Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Would Polish police really expend the time to round up and charge every
> single Polish editor? I don't think so. The Foundation would most likely
> reject any demands for information, barring the successful prosecution of
> quite a few Polish editors. Also, convincing
Chris Down wrote:
> Ipatrol has just came on IRC claiming that he has been told that the WMF is
> hiring people to "validate" articles, and that the foundation is doing it in
> secret by using thousands of IPs and academics. He claims that the WMF has
> contracted colleges all across the US have be
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Let me repeat that in a different way, for emphasis: I think that a
> great number of our biographies, and bad in a particular way. Minor
> controversies are exploded into central stories of people's lives in a
> way that is abusive and unfair, and games players have learne
Sue Gardner wrote:
> 1) If we're imagining a continuum with smaller/higher-quality/restrictive
> at one end, and larger/variable-in-quality/permissive at the other I am
> curious to know where the other language versions situate themselves. I am
> assuming that (with some exceptions) they cl
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Flagged Revs is an excellent way of dealing with vandalism to BLPs,
> technical solutions to more subtle problems are a little trickier.
> Flagged Revs could be used with addition levels - a "free of
> vandalism" level and a "well balanced, fact-checked and free of
> anything
Sue Gardner schrieb:
> There is lots I want to reply to here; this mail is just a start...
>
> 2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton
>
> >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 interpretati
I'm making a point of replying to this before I read any of the other
responses to avoid being tainted by them.
Sue Gardner wrote:
> * Do we think the current complaints resolution systems are working? Is it
> easy enough for article subjects to report problems? Are we courteous and
> serious i
Hello all,
as some of you may have seen, I've run a small survey over the
weekend, scattered via a 5% site-notice on the English Wikipedia for
signed in users. The result is a self-selected sample of authors. I'll
publish the full anonymous raw data later this week, and I also intend
to run it on
2009/3/3 Birgitte SB :
> I there is simpler way to solicit these reports this without all the false
> positives that might come from a "report a problem" link. I imagine that
> all these people who have issues must click on the "Help" link in the sidebar
> while looking contact information. W
I there is simpler way to solicit these reports this without all the false
positives that might come from a "report a problem" link. I imagine that all
these people who have issues must click on the "Help" link in the sidebar while
looking contact information. Why not have a banner on that pa
quick bit extra - flagged revisions for BLP material is also a bit of a
no-brainer, and should be recommended by the foundation immediately as a
valuable software improvement - it's really part of point 1) (Semi 'protext'
all BLP material - curse my typo!)
cheers,
Peter
PM.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 a
On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM, private musings wrote:
> basically there's a sensible three stage plan to follow to help drive
> quality and minimise 'BLP' harm;
>
> 1) Semi-protext all 'BLP' material
> 2) Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects (eg. non public figures, or
> those
> not covered in 'd
I'm breaking this specific idea out of the main thread, in order to focus on it.
There seems to be considerable support for adding some kind of "Report
a problem" link to pages, (probably not necessarily) to the sidebar.
I'd like to give a little more thought to this idea, i.e. where we
want a li
my tuppence in amongst the many voices :-).
> 1) If we're imagining a continuum with smaller/higher-quality/restrictive
> at one end, and larger/variable-in-quality/permissive at the other I
> am
> curious to know where the other language versions situate themselves. I am
> assuming th
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Chris Down
wrote:
> Can anyone shed some light on whether this is even feasible? I really don't
> see how it could possibly be construed as being such.
It would be great if it were feasible, but the thing as it stands is
ludicrous. As others have already mentioned
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Chris Down
wrote:
>
> Can anyone shed some light on whether this is even feasible?
No, it's not. Considering how much of the internal mailing lists
get leaked, I have a feeling we would've known about this a long
time ago, were it true. And that, my friends, is a t
2009/3/2 P. Birken
>
> My experiences are mostly on de-WP. Problems with BLP are coming in
> frequently now, roughly once a week even people with lawyers.We have a
> highly motivated Support-Team that is able to handle the cases coming
> in via OTRS at an acceptable speed and with good success. T
> I asked whether
> raising the notability bar would improve the overall quality of BLPs. Do
> we
> have other ideas for preventative measures?
