There is lots I want to reply to here; this mail is just a start... 2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>
>From what I can tell, a lot of subjects of BLPs that have problems > with their articles don't complain at all. The accounts I've heard > (or, at least, my interpretation thereof) of Wikimedians being > approached at events by people with bad articles have all been along > the lines of "my article is rubbish, how do I get it fixed?" not "my > article is rubbish and I've been trying to get it fixed but nobody is > listening to me". That suggests that those subjects that don't happen > to meet a Wikipedian never actually complain. There are two possible > explanations for that that I can see: 1) They don't really care all > that much and the complaints we get are just opportunistic moaning or > 2) they have no idea where to even start with complaining. While there > may be some cases of (1), I'm sure (2) is a significant factor. > > I've just looked at a BLP and nowhere can I see an guidance on how to > complain. I suggest a "Report a problem with this article" link to > added to the sidebar of all articles as a mailto link to the > appropriate OTRS address. I agree with this - I think "report a problem" would be a very helpful starting point. FWIW I'll tell you that when people complain to me, they often say they tried to find a proper avenue for complaints, but couldn't. I realize there is a school of thought that "people who can't find the correct avenue for complaints don't deserve to have their complaints heard," but that's not my view. I assume that people are looking for a specific biography complaints channel, and probably also looking for assurances that it is secure/confidential. (Bearing in mind that inaccuracies or distortions in their BLP would feel highly sensitive to most people.) So - we can create a channel for BLP complaints, and we can label it appropriately so people have accurate expectations of confidentiality. But in order for it to be successful, I believe we would need a cadre of highly-trained and well-supported volunteers who have pledged to investigate seriously, communicate tactfully, and maintain appropriate confidentiality. Do we think we can we do that, and if so, what would it take? ... > * The editors I've spoken with about BLPs are pretty serious about them – > > they are generally conservative, restrained, privacy-conscious, etc. But > I > > wonder if that general attitude is widely-shared. If Wikipedia believes > (as > > is said in -for example- the English BLP policy) that it has a > > responsibility to take great care with BLPs, should there be a > > Wikipedia-wide BLP policy, or a projects-wide statement of some kind? > > There isn't really any such thing as "Wikipedia-wide", that's why > wikipedia-l is pretty much dead. Decisions of the entire Wikimedia > community are pretty difficult to achieve. They have to be done by > vote, nothing else is practical, and discussion to put together a > proposal to vote on is tricky because only people that speak English > can really be involved. I think, if we want any kind of statement like > that, it has to come from the WMF. > To me, this starts shading into the "civility" issue that has been discussed here before. Do we agree that we want the Wikimedia projects to be serious-minded, conscientious, approachable and friendly? (I do.) If many -but not all- of us agree, how can we best work towards a consensus, then reinforce and support it? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
