Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[phoebe ayers]

On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski
 wrote:
> While I appreciate the lengthy discussion about the scope of the resolution
> and about the ways it can be implemented in on-wiki processes, I would like
> to raise a different question.
>
> I note with some interest that Jimmy's vote is not recorded at
> ,
> and I wonder what are the exact reasons behind that

He was only able to attend part of the meeting and so missed this vote
-- he should have been marked as absent.

-- phoebe

-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
 gmail.com *

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jeevan Jose]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_151#Resolution:Media_about_living_people

Hope this helps.

Jee


On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski  wrote:

> While I appreciate the lengthy discussion about the scope of the
> resolution and about the ways it can be implemented in on-wiki processes, I
> would like to raise a different question.
>
> I note with some interest that Jimmy's vote is not recorded at <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Media_about_living_people>,
> and I wonder what are the exact reasons behind that, and how this lack of
> information relates to a March 30, 2012 resolution on Board of Trustees
> Voting Transparency,  org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Transparency>.
>
> Perhaps it might also be worth mentioning that there are two additional
> resolutions approved after March 30, 2012 that do not comply with the
> Voting Transparency resolution:
>
> *  reappointment_2013>
> *  de_Vreede_reappointment_2013>
>
> I believe that the Board or Foundation lawyers might want to have a look
> at those.
>
>   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] Resolution: Media about living people

[Tomasz W. Kozlowski]

While I appreciate the lengthy discussion about the scope of the 
resolution and about the ways it can be implemented in on-wiki 
processes, I would like to raise a different question.


I note with some interest that Jimmy's vote is not recorded at 
, 
and I wonder what are the exact reasons behind that, and how this lack 
of information relates to a March 30, 2012 resolution on Board of 
Trustees Voting Transparency, 
.


Perhaps it might also be worth mentioning that there are two additional 
resolutions approved after March 30, 2012 that do not comply with the 
Voting Transparency resolution:


* 

* 



I believe that the Board or Foundation lawyers might want to have a look 
at those.


  Tomasz

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jane Darnell]

Well I was thinking of only tagging pictures that are controversial,
but of course you could tag everything, I suppose. It would be simpler
to tag categories, that way you have semi-automatic tagging of
pictures of the top-tier (the Obama-tier and above) without having any
problematic names in the description, and anything below that, well,
we probably don't have those pictures in categories anyway, and we
also don't really care if the names are on there or not,

2013/12/15, Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> I am really interested in how you think this will work out when Commons is
> going to use Wikidata. The planning is that in half a year the Wikidata
> team will start work on implementing something for Commons. It will include
> tagging. So for me a picture will be tagged and indicate who is in a
> picture. Consequently a person can be found in any language as long as you
> get the spelling right.
>
> As it is there are plenty of people of questionable notability in Wikidata
> and at the same time there are plenty notable people from many countries
> lacking. If the same criteria for notability for Americans is used for the
> rest of the world... the number of people known to Wikidata will grow a lot
> bigger.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
> On 15 December 2013 10:24, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
>> Craig, Phoebe, and Yaroslav, those are all very good points. Until
>> Google improves its image-recognition software, most photos appearing
>> in google images are triggered by text in the image description. It
>> should be easy to tag problematic image desriptions, especially when
>> more people than the subject are recognizable in the photo. Certainly
>> identification of people in the text is completely unnecessary if they
>> are non-notable, so introducing "tiers of notability" might be an
>> interesting idea (though someone marginally notable in the US is
>> probably not notable elsewhere and the other way around)
>>
>> I still think that we need more discovery tools to allow people (BLP
>> subjects and their extended contacts) to find out more about the text
>> or photo they are interested in. We should do a lot more on complaint
>> prevention, because as Phoebe said, we just don't have enough time to
>> handle the complaints.
>>
>> 2013/12/15, Craig Franklin :
>> > On 15 December 2013 02:54, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> > Hi Jane,
>> >> >
>> >> > I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment "the real BLP
>> >> >> problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia
>> users
>> >> >> swing their weight around"
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the
>> >> > reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten different answers.
>>  All
>> >> ten
>> >> > would probably have some truth in them, but any one in isolation
>> >> > would
>> >> > be
>> >> > inadequate.
>> >>
>> >> The list of problems becomes even longer for images.
>> >>
>> >> The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about
>> >> identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography.  This
>> >> new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such
>> >> distinction for media, which I guess will result in lots of confusion
>> >> about whether the scope includes images of unidentifiable people.  It
>> >> should, but ...
>> >>
>> >
>> > Part of the problem in my view is that there is no notability
>> requirements
>> > for identifiable persons appearing in images.  While in the great
>> majority
>> > of cases this is not really a problem, it does lead to very problematic
>> > things like pictures of people in states of undress, engaging in sexual
>> > activity, or doing something else their employer, family or local
>> community
>> > might not be okay with, without any evidence of ongoing consent for that
>> > image to remain available.  The only mechanism for getting rid of these
>> is
>> > effectively for the subject of the image to email a stranger, provide
>> > evidence that they're the person in the image, ask nicely for it to be
>> > taken down, and hope to hell that the person is reasonable and doesn't
>> play
>> > the "It's educational and under a free licence, sorry!" card.  This is
>> > an
>> > issue that needs to be addressed because the status quo is entirely
>> > unsatisfactory.
>> >
>> > Of course, the immediate reaction on Commons to this seems to be
>> > Wikilawyering as to whether the resolution applies to galleries or not.
>> >  Given that the BoT's intent is clearly that this should apply to
>> > everything, everywhere on all Wikimedia projects, this doesn't fill me
>> with
>> > a great deal of hope that the Commons community as a whole is capable of
>> > adequately dealing with this.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Craig
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am really interested in how you think this will work out when Commons is
going to use Wikidata. The planning is that in half a year the Wikidata
team will start work on implementing something for Commons. It will include
tagging. So for me a picture will be tagged and indicate who is in a
picture. Consequently a person can be found in any language as long as you
get the spelling right.