The start of a poor biography is good news coverage of some incident that
occurred to a person, their 15 minutes of fame, or infamy. Any other
information
2009/3/2 philippe
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
>
> > If OTRS is understaffed, then there's an easy fix to that too. Make a
> > separate queue that this specifically will go to, have less stringent
> > requirements in place for that, and have the form be explicit that
> >
On Mar 2, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
> If OTRS is understaffed, then there's an easy fix to that too. Make a
> separate queue that this specifically will go to, have less stringent
> requirements in place for that, and have the form be explicit that
> it's ONLY for articles/issues abo
On Mar 2, 2009, at 2:21 PM, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
> Since BLP is so important--and Sue is wrong, not because of the
> "coverage" of Wikimedia over it, which is distantly secondary to the
> negative effects of a bad BLP situation on a Wikimedia site--then
> let's put a big prominent "Report A Probl
2009/3/2 Mike Godwin :
> Steve Smith writes:
>
>>
>> > My strong belief is that the Foundation can make *suggestions* to the
>> community about what content policy should be, but that *it must remain up
>> to the community whether to adopt such policies and how to enforce them*.
>>
>> How is this r
2009/3/2 P. Birken :
> One of my reasons to develop Flagged Revs was an incident with blatant
> vandalism in an article about a well known german politician that
> persisted for several months until we got an email from his office.
> That is plain unacceptable. Flagged revisions work very well in
Steve Smith writes:
>
> > My strong belief is that the Foundation can make *suggestions* to the
> community about what content policy should be, but that *it must remain up
> to the community whether to adopt such policies and how to enforce them*.
>
> How is this reconcilable with Foundation issu
I applaude that the foundation wants to do something about problems
with BLP. In several countries, the success of wikipedia is so great,
that it has become the number one source for information. This in turn
means that we as the wikimedia movement have a huge responsibility and
stepping up to that
I considered doing a serius answer listing the reasons it doesn't stand
up but it isn't worth. Just smile and pass on.
It would have been nice if he had waited a month more to reveal that,
though.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikime
2009/3/2 Wily D :
> I am happy to take over control of articles for $1000/month. I can
> suggest a list of ~500 or so. Who should I send the list to? Should
> I also forward them my P.O. Box?
Send your money to me: David Gerard c/o Ayn Landers, Wikiality,
Florida. Make cheques payable to the
2009/3/2 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> A drop down list of queues would be easy enough to implement, I can do
>> that. (I may need to abuse the interface system, a la
>> Mediawiki:Sidebar, though...)
>
>
> Shirley that's incredibly easy to add to the extension itself?
Yes, that's
2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton :
> A drop down list of queues would be easy enough to implement, I can do
> that. (I may need to abuse the interface system, a la
> Mediawiki:Sidebar, though...)
Shirley that's incredibly easy to add to the extension itself?
- d.
___
2009/3/2 :
> As it's written now, the contact form probably wouldn't work for enwiki:
> it would condense most English-language traffic to a single address. In
> the past, a single incoming address has caused us to lose urgent BLP-ish
> messages in the larger flood of vandalism reports and refer
2009/3/2 :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> I may be missing it due to not speaking Dutch, but it doesn't seem to
>> be linked to from anywhere... Does it include the details of the
>> article and revision in the default text? That's a key feature for
>> what I'm suggesting.
>
> From any nlwiki page, cli
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I may be missing it due to not speaking Dutch, but it doesn't seem to
> be linked to from anywhere... Does it include the details of the
> article and revision in the default text? That's a key feature for
> what I'm suggesting.
>From any nlwiki page, click "Hulp en contact"
2009/3/2 Mike Godwin :
> You may imagine how weird it is for me!
Hey, you're the cure for H*tler. It's not all bad.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundat
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:52 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/2 Chris Down :
>
>> Ipatrol has just came on IRC claiming that he has been told that the WMF is
>> hiring people to "validate" articles, and that the foundation is doing it in
>> secret by using thousands of IPs and academics. He claims
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Steve Smith
wrote:
>
> * at the very least, the WMF should clarify that its policy that no
> account is needed to edit does not preclude the default
> semi-protection of BLPs (or any similar configuration of flagged
> revisions). This has been one of several stone
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Michael Bimmler
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
> >
> >> If OTRS is understaffed, then there's an easy fix to that too. Make a
> >> separate queue that this specifically will
George Herbert writes:
What a strange, weird world it's come to that Mike Godwin is now "The
> Man"...
You may imagine how weird it is for me!
--Mike
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedi
2009/3/2 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> I may be missing it due to not speaking Dutch, but it doesn't seem to
>> be linked to from anywhere... Does it include the details of the
>> article and revision in the default text? That's a key feature for
>> what I'm suggesting.
