Hi David, >It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every >instance is cited to best BLP standards?
no, likely not (nobody has gone through the cat). In my experience, categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria, especially for categories, are often not defined. For example, if we are talking about French jews - are we talking about observing religious jews, or anybody of Jewish origin, including those who are not religious or converted to other religions? The list is very clear that it is about the origin, the category does not say anything. Cheers Yaroslav On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 1:41 AM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not 100% comfortable with the approach of doing it because we legally > can - we do a lot of stuff because it's the right thing, not just because > we're legally obliged to. The concern is a real one and worth giving > serious consideration. > > (As I noted in my email about the GDPR, we do a lot of stuff because it's > the right thing to do, not just because we're forced to - hence our > ridiculously low DMCA rate.) > > It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every > instance is cited to best BLP standards? > > > - d. > > > > On 28 May 2018 at 00:33, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "Privacy" is often censorship by another name. Seems so here too. > > > > Of course, if the information is not sourced, or is not well sourced, it > > can and should be removed as a potential BLP issue. But if it is sourced, > > we're not making anything available to the public that wasn't already > > publicly known--after all, our source already published the information! > > > > It has nothing to do with "humble" or not. We don't, and shouldn't, worry > > about the laws of countries with no jurisdiction. Be that France or > Vatican > > City, doesn't matter. We of course have to follow US law, because the US > > actually does have jurisdiction. > > > > Todd > > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 8:41 AM, sashi <learn...@creoliste.fr> wrote: > > > > > Hello again, > > > > > > Thanks for your input on this question! I'll add a few clarifications > > > here to respond to points raised in the discussion so far. (As I'm > > > subscribed in digest mode, I'll have to cut & paste.) > > > > > > ------- > > > Nathan commented: "I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia > > > should adhere to this law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If > France > > > passed a law banning Internet-published photos of living people, how > > would > > > we approach that law? If Germany barred publishing the place of birth, > > date > > > of birth or religious preference of public figures? If the United > States > > > banned publishing the name of individuals accused of mass murder?" > > > ------- > > > > > > Since I quoted it the law of 6 January 1978 in French, I'm pretty sure > I > > > got it right. ^^ On the other hand, I didn't translate or interpret the > > law > > > in the context of current jurisprudence, so yes, maybe some more should > > be > > > said... > > > > > > It is legal in France to write an article about a notable person and > > > mention their religious affiliation if they volunteer that information. > > > What is *not* legal is to extract that information about them and add > it > > to > > > a database which lists Catholics -- as was done during the Vichy regime > > > with punchcards. How exactly were Jewish people rounded up and sent > off > > to > > > concentration camps? (How did prefects go about locating Freemasons > > during > > > the war?). While there was certainly some collaboration with the > National > > > Statistics Service (SNS) established during the Occupation, the most > > recent > > > research suggests that this collaboration was not as significant as was > > > once commonly assumed. The 1978 law was written before this research. > > > > > > The fact that -- today on en.wp -- these religious categories are being > > > overwhelmingly applied to Jews (and to a lesser degree to Freemasons) > is > > > certainly striking. (cf. the 862 members of Category:French Jews & > the > > 21 > > > members of the Category:French Christians). > > > > > > Regarding the hypothetical situations you evoke (the first of which, of > > > course, being particularly relevant since people in France do have a > > right > > > to refuse the publication of their image (*unless* they are for some > > reason > > > newsworthy))... I imagine that they will have to be dealt with on a > case > > > by case basis until national laws have been superseded by the > > > new-wikiwiki-order of supranational arbitration. > > > > > > ------- > > > Todd commented: "We should no more follow French censorship laws than > we > > > should follow Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for compliance > > with > > > the laws in their jurisdiction." > > > ------- > > > > > > First, the issue is privacy, not censorship. Nobody has prosecuted or > > > will prosecute a newspaper for mentioning, for example, that Vincent > > > Bolloré is Catholic (since he is open about that fact and does not > object > > > to having it reported). However, when the CRIF (a Jewish foundation) > > > petitioned the CNIL for the right to compile a list of folks whose > > surnames > > > were the same as the 150 most common donors to the foundation for the > > > purposes of a survey they were told this would be a clear violation of > > the > > > law. (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCnil.do?oldAction=rech > > > ExpCnil&id=CNILTEXT000017651919) > > > > > > What exists on en.wp is an ad-hoc categorization that does not > guarantee > > > the quality of sourcing. Anyone can add the category "French Jews" to > > 100s > > > of living people's biographies with hotcat in a matter of minutes (with > > or > > > without a source). Only the vigilance of the community is a safeguard > > > against this sort of action. The state of the database at the moment > is, > > > again, telling: there are not 40 times more Jews in France than > > Christians > > > nor are Freemasons likely to be 7 times more numerous than Christians. > > Yet > > > this is precisely the *deformed* picture that emerges from this ad-hoc > > > categorization system. As James and Yarsolav both observed, this is > > likely > > > due to a problem of "bad editing" on en.wp. (I didn't mention it in my > > OP, > > > but just as there are no such categories on French Wikipedia, Wikidata > > also > > > does not seem to have categories based on the religion of living French > > > people. Based on my limited research into the question, the ontology at > > > Wikidata does indeed seem more respectful of personal privacy.) > > > > > > Second, concerning legally responsibility: of course! The WMF only > > > supplies the platform. The anonymous individuals who make use of it are > > > legally responsible for their contributions. As a result, living > people > > > not wanting to have their religion included in a system of automatic > > > list-generation would need to file a complaint against X (porter > plainte > > > contre X) in order to try to get the WMF to react to the violation of > > their > > > privacy if they cannot convince the anonymous volunteer they contact in > > > order to enforce their privacy rights (by deleting the ethnic/religious > > > category from their Wikipedia entry). > > > > > > Still, it could be persuasively argued that a foundation has a *duty of > > > care* to its volunteers and should not facilitate their contributors > > (whose > > > age they don't verify) falling afoul of their national laws. Simply > > > excluding members of Category:BLP & Category:French > > > Jews/Catholics/Muslims/Freemasons/etc. from the hidden Category > > > "requiring diffusion" and adding them to the hidden Category "noindex" > > > would go a long way towards protecting privacy rights (at least as far > as > > > google is concerned). > > > > > > Finally -- again -- how useful are these automatically generated lists > > > towards advancing the "freedom of knowledge" (as Nathan put it)? To > > > repeat: these categories make it seem that there are/have been 40 times > > > more notable Jewish people and five times more notable Muslims in > France > > > than notable Christians . This (derived) "knowledge" is patently > false. > > > Now, granted, the purpose of the automatically generated categories is > > not > > > to come up with a comparative tally of noteworthy people; but I think > > what > > > this tally shows is in itself revealing: Wikipedians are 40 times > more > > > likely to tag notable Jewish people as Jews and 5 times more likely to > > tag > > > notable Muslims as Muslim than they are to tag notable Christians as > > > Christians. This is worth thinking about for a minute... > > > > > > Why would it be so hard to be humble and respect national laws by > making > > > it such that membership in the category would not be diffused > concerning > > > living people in countries where such lists are illegal? (As Yaroslav > > > points out, there is no guarantee of the quality of the sourcing). > En.wp > > > might be wise to learn from the conservative approach to this question > > > taken by fr.wp and wikidata. > > > > > > I hope this helps to clarify the original post. > > > > > > sashi > > > > > > ps: *Correction*: Contrary to what I mistakenly wrote in my OP there > > are > > > 96 members of the category French Muslims (not 0). > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > > > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > > i/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/wik > > i/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>