As it is there are plenty of people of questionable notability in Wikidata
and at the same time there are plenty notable people from many countries
lacking. If the same criteria for notability for Americans is used for the
rest of the world... the number of people known to Wikidata will grow a lot
bigger.
Thanks,
  GerardM


On 15 December 2013 10:24, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Craig, Phoebe, and Yaroslav, those are all very good points. Until
> Google improves its image-recognition software, most photos appearing
> in google images are triggered by text in the image description. It
> should be easy to tag problematic image desriptions, especially when
> more people than the subject are recognizable in the photo. Certainly
> identification of people in the text is completely unnecessary if they
> are non-notable, so introducing "tiers of notability" might be an
> interesting idea (though someone marginally notable in the US is
> probably not notable elsewhere and the other way around)
>
> I still think that we need more discovery tools to allow people (BLP
> subjects and their extended contacts) to find out more about the text
> or photo they are interested in. We should do a lot more on complaint
> prevention, because as Phoebe said, we just don't have enough time to
> handle the complaints.
>
> 2013/12/15, Craig Franklin :
> > On 15 December 2013 02:54, John Vandenberg  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin
> >>  wrote:
> >> > Hi Jane,
> >> >
> >> > I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment "the real BLP
> >> >> problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia
> users
> >> >> swing their weight around"
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the
> >> > reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten different answers.
>  All
> >> ten
> >> > would probably have some truth in them, but any one in isolation would
> >> > be
> >> > inadequate.
> >>
> >> The list of problems becomes even longer for images.
> >>
> >> The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about
> >> identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography.  This
> >> new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such
> >> distinction for media, which I guess will result in lots of confusion
> >> about whether the scope includes images of unidentifiable people.  It
> >> should, but ...
> >>
> >
> > Part of the problem in my view is that there is no notability
> requirements
> > for identifiable persons appearing in images.  While in the great
> majority
> > of cases this is not really a problem, it does lead to very problematic
> > things like pictures of people in states of undress, engaging in sexual
> > activity, or doing something else their employer, family or local
> community
> > might not be okay with, without any evidence of ongoing consent for that
> > image to remain available.  The only mechanism for getting rid of these
> is
> > effectively for the subject of the image to email a stranger, provide
> > evidence that they're the person in the image, ask nicely for it to be
> > taken down, and hope to hell that the person is reasonable and doesn't
> play
> > the "It's educational and under a free licence, sorry!" card.  This is an
> > issue that needs to be addressed because the status quo is entirely
> > unsatisfactory.
> >
> > Of course, the immediate reaction on Commons to this seems to be
> > Wikilawyering as to whether the resolution applies to galleries or not.
> >  Given that the BoT's intent is clearly that this should apply to
> > everything, everywhere on all Wikimedia projects, this doesn't fill me
> with
> > a great deal of hope that the Commons community as a whole is capable of
> > adequately dealing with this.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> > ___
> > 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] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jane Darnell]

Craig, Phoebe, and Yaroslav, those are all very good points. Until
Google improves its image-recognition software, most photos appearing
in google images are triggered by text in the image description. It
should be easy to tag problematic image desriptions, especially when
more people than the subject are recognizable in the photo. Certainly
identification of people in the text is completely unnecessary if they
are non-notable, so introducing "tiers of notability" might be an
interesting idea (though someone marginally notable in the US is
probably not notable elsewhere and the other way around)

I still think that we need more discovery tools to allow people (BLP
subjects and their extended contacts) to find out more about the text
or photo they are interested in. We should do a lot more on complaint
prevention, because as Phoebe said, we just don't have enough time to
handle the complaints.

2013/12/15, Craig Franklin :
> On 15 December 2013 02:54, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin
>>  wrote:
>> > Hi Jane,
>> >
>> > I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment "the real BLP
>> >> problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users
>> >> swing their weight around"
>> >>
>> >
>> > I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the
>> > reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten different answers.  All
>> ten
>> > would probably have some truth in them, but any one in isolation would
>> > be
>> > inadequate.
>>
>> The list of problems becomes even longer for images.
>>
>> The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about
>> identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography.  This
>> new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such
>> distinction for media, which I guess will result in lots of confusion
>> about whether the scope includes images of unidentifiable people.  It
>> should, but ...
>>
>
> Part of the problem in my view is that there is no notability requirements
> for identifiable persons appearing in images.  While in the great majority
> of cases this is not really a problem, it does lead to very problematic
> things like pictures of people in states of undress, engaging in sexual
> activity, or doing something else their employer, family or local community
> might not be okay with, without any evidence of ongoing consent for that
> image to remain available.  The only mechanism for getting rid of these is
> effectively for the subject of the image to email a stranger, provide
> evidence that they're the person in the image, ask nicely for it to be
> taken down, and hope to hell that the person is reasonable and doesn't play
> the "It's educational and under a free licence, sorry!" card.  This is an
> issue that needs to be addressed because the status quo is entirely
> unsatisfactory.
>
> Of course, the immediate reaction on Commons to this seems to be
> Wikilawyering as to whether the resolution applies to galleries or not.
>  Given that the BoT's intent is clearly that this should apply to
> everything, everywhere on all Wikimedia projects, this doesn't fill me with
> a great deal of hope that the Commons community as a whole is capable of
> adequately dealing with this.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
> ___
> 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] Resolution: Media about living people

[Craig Franklin]

On 15 December 2013 02:54, John Vandenberg  wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin
>  wrote:
> > Hi Jane,
> >
> > I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment "the real BLP
> >> problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users
> >> swing their weight around"
> >>
> >
> > I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the
> > reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten different answers.  All
> ten
> > would probably have some truth in them, but any one in isolation would be
> > inadequate.
>
> The list of problems becomes even longer for images.
>
> The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about
> identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography.  This
> new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such
> distinction for media, which I guess will result in lots of confusion
> about whether the scope includes images of unidentifiable people.  It
> should, but ...
>

Part of the problem in my view is that there is no notability requirements
for identifiable persons appearing in images.  While in the great majority
of cases this is not really a problem, it does lead to very problematic
things like pictures of people in states of undress, engaging in sexual
activity, or doing something else their employer, family or local community
might not be okay with, without any evidence of ongoing consent for that
image to remain available.  The only mechanism for getting rid of these is
effectively for the subject of the image to email a stranger, provide
evidence that they're the person in the image, ask nicely for it to be
taken down, and hope to hell that the person is reasonable and doesn't play
the "It's educational and under a free licence, sorry!" card.  This is an
issue that needs to be addressed because the status quo is entirely
unsatisfactory.

Of course, the immediate reaction on Commons to this seems to be
Wikilawyering as to whether the resolution applies to galleries or not.
 Given that the BoT's intent is clearly that this should apply to
everything, everywhere on all Wikimedia projects, this doesn't fill me with
a great deal of hope that the Commons community as a whole is capable of
adequately dealing with this.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 14.12.2013 21:28, phoebe ayers wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 8:54 AM, John Vandenberg  
wrote:





Hi John,

I think this is an interesting point, but I'm not entirely sure I
follow don't we always worry about verifiability for images? We
certainly try to ensure that images are real and correctly identified
and not in copyright, etc. If someone uploads a random photo of
someone and says it's a picture of a celebrity, I feel like we
[Commons editors] would check that out. Not so?

-- phoebe



Sure, but what if someone uploads a photo of a celebrity and an 
unidentified person (which happens a lot)?


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[phoebe ayers]

On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 8:54 AM, John Vandenberg  wrote:

> The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about
> identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography.  This
> new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such
> distinction for media, which I guess will result in lots of confusion
> about whether the scope includes images of unidentifiable people.  It
> should, but ...
>
> This resolution appears to be asking for verifiability regarding
> images of living people.  We are going to need some clarity around
> what the board considers to be verifiability (how do we prove the
> photo was taken at a public event and it is real? etc), and whether
> that includes unidentifiable people.
>
> "Ensuring that all projects in all languages that describe or show
> living people have policies in place calling for special attention to
> the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;.."
>

Hi John,

I think this is an interesting point, but I'm not entirely sure I
follow don't we always worry about verifiability for images? We
certainly try to ensure that images are real and correctly identified
and not in copyright, etc. If someone uploads a random photo of
someone and says it's a picture of a celebrity, I feel like we
[Commons editors] would check that out. Not so?