>
>
> The c
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Michael Bimmler wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
>
>> If OTRS is understaffed, then there's an easy fix to that too. Make a
>> separate queue that this specifically will go to, have less stringent
>> requirements in place for that, and
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
> If OTRS is understaffed, then there's an easy fix to that too. Make a
> separate queue that this specifically will go to, have less stringent
> requirements in place for that, and have the form be explicit that
> it's ONLY for articles/issues
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:36 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
> Yeah - as useful as it would be to have a "send email to OTRS" link
> everywhere, using that as the first line of response to quality problems
> wiki-wide would crush OTRS. Talk pages and admins and noticeboards are
> there on-wiki for reas
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:26 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/2 Joe Szilagyi :
>
>> Since BLP is so important--and Sue is wrong, not because of the
>> "coverage" of Wikimedia over it, which is distantly secondary to the
>> negative effects of a bad BLP situation on a Wikimedia site--then
>> let's
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:26 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/2 Joe Szilagyi :
>
> > Since BLP is so important--and Sue is wrong, not because of the
> > "coverage" of Wikimedia over it, which is distantly secondary to the
> > negative effects of a bad BLP situation on a Wikimedia site--then
> > l
2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton :
> I may be missing it due to not speaking Dutch, but it doesn't seem to
> be linked to from anywhere... Does it include the details of the
> article and revision in the default text? That's a key feature for
> what I'm suggesting.
The code:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/view
2009/3/2 Joe Szilagyi :
> Since BLP is so important--and Sue is wrong, not because of the
> "coverage" of Wikimedia over it, which is distantly secondary to the
> negative effects of a bad BLP situation on a Wikimedia site--
Sue was clearly talking about the coverage inside Wikimedia projects,
not
Personally, I'd like to see a prominent "Report a problem with this article"
link or box only on BLPs for starters. We don't want to overwhelm OTRS with
complaints about other sorts of less time sensitive errors, nor do we want
to discourage people who notice errors from figuring out how to actuall
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> We could put an email link to i...@wikimedia.org in the footer. Shall
> we do so? Superfluous?
>
I would say no, the English Wikipedia has a very specific queue
make-up so that questions are answered more quickly and are more
easily organized
neither. this message was sent to the -owner address and as it was
clearly intended for the list, I forwarded it. I did not check whether
cla68 is even a list subscriber.
Michael
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
> Is Cla68 on moderation or is the "Judd Bagley" keyword(s)?
>
>
Is Cla68 on moderation or is the "Judd Bagley" keyword(s)?
Joe
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Foundation-l list admin
wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Charles Ainsworth
> Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:04 AM
> Subject: Judd Bagley presentation on Wikipedia
> To: founda
2009/3/2 Joe Szilagyi :
> Since BLP is so important--and Sue is wrong, not because of the
> "coverage" of Wikimedia over it, which is distantly secondary to the
> negative effects of a bad BLP situation on a Wikimedia site--then
> let's put a big prominent "Report A Problem" link on the top of eve
2009/3/2 Para :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 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
Another alternate idea would be to make Flagged Revisions a Foundation
requirement for all WMF projects. That would put far more filtering
and control in place for helping to weed out BLP issues.
If any project contests this locally, the Magic Fork Option exists for
that reason.
Joe
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/2 Joe Szilagyi :
>
>> As an easy start for BLPs to contact us for help, why not have the
>> global footer of all WMF sites include a prominent and very visible
>> link to a simple mail form they can use to mail OTRS or the Foundation
>>
2009/3/2 Joe Szilagyi :
> As an easy start for BLPs to contact us for help, why not have the
> global footer of all WMF sites include a prominent and very visible
> link to a simple mail form they can use to mail OTRS or the Foundation
> for help?
Because no-one reads the footer (or we wouldn't
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:23 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/2 Anthony :
> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:16 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> >> As a general rule: if you've been formally penalised on a wiki for
> >> your behaviour thereon, and want that concealed, then that's really
> >> not in the sam
As an easy start for BLPs to contact us for help, why not have the
global footer of all WMF sites include a prominent and very visible
link to a simple mail form they can use to mail OTRS or the Foundation
for help?
- Joe
___
foundation-l mailing list
f
2009/3/2 Para :
> The Dutch Wikipedia uses an extension to contact "Wikipedia"
> anonymously directly from the browser. See
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15624 and
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ContactPage.
> IRC tells me that the response group is happy with the mes
He's been known as many things over the years.
Most notable, 'that guy', 'that law guy', 'that guy who does the law', 'that
guy who is doing the lawings', and many more.
Including Mike Godwin, apparently.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:01 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM, C
Thomas Dalton wrote:
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 "re
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Chris Down
wrote:
> I thought Godwin might like to hear about it. I'll tell the user to forward
> any information they have to him.
