I'm going to reply to a few different replies all at once, to make this a bit easier to ignore.
Risker wrote: > Nobody was asking Erik or Danese to determine consensus. They were asked to > give their word that our consensus would be respected after the polling of > the community following a second trial. Consensus doesn't mean majority > rule, as has always been very clear on this project. > > It's now on record that any further trials are moot, and that the tool is > going to be left in place with absolutely no intention of disabling it > regardless of the wishes of the project. Yes. I view the FlaggedRevs deployment a bit like childbirth. Imagine FlaggedRevs is an elephant baby. It takes years and years to finally get out, and now that's out and has been walking around for a few months, there's no chance in hell it's going back in. FlaggedRevs won't be disabled on the English Wikipedia because it would signal a failure on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation, and everyone is already sick of this mongrel of a project, even though its underlying goal (protecting living people) is so vital. Wikimedia has finally pushed out a "solution"; anyone who thought that they were going to pull back on this afterward (and then be forced to re-evaluate how to prevent any crackpot from libeling anyone with a biography) was delusional. David Gerard wrote: > There'll be new hearts and minds along in eighteen months. This came off as _really_ shitty. I imagine it was just an off-the-cuff remark, so I won't dwell on it. I will echo Michael Snow's sentiments that this view is absolutely unacceptable, though. Wikimedia _is_ its community. Erik Moeller wrote: > You've seen the BLP resolution? > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people > > This has inspired lots of cross-language work on BLP policies, and is > referenced in many of them. It specifically asks for "investigating > new technical mechanisms to assess edits, particularly when they > affect living people, and to better enable readers to report > problems". You've seen the proposed global BLP policy? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Biographies_of_living_people It's completely stalled, as far as I'm aware. If you have examples of cross-language work on BLP policies, I think most of this list would be interested in them. Please share. :-) Keegan Peterzell wrote: > <cough> > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/Liv > ing_People_Policy An obscure page on a dead project. Useful. Keegan Peterzell (also) wrote: > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/Rec > ommendations_to_the_Board_of_Trustees/Draft > > <http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/Re > commendations_to_the_Board_of_Trustees/Draft>Point > 4. Instead of link-spamming, could you share with the list the status update of these recommendations? The draft you linked was last edited in May. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