-- phoebe

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[phoebe ayers]

On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:55 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Your logic here is broken. There are certainly times to have widely
> advertised discussions, but doing so is not free: they often require
> creating and deploying banners (with an associated increased risk of
> banner blindness), related mailing list posts, time taken to draft and
> re-draft proposals, and, of course, the time taken by members of the
> community to discuss and re-discuss how best to move forward. Time is
> precious, especially volunteer time, so we should make every effort to
> ensure that when we ask people to donate theirs to a global discussion, we
> don't do so lightly.

Yes, I agree.

Our discussions are important, but they are not free in terms of our
collective time. Let's take this particular thread as an example --
it's some 30 messages. Say it takes 15 minutes to read all of them,
and 500 subscribers have done so. That's 125 person-hours reading this
single thread alone -- or 15 people for an entire 8 hour workday. 15
very experienced Wikimedians spending a day can get a lot done :)

I don't think this particularly resolution warranted community
consultation; if I did, I would have pushed for it. The issue of how
to go ahead with BLPs in general certainly does, though --  that's the
point I was trying to make.


> As for these theoretical objections, if _you_ or anyone else objects to
> this amendment, I'd certainly be interested to read why.

Seconded.

cheers,
Phoebe

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jane Darnell]

Thanks Jee for those links. It strikes me as odd that on a
Commons:Contact us page there is no link to any explanation about how
it all works. In my (limited!) experience of helping BLP subjects, it
has helped them enormously just to talk about how Wikipedia works.
Sometimes they are certain that some family member is making revenge
edits, and just by showing them the user pages of the editors who made
the problematic edits, they are often very relieved. Looking at
history pages, discussion pages, and user pages is all very easy for
Wikipedians, but most BLP subjects have no clue and go ballistic over
something that might be trivial to fix. Instead of reducing our
content-intake, we should try to help people to help themselves more
by teaching them how to discover who made their page, who posted
comments or pictures to that page, and how to contact those users
either on their talk page or through the "email this user" feature.

2013/12/14, Jeevan Jose :
> And an application at
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Contact_us/Problems#Suggested_change
>
> Jee
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
>
>> "Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the
>> implications of this resolution? - John Vandenberg"
>>
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Resolution:Media_about_living_people
>>
>> Jee
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:24 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin
>>>  wrote:
>>> > Hi Jane,
>>> >
>>> > I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment "the real BLP
>>> >> problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users
>>> >> swing their weight around"
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the
>>> > reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten different answers.  All
>>> ten
>>> > would probably have some truth in them, but any one in isolation would
>>> be
>>> > inadequate.
>>>
>>> The list of problems becomes even longer for images.
>>>
>>> The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about
>>> identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography.  This
>>> new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such
>>> distinction for media, which I guess will result in lots of confusion
>>> about whether the scope includes images of unidentifiable people.  It
>>> should, but ...
>>>
>>> This resolution appears to be asking for verifiability regarding
>>> images of living people.  We are going to need some clarity around
>>> what the board considers to be verifiability (how do we prove the
>>> photo was taken at a public event and it is real? etc), and whether
>>> that includes unidentifiable people.
>>>
>>> "Ensuring that all projects in all languages that describe or show
>>> living people have policies in place calling for special attention to
>>> the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;.."
>>>
>>> On English Wikipedia we have some guidance regarding photos of living
>>> people, but I can't find anything relating to verifiability or
>>> neutrality.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images
>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Images
>>>
>>> Wikimedia Commons has a policy which rejects 'neutrality', and it
>>> doesnt have a verifiability policy.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Neutral_point_of_view
>>>
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
>>>
>>> Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the
>>> implications of this resolution?
>>>
>>> > My own point of view is that our policies and procedures are actually
>>> > pretty good on paper, but they're just very unevenly and inconsistently
>>> > applied in the real world.  The "Tier 1" biographies, such as those of
>>> > Messrs Obama, Cameron, and Abbott are pretty safe from BLP hijinx, but
>>> > there is a massive underbelly of poorly defended BLPs on minor
>>> celebrities,
>>> > local politicians, and the like, which are not watched consistently and
>>> > where hagiography or defamation can take root.  This is why, while
>>> things
>>> > like the BoT's declaration are not unwelcome, I feel that they don't
>>> have
>>> > any practical effect in fixing the problem.  All it takes is for one
>>> > negatively written bio to slip through the net to do real harm to
>>> someone
>>> > in the real world.
>>>
>>> I agree with you Craig up to here ..
>>>
>>> > My preferred way of dealing with this on en.wp would be to massively
>>> > tighten the notability criteria where they related to biographies of
>>> living
>>> > or possibly living people, but this would no doubt be met with cries of
>>> > "deletionism!".
>>>
>>> And agree your preferred approach could help.  On English Wikipedia, I
>>> think we have an article/editor ratio problem, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jeevan Jose]

And an application at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Contact_us/Problems#Suggested_change

Jee


On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Jeevan Jose  wrote:

> "Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the
> implications of this resolution? - John Vandenberg"
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Resolution:Media_about_living_people
>
> Jee
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:24 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin
>>  wrote:
>> > Hi Jane,
>> >
>> > I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment "the real BLP
>> >> problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users
>> >> swing their weight around"
>> >>
>> >
>> > I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the
>> > reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten different answers.  All
>> ten
>> > would probably have some truth in them, but any one in isolation would
>> be
>> > inadequate.
>>
>> The list of problems becomes even longer for images.
>>
>> The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about
>> identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography.  This
>> new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such
>> distinction for media, which I guess will result in lots of confusion
>> about whether the scope includes images of unidentifiable people.  It
>> should, but ...
>>
>> This resolution appears to be asking for verifiability regarding
>> images of living people.  We are going to need some clarity around
>> what the board considers to be verifiability (how do we prove the
>> photo was taken at a public event and it is real? etc), and whether
>> that includes unidentifiable people.
>>
>> "Ensuring that all projects in all languages that describe or show
>> living people have policies in place calling for special attention to
>> the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;.."
>>
>> On English Wikipedia we have some guidance regarding photos of living
>> people, but I can't find anything relating to verifiability or
>> neutrality.
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Images
>>
>> Wikimedia Commons has a policy which rejects 'neutrality', and it
>> doesnt have a verifiability policy.
>>
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Neutral_point_of_view
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
>>
>> Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the
>> implications of this resolution?
>>
>> > My own point of view is that our policies and procedures are actually
>> > pretty good on paper, but they're just very unevenly and inconsistently
>> > applied in the real world.  The "Tier 1" biographies, such as those of
>> > Messrs Obama, Cameron, and Abbott are pretty safe from BLP hijinx, but
>> > there is a massive underbelly of poorly defended BLPs on minor
>> celebrities,
>> > local politicians, and the like, which are not watched consistently and
>> > where hagiography or defamation can take root.  This is why, while
>> things
>> > like the BoT's declaration are not unwelcome, I feel that they don't
>> have
>> > any practical effect in fixing the problem.  All it takes is for one
>> > negatively written bio to slip through the net to do real harm to
>> someone
>> > in the real world.
>>
>> I agree with you Craig up to here ..
>>
>> > My preferred way of dealing with this on en.wp would be to massively
>> > tighten the notability criteria where they related to biographies of
>> living
>> > or possibly living people, but this would no doubt be met with cries of
>> > "deletionism!".
>>
>> And agree your preferred approach could help.  On English Wikipedia, I
>> think we have an article/editor ratio problem, which is only getting
>> worse as articles increase and editors leave, and is meaning
>> watchlists are less useful to scan for problematic edits.
>>
>> The test for this is what is the average length of time between an
>> edit of an old page (e.g. created in 2005) to the point in time that
>> the edit a) appears on a watchlist, or b) is viewed as a diff, or c)
>> is loaded as a page view, or d) leads to another edit.  Then compare
>> those averages with the averages from a year before, to determine
>> whether edits are slipping past watchlists and recentchanges. I'm
>> guessing that the length of time from edit to (a) or (b) is
>> increasing, while (c) may be decreasing as Wikipedia readership
>> increases.
>>
>> A smaller Wikipedia scope means there are less articles, with more
>> editors watching and editing the pages the BLP problems appear on.
>>
>> I think it is necessary to add here that FlaggedRevs (Pending Changes)
>> also helps, as any BLP problems are held in a queue.  The 'volume of
>> edits' can be a problem with FlaggedRevs in practise, but a)

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jeevan Jose]

"Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the
implications of this resolution? - John Vandenberg"

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Resolution:Media_about_living_people

Jee


On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:24 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin
>  wrote:
> > Hi Jane,
> >
> > I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment "the real BLP
> >> problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users
> >> swing their weight around"
> >>
> >
> > I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the
> > reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten different answers.  All
> ten
> > would probably have some truth in them, but any one in isolation would be
> > inadequate.
>
> The list of problems becomes even longer for images.
>
> The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about
> identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography.  This
> new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such
> distinction for media, which I guess will result in lots of confusion
> about whether the scope includes images of unidentifiable people.  It
> should, but ...
>
> This resolution appears to be asking for verifiability regarding
> images of living people.  We are going to need some clarity around
> what the board considers to be verifiability (how do we prove the
> photo was taken at a public event and it is real? etc), and whether
> that includes unidentifiable people.
>
> "Ensuring that all projects in all languages that describe or show
> living people have policies in place calling for special attention to
> the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;.."
>
> On English Wikipedia we have some guidance regarding photos of living
> people, but I can't find anything relating to verifiability or
> neutrality.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Images
>
> Wikimedia Commons has a policy which rejects 'neutrality', and it
> doesnt have a verifiability policy.
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Neutral_point_of_view
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
>
> Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the
> implications of this resolution?
>
> > My own point of view is that our policies and procedures are actually
> > pretty good on paper, but they're just very unevenly and inconsistently
> > applied in the real world.  The "Tier 1" biographies, such as those of
> > Messrs Obama, Cameron, and Abbott are pretty safe from BLP hijinx, but
> > there is a massive underbelly of poorly defended BLPs on minor
> celebrities,
> > local politicians, and the like, which are not watched consistently and
> > where hagiography or defamation can take root.  This is why, while things
> > like the BoT's declaration are not unwelcome, I feel that they don't have
> > any practical effect in fixing the problem.  All it takes is for one
> > negatively written bio to slip through the net to do real harm to someone
> > in the real world.
>
> I agree with you Craig up to here ..
>
> > My preferred way of dealing with this on en.wp would be to massively
> > tighten the notability criteria where they related to biographies of
> living
> > or possibly living people, but this would no doubt be met with cries of
> > "deletionism!".
>
> And agree your preferred approach could help.  On English Wikipedia, I
> think we have an article/editor ratio problem, which is only getting
> worse as articles increase and editors leave, and is meaning
> watchlists are less useful to scan for problematic edits.
>
> The test for this is what is the average length of time between an
> edit of an old page (e.g. created in 2005) to the point in time that
> the edit a) appears on a watchlist, or b) is viewed as a diff, or c)
> is loaded as a page view, or d) leads to another edit.  Then compare
> those averages with the averages from a year before, to determine
> whether edits are slipping past watchlists and recentchanges. I'm
> guessing that the length of time from edit to (a) or (b) is
> increasing, while (c) may be decreasing as Wikipedia readership
> increases.
>
> A smaller Wikipedia scope means there are less articles, with more
> editors watching and editing the pages the BLP problems appear on.
>
> I think it is necessary to add here that FlaggedRevs (Pending Changes)
> also helps, as any BLP problems are held in a queue.  The 'volume of
> edits' can be a problem with FlaggedRevs in practise, but a) the
> 'size.
>
> > Indeed, I don't think it's possible to adequately address
> > the issue on large projects like en.wp or commons without a massive
> > cultural shift and sweeping changes to policy that would cause immense
> > disruption in the community; something the BoT is understandably

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[John Vandenberg]

On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin
 wrote:
> Hi Jane,
>
> I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment "the real BLP
>> problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users
>> swing their weight around"
>>
>
> I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the
> reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten different answers.  All ten
> would probably have some truth in them, but any one in isolation would be
> inadequate.

The list of problems becomes even longer for images.

The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about
identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography.  This
new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such
distinction for media, which I guess will result in lots of confusion
about whether the scope includes images of unidentifiable people.  It
should, but ...

This resolution appears to be asking for verifiability regarding
images of living people.  We are going to need some clarity around
what the board considers to be verifiability (how do we prove the
photo was taken at a public event and it is real? etc), and whether
that includes unidentifiable people.

"Ensuring that all projects in all languages that describe or show
living people have policies in place calling for special attention to
the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;.."

On English Wikipedia we have some guidance regarding photos of living
people, but I can't find anything relating to verifiability or
neutrality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Images

Wikimedia Commons has a policy which rejects 'neutrality', and it
doesnt have a verifiability policy.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Neutral_point_of_view
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people

Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the
implications of this resolution?

> My own point of view is that our policies and procedures are actually
> pretty good on paper, but they're just very unevenly and inconsistently
> applied in the real world.  The "Tier 1" biographies, such as those of
> Messrs Obama, Cameron, and Abbott are pretty safe from BLP hijinx, but
> there is a massive underbelly of poorly defended BLPs on minor celebrities,
> local politicians, and the like, which are not watched consistently and
> where hagiography or defamation can take root.  This is why, while things
> like the BoT's declaration are not unwelcome, I feel that they don't have
> any practical effect in fixing the problem.  All it takes is for one
> negatively written bio to slip through the net to do real harm to someone
> in the real world.

