or for that matter what this instance is called).
>
> 1. The members are not independent of
> the Wikis. It is obvious that they still work on the Wikipedia. That
> means that they run the risk of still having loyalities to old
> friends. It is like when I asked an Ombudsman why he didn't intervene
> when he saw abuses, and he answered "I don't want to because
> they (the abusers) are my friends".
>
> 2. The members have no responsibility.
> First of all they are volunteers and they are anonymous. This means
> that the arbitration is simply moved from a bigger to a smaller group
> within the same community.
>
> The members have no responsibility,
> i.e. they are not accountable for their decisions. How can you make
> someone called "NuclearWarfare" accountable (no offense
> intended, I don't know this person, it is an example.) Would you
> buy a used car from someone who called himself "NuclearWarfare"?
> Would you put your little daughter in care of someone who just calls
> himself " NuclearWarfare"?
>
> If not, why would you put the question
> whether your daughter has been mobbed and harassed in a Wiki in the
> hands of someone who only identifies himself as "NuclearWarfare"?
>
> No, it needs to be professional people
> (with enough knowledge about the Wikis) who is hired by the
> organisation (local or global) and thereby also represents the
> organisation and answers to the organisation.
>
> Someone pointed at Facebook and other
> social medias earlier and said that the problem with mobbing is much
> bigger there. It might be, but the most of these medias actually take
> active part in stopping mobbing and abuses. You can contact them and
> they will often respond very quickly. Some of us may think that they
> are even to restrictive, but they take anyhow their responsibility.
>
> The Wikis on the other hand take no
> responsibility, not for what is written and not for who people are
> treated in the Wiki communities.
>
> This lack of responsibility is I think
> at the heart of this question, and is the soil in which these abuses
> can grow.
>
> 3. Since the members are not
> independent they can not act on their own initiative which is
> absolutely necessary. Not all users, especially children, have the
> courage to speak up even if they are treated very badly. If the
> members were responsible for the actions in the Wikis they must also
> be able to take action when they see abuses.
>
>
> 
>  Von: Fred Bauder 
> An: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Gesendet: 21:21 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
>
>
> On the contrary, the Arbitration Committee has the responsibility and the
> power. That they do not discharge the full remit is another matter.
> People have ran for and been elected to the committee on a platform of
> not discharging the responsibility it was given.
>
> Fred
>
>> No, I just responded to a problem that I recognized well.
>>
>> If you call him/her this or that is not important.
>>
>> The important thing is that the person (or group of persons) has the
>> responsibility and the power to fulfil its task, i.e. to protect
>> Wiki-users from abuses and mobbing. Today nobody has neither that
>> responsibility nor that power.
>>
>> regards,
>> Lars Gardenius
>>
>>
>>
>>
&g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Fred Bauder 
> wrote:
>
>> It is addressed but by a rather complicated and demanding process. See
>> Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Not really workable for new users who
>> bump
>> up against well-established users who have bad habits, or have learned
>> that nasty behavior pays off in being able to control content.
>>
>>
> Removing the mediation committee from that process might
> streamline things a bit. I notice the mediation cabal has closed
> its doors since the last time I looked.
>
> -Chad
>

I confess I'm not up to date; hardly anyone ever tries to seriously argue
with me; and, often, if they do, I find something more productive than
arguing with an idiot. (See, I am a very bad citizen). The Dispute
resolution pages should be up to date and reflect current practices,
whatever they are; in many cases matters that once would have been
considered for arbitration are now handled by administrators.

Fred



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

No thank you, I do not have a dispute; you do; please follow the dispute
resolution procedure.

Fred

> Hi  Tom
>
> Thanks for your contribution. However, you seem to have missed the point.
>
> So Lisa violates the 3RR principle and you lecture me. And I lodge a
> complaint over the 3RR and that gets closed without due process.
>
> Would you care to touch on those tho aspects and advance your opinion on
> the 3RR violation being swept under the carpet? And reporting of a 3RR
> violation being swept under the same carpet?
>
> I must presume that you condone the action of the other editor?
>
> And for your information, everytime I have come across people that
> monitor
> even the talkpage of their favourite articles you can be sure that it is
> about the content of what is posted, but about whether or not the comment
> casts the subject of the article in a bad light.
>
> Perhaps you might care to look into this and look into the edit history
> of
> these editors?
>
> Regards,
>
> Rui
>
>
>
>
> On 5 September 2013 14:18, Thomas Morton
> wrote:
>
>> Lets just be clear here, the contributuion Rui is talking about was as
>> follows:
>>
>> Must be a joke - how can moving from W8 to W XP be called a downgrade?
>> W8
>> is crap! I want a computer, not a basket of "apps" for retarded
>> morons!<
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_XP&oldid=571533769
>> >
>>
>> His response to its removal is to suggest those removing it are paid
>> Pro-Microsoft editors.
>>
>> Rui, what I'm going to suggest here is that you've not really
>> understood
>> the processes that go into collaborating on an article. You may well be
>> right that the content needs changing, but your presentation of a
>> personal
>> opinion in such a ranting form makes it very hard to collaborate.
>>
>> Look at it from another side. If you'd put a lot of effort into writing
>> and
>> article and then someone turned up on the talk page to post what looked
>> like a personal rant about the content, citing no sources and putting
>> very
>> little in the way of suggested changes would you be peeved? Would
>> you
>> wonder if perhaps that editor was a paid editor sent to disrupt the
>> article
>> by a competitor?
>>
>> Would you be offended if Lisa held that view about you (that you were a
>> paid advocate?).
>>
>> So, yes, Wikipedia has a big problem. But it's not just abusive admins
>> (we
>> have a few) and grumpy editors, or paid advocates. It is a broad
>> spectrum
>> of problems - and in this case you were the one with the
>> less-than-perfect
>> contribution.
>>
>> Broadly speaking this is an education problem; we need to bring more
>> focus
>> on the concept of the talk page as a collaboration portal *not* as a
>> place
>> to discuss the topic (i.e. NOTFORUM) and we also need to emphasise the
>> importance of making comments in the right tone, and with supporting
>> sources.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> On 4 September 2013 22:08, Rui Correia  wrote:
>>
>> > Greetings to All
>> >
>> > Let me start by saying that I don't do much here at the WP, not
>> compared
>> to
>> > people who make hundreds of edits a week. I would love to, have a
>> long
>> list
>> > of "to-do", but unfortunately time is not on my side.
>> >
>> > In my limited involvemet here, I have seen many a good editor leave
>> the
>> > project. Mostly, people leave because they can't take it anymore
>> having
>> to
>> > fight the 'blocks' of defenders that coalesce around certain topics.
>> >
>> > In itself, though not very healthy, such blocks forming around topis
>> is
>> > fine. What is not fine is that if any issue gets referred to a higher
>> > process for a resolution, it is often the same people grouping of
>> people
>> > previously involved in disputes on the same topic who come to the
>> > resolution forum to issue a decision. However, it is always the
>> 'outsider'
>> > that loses. He gets acused of everything under the sun, and gets
>> 'good
>> > advice' from supposedly neutral editors, urging him to calm down, to
>> temper
>> > his language etc. It is like trying to point out that the earth is
>> round
>> at
>> > a monthly meetng of the fat-earthers. That is not healthy and is
>> making
>> the
>> > WP processes look like a kangaroo court run by a cabal.
>> >
>> > And I expect pretty much the same reaction to this email.
>> >
>> > I pointed out in an ealier email to this list the difficulty that one
>> > encounters when you include something negative about certain big
>> > corporations. I was stoned and made to feel that I was wrong and
>> everbody
>> > else was right. The reaction was tantamount to a chorus of "yes, we
>> know
>> > there are problems, but don't say it out loud, someone might hear
>> you!".
>> >
>> > Let's for argument's say that I was wrong. But - more importantantly
>> -
>> was
>> > anything done to investigate what I was saying? What if there are
>> legions
>> > out there paid to sanitise the pages of big corporations? And we know
>> tha

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

Indeed, a community a few hundred seems optimal.