What a strange, weird world it's come to that Mike Godwin is now "The
Man"...
--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.co
Come on, lets be serious here. This is a serious accusation and should be
treated as such. They use perpetual motion machines.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/2 Nathan :
> > If we're being technical, the helicopters are no longer black. They're
> > invisible.
>
> The
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:52 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/2 Chris Down :
>
>> Ipatrol has just came on IRC claiming that he has been told that the WMF is
>> hiring people to "validate" articles, and that the foundation is doing it in
>> secret by using thousands of IPs and academics. He claims
2009/3/2 Nathan :
> If we're being technical, the helicopters are no longer black. They're
> invisible. And they have "Illuminati" logos written invisibly. If you
> translate Wikimedia into Aramaic, write it backwards, translate that into
> Latin, remove every other letter and translate that to Cy
2009/3/2 Nathan :
> If we're being technical, the helicopters are no longer black. They're
> invisible.
They're invisible and black. They tried invisible and pink but the
targets just laughed.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.o
I thought Godwin might like to hear about it. I'll tell the user to forward
any information they have to him.
I mean, I didn't know JC Denton got his kicks on Wikipedia now.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/3/2 Chris Down :
> > Ipatrol has just came on IRC claiming tha
2009/3/2 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/2 Chris Down :
>
>> Ipatrol has just came on IRC claiming that he has been told that the WMF is
>> hiring people to "validate" articles, and that the foundation is doing it in
>> secret by using thousands of IPs and academics. He claims that the WMF has
>> contracte
If we're being technical, the helicopters are no longer black. They're
invisible. And they have "Illuminati" logos written invisibly. If you
translate Wikimedia into Aramaic, write it backwards, translate that into
Latin, remove every other letter and translate that to Cyrillic... When
translated b
2009/3/2 Chris Down :
> Ipatrol has just came on IRC claiming that he has been told that the WMF is
> hiring people to "validate" articles, and that the foundation is doing it in
> secret by using thousands of IPs and academics. He claims that the WMF has
> contracted colleges all across the US ha
2009/3/2 Chris Down :
> Ipatrol has just came on IRC claiming that he has been told that the WMF is
> hiring people to "validate" articles, and that the foundation is doing it in
> secret by using thousands of IPs and academics. He claims that the WMF has
> contracted colleges all across the US hav
2009/3/2 Chris Down :
> Ipatrol has just came on IRC claiming that he has been told that the WMF is
> hiring people to "validate" articles, and that the foundation is doing it in
> secret by using thousands of IPs and academics. He claims that the WMF has
> contracted colleges all across the US hav
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Chris Down
wrote:
>
> Yes, this sounds like complete and utter nonsense to me too
Aye. But thanks for making my day. Seriously, sometimes I wonder
whether people have just too much time to think up these stories (and
this is not directed towards you but towards th
Ipatrol has just came on IRC claiming that he has been told that the WMF is
hiring people to "validate" articles, and that the foundation is doing it in
secret by using thousands of IPs and academics. He claims that the WMF has
contracted colleges all across the US have been recruiting academics to
2009/3/2 Anthony :
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:16 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> As a general rule: if you've been formally penalised on a wiki for
>> your behaviour thereon, and want that concealed, then that's really
>> not in the same class as *anything* this thread is talking about. Just
>> saying
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:16 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/2 Anthony :
>
> > No. In fact, a member of ArbCom had referred me to OTRS. However, I
> don't
> > want to get into the specifics of this on a public mailing list.
>
> As a general rule: if you've been formally penalised on a wiki for
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Michael Bimmler wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Anthony wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ah, so not only do you not ask for feedback, but you actively discourage
> it.
>
> I think this is slightly misrepresenting what I said.
It was commentary on what you said. I al
2009/3/2 Anthony :
> No. In fact, a member of ArbCom had referred me to OTRS. However, I don't
> want to get into the specifics of this on a public mailing list.
As a general rule: if you've been formally penalised on a wiki for
your behaviour thereon, and want that concealed, then that's real
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>
> Ah, so not only do you not ask for feedback, but you actively discourage it.
I think this is slightly misrepresenting what I said. For reference
purposes here the current footer, as attached to each outgoing
message:
"---
Disclaimer: all mail
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Michael Bimmler wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > My problem wasn't in regard to a biography, but it was a "BLP issue"
> under
> > Sue's expanded definition (it was in regard to some things written about
> me
> > in the Wikipedia namespac
2009/3/2 Sue Gardner :
> There is lots I want to reply to here; this mail is just a start...