I agree with you Craig up to here ..

> My preferred way of dealing with this on en.wp would be to massively
> tighten the notability criteria where they related to biographies of living
> or possibly living people, but this would no doubt be met with cries of
> "deletionism!".

And agree your preferred approach could help.  On English Wikipedia, I
think we have an article/editor ratio problem, which is only getting
worse as articles increase and editors leave, and is meaning
watchlists are less useful to scan for problematic edits.

The test for this is what is the average length of time between an
edit of an old page (e.g. created in 2005) to the point in time that
the edit a) appears on a watchlist, or b) is viewed as a diff, or c)
is loaded as a page view, or d) leads to another edit.  Then compare
those averages with the averages from a year before, to determine
whether edits are slipping past watchlists and recentchanges. I'm
guessing that the length of time from edit to (a) or (b) is
increasing, while (c) may be decreasing as Wikipedia readership
increases.

A smaller Wikipedia scope means there are less articles, with more
editors watching and editing the pages the BLP problems appear on.

I think it is necessary to add here that FlaggedRevs (Pending Changes)
also helps, as any BLP problems are held in a queue.  The 'volume of
edits' can be a problem with FlaggedRevs in practise, but a) the
'size.

> Indeed, I don't think it's possible to adequately address
> the issue on large projects like en.wp or commons without a massive
> cultural shift and sweeping changes to policy that would cause immense
> disruption in the community; something the BoT is understandably reluctant
> to do.

Another way the board can get serious about this problem is to mandate
that each project write a BLP management strategy that needs to be
approved by the WMF board, which would involve some type of periodic
review of all content.  The strategy would differ for each project
based on their policies, scope and the size of the project.  e.g.
Wikisources would need to review only unpublished sources added each
year; Wikipedias using FlaggedRevs 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Andy Mabbett]

On 14 December 2013 15:55, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Andy Mabbett wrote:

>>until a widely-advertised consultation is held
>>(advertised in the manner of the recent discussion on logos and
>>branding), we wont know the views of the community at large, rather
>>than those who have an axe to grind.

> Your logic here is broken.

Charmed, I'm sure.

[Snip opinion which in no way demonstrates broken logic]

>> We won't know, for instance, whether the amendment goes too far, >> or not 
>> far enough, in reflecting the communities wishes.
>
> I think what you're saying here is neither fair nor accurate.

In that I should have written "community's", or arguably,
"communities'", perhaps. But not otherwise.

[Snip more opinion]

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[MZMcBride]

Andy Mabbett wrote:
>Indeed there have. But until a widely-advertised consultation is held
>(advertised in the manner of the recent discussion on logos and
>branding), we wont know the views of the community at large, rather
>than those who have an axe to grind.

Your logic here is broken. There are certainly times to have widely
advertised discussions, but doing so is not free: they often require
creating and deploying banners (with an associated increased risk of
banner blindness), related mailing list posts, time taken to draft and
re-draft proposals, and, of course, the time taken by members of the
community to discuss and re-discuss how best to move forward. Time is
precious, especially volunteer time, so we should make every effort to
ensure that when we ask people to donate theirs to a global discussion, we
don't do so lightly. In this case, nobody has made a case that this small
amendment to a previous resolution required a global discussion. Generally
speaking, implementing common sense does not.

> We won't know, for instance, whether the amendment goes too far, or not
>far enough, in reflecting the communities wishes.

I think what you're saying here is neither fair nor accurate. We know that
the amendment doesn't go too far because we can read it and evaluate it.
The underlying issue here is that Commons is plagued by a community that
needs to get its house in order. I'm certainly not alone in this view.
Passing the biographies of living persons resolution without explicitly
mentioning media was probably a small oversight, in hindsight, though it's
a bit disheartening that the spirit of the resolution couldn't carry the
day and that the Board felt it necessary to explicitly dictate what common
sense was already saying. It's perhaps ironic that Commons seems to hold
common sense in such short supply. :-)

As for these theoretical objections, if _you_ or anyone else objects to
this amendment, I'd certainly be interested to read why. Positing that
someone could have objected in the event of a global community discussion
in an alternate universe, while an enjoyable weekend activity, isn't
actually the same as objections actively being raised against this
amendment.

Resolutions, as this amendment itself explicitly demonstrates, can be
modified, as necessary and appropriate. This is also not to be done
lightly or carelessly, but nothing is permanently and indefinitely "set in
stone" should there be legitimate reasons to modify a previous resolution.
As it stands, this is operative global policy and Commons and every other
project must respect it or exercise its right to fork.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jane Darnell]

Well I don't see any problem with starting off by taking a survey
among OTRS users, or in trying to collect data to classify problems
that are reported. Once we know what the "popular problems" are, can
we better help stop the flow of unwanted trash-talking on BLP's.

I think the "underbelly" that we all agree is problematic, could be a
lot less problematic if we kept the BLP's in that underbelly to only
mention the names of other living people if they are also on
Wikipedia. Often the names and activities of non-notable living people
such as former spouses, children, parents, and other related people
slip in to those BLPs in an unnecessary way. Those people are not
always thrilled to see their names on Wikipedia...

2013/12/14, Andy Mabbett :
> On 14 December 2013 00:30, phoebe ayers  wrote:
>
>>> I didn't make a comment; I requested information:
>>>
>>> "Please also provide a link to the consultation you carried out
>>>  with the community, before making this change. I seem to have
>>>  missed it."
>>>
>>> Oddly, I seem to have missed the response, also.
>>
>> Well, with such a pointed comment, I assumed you were trying to make a
>> point about the value of community consultations, so that's what I
>> responded to.
>
> To reiterate, I didn't make a comment; I requested information.
>
> [...]
>
>> So no, we didn't have a broad community consultation on
>> this particular amendment
>
> Thank you for making that clear.
>
>> there have been many related discussions on Commons and
>> Wikipedia over the years.
>
> Indeed there have. But until a widely-advertised consultation is held
> (advertised in the manner of the recent discussion on logos and
> branding), we wont know the views of the community at large, rather
> than those who have an axe to grind. We won't know, for instance,
> whether the amendment goes too far, or not far enough, in reflecting
> the communities wishes.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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] Resolution: Media about living people

[Andy Mabbett]

On 14 December 2013 00:30, phoebe ayers  wrote:

>> I didn't make a comment; I requested information:
>>
>> "Please also provide a link to the consultation you carried out
>>  with the community, before making this change. I seem to have
>>  missed it."
>>
>> Oddly, I seem to have missed the response, also.
>
> Well, with such a pointed comment, I assumed you were trying to make a
> point about the value of community consultations, so that's what I
> responded to.

To reiterate, I didn't make a comment; I requested information.

[...]

> So no, we didn't have a broad community consultation on
> this particular amendment

Thank you for making that clear.

> there have been many related discussions on Commons and
> Wikipedia over the years.