Fred

> This is certainly not a question only for the English Wikipedia. I
> somewhat doubt that it even foremost has to do with the English
> Wikipedia. I have seen this problem primarily in smaller Wikis dominated
> by few people.
>
> Regards,
> Lars Gardenius
>
>
>
> ____
>  Von: Fred Bauder 
> An: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> CC: wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Gesendet: 13:28 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
>
>
> At wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org ? Perhaps, but hard to start over from
> the beginning.
>
> Fred
>
>> Should not this discussion be held on he maillist for English
>> wikipedia?
>>
>> There is not much, if any,  of what is being discussed that I can
>> recognize from my home wp
>>
>> Anders
>>
>>
>>
>> Fred Bauder skrev 2013-09-05 13:18:
>>> That was the purpose of the original arbitration committee. Finding a
>>> mentor is kind of hard nowdays as there are so many users who might
>>> help
>>> but probably will not. On the other hand, many requests I have
>>> received
>>> and looked into are from people who are making trouble themselves;
>>> sometimes very serious trouble. Giving a second chance to someone who
>>> has
>>> been banned by the community after extended discussion seldom works
>>> out
>>> well. But that's not a newbie who has run into serious trouble just
>>> for
>>> making jokes about Windoze...
>>>
>>> Fred
>>>
>>>> It is very laudable if you, Peter, tries and help newbies and others
>>>> that
>>>> are harassed by other users.
>>>>
>>>> I however don't think it is enough in a worldwide organization that
>>>> you
>>>> have to rely on volunteers and that these will intervene.
>>>>
>>>> As I see it, if you start such an organization you must also take on
>>>> the
>>>> responsibilities that follows.
>>>> You can't just duck and pretend that you can hand over all problems
>>>> to
>>>> the users.
>>>>
>>>> I still think that an international organization like the Wikis
>>>> demands
>>>> an instance to which mistreated and mobbed users can turn. An
>>>> instance
>>>> with the responsibility that normal rules in a society are upheld and
>>>> with the authority to uphold them.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Lars Gardenius
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>   Von: Peter Gervai 
>>>> An: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>>>> Gesendet: 10:50 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
>>>> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from
>>>> itself
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Lars Gardenius
>>>> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way.
>>>> You mean it's not _solved_. Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> At least one problem was mentioned in the thread which is that the
>>>> (honest, knowledgeable) newbies have unproportionally smaller
>>>> debating/lobbying power than aboriginals, and they are very easy to
>>>> oppress. This is an ongoing problem for the last decade or so and no
>>>> good solution seem to exist.
>>>>
>>>> In theory there are (or could be) volunteers who could be called in
>>>> cases of newbie oppression from the experienced troll^H^H^H^Heditors
>>>> who would declare that they try to act as neutral as possible but
>>>> they
>>>> would possess more experience to handle obnoxious editors and other
>>>> regual beings. Arbitration, mentoring, whatever we like to call it.
>>>> Obviously it only worked if there's a free way to reject a request
>>>> (if
>>>> the volunteer believes the newbie has no merits, let's not call them
>>>> outright trolls and vandals) and if it isn't an "official" cabal but
>>>> a
>>>> large catalog of helpful and experienced editors.
>>>>
>>>> I have often done it (and still occasionally do on Commons since it's
>>>> a pretty harsh environment for newbies) and it'

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

On the contrary, the Arbitration Committee has the responsibility and the
power. That they do not discharge the full remit is another matter.
People have ran for and been elected to the committee on a platform of
not discharging the responsibility it was given.

Fred

> No, I just responded to a problem that I recognized well.
>
> If you call him/her this or that is not important.
>
> The important thing is that the person (or group of persons) has the
> responsibility and the power to fulfil its task, i.e. to protect
> Wiki-users from abuses and mobbing. Today nobody has neither that
> responsibility nor that power.
>
> regards,
> Lars Gardenius
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Von: Fred Bauder 
> An: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Gesendet: 18:44 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
>
>
> And your solution is an ombudsman, or what? I know there is a solution
> that you have in mind. In fact, it looks very much like a solution in
> search of a problem. Out with it!
>
> Fred
>
>> The problem is that "howls of outraged anguish" seems to come from the
>> admins not from the newbies.
>>
>> But that was not the question here. The question was that the Wikis
>> lack
>> an instance that people can turn to when they are harassed and mobbed
>> in
>> the wikis, be that newbies or admins, children or old folks, women or
>> men.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Lars Gardenius
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>  Von: Fred Bauder 
>> An: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Gesendet: 18:03 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
>> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from
>> itself
>>
>>
>> Yes, that is pretty much the situation. The howls of outraged anguish
>> from those who were not able to dictate (really bad) content or
>> practices
>> form the core of our organized opposition. That does not mean systemic
>> deficiencies don't exist; just that we must look and think in a noisy
>> environment.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>> On 09/05/2013 04:18 AM, Lars Gardenius wrote:
>>>> That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in
>>>> a
>>>> worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't
>>>> work
>>>> now.
>>>
>>> Where "doesn't work" is mostly defined as "didn't give the result I
>>> demanded".
>>>
>>> I've been part of that dispute resolution process for many years, and
>>> came out of it with the (admittedly cynical) lesson that the vast
>>> majority of vocal critics of it have become so as a result of "losing"
>>> to it for having been in the wrong in the first place.
>>>
>>> When someone leaves in a tiff because they have been prevented from
>>> getting their way against consensus, then the system is arguably doing
>>> exactly what it's been designed for.
>>>
>>> Of /course/ nobody ends up in a conflict on the projects without being
>>> convinced that they are in the right; and if they end up on the losing
>>> side, they will clearly feel that they were wronged.  We play up the
>>> concept of discussion leading to consensus but -- let's not kid
>>> ourselves -- we are all humans and thus subject to ego, stubbornness,
>>> and personality conflicts.
>>>
>>> There *are* no vast, sweeping injustices.  No system is perfect and,
>>> occasionally, errors *are* made; but the leap from "the system didn't
>>> let me get my way" to "the system is broken/dying" is all to easy to
>>> make, and is an unavoidable result of humans interacting.
>>>
>>> This certainly could be improved.  More education of users upfront
>>> might
>>> prevent the confrontations in the first place; less reliance on
>>> established cliques would reduce groupthink and exaggerated
>>> conservatism.  More robots and fewer humans would reduce the effects
>>> of
>>> human nature...
>>>
>>> -- Marc
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> 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
>> 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
> 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
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] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

Who is both "independent", knowledgeable, and not involved in a wiki?

All you have to do is read a newspaper or magazine article about
Wikipedia to realize how hopelessly outsiders get everything wrong.