>> 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
2009/3/2 Anthony :
> What is the current "OTRS process"? When I contacted them a couple years
> ago I was referred to arb com, and didn't hear from them again. I certainly
> wasn't satisfied.
Pray tell, what was the actual substance of your dispute?
(Note that this is speaking of a project on
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/2 Anthony :
> >> Flagged Revs is an excellent way of dealing with vandalism to BLPs,
> >> technical solutions to more subtle problems are a little trickier.
> >> Flagged Revs could be used with addition levels - a "free of
> >> vandal
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> What is the current "OTRS process"?
There is no formalized process. If a OTRS volunteer notes that a
customer remains unhappy with the resolution of the case, he/she will
normally refer in an informal way to the OTRS mailinglist or OTRS IRC
chann
The assumption is that the people are dedicated enough to make time for the
interview. Or you can do them individually. It isn't that hard or time
consuming.
From: Michael Bimmler
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 9:41:41 AM
There is lots I want to reply to here; this mail is just a start...
2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton
>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
> a
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > Sounds good, but how good is OTRS at handling these issues? Are there
> any
> > statistics available as to what percentage of OTRS complainers are
> satisfied
> > with the resolution? Does OTRS provide any escalation for p
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Not necessarily. You do them in bulk at a certain time each week or every two
> weeks.
And of course all applicants will be available at the same time,
because they all live in the same timezones and have the same
work/life schedule. And
Not necessarily. You do them in bulk at a certain time each week or every two
weeks.
From: Michael Bimmler
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 9:22:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living
Anthony wrote:
> Sounds good, but how good is OTRS at handling these issues? Are there any
> statistics available as to what percentage of OTRS complainers are satisfied
> with the resolution? Does OTRS provide any escalation for people who aren't
> satisfied with their initial results?
In gener
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Michael Bimmler wrote:
> That would require a high amount of time for the OTRS admins. Mind
> you, it's not "the foundation's HR department" that does this but
> individual volunteers.
>
Perhaps it's good then that an OTRS related position opened the other day,
so
2009/3/2 Anthony :
>> Flagged Revs is an excellent way of dealing with vandalism to BLPs,
>> technical solutions to more subtle problems are a little trickier.
>> Flagged Revs could be used with addition levels - a "free of
>> vandalism" level and a "well balanced, fact-checked and free of
>> anyt
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> I care not about my application being killed. I am pointing out that it
> appears that you kill most of the applications, which may be the >reason for
> a lack of manpower.
Access to OTRS implies a high trust into the user from the part
I think we're sort of getting off topic - perhaps the issue of legal
responsibility can be forked into a different thread? My own pet concern
these days is the issue of model consent and age verification on projects
and Commons. It is related to BLPs, but perhaps it would be better not to
distract
2009/3/2 David Gerard :
> I don't say that lightly, but I can't see any other way things could
> be. I have a pile of special superpowers on en:wp, but if I were being
> legally required to exercise them for reasons other than the good of
> the encyclopedia, I'd be fervently hoping someone would t
2009/3/2 Michael Bimmler :
> Well, I could think of a couple people who might be subject to
> persecutions (depending on how serious Polish prosecution authorities
> are...) :
> - Administrators who were made aware of this on-wiki but declined to
> react by removing the data
> - Polish volunteers
I care not about my application being killed. I am pointing out that it appears
that you kill most of the applications, which may be the reason for a lack of
manpower. Have you considered using IRC for interviews as part of the
application package?
From: Gui
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> I have some experience with customer service and was willing to serve as OTRS
> volunteer, but was rejected. The number of rejections I have witnessed is
> really shooting OTRS in the foot.
I can understand your bitterness, but I
I have some experience with customer service and was willing to serve as OTRS
volunteer, but was rejected. The number of rejections I have witnessed is
really shooting OTRS in the foot.
From: Aude
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Monday, March 2,
Would Polish police really expend the time to round up and charge every single
Polish editor? I don't think so. The Foundation would most likely reject any
demands for information, barring the successful prosecution of quite a few
Polish editors. Also, convincing a judge not to throw the cases o
I normally spend my wikitime on writing articles, and generally avoid
wikidrama. When I run into a BLP problem, if I'm uninvolved enough then I
can deal with it myself. Sometimes, I am sufficiently involved and cannot
be directly involved in resolving BLP problems and take admin actions
myself.
> My strong belief is that the Foundation can make *suggestions* to the
> community about what content policy should be, but that *it must remain up to
> the community whether to adopt such policies and how to enforce them*.
How is this reconcilable with Foundation issue #1:
http://meta.wikimedi
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