Indeed there have. But until a widely-advertised consultation is held
(advertised in the manner of the recent discussion on logos and
branding), we wont know the views of the community at large, rather
than those who have an axe to grind. We won't know, for instance,
whether the amendment goes too far, or not far enough, in reflecting
the communities wishes.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Craig Franklin]

Hi Jane,

I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment "the real BLP
> problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users
> swing their weight around"
>

I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the
reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten different answers.  All ten
would probably have some truth in them, but any one in isolation would be
inadequate.

My own point of view is that our policies and procedures are actually
pretty good on paper, but they're just very unevenly and inconsistently
applied in the real world.  The "Tier 1" biographies, such as those of
Messrs Obama, Cameron, and Abbott are pretty safe from BLP hijinx, but
there is a massive underbelly of poorly defended BLPs on minor celebrities,
local politicians, and the like, which are not watched consistently and
where hagiography or defamation can take root.  This is why, while things
like the BoT's declaration are not unwelcome, I feel that they don't have
any practical effect in fixing the problem.  All it takes is for one
negatively written bio to slip through the net to do real harm to someone
in the real world.

My preferred way of dealing with this on en.wp would be to massively
tighten the notability criteria where they related to biographies of living
or possibly living people, but this would no doubt be met with cries of
"deletionism!".  Indeed, I don't think it's possible to adequately address
the issue on large projects like en.wp or commons without a massive
cultural shift and sweeping changes to policy that would cause immense
disruption in the community; something the BoT is understandably reluctant
to do.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jane Darnell]

Thanks for that link, Phoebe!

I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment "the real BLP
problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users
swing their weight around"

Maybe such Wikipedians have a problem with the BLP person in real
life, or is closely related to some person who has a problem with the
BLP person, and maybe it is just some stubborn Wikipedian sticking to
the WP guidelines and policies. In the words of Emerson, "A foolish
consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little
statesmen and philosophers."

Whatever the reason, the result is always the same: the BLP person
feels helpless and abandoned to the whims and fancies of the
Wikipedian in question. Most times they don't even know enough to see
that it is just one person behind their reverts, and see the problem
as "Wikipedia, a bad place to have a page on".

The problem has accelerated since this discussion in 2010, however,
because with all the cutbacks in journalism, Wikipedia has become the
go-to place for information about such BLP's, unfortunately for them.

2013/12/14, phoebe ayers :
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>> On 12 December 2013 19:40, phoebe ayers  wrote:
>>
>>> With a nod to Andy's comment, as a
>>> community I think we may want to review our progress in the last few
>>> years on the BLP issue, and have a broad community consultation about
>>> where we are still falling short and ideas for going forward, given
>>> our constraints and changing environment of readers and editors.
>>
>> I didn't make a comment; I requested information:
>>
>> "Please also provide a link to the consultation you carried out
>>  with the community, before making this change. I seem to have
>>  missed it."
>>
>> Oddly, I seem to have missed the response, also.
>
> Well, with such a pointed comment, I assumed you were trying to make a
> point about the value of community consultations, so that's what I
> responded to.
>
> As Maria noted, this was prompted by a community request on the board
> noticeboard, which of course anyone is welcome to participate in. And
> as I noted, we saw a need to clarify what we intended in the earlier
> resolution -- not something that can really be determined by community
> consensus. So no, we didn't have a broad community consultation on
> this particular amendment, though I also don't think it was out of the
> blue; there have been many related discussions on Commons and
> Wikipedia over the years.
>
> I was recently reminded by someone that we *did* have a general
> community consultation on the BLP issue as part of the strategy
> project -- there's still good info (and some broad recommendations to
> the board) here, which are worth reviewing if the topic is of
> interest: https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People
>
> best,
> Phoebe
>
> ___
> 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] Resolution: Media about living people

[phoebe ayers]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> On 12 December 2013 19:40, phoebe ayers  wrote:
>
>> With a nod to Andy's comment, as a
>> community I think we may want to review our progress in the last few
>> years on the BLP issue, and have a broad community consultation about
>> where we are still falling short and ideas for going forward, given
>> our constraints and changing environment of readers and editors.
>
> I didn't make a comment; I requested information:
>
> "Please also provide a link to the consultation you carried out
>  with the community, before making this change. I seem to have
>  missed it."
>
> Oddly, I seem to have missed the response, also.

Well, with such a pointed comment, I assumed you were trying to make a
point about the value of community consultations, so that's what I
responded to.

As Maria noted, this was prompted by a community request on the board
noticeboard, which of course anyone is welcome to participate in. And
as I noted, we saw a need to clarify what we intended in the earlier
resolution -- not something that can really be determined by community
consensus. So no, we didn't have a broad community consultation on
this particular amendment, though I also don't think it was out of the
blue; there have been many related discussions on Commons and
Wikipedia over the years.

I was recently reminded by someone that we *did* have a general
community consultation on the BLP issue as part of the strategy
project -- there's still good info (and some broad recommendations to
the board) here, which are worth reviewing if the topic is of
interest: https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People

best,
Phoebe

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Andy Mabbett]

On 12 December 2013 19:40, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> With a nod to Andy's comment, as a
> community I think we may want to review our progress in the last few
> years on the BLP issue, and have a broad community consultation about
> where we are still falling short and ideas for going forward, given
> our constraints and changing environment of readers and editors.

I didn't make a comment; I requested information:

"Please also provide a link to the consultation you carried out
 with the community, before making this change. I seem to have
 missed it."

Oddly, I seem to have missed the response, also.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Mark]

On 12/12/13, 11:16 PM, David Gerard wrote:

On 12 December 2013 12:25, Mark  wrote:


Between tendentious negative information and self-promoting positive
information, I worry that the overall quality level of our biographies of
living people ends up poor in a great many cases, especially cases outside
the top tier of biographies visible enough to draw significant third-party
editors (Barack Obama, Fidel Castro, that kind of thing). But it would be
better to understand the problem, if it is one, in more detail.


I don't think this is, though - when people are this unambiguously
famous, I think our biographies hold up in terms of content, even when
the prose flows badly.



Perhaps I worded this badly; I think I actually agree with you, and was 
trying to say something similar. When people are famous enough that 
their biographies draw significant third-party editing, I think we 
actually *do* do an okay job. The prose of [[en:Barack Obama]] may not 
be ideal, but it's clearly not a puff piece written by his press 
secretary (on the one hand), nor a hit piece written by his political 
opponents (on the other). It's all the rest of the biographies of living 
people (which are a *lot*) where I worry our quality is poor. BLPs of 
people below the top tier of fame seem to attract a disproportionate 
amount of unfortunately motivated editing.


My main point is that I think we may have a big quality issue here, of 
being (so far) simply unable to cover a class of articles to a 
consistently high standard. Rather than a narrow issue of personal 
attacks solvable by more diligent application of OTRS responses and the 
like.