Fred

> Well, it doesn't matter to me if it is re-invention or not.
> To me the important thing is to put such an instance in action.
> And I know for a fact that it doesn't function today since I discussed
> this question with numerous people in the Wiki-org (like the stewards,
> the ombudsman etc.)
>
> That you are independent doesn't mean that you are not accustomed to how
> the Wikis work, I would guess that it actually is a prerequisite that you
> are. It just means that you take a step aside and are no longer actively
> involved in any Wiki and that you understand your position as an
> independent arbitrator. This process is handled without difficulties by
> other organizations.
>
> I am involved in work to counteract mobbing on the Internet in general
> and there are the Wikis today absolutely a part of the problem.
>
>
> Regards,
> Lars Gardenius
>
>
>
> 
>  Von: Fred Bauder 
> An: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Gesendet: 19:14 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
>
>
> That is just a re-invention of the Arbitration Committee. People from an
> external source nearly always have a fatal flaw; they don't understand
> how Wikipedia works. More informed people could man the arbitration
> committee, but that is a matter of documenting what the existing
> committee does and its effect and educating administrators, potential
> candidates and the existing committee members on the practical effect of
> their decisions.
>
> Fred
>
>> Well that is pretty easy: that Wiki-org will follow the example put up
>> by
>> many countries, companies and schools.
>>
>> Create an independent instance (i.e. in this case independent of the
>> Wikis) that you can turn to when you are offended, insulted, mobbed,
>> harassed or in any way mistreated by people in the Wikis.
>>
>> Since so many seems to misunderstand this question, it is not meant to
>> handle questions about content or policies in the separate Wikis, but
>> only about the normal human behaviour that we have agreed on shall be
>> present in a society (today not including the Wikis).
>>
>> It is also important that this independent instance shall be
>> responsible
>> for that the behaviour in the Wikis are within the boundaries of the
>> outside society, and therefore also has the right to intervene in a
>> Wiki,
>> when members of that Wiki cross that boundary.
>>
>> Today there is an increasing problem with mobbing on the Internet. I
>> don't want the Wikis to be an enclave where this is still allowed.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Lars Gardenius
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>  Von: Fred Bauder 
>> An: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Gesendet: 16:04 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
>> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from
>> itself
>>
>>
>> Lars,
>>
>> Please put your cards on the table. What are your suggested changes?
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>> I am also more interested in processes than discussing special cases.
>>> I
>>> think that was also the meaning of Rui Correia's letter starting this
>>> thread.
>>>
>>> To me there is obvious that there are flaws in the construction of the
>>> Wiki-organization when it comes to mistreatment and mobbing of users.
>>> I
>>> have discussed this question both with the stewards and the ombudsman,
>>> both tell me that they can't intervene in a Wiki, even if they
>>> themselves
>>> object to the behaviour of certain members of that Wiki.
>>>
>>> That means that there is no instance outside of the specific Wiki to
>>> which a harassed and mobbed user can turn. That is I think an
>>> structural
>>> error that I believe you don't usually find in any other big
>>> organization.
>>>
>>> I have also studied these pages where "dispute resolution" is handled.
>>> They do not impress me much. I agree with Rui Correia, it is the same
>>> people quarreling about the same things and the result is often nil.
>>>
>>> So I still think there need to be structural change to handle this
>>> type
>>> of problems.
>>>
>>> Regards,
&g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

And your solution is an ombudsman, or what? I know there is a solution
that you have in mind. In fact, it looks very much like a solution in
search of a problem. Out with it!

Fred

> The problem is that "howls of outraged anguish" seems to come from the
> admins not from the newbies.
>
> But that was not the question here. The question was that the Wikis lack
> an instance that people can turn to when they are harassed and mobbed in
> the wikis, be that newbies or admins, children or old folks, women or
> men.
>
> Regards,
> Lars Gardenius
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Von: Fred Bauder 
> An: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Gesendet: 18:03 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
>
>
> Yes, that is pretty much the situation. The howls of outraged anguish
> from those who were not able to dictate (really bad) content or practices
> form the core of our organized opposition. That does not mean systemic
> deficiencies don't exist; just that we must look and think in a noisy
> environment.
>
> Fred
>
>> On 09/05/2013 04:18 AM, Lars Gardenius wrote:
>>> That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a
>>> worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work
>>> now.
>>
>> Where "doesn't work" is mostly defined as "didn't give the result I
>> demanded".
>>
>> I've been part of that dispute resolution process for many years, and
>> came out of it with the (admittedly cynical) lesson that the vast
>> majority of vocal critics of it have become so as a result of "losing"
>> to it for having been in the wrong in the first place.
>>
>> When someone leaves in a tiff because they have been prevented from
>> getting their way against consensus, then the system is arguably doing
>> exactly what it's been designed for.
>>
>> Of /course/ nobody ends up in a conflict on the projects without being
>> convinced that they are in the right; and if they end up on the losing
>> side, they will clearly feel that they were wronged.  We play up the
>> concept of discussion leading to consensus but -- let's not kid
>> ourselves -- we are all humans and thus subject to ego, stubbornness,
>> and personality conflicts.
>>
>> There *are* no vast, sweeping injustices.  No system is perfect and,
>> occasionally, errors *are* made; but the leap from "the system didn't
>> let me get my way" to "the system is broken/dying" is all to easy to
>> make, and is an unavoidable result of humans interacting.
>>
>> This certainly could be improved.  More education of users upfront
>> might
>> prevent the confrontations in the first place; less reliance on
>> established cliques would reduce groupthink and exaggerated
>> conservatism.  More robots and fewer humans would reduce the effects of
>> human nature...
>>
>> -- Marc
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> 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
> 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
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] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

That is just a re-invention of the Arbitration Committee. People from an
external source nearly always have a fatal flaw; they don't understand
how Wikipedia works. More informed people could man the arbitration
committee, but that is a matter of documenting what the existing
committee does and its effect and educating administrators, potential
candidates and the existing committee members on the practical effect of
their decisions.

Fred

> Well that is pretty easy: that Wiki-org will follow the example put up by
> many countries, companies and schools.
>
> Create an independent instance (i.e. in this case independent of the
> Wikis) that you can turn to when you are offended, insulted, mobbed,
> harassed or in any way mistreated by people in the Wikis.
>
> Since so many seems to misunderstand this question, it is not meant to
> handle questions about content or policies in the separate Wikis, but
> only about the normal human behaviour that we have agreed on shall be
> present in a society (today not including the Wikis).
>
> It is also important that this independent instance shall be responsible
> for that the behaviour in the Wikis are within the boundaries of the
> outside society, and therefore also has the right to intervene in a Wiki,
> when members of that Wiki cross that boundary.
>
> Today there is an increasing problem with mobbing on the Internet. I
> don't want the Wikis to be an enclave where this is still allowed.
>
> Regards,
> Lars Gardenius
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Von: Fred Bauder 
> An: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Gesendet: 16:04 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
>
>
> Lars,
>
> Please put your cards on the table. What are your suggested changes?
>
> Fred
>
>> I am also more interested in processes than discussing special cases. I
>> think that was also the meaning of Rui Correia's letter starting this
>> thread.
>>
>> To me there is obvious that there are flaws in the construction of the
>> Wiki-organization when it comes to mistreatment and mobbing of users. I
>> have discussed this question both with the stewards and the ombudsman,
>> both tell me that they can't intervene in a Wiki, even if they
>> themselves
>> object to the behaviour of certain members of that Wiki.
>>
>> That means that there is no instance outside of the specific Wiki to
>> which a harassed and mobbed user can turn. That is I think an
>> structural
>> error that I believe you don't usually find in any other big
>> organization.
>>
>> I have also studied these pages where "dispute resolution" is handled.
>> They do not impress me much. I agree with Rui Correia, it is the same
>> people quarreling about the same things and the result is often nil.
>>
>> So I still think there need to be structural change to handle this type
>> of problems.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Lars Gardenius
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>  Von: "cro0...@gmail.com" 
>> An: Lars Gardenius 
>> CC: Wikimedia Mailing List ;
>> "fredb...@fairpoint.net" 
>> Gesendet: 15:15 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
>> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from
>> itself
>>
>>
>>
>> I've worked extensively with dispute resolution on English Wikipedia (I
>> have conducted surveys and so on). If you have specific trends I would
>> welcome seeing them (isolated cases where one side is unhappy with the
>> result is not necessarily a sign the process is flawed, so I am more
>> interested in overall trends but would welcome your opinion.)
>>
>>
>> Steve ZhangSent from my iPad
>>
>> On 05/09/2013, at 10:59 PM, Lars Gardenius 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I have seen several instances where it certainly doesn't
>> work.
>> Not in a way you would expect in a normal society anyhow.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Lars Gardenius
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Von: "cro0...@gmail.com" 
>>>An: Lars Gardenius ; Wikimedia Mailing List
>>> 
>>>CC: "fredb...@fairpoint.net" ; Wikimedia
>>> Mailing
>>> List 
>>>Gesendet: 14:22 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
>>>Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from
>>> itself
>>>
>>>
>>>I wouldn't say dispute resolution has never 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

OP = original poster, Rui

> Sorry but I don't what/who OP is.
>
> And you still misunderstand. This is not a question about consensus over
> some article, it is about normal human behaviour, and that it sometimes
> is not there. If you haven't seen that happening I don't know where you
> have been looking. I think you paint an idealistic and rosy picture of
> the life in the Wikis that many users don't recognize.
>
> Regards,
> Lars Gardenius
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Von: Marc A. Pelletier 
> An: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Gesendet: 18:05 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
>
>
> On 09/05/2013 11:49 AM, Lars Gardenius wrote:
>> But if your child is mobbed at a Wiki when he/she tries to contribute,
>> or your grandmother is being abused when she contributes to a Wiki, you
>> want somewhere to turn. As said there is no such instance in the Wikis,
>> there is noone responsible how people are treated and mistreated in the
>> Wikis.
>
> You start from the presumption that those things usually or often happen
> for reasons other than trying to push something through against
> consensus.  I have rarely seen that happening (and no, the OP is not an
> example -- if anything he's an excellent counterexample).
>
> Mind you, there are often cases where the newbie is going against
> consensus but doesn't know it.  This is a case for user education.
>
> We /do/ have a problem with the way much of the community handles new
> editors, but the existing mechanism in place /do/ work for the most part
> (at least, for the more egregious examples).  The rest is a cultural
> problem that no enforcement body could fix; you don't make people nice
> by beating them up.
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

Yes, that is pretty much the situation. The howls of outraged anguish
from those who were not able to dictate (really bad) content or practices
form the core of our organized opposition. That does not mean systemic
deficiencies don't exist; just that we must look and think in a noisy
environment.

