From: Pharos
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>> Sent: Wed, December 9, 2009 4:16:54 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees
>>
>> I believe that a "verified" account system for GLAMs specifically
>> doin
John M. Sinclair wrote:
> I'm new to this discussion, so I may be inserting at the wrong place and
> time, but I want to suggest that Wikipedia's counsel determine whether
> the Digital Millennium Copyright Act implicitly requires individual
> accounts in order to maintain the Foundation's protecti
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> The spirit of the one person per account policy was to prevent people from
> disclaiming responsibility by claiming another person did it.
That means little when we don't know the real names of the contributor.
A pseudonym could be anyone with access to the family com
al Message-
> From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Geoffrey
> Plourde
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:15 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith
ehalf Of Geoffrey
Plourde
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:15 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees
The spirit of the one person per account policy was to prevent people
from disclaiming responsibility by claiming anot
d
> provide the Foundation with the identities of the authorized users.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Pharos
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent: Wed, December 9, 2009 4:16:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don&
and
provide the Foundation with the identities of the authorized users.
From: Pharos
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wed, December 9, 2009 4:16:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees
I believe t
I believe that a "verified" account system for GLAMs specifically
doing encyclopedic work (not for businesses, etc) would not be too
difficult to work out, and would be well worth any such effort.
Such systems, though nothing is 100%, have worked quite well for many
other websites.
Thanks,
Pharos
Hoi,
When they are blocked like it happened with the Tropenmuseum, I will ask the
person who did this to reconsider... There has to be a reason for a block
and these organisations do what they do and they do it very well. The notion
that a block on sight is always good is not reasonable.
Thank
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> I want to give you two different group / company accounts that I think are
> valuable..
>
> Tropenmuseum... If you do not know about it, read the Tropenmuseum article
> on Commons
> Calcey - a company from Sri Lanka has adopted the l
Hoi,
I want to give you two different group / company accounts that I think are
valuable..
Tropenmuseum... If you do not know about it, read the Tropenmuseum article
on Commons
Calcey - a company from Sri Lanka has adopted the localisation of the
Sinhala language. We are really grateful for their
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
>> This is enforced by a group of moderators by blocking the usernames
>> who fulfill one of these conditions, and notifying them on their
>> talkpage they can create a new username, but that t
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 18:20, Nathan wrote:
> The idea of verified accounts raises all sorts of questions and
> potential problems. The Wikimedia Foundation might be able to verify
> that users requesting a "company account" are connected to that
> company, if the account is on the English Wikiped
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:07 PM, effe iets anders
wrote:
> could you perhaps point to that general WMF policy? Or do you mean you would
> like to see such a policy, but there is none yet?
Are you able to read the whole content or it is so much important to
point bureaucratically to every mistake?
2009/12/3 Delphine Ménard :
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 18:18, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>
> I support Liam's idea and think we might want to look at a two-tier policy:
>
> 1- have "verified" accounts, which are used by some
> companies/organisation to do "encyclopedic work"
> 2- disallow using a co
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 18:18, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> What if someone registers an account 'Miscrosoft" and starts vandal
> editing? The media reports like 'Miscosoft blocked for vandalism in
> Wikipedia'" would be hardly better than 'Microsoft blocked on sight'.
>
> Concerning the joint acco
What if someone registers an account 'Miscrosoft" and starts vandal
editing? The media reports like 'Miscosoft blocked for vandalism in
Wikipedia'" would be hardly better than 'Microsoft blocked on sight'.
Concerning the joint accounts I thought the main problem is that someone
should be held resp
But perhaps what you are suggesting is something along the lines of a
"verified account" (like in Twitter recently). Perhaps it wouldn't scale
well, I'm not sure. This is probably digressing from the original subject
but perhaps it might be an interesting technical solution for a question
that many
could you perhaps point to that general WMF policy? Or do you mean you would
like to see such a policy, but there is none yet?
Lodewijk
2009/12/3 Milos Rancic
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> > Although I can understand that there are genuine reasons why the "anti
> > org
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> Although I can understand that there are genuine reasons why the "anti
> organisational account" rule is in place, can I mention that having an
> organisational account is one of the main things that GLAM institutions have
> asked from us. If a
Although I can understand that there are genuine reasons why the "anti
organisational account" rule is in place, can I mention that having an
organisational account is one of the main things that GLAM institutions have
asked from us. If a museum wants to upload their own photographs to Commons
(som
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
> This is enforced by a group of moderators by blocking the usernames
> who fulfill one of these conditions, and notifying them on their
> talkpage they can create a new username, but that their current is
> blocked indefinitely.
I support policy t
Hi all,
Although I do realize this is a Dutch Wikipedia-topic, I would like to
get a somewhat broader set of input on this. I'll first sketch the
situation a bit, and then explain what my interpretation is.
On the Dutch Wikipedia, there are two related, relatively long
standing, policies:
* Usern
23 matches
Mail list logo