-Mark


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Nathan]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:16 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 12 December 2013 12:25, Mark  wrote:
>
> > Undue or unsourced negative information about living people is one
> aspect of
> > that, and what most of the formal BLP-related policy, and the process
> around
> > things like OTRS, is intended to address. The flipside is undue or
> unsourced
> > *positive* information about living people: in comparison to biographies
> > about non-living people, BLPs draw a huge proportion of puffed-up, COI,
> and
> > sometimes outright paid editing.
>
>
> Yes, I think hagiography is a problem on en:wp.
>
>
> > Between tendentious negative information and self-promoting positive
> > information, I worry that the overall quality level of our biographies of
> > living people ends up poor in a great many cases, especially cases
> outside
> > the top tier of biographies visible enough to draw significant
> third-party
> > editors (Barack Obama, Fidel Castro, that kind of thing). But it would be
> > better to understand the problem, if it is one, in more detail.
>
>
> I don't think this is, though - when people are this unambiguously
> famous, I think our biographies hold up in terms of content, even when
> the prose flows badly.
>
> How would we measure this?
>
>
And how would you have any confidence in the results being representative?
A sample that relies on some set of tags and categories to identify
articles is going to miss those without those indicators, which could
theoretically be a pretty large portion... And it's that group where you'll
likely find the highest proportion of shit content, the result of
obscurity.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[David Gerard]

On 12 December 2013 12:25, Mark  wrote:

> Undue or unsourced negative information about living people is one aspect of
> that, and what most of the formal BLP-related policy, and the process around
> things like OTRS, is intended to address. The flipside is undue or unsourced
> *positive* information about living people: in comparison to biographies
> about non-living people, BLPs draw a huge proportion of puffed-up, COI, and
> sometimes outright paid editing.


Yes, I think hagiography is a problem on en:wp.


> Between tendentious negative information and self-promoting positive
> information, I worry that the overall quality level of our biographies of
> living people ends up poor in a great many cases, especially cases outside
> the top tier of biographies visible enough to draw significant third-party
> editors (Barack Obama, Fidel Castro, that kind of thing). But it would be
> better to understand the problem, if it is one, in more detail.


I don't think this is, though - when people are this unambiguously
famous, I think our biographies hold up in terms of content, even when
the prose flows badly.

How would we measure this?


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Mark]

On 12/12/13, 8:40 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:

BLPs remain one of our big challenges, and will continue to be so as
long as Wikipedia is popular. With a nod to Andy's comment, as a
community I think we may want to review our progress in the last few
years on the BLP issue, and have a broad community consultation about
where we are still falling short and ideas for going forward, given
our constraints and changing environment of readers and editors.

A slightly broader study I'd be interested in that regard boils down to: 
are our BLPs any good? If the answer, as I suspect, is "sometimes they 
are, sometimes they aren't", can we say anything about how often, and in 
which kinds of cases?


Undue or unsourced negative information about living people is one 
aspect of that, and what most of the formal BLP-related policy, and the 
process around things like OTRS, is intended to address. The flipside is 
undue or unsourced *positive* information about living people: in 
comparison to biographies about non-living people, BLPs draw a huge 
proportion of puffed-up, COI, and sometimes outright paid editing.


Between tendentious negative information and self-promoting positive 
information, I worry that the overall quality level of our biographies 
of living people ends up poor in a great many cases, especially cases 
outside the top tier of biographies visible enough to draw significant 
third-party editors (Barack Obama, Fidel Castro, that kind of thing). 
But it would be better to understand the problem, if it is one, in more 
detail.


-Mark


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[phoebe ayers]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
> Thanks for this, but even with the amendments it sounds pretty weak.
> The closing text just shows how helpless we are in helping subjects
> when their article is under the watchful eye of some Wikipedia editor
> who feels that they "own" biography articles they have been watching
> for years. Though I support the intention behind this statement
> ("Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are portrayed
> in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging
> others to do the same"), it still offers no indication of a path
> forward for such subjects.  I would like to know where subjects can
> post their complaint besides on the talk page, since putting
> complaints there is still a form of publication and only serves to
> propagate the sensitive information that subjects want removed. Also,
> the text coming after "People sometimes make edits or add media
> designed to smear others" also doesn't address the problem. There are
> lots of unnecessarily sensitive edits made that are not made
> maliciously, but if they are sourced, are practically impossible to
> have removed, if the "personal owner" disagrees. I guess for major TV
> personalities and such it may be easier because there are more people
> watching and editing such biographies, but in the case of marginally
> notable people, they have no recourse whatsoever, as far as I can see.

All good and important questions, Jane -- and yes, all of this is left
unaddressed in this resolution. As careful readers have noted, this is
just a small update to the 2009 resolution, meant to clarify the
Board's original intent. We did not change the other parts of the text
or tackle the process-related parts of handling BLPs, which remains a
hard issue -- although one that has been addressed by various policies
and processes, such as our fantastic OTRS team.

BLPs remain one of our big challenges, and will continue to be so as
long as Wikipedia is popular. With a nod to Andy's comment, as a
community I think we may want to review our progress in the last few
years on the BLP issue, and have a broad community consultation about
where we are still falling short and ideas for going forward, given
our constraints and changing environment of readers and editors.

-- Phoebe

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[phoebe ayers]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Lodewijk  wrote:

> (just for the record: I'm not particularly against this amendment, I
> actually never assumed that files would be treated differently from texts
> anyway in this kind of stuff. Just plain curiosity.)

Neither did the board, which is why we passed the amendment -- because
there seemed to be some confusion on the matter :)

My take on the resolution -- not formally speaking for the board -- is
what I said on Commons: that the board feels Wikimedians should
exercise equal care when dealing with all portrayals of living people
on our various projects. So while the resolution is not meant to drive
to a very specific change and was not in response to any single
incident, it is meant as a statement of principles that we can use to
guide the development of process and policy -- and as with our past
resolution about images of individual people, I think we should
examine our policies and decisions in light of these principles.

best,
Phoebe

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jane Darnell]

Thanks Jee, I will try to keep my comments there

2013/12/12, Jeevan Jose :
> "I would like to know where subjects can post their complaint besides on
> the talk page, since putting complaints there is still a form of
> publication and only serves to propagate the sensitive information that
> subjects want removed. - Jane Darnell"
>
> Yes; we are working on it. See
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Undiscussed_addition
> and
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Contact_us/Problems#Consent_Issues
>
> Jee
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski > wrote:
>
>> Fæ wrote:
>>
>>  I hope this is a coincidence.
>>>
>>
>> How naive of you, Fæ: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/
>> index.php?oldid=6705202#Personal_and_Moral_Rights.3F
>>
>>   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,
> 

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jeevan Jose]

"I would like to know where subjects can post their complaint besides on
the talk page, since putting complaints there is still a form of
publication and only serves to propagate the sensitive information that
subjects want removed. - Jane Darnell"

Yes; we are working on it. See
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Undiscussed_addition
and 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Contact_us/Problems#Consent_Issues

Jee

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski  wrote:

> Fæ wrote:
>
>  I hope this is a coincidence.
>>
>
> How naive of you, Fæ: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/
> index.php?oldid=6705202#Personal_and_Moral_Rights.3F
>
>   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] Resolution: Media about living people

[Tomasz W. Kozlowski]

Fæ wrote:


I hope this is a coincidence.