Fred

> On 09/05/2013 04:18 AM, Lars Gardenius wrote:
>> That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a
>> worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work
>> now.
>
> Where "doesn't work" is mostly defined as "didn't give the result I
> demanded".
>
> I've been part of that dispute resolution process for many years, and
> came out of it with the (admittedly cynical) lesson that the vast
> majority of vocal critics of it have become so as a result of "losing"
> to it for having been in the wrong in the first place.
>
> When someone leaves in a tiff because they have been prevented from
> getting their way against consensus, then the system is arguably doing
> exactly what it's been designed for.
>
> Of /course/ nobody ends up in a conflict on the projects without being
> convinced that they are in the right; and if they end up on the losing
> side, they will clearly feel that they were wronged.  We play up the
> concept of discussion leading to consensus but -- let's not kid
> ourselves -- we are all humans and thus subject to ego, stubbornness,
> and personality conflicts.
>
> There *are* no vast, sweeping injustices.  No system is perfect and,
> occasionally, errors *are* made; but the leap from "the system didn't
> let me get my way" to "the system is broken/dying" is all to easy to
> make, and is an unavoidable result of humans interacting.
>
> This certainly could be improved.  More education of users upfront might
> prevent the confrontations in the first place; less reliance on
> established cliques would reduce groupthink and exaggerated
> conservatism.  More robots and fewer humans would reduce the effects of
> human nature...
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

Lars,

Please put your cards on the table. What are your suggested changes?

Fred

> I am also more interested in processes than discussing special cases. I
> think that was also the meaning of Rui Correia's letter starting this
> thread.
>
> To me there is obvious that there are flaws in the construction of the
> Wiki-organization when it comes to mistreatment and mobbing of users. I
> have discussed this question both with the stewards and the ombudsman,
> both tell me that they can't intervene in a Wiki, even if they themselves
> object to the behaviour of certain members of that Wiki.
>
> That means that there is no instance outside of the specific Wiki to
> which a harassed and mobbed user can turn. That is I think an structural
> error that I believe you don't usually find in any other big
> organization.
>
> I have also studied these pages where "dispute resolution" is handled.
> They do not impress me much. I agree with Rui Correia, it is the same
> people quarreling about the same things and the result is often nil.
>
> So I still think there need to be structural change to handle this type
> of problems.
>
> Regards,
> Lars Gardenius
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Von: "cro0...@gmail.com" 
> An: Lars Gardenius 
> CC: Wikimedia Mailing List ;
> "fredb...@fairpoint.net" 
> Gesendet: 15:15 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
>
>
>
> I've worked extensively with dispute resolution on English Wikipedia (I
> have conducted surveys and so on). If you have specific trends I would
> welcome seeing them (isolated cases where one side is unhappy with the
> result is not necessarily a sign the process is flawed, so I am more
> interested in overall trends but would welcome your opinion.)
>
>
> Steve ZhangSent from my iPad
>
> On 05/09/2013, at 10:59 PM, Lars Gardenius 
> wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, but I have seen several instances where it certainly doesn't work.
> Not in a way you would expect in a normal society anyhow.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Lars Gardenius
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Von: "cro0...@gmail.com" 
>>An: Lars Gardenius ; Wikimedia Mailing List
>> 
>>CC: "fredb...@fairpoint.net" ; Wikimedia Mailing
>> List 
>>Gesendet: 14:22 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
>>Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from
>> itself
>>
>>
>>I wouldn't say dispute resolution has never worked, nor does it not work
>> now. It could use improvement, but the same could be said about
>> everything (and like most things, shortages of volunteers make things
>> harder)
>>
>>Steve Zhang
>>Sent from my iPad
>>
>>On 05/09/2013, at 6:18 PM, Lars Gardenius 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way.
>>>
>>> That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a
>>> worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work
>>> now.
>>>
>>> To imagine that groups of people will not try and manoeuvre out
>>> persons that they don't like is very naive.
>>> That has not happened before in the history of mankind and the
>  Wikis are no exception.
>>>
>>> Today noone is accountable for what they do to other
>>> Wiki-contributors, they are not even identifiable since they hide
>>> behind nome de guerres. Stewards have no authority to protect users
>>> from abuses and the same goes for the Ombudsman. (see also Rui
>>> Correia's email)
>>>
>>> So if the Wikis want to be a safe place for children and old folks
>>> alike, and that everybody shall be able to contribute on equal
>>> conditions, a more realistic organization to protect the users must be
>>> put in place.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Lars Gardenius
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> Von: Fred Bauder 
>>> An: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>>> Gesendet: 1:16 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
>>> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from
>>> itself
>>>
>>>
>>> It is addressed but by a rather complicated and demanding process. See
>>> Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Not really workable for new users who
>>> bump
>>> up against well-established users who have bad habits, or have learned
>&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

> I doubt that scale is only thing which matters.

Sweden has a set of elites who all know each other and have developed
consensus, and, perhaps, learned how to do that well.

What I know is that Ukraine has a big split between Russians and
Ukrainians. But do nationalistic Russians even bother with the Ukrainian
Wikipedia? Do you have a lot of Canadian contributors?

In the United States distance defeats us. A meet up in New York City is
almost as far way as Hong Kong.

Fred

>
> As to me both enWP and ukWP suffers from lack of community (extremely
> important word in Anders' comment) as that despite the fact that fist is
> much larger 'town' (even 'city') than svWP, and second is small
> 'village'.
>
> I mean community solid enough to 'behave' like one organization (Lars
> Gardenius pointed to importance of it earlier) .
>
> ...and yes, comment
> *> I'm sure the
>> community of editors is rather small, but they must come from very
>>diverse backgrounds.*
> (from later note)
> is 100% correct about Ukraine.
> ...but isn't it similar to enWP, where people come from different
> countries, so "*diverse backgrounds*" as well?
> ...which this way or another prevent creation of solid community
> (whatever
> is the size of it)
>
> Sincerely,
> Pavlo
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Fred Bauder 
> wrote:
>
>> That's Sweden all right, it's like a small town. Thousands of
>> administrators from scores of countries is another matter. Even
>> requests
>> for administration is very difficult as, unless you do big time
>> research,
>> or spend your life monitoring others edits and activity, you just don't
>> know much. Voting has the same downside; because of the volume you just
>> don't have enough information to register an informed opinion, at least
>> about individuals. The people you encounter in daily activities while
>> editing is only a tiny sliver.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> > It is no magic
>> > *yearly reelection of administrators/sysops has meant no bullying
>> types
>> > are sysops any more
>> > *we are a small community with just a few hundred active. And we have
>> > decided to treat everyone (who are serious) as valuable individuals,
>> > and go a very long way to make all feeling welcome, stop behaving as
>> > overdog/underdog and also to try special solutions for troublesome
>> users
>> > that enable them to not being blocked but having restrictions on
>> certain
>> > type of activities. Both people who have temporary maniac periods and
>> > with autism symptoms can be useful contributers if handled right by
>> the
>> > communities.
>> >
>> > But these experiences can not be extended to everywhere. en:wp have
>> 20
>> > times the number of contributers then sv:wp and of course this means
>> > need of different ways of handling problems. I do not pretend to have
>> > anything to teach en:wp, but as said I find nothing useful for sv:wp
>> > hearing of the challenges on en:wp
>> >
>> > Anders
>> >
>> >
>> > Pavlo Shevelo skrev 2013-09-05 13:36:
>> >> Sorry, but I'm not agree with your note, Anders.
>> >>
>> >> My home WP is not en: (it's uk: in fact) but everything being
>> discussed
>> >> is
>> >> very (100%) applicable for our community.
>> >>
>> >> Lucky you are in se:WP that you have no similar issues/problems but
>> >> perhaps
>> >> you've collected some magical know-how how to avoid said troubles.
>> If
>> >> so
>> >> would you please share that knowledge & experience?
>> >>
>> >> Sincerely,
>> >> Pavlo
>> >>
>>
>



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

For a serious discussion to happen you will need to disclose some
examples. The next step is to move beyond anecdote to see if there is a
general problem.

