Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

On 20 February 2014 00:56, HaeB wrote: > > > Sorry, but I think these concerns are overblown. > I do not intend to fill everyone's inbox with a back-and-forth, but I do want to clarify some of my points. > First, IANAL, but an "academic ... who makes their first tentative > edit" or other norma

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

I've thought a lot about the issues around conflict of interest, paid editing, and paid advocacy (by the way, those are all overlapping but different concepts). My writing (and disclosure) was brought up on this list last time the issue came up as a m

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Input on new models

s. > > SJ > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks > wrote: > > The Board's resolution for the new Affiliations Committee says that "The > > proposed charter and plan should be submitted to the Board by 15 June, > for > > approval by

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Input on new models

The Board's resolution for the new Affiliations Committee says that "The proposed charter and plan should be submitted to the Board by 15 June, for approval by its July 2012 meeting." Did that ever happen? I'm glad that Wikimedia CAT has been able to start the thematic organization application, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

I think the idea that making the log of checks public will necessarily be a service to those subject to CheckUser is misguided. One of the best reasons for keeping the logs private is not security through obscurity but the prevention of unwarranted stigma and drama. Most checks (which aren't ju

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

I think the idea that making the log of checks public will be a service to those subject to CheckUser is misguided. One of the best reasons for keeping the logs private is not security through obscurity but the prevention of unwarranted stigma and drama. Most checks (which aren't just scanning