How naive of you, Fæ: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=6705202#Personal_and_Moral_Rights.3F


  Tomasz

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Lodewijk]

Thanks for the pointer. I'm glad to see it was a community request
triggering this - not because of this specific amendment, but because it
proofs that it matters what people write on those places :)

(just for the record: I'm not particularly against this amendment, I
actually never assumed that files would be treated differently from texts
anyway in this kind of stuff. Just plain curiosity.)

Best,
Lodewijk


2013/12/11 María Sefidari 

>
> 11/dic/2013 21:07 "Lodewijk"  ha escrito:
>
> > > Hi Maria, thanks for sharing. To appreciate the resolution in its
> proper context, I was wondering if you could share if there was a specific
> trigger to this amendment?
>
> > I completely second the question. Cristian.
>
> Hi Lodewijk and Cristian,
>
> Sure. It was prompted by a request at the Board Noticeboard on Meta:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Personal_and_Moral_Rights.3F
>
> Kind regards,
>
> María
> ___
> 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] Resolution: Media about living people

[María Sefidari]

11/dic/2013 21:07 "Lodewijk"  ha escrito: 

> > Hi Maria, thanks for sharing. To appreciate the resolution in its proper 
> > context, I was wondering if you could share if there was a specific trigger 
> > to this amendment? 

> I completely second the question. Cristian.

Hi Lodewijk and Cristian,

Sure. It was prompted by a request at the Board Noticeboard on Meta: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Personal_and_Moral_Rights.3F

Kind regards,

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Fæ]

I hope this is a coincidence. I have great difficulty believing that
the WMF board of trustees passed a resolution imagining that it would
appear to be a good thing that the *very first* action it is used for
is to justify the deletion of an artwork of one of its own members.

Whatever else is going on here, this is unfortunately timed in a way
that appears excessively pointy.

Fae

On 11 December 2013 21:53, Tomasz W. Kozlowski  wrote:
> Lodewijk wrote:
>
>> thanks for sharing. To appreciate the resolution in its proper context, I
>> was wondering if you could share if there was a specific trigger to this
>> amendment?
>
>
> How about
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=111671264&oldid=102286853 (as
> rumour has it)?
>
>   Tomasz
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Tomasz W. Kozlowski]

Lodewijk wrote:


thanks for sharing. To appreciate the resolution in its proper context, I
was wondering if you could share if there was a specific trigger to this
amendment?


How about 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=111671264&oldid=102286853 
(as rumour has it)?


  Tomasz

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jane Darnell]

Thanks for this, but even with the amendments it sounds pretty weak.
The closing text just shows how helpless we are in helping subjects
when their article is under the watchful eye of some Wikipedia editor
who feels that they "own" biography articles they have been watching
for years. Though I support the intention behind this statement
("Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are portrayed
in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging
others to do the same"), it still offers no indication of a path
forward for such subjects.  I would like to know where subjects can
post their complaint besides on the talk page, since putting
complaints there is still a form of publication and only serves to
propagate the sensitive information that subjects want removed. Also,
the text coming after "People sometimes make edits or add media
designed to smear others" also doesn't address the problem. There are
lots of unnecessarily sensitive edits made that are not made
maliciously, but if they are sourced, are practically impossible to
have removed, if the "personal owner" disagrees. I guess for major TV
personalities and such it may be easier because there are more people
watching and editing such biographies, but in the case of marginally
notable people, they have no recourse whatsoever, as far as I can see.

2013/12/11, Sydney Poore :
> Thank you, Maria for passing this on, and to the Board of Trustees for
> adding wording to the resolution that more clearly conveys that WMF
> projects are creating content and acting as a repository for a broad range
> of media that have the potential to cause harm to living people.
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:20 PM, María Sefidari wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> We'd like to draw your attention to our recent amendment of the 2009
>> Biographies of Living People resolution. We have amended that resolution
>> to
>> refer to both text and media when considering articles or images of living
>> people:
>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Media_about_living_people
>>
>> We believe this amendment serves to clarify our original intent with this
>> resolution, which is to urge the Wikimedia community to act with care when
>> working with all portrayals of living people.
>>
>> This amended resolution was passed at the November 2013 Board meeting.
>>
>> For the Board of Trustees,
>>
>> María
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Resolution: Media about living people

[Andy Mabbett]

On 11 December 2013 20:06, Lodewijk  wrote:
> Hi Maria,
>
> thanks for sharing. To appreciate the resolution in its proper context, I
> was wondering if you could share if there was a specific trigger to this
> amendment?

Please also provide a link to the consultation you carried out with
the community, before making this change. I seem to have missed it.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Sydney Poore]

Thank you, Maria for passing this on, and to the Board of Trustees for
adding wording to the resolution that more clearly conveys that WMF
projects are creating content and acting as a repository for a broad range
of media that have the potential to cause harm to living people.

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:20 PM, María Sefidari wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> We'd like to draw your attention to our recent amendment of the 2009
> Biographies of Living People resolution. We have amended that resolution to
> refer to both text and media when considering articles or images of living
> people:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Media_about_living_people
>
> We believe this amendment serves to clarify our original intent with this
> resolution, which is to urge the Wikimedia community to act with care when
> working with all portrayals of living people.
>
> This amended resolution was passed at the November 2013 Board meeting.
>
> For the Board of Trustees,
>
> María
>
>
> ___
> 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] Resolution: Media about living people

[Cristian Consonni]

Il 11/dic/2013 21:07 "Lodewijk"  ha scritto:
>
> Hi Maria,
>
> thanks for sharing. To appreciate the resolution in its proper context, I
> was wondering if you could share if there was a specific trigger to this
> amendment?

I completely second the question.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Lodewijk]

Hi Maria,

thanks for sharing. To appreciate the resolution in its proper context, I
was wondering if you could share if there was a specific trigger to this
amendment?

Best,
Lodewijk


2013/12/11 María Sefidari 

> Hi everyone,
>
> We'd like to draw your attention to our recent amendment of the 2009
> Biographies of Living People resolution. We have amended that resolution to
> refer to both text and media when considering articles or images of living
> people:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Media_about_living_people
>
> We believe this amendment serves to clarify our original intent with this
> resolution, which is to urge the Wikimedia community to act with care when
> working with all portrayals of living people.
>
> This amended resolution was passed at the November 2013 Board meeting.
>
> For the Board of Trustees,
>
> María
>
>
> ___
> 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] Resolution: Media about living people

[María Sefidari]

Hi everyone,

We'd like to draw your attention to our recent amendment of the 2009 
Biographies of Living People resolution. We have amended that resolution to 
refer to both text and media when considering articles or images of living 
people: 
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Media_about_living_people

We believe this amendment serves to clarify our original intent with this 
resolution, which is to urge the Wikimedia community to act with care when 
working with all portrayals of living people. 

This amended resolution was passed at the November 2013 Board meeting. 

For the Board of Trustees, 

María


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