The particular incident Rui brought up has been pretty much explained,
but the question remains about have a new or casual editor who commits a
faux pas can simply be reminded not to rather than being vilified and
being turned away completely. Everyone does dumb stuff, especially at
first. The question is whether they learn anything from it.

Fred

> Sorry, but I have seen several instances where it certainly doesn't work.
> Not in a way you would expect in a normal society anyhow.
>
> Regards,
> Lars Gardenius
>
>
>
> 
>  Von: "cro0...@gmail.com" 
> An: Lars Gardenius ; Wikimedia Mailing List
> 
> CC: "fredb...@fairpoint.net" ; Wikimedia Mailing
> List 
> Gesendet: 14:22 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
>
>
> I wouldn't say dispute resolution has never worked, nor does it not work
> now. It could use improvement, but the same could be said about
> everything (and like most things, shortages of volunteers make things
> harder)
>
> Steve Zhang
> Sent from my iPad



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

That's Sweden all right, it's like a small town. Thousands of
administrators from scores of countries is another matter. Even requests
for administration is very difficult as, unless you do big time research,
or spend your life monitoring others edits and activity, you just don't
know much. Voting has the same downside; because of the volume you just
don't have enough information to register an informed opinion, at least
about individuals. The people you encounter in daily activities while
editing is only a tiny sliver.

Fred

> It is no magic
> *yearly reelection of administrators/sysops has meant no bullying types
> are sysops any more
> *we are a small community with just a few hundred active. And we have
> decided to treat everyone (who are serious) as valuable individuals,
> and go a very long way to make all feeling welcome, stop behaving as
> overdog/underdog and also to try special solutions for troublesome users
> that enable them to not being blocked but having restrictions on certain
> type of activities. Both people who have temporary maniac periods and
> with autism symptoms can be useful contributers if handled right by the
> communities.
>
> But these experiences can not be extended to everywhere. en:wp have 20
> times the number of contributers then sv:wp and of course this means
> need of different ways of handling problems. I do not pretend to have
> anything to teach en:wp, but as said I find nothing useful for sv:wp
> hearing of the challenges on en:wp
>
> Anders
>
>
> Pavlo Shevelo skrev 2013-09-05 13:36:
>> Sorry, but I'm not agree with your note, Anders.
>>
>> My home WP is not en: (it's uk: in fact) but everything being discussed
>> is
>> very (100%) applicable for our community.
>>
>> Lucky you are in se:WP that you have no similar issues/problems but
>> perhaps
>> you've collected some magical know-how how to avoid said troubles. If
>> so
>> would you please share that knowledge & experience?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Pavlo
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Anders Wennersten
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Should not this discussion be held on he maillist for English
>>> wikipedia?
>>>
>>> There is not much, if any,  of what is being discussed that I can
>>> recognize from my home wp
>>>
>>> Anders
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

At wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org ? Perhaps, but hard to start over from
the beginning.

Fred

> Should not this discussion be held on he maillist for English wikipedia?
>
> There is not much, if any,  of what is being discussed that I can
> recognize from my home wp
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Fred Bauder skrev 2013-09-05 13:18:
>> That was the purpose of the original arbitration committee. Finding a
>> mentor is kind of hard nowdays as there are so many users who might
>> help
>> but probably will not. On the other hand, many requests I have received
>> and looked into are from people who are making trouble themselves;
>> sometimes very serious trouble. Giving a second chance to someone who
>> has
>> been banned by the community after extended discussion seldom works out
>> well. But that's not a newbie who has run into serious trouble just for
>> making jokes about Windoze...
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>> It is very laudable if you, Peter, tries and help newbies and others
>>> that
>>> are harassed by other users.
>>>
>>> I however don't think it is enough in a worldwide organization that
>>> you
>>> have to rely on volunteers and that these will intervene.
>>>
>>> As I see it, if you start such an organization you must also take on
>>> the
>>> responsibilities that follows.
>>> You can't just duck and pretend that you can hand over all problems to
>>> the users.
>>>
>>> I still think that an international organization like the Wikis
>>> demands
>>> an instance to which mistreated and mobbed users can turn. An instance
>>> with the responsibility that normal rules in a society are upheld and
>>> with the authority to uphold them.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Lars Gardenius
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>   Von: Peter Gervai 
>>> An: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>>> Gesendet: 10:50 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
>>> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from
>>> itself
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Lars Gardenius
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way.
>>> You mean it's not _solved_. Indeed.
>>>
>>> At least one problem was mentioned in the thread which is that the
>>> (honest, knowledgeable) newbies have unproportionally smaller
>>> debating/lobbying power than aboriginals, and they are very easy to
>>> oppress. This is an ongoing problem for the last decade or so and no
>>> good solution seem to exist.
>>>
>>> In theory there are (or could be) volunteers who could be called in
>>> cases of newbie oppression from the experienced troll^H^H^H^Heditors
>>> who would declare that they try to act as neutral as possible but they
>>> would possess more experience to handle obnoxious editors and other
>>> regual beings. Arbitration, mentoring, whatever we like to call it.
>>> Obviously it only worked if there's a free way to reject a request (if
>>> the volunteer believes the newbie has no merits, let's not call them
>>> outright trolls and vandals) and if it isn't an "official" cabal but a
>>> large catalog of helpful and experienced editors.
>>>
>>> I have often done it (and still occasionally do on Commons since it's
>>> a pretty harsh environment for newbies) and it's doable if there's
>>> enough volunteers and people don't try to do it too often, I mean, one
>>> in a week or month or so.
>>>
>>> The point is to have a group of random people who are not involved in
>>> the debate but could help to communicate with the members of the
>>> community. (Since they're uninvolved it's probably useless to call
>>> them biased, which is the easiest unargument I've seen in such
>>> debates.)
>>>
>>> g
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> 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
>>> 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
>> 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
> 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
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] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

That was the purpose of the original arbitration committee. Finding a
mentor is kind of hard nowdays as there are so many users who might help
but probably will not. On the other hand, many requests I have received
and looked into are from people who are making trouble themselves;
sometimes very serious trouble. Giving a second chance to someone who has
been banned by the community after extended discussion seldom works out
well. But that's not a newbie who has run into serious trouble just for
making jokes about Windoze...

Fred

> It is very laudable if you, Peter, tries and help newbies and others that
> are harassed by other users.
>
> I however don't think it is enough in a worldwide organization that you
> have to rely on volunteers and that these will intervene.
>
> As I see it, if you start such an organization you must also take on the
> responsibilities that follows.
> You can't just duck and pretend that you can hand over all problems to
> the users.
>
> I still think that an international organization like the Wikis demands
> an instance to which mistreated and mobbed users can turn. An instance
> with the responsibility that normal rules in a society are upheld and
> with the authority to uphold them.
>
> Regards,
> Lars Gardenius
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Von: Peter Gervai 
> An: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Gesendet: 10:50 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Lars Gardenius 
> wrote:
>> No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way.
>
> You mean it's not _solved_. Indeed.
>
> At least one problem was mentioned in the thread which is that the
> (honest, knowledgeable) newbies have unproportionally smaller
> debating/lobbying power than aboriginals, and they are very easy to
> oppress. This is an ongoing problem for the last decade or so and no
> good solution seem to exist.
>
> In theory there are (or could be) volunteers who could be called in
> cases of newbie oppression from the experienced troll^H^H^H^Heditors
> who would declare that they try to act as neutral as possible but they
> would possess more experience to handle obnoxious editors and other
> regual beings. Arbitration, mentoring, whatever we like to call it.
> Obviously it only worked if there's a free way to reject a request (if
> the volunteer believes the newbie has no merits, let's not call them
> outright trolls and vandals) and if it isn't an "official" cabal but a
> large catalog of helpful and experienced editors.
>
> I have often done it (and still occasionally do on Commons since it's
> a pretty harsh environment for newbies) and it's doable if there's
> enough volunteers and people don't try to do it too often, I mean, one
> in a week or month or so.
>
> The point is to have a group of random people who are not involved in
> the debate but could help to communicate with the members of the
> community. (Since they're uninvolved it's probably useless to call
> them biased, which is the easiest unargument I've seen in such
> debates.)
>
> g
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

Unable to deal with serious online conflict appears to involve the bulk
of humanity and includes massive demographics we want, and need, to
include.

Fred

> Some _are_ better at it than others. Also some are better at editing then
> dealing with other people, and some are just unable to deal with other
> people in an environment where to a large extent, one is not held
> accountable for one's actions. This is the downside of anonymity. en:WP
> is
> in general not a very friendly environment. I am not saying that the
> majority of editors are unfriendly, but there is enough of an impact from
> the antisocial side to make the average experience unclude some
> significant
> unpleasantness. Not everyone is prepared to tolerate that when doing
> unpaid
> work. When the unnecessary unpleasantness is dealt out by adminitrators,
> people leave. When enough people leave, the progect stagnates and
> eventually
> collapses. Fortunately it is likely that the pieces will be picked up by
> another project, so the work will not be lost.
> Cheers,
> Peter Southwood
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Josh Lim" 
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 6:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
>
>
>>I think what we need to consider here is where the loyalties of many of
>>these so-called "problematic" editors reside, whether their dedication
>> to
>>maintaining the content where their expertise has been valuable has been
>>harmful to the overall health of the community. While I think we are all
>> on
>>the side of Wikipedia here and we all have a genuine interest in
>> improving
>>the encyclopedia for everyone, we have gone to the point where we have
>>started to perpetuate the idea that some are better at it than others,
>>similar to that declaration in Animal Farmthat "all animals are equal,
>> but
>>some are more equal than others".
>>
>> There are many reasons as to why this is the case, but I guess we need
>> to
>> reiterate the need for us to break down barriers here, both between
>> ourselves as editors (step away from compartmentalizing ourselves into
>> spaces where everyone else will agree with us because we are familiar
>> with
>> them), and between ourselves as people. The latter, however, is very
>> difficult to do, and it is one of the challenges that we have to face
>> if
>> we will want to assure Wikipedia's future success.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Josh
>>
>>
>> JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
>> Block I1, AB Political Science
>> Major in Global Politics, Minor in Chinese Studies
>> Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
>> Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
>>
>> Trustee (2010-2013), Wikimedia Philippines
>> Member, Ateneo Debate Society
>> Member, The Assembly
>>
>> jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com | +63 (927) 531-8301
>> Friendster/Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor
>> http://akira123323.livejournal.com
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> From: Rui Correia 
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2013 5:08 AM
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
>>
>>
>> Greetings to All
>>
>> Let me start by saying that I don't do much here at the WP, not
>> compared
>> to
>> people who make hundreds of edits a week. I would love to, have a long
>> list
>> of "to-do", but unfortunately time is not on my side.
>>
>> In my limited involvemet here, I have seen many a good editor leave the
>> project. Mostly, people leave because they can't take it anymore having
>> to
>> fight the 'blocks' of defenders that coalesce around certain topics.
>>
>> In itself, though not very healthy, such blocks forming around topis is
>> fine. What is not fine is that if any issue gets referred to a higher
>> process for a resolution, it is often the same people grouping of
>> people
>> previously involved in disputes on the same topic who come to the
>> resolution forum to issue a decision. However, it is always the
>> 'outsider'
>> that loses. He gets acused of everything under the sun, and gets 'good
>> advice' from supposedly neutral editors, urging him to calm down, to
>> temper
>> his language etc. It is like trying to point out that the earth is
>> round
>> at
>> a monthly meetng of the fat-earthers. That is not healthy and is making
>> the
>> WP processes look like a kangaroo court run by a cabal.
>>
>> And I expect pretty much the same reaction to this email.
>>
>> I pointed out in an ealier email to this list the difficulty that one
>> encounters when you include something negative about certain big
>> corporations. I was stoned and made to feel that I was wrong and
>> everbody
>> else was right. The reaction was tantamount to a chorus of "yes, we
>> know
>> there are problems, but don't say it out loud, someone might hear
>> you!".
>>
>> Let's for argument's say that I was wrong. But - more importantantly -
>> was
>> anything done to investigate what I was saying? What if there are
>> l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

It is addressed but by a rather complicated and demanding process. See
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Not really workable for new users who bump
up against well-established users who have bad habits, or have learned
that nasty behavior pays off in being able to control content.

Fred

> I think you are completely right and it is a big problem in the
> Wiki-world that is not being addressed by anyone in a leading position.
>
> Regards,
> Lars Gardenius
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Von: Rui Correia 
> An: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Gesendet: 23:08 Mittwoch, 4.September 2013
> Betreff: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
>
>
> Greetings to All
>
> Let me start by saying that I don't do much here at the WP, not compared
> to
> people who make hundreds of edits a week. I would love to, have a long
> list
> of "to-do", but unfortunately time is not on my side.
>
> In my limited involvemet here, I have seen many a good editor leave the
> project. Mostly, people leave because they can't take it anymore having
> to
> fight the 'blocks' of defenders that coalesce around certain topics.
>
> In itself, though not very healthy, such blocks forming around topis is
> fine. What is not fine is that if any issue gets referred to a higher
> process for a resolution, it is often the same people grouping of people
> previously involved in disputes on the same topic who come to the
> resolution forum to issue a decision. However, it is always the
> 'outsider'
> that loses. He gets acused of everything under the sun, and gets 'good
> advice' from supposedly neutral editors, urging him to calm down, to
> temper
> his language etc. It is like trying to point out that the earth is round
> at
> a monthly meetng of the fat-earthers. That is not healthy and is making
> the
> WP processes look like a kangaroo court run by a cabal.
>
> And I expect pretty much the same reaction to this email.
>
> I pointed out in an ealier email to this list the difficulty that one
> encounters when you include something negative about certain big
> corporations. I was stoned and made to feel that I was wrong and everbody
> else was right. The reaction was tantamount to a chorus of "yes, we know
> there are problems, but don't say it out loud, someone might hear you!".
>
> Let's for argument's say that I was wrong. But - more importantantly -
> was
> anything done to investigate what I was saying? What if there are legions
> out there paid to sanitise the pages of big corporations? And we know
> that
> they exist, and that WP has taken up the issue as in here,
> http://nick-xomba-ceo.xomba.com/microsoft_accused_of_paying_blogger_to_alter_wikipedia_articles
>
> I made a silly remark on a Talk page about the choice of the word
> "downgrade" to refer to people using Windows 8 who wanted to go back to
> XP.
> For a failed product, by Microsoft's own admission, going back to XP is
> an
> upgrade, going back to sanity, not a downgrade.
>
> I was first accused of trolling, then something else, then of offending
> the
> entire community of users of Windows 8. The editor who is adamant - not
> the
> first time - to purge ant-MS from the talkpage violated the 3RR, but
> nothing gets done about it. I reported the 3RR, and it was immediately
> closed, labelled as being relatiatory. There is a backlog of issues on
> that
> page, but my entry was closed within minutes.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Codename_Lisa_reported_by_User:Rui_Gabriel_Correia_.28Result:_Closed.29
>
> It was closed, claiming that it was already being addressed elsewhere.
>
> So, I too will consider my stay here. Like I said right at the top, I
> don't
> do much here, so I am certain I will not even be missed. I edit in eight
> languages, small little bits here and there. I participated in a number
> of
> initiaves on the development of Chapters in Africa and am happy to see
> that
> things are moving. I had the honour and privilege to meet Jimmy Wales in
> South Africa and to discuss a few things relating to WP in Africa.
>
> So, it is time to wind down anr retire into a corner. I am busy with a
> novel, I am sure that is where I should invest my time and energy.
>
> Sincere regards to all, happy editing
>
> Rui Correia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> _
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> ___
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia and the politics of encryption

[Fred Bauder]

> To be fair, none of the people receiving requests through legal@ or
> emergency@ have security clearances either.
>
> Kirill

True, but there are not so many of them. I'm not sure if a request about
a major matter has ever been made through any channel. In a way, that is
kind of a dumb move.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia and the politics of encryption

[Fred Bauder]

> To be fair, none of the people receiving requests through legal@ or
> emergency@ have security clearances either.
>
> Kirill

True, but there are not so many of them. I'm not sure if a request about
a major matter has ever been made through any channel. In a way, that is
kind of a dumb move.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia and the politics of encryption

[Fred Bauder]

>> Are there more successful attempts?
>
> It would be difficult to enumerate successful attempts since, by
> definition, they would have been successful at not being known.  :-)
> -- Marc

I once suppressed information about a troop movement underway in Iraq
after a request. Troop movements are explicitly mentioned in the
Espionage Act.

Such requests, and other requests regarding obviously illegal material,
should go to legal at wikimedia.org or emergency at wikimedia.org at the
Foundation rather than to User:Oversight, by the way. There is a whole
bunch of people on the oversight committee none of whom are known to have
security clearances.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia and the politics of encryption

[Fred Bauder]

I guess emergencies should not go to legal as there may be a considerable
delay.

Fred

>
>>> Are there more successful attempts?
>>
>> It would be difficult to enumerate successful attempts since, by
>> definition, they would have been successful at not being known.  :-)
>> -- Marc
>
> I once suppressed information about a troop movement underway in Iraq
> after a request. Troop movements are explicitly mentioned in the
> Espionage Act.
>
> Such requests, and other requests regarding obviously illegal material,
> should go to legal at wikimedia.org or emergency at wikimedia.org at the
> Foundation rather than to User:Oversight, by the way. There is a whole
> bunch of people on the oversight committee none of whom are known to have
> security clearances.
>
> Fred
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia and the politics of encryption

[Fred Bauder]

> On 09/03/2013 08:36 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Any censor from the United States or European governments that works
>> directly with us (I have no personal knowledge of this, I just know it
>> has to be) is concerned with classified information, not someone's
>> opinions or factual information about historical events or political
>> personalities.
>
> You have an optimism and faith in your government(s) that is, sadly, not
> justified by history (past and recent).  The blanket "classified" (or,
> more recently "national security") has and is being used to cover up
> "embarrassing" more often than not.
>
> -- Marc

There is legitimate classified material just as there is child
pornography. Abusive nonsense does not make that fact go away. Someone,
actually, many someones, need to be trusted.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Wikimedia and the politics of encryption

[Fred Bauder]

And from that assertion what practical action or policy should follow?

Fred

> Fred,
>
> Sorry, there is no us. As far as the United States is concerned they
> allowed themselves to spy on any person who is not one of US to be speid
> on. Given that our movement is a global movement, the fact that it is
> based
> in the US is incidental.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
> On 3 September 2013 14:36, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>
>> Any censor from the United States or European governments that works
>> directly with us (I have no personal knowledge of this, I just know it
>> has to be) is concerned with classified information, not someone's
>> opinions or factual information about historical events or political
>> personalities.
>>
>> Detailed information about construction of advanced nuclear weapons or
>> the details of military or intelligence operations cannot be on
>> Wikipedia
>> just as child pornography cannot be; on the other hand, a distorted, or
>> devastatingly accurate picture, of the Iraq War, or Obama, can be.
>>
>> So, while the details of material removed for legitimate security
>> reasons
>> cannot be published; in China the identity and any personal information
>> we have gathered such as the ip address of an editor and the content of
>> their edits to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 article would be
>> of
>> interest to the security apparatus and classified. Any local employee
>> or
>> volunteer of ours who shared that information with others even within
>> our
>> organization could be prosecuted. It is quite impossible to work with
>> the
>> Chinese government in the manner suggested and maintain a scintilla of
>> integrity. A request by them to remove details about their advanced
>> nuclear weapons or specific details of their military deployments
>> would,
>> of course, be legitimate.
>>
>> The Chinese government has legitimate reason to avoid extensive public
>> attention to past errors and disasters; one has only to look at the
>> history of the Soviet Union to observe the effect of focusing on past
>> outrages on public morale, but that is their burden to bear not ours to
>> share.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> > Hoi,
>> >
>> > Fred, what is different in your scenario from what happens in the USA
>> ?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >   GerardM
>> >
>> >
>> > On 3 September 2013 00:23, Fred Bauder 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > On 31/08/13 15:17, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> >> >> It could be argued
>> >> >> that it’s time to draw a line in the sand - if
>> you’re
>> >> prohibiting
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> use of encryption, you’re effectively not part
>> of the web.
>> >> You’re
>> >> >> subverting basic web technologies.
>> >> >
>> >> > China is not prohibiting encryption. They're prohibiting specific
>> >> > instances of encryption which facilitate circumvention of
>> censorship.
>> >> >
>> >> >> So, what to do? My main suggestion is to organize a broad request
>> >> for
>> >> >> comments and input on possible paths forward.
>> >> >
>> >> > OK, well there's one fairly obvious solution which hasn't been
>> >> > proposed or discussed. It would allow the end-to-end encryption
>> and
>> >> > would allow us to stay as popular in China as we are now.
>> >> >
>> >> > We could open a data centre in China, send frontend requests from
>> >> > clients in China to that data centre, and comply with local
>> >> censorship
>> >> > and surveillance as required to continue such operation.
>> >> >
>> >> > It would be kind of like the cooperation we give to the US
>> government
>> >> > at the moment, except specific to readers in China instead of
>> imposed
>> >> > on everyone in the world.
>> >> >
>> >> > It would allow WMF to monitor censorship and surveillance by being
>> in
>> >> > the request loop. It would give WMF greater influence over local
>> >> > policy, because our staff would be in direct contact with their
>> >> staff.
>> >> > We would be able to deliver clear error messages in place of
>> censored
>> >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia and the politics of encryption

[Fred Bauder]

Any censor from the United States or European governments that works
directly with us (I have no personal knowledge of this, I just know it
has to be) is concerned with classified information, not someone's
opinions or factual information about historical events or political
personalities.

Detailed information about construction of advanced nuclear weapons or
the details of military or intelligence operations cannot be on Wikipedia
just as child pornography cannot be; on the other hand, a distorted, or
devastatingly accurate picture, of the Iraq War, or Obama, can be.

So, while the details of material removed for legitimate security reasons
cannot be published; in China the identity and any personal information
we have gathered such as the ip address of an editor and the content of
their edits to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 article would be of
interest to the security apparatus and classified. Any local employee or
volunteer of ours who shared that information with others even within our
organization could be prosecuted. It is quite impossible to work with the
Chinese government in the manner suggested and maintain a scintilla of
integrity. A request by them to remove details about their advanced
nuclear weapons or specific details of their military deployments would,
of course, be legitimate.

The Chinese government has legitimate reason to avoid extensive public
attention to past errors and disasters; one has only to look at the
history of the Soviet Union to observe the effect of focusing on past
outrages on public morale, but that is their burden to bear not ours to
share.

Fred

> Hoi,
>
> Fred, what is different in your scenario from what happens in the USA ?
>
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
> On 3 September 2013 00:23, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>
>> > On 31/08/13 15:17, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> >> It could be argued
>> >> that it’s time to draw a line in the sand - if you’re
>> prohibiting
>> >> the
>> >> use of encryption, you’re effectively not part of the web.
>> You’re
>> >> subverting basic web technologies.
>> >
>> > China is not prohibiting encryption. They're prohibiting specific
>> > instances of encryption which facilitate circumvention of censorship.
>> >
>> >> So, what to do? My main suggestion is to organize a broad request
>> for
>> >> comments and input on possible paths forward.
>> >
>> > OK, well there's one fairly obvious solution which hasn't been
>> > proposed or discussed. It would allow the end-to-end encryption and
>> > would allow us to stay as popular in China as we are now.
>> >
>> > We could open a data centre in China, send frontend requests from
>> > clients in China to that data centre, and comply with local
>> censorship
>> > and surveillance as required to continue such operation.
>> >
>> > It would be kind of like the cooperation we give to the US government
>> > at the moment, except specific to readers in China instead of imposed
>> > on everyone in the world.
>> >
>> > It would allow WMF to monitor censorship and surveillance by being in
>> > the request loop. It would give WMF greater influence over local
>> > policy, because our staff would be in direct contact with their
>> staff.
>> > We would be able to deliver clear error messages in place of censored
>> > content, instead of a connection reset.
>> >
>> > -- Tim Starling
>>
>> Their orders would be classified; disclosure of them would be a crime.
>> Not a problem for us, but a big problem for staff on the ground in
>> China.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> 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
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] Wikimedia and the politics of encryption

[Fred Bauder]

> On 31/08/13 15:17, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> It could be argued
>> that it’s time to draw a line in the sand - if you’re prohibiting
>> the
>> use of encryption, you’re effectively not part of the web. You’re
>> subverting basic web technologies.
>
> China is not prohibiting encryption. They're prohibiting specific
> instances of encryption which facilitate circumvention of censorship.
>
>> So, what to do? My main suggestion is to organize a broad request for
>> comments and input on possible paths forward.
>
> OK, well there's one fairly obvious solution which hasn't been
> proposed or discussed. It would allow the end-to-end encryption and
> would allow us to stay as popular in China as we are now.
>
> We could open a data centre in China, send frontend requests from
> clients in China to that data centre, and comply with local censorship
> and surveillance as required to continue such operation.
>
> It would be kind of like the cooperation we give to the US government
> at the moment, except specific to readers in China instead of imposed
> on everyone in the world.
>
> It would allow WMF to monitor censorship and surveillance by being in
> the request loop. It would give WMF greater influence over local
> policy, because our staff would be in direct contact with their staff.
> We would be able to deliver clear error messages in place of censored
> content, instead of a connection reset.
>
> -- Tim Starling

Their orders would be classified; disclosure of them would be a crime.
Not a problem for us, but a big problem for staff on the ground in China.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] A Survey on Science Reporting

[Fred Bauder]

If you write or add to articles based on journal articles you might
complete this survey:

https://lsucommunications.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_0PTVlA7OUCLqkyV

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense

[Fred Bauder]

> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Peter Gervai  wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
>>  wrote:
>>> On Aug 21, 2013 8:56 AM, "Peter Gervai"  wrote:
>>
>>> The account and/or underlying IP is
>>> blocked. That is the technical impediment. The action that is now a
>>> federal
>>> offense, it seems, is to defy the warning, by circumventing the block
>>> by
>>> changing IP and/or account to do what you were told not to do on the
>>> warning.
>>
>> Technicalities aside if I follow you right then it is a federal
>> offense to edit Wikipedia when you were told not to (eg. banned but
>> _not_ blocked). If that's the case the IP part of the discussion is
>> mainly irrelevant as one does not have to evade a block to violate the
>> ban.
>>
>>> The central issue though, that it
>>> seems block evasion is a federal offense, is not affected by the
>>> difficulty
>>> in proving evidence for it. It is the question whether the evasion is
>>> a
>>> crime that bothers me.
>>
>> [insert meetoo here]
>>
>> g
>>
>
> This is actually incorrect, as were some of your comments about the
> irrelevance of IP blocks in your prior post. Have a look at some of
> the links I posted earlier in the thread, I think the issues should
> become more clear.
>
> To FT2's comments - it's not actually true that the IP ban, or a cease
> and desist, have to be specific to a person. In fact in the linked
> case, they are blanket to a company. I see no particular reason why
> the same reasoning can't be applied to a school, or a church. A
> geographic area is probably harder to support. Additionally, we
> generally give warnings, and block accounts. For the most egregious
> harassment, the only instances I can see this ever coming into play
> for Wikimedia, virtually every perpetrator has a long history of
> blocked user accounts. I think that makes the debate over the
> "personally identifying nature" of IPs irrelevant for this discussion.

Although I don't think it rose to the level that a federal court would
take it seriously the Scientology socks are an example. There, ips were
usually irrelevant as was the individual identity of users; although we
knew a few.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense

[Fred Bauder]

We could hire expert staff to deal with serious socking by dangerous or
highly disruptive users. Their wages would be the damage.

Fred

> An additional issue, if we're still talking CFAA's private right of
> action,
> is where would the minimum damage requirements come from?
>
> -Dan
>
> Dan Rosenthal
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
>>  wrote:
>> > Discussed several times with no clear outcome.
>> >
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-January/123678.html
>> >
>> > <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-10-06#WSJ_Op-Ed_.22Should_Faking_a_Name_on_Facebook_Be_a_Felony.3F.22
>> >
>> > <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-11-08#Is_this_enforceable.3F
>> >
>> > <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-12-13#Criminal_liability_for_breaching_the_TOU
>> >
>> >
>> > Nemo
>> >
>> >
>>
>> That is, frankly, a very different issue (in fact, other than
>> implicating the CFAA, could hardly be more different).
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense

[Fred Bauder]

> http://feedly.com/k/14WeLcY
>
> I wish I was grossly misrepresenting the situation here. If I am, please
> do
> set me straight.

You're not wrong, but getting the attention of a federal prosecutor would
be easier for jaywalking in a National Park. It applies only to extreme
situations.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

[Fred Bauder]

> Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
>
> I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European
> ancestry".
> What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other "white
> people"
> if not of Europen ancestry?

The Ainu people, not that it matters.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA

[Fred Bauder]

I think it's more reasonable to assume that
> Wikipedia (which shares many features with Google, Yahoo, Twitter,
Facebook and other social networks) has been the subject of this kind
of demand than that it hasn't. No one with direct knowledge would be
able to do anything other than deny it, but we can easily see why data
held by Wikipedia (including partially anonymized e-mails, file
> uploads, talk page communication, etc.) would be of interest to
> intelligence agencies.

The capacity of the Wikimedia Foundation to keep a secret of this nature
is low. Simply too many outlaws; something NSA could probably figure out;
they are not called intelligence for nothing.

Fred

Changed "law" to "low"


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA

[Fred Bauder]

I think it's more reasonable to assume that
> Wikipedia (which shares many features with Google, Yahoo, Twitter,
> Facebook and other social networks) has been the subject of this kind
> of demand than that it hasn't. No one with direct knowledge would be
> able to do anything other than deny it, but we can easily see why data
> held by Wikipedia (including partially anonymized e-mails, file
> uploads, talk page communication, etc.) would be of interest to
> intelligence agencies.

The capacity of the Wikimedia Foundation to keep a secret of this nature
is law. Simply too many outlaws; something NSA could probably figure out;
they are not called intelligence for nothing.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA

[Fred Bauder]

Look at the attached image.

Fred

> Hmmm, the word "wiki" isn't named anywhere.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
>> Apparently Wikipedia was or is one of the targeted websites.
>>
>> Risker
>>
>>
>> On 31 July 2013 15:42, Huib Laurens  wrote:
>>
>> > How is this related to the foundation?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > See attachment.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data
>> > >
>> > > Fred
>> > > ___
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Met vriendelijke groet,
>> >
>> > Huib Laurens
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > 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
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groet,
>
> Huib Laurens
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> 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
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] NSA

[Fred Bauder]

> See attachment.
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data

"the NSA has created a multi-tiered system that allows analysts to store
"interesting" content in other databases, such as one named Pinwale which
can store material for up to five years. "

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,