David Gerard, 30/03/2009 23:37:
> The problem, of course, is that every new link or word of text on that
> page lowers its utility. That "help!" page should be as sparse as
> possible for user interface reasons.
>
> What do you all think?
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiuto:Aiuto is much lighter.
2009/3/2 David Gerard :
> I just went to get some actual data. Here's the stats.grok.se hit
> count for [[:en:Wikipedia:Contact us]] and its subpages:
> 232227 Wikipedia:Contact us
> - ranked #366 page on Wikipedia for Feb 2009
> 2230 Wikipedia:Contact us/account questions
> 7773 Wikipedia:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> My English is considered to be quite good. I have not learned any new words
> and I do not mind to have an occassional word. For me this was excessive and
> it stopped my reading and my interest.
> Thanks,
> Gerard
>
> PS David, what was you first language again
, 2009 7:48:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
I think we need to ban anyone with "Gerard" in their (first or last) name.
I certainly wish it were possible to filter out such emails without deleting
them completely.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009
I think we need to ban anyone with "Gerard" in their (first or last) name.
I certainly wish it were possible to filter out such emails without deleting
them completely.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:36 AM, John at Darkstar wrote:
> Please stop this.
> John
>
> Gerard Meijssen skrev:
> > Hoi,
> > My E
Please stop this.
John
Gerard Meijssen skrev:
> Hoi,
> My English is considered to be quite good. I have not learned any new words
> and I do not mind to have an occassional word. For me this was excessive and
> it stopped my reading and my interest.
> Thanks,
> Gerard
>
> PS David, what was
2009/3/5 Gerard Meijssen :
> My English is considered to be quite good. I have not learned any new words
> and I do not mind to have an occassional word. For me this was excessive and
> it stopped my reading and my interest.
You didn't notice your original response was to someone whose first
lan
> 2009/3/5 Gerard Meijssen :
>
>> It is not that I am not able to look up words in a dictionary.. When an
>> excess of dificult word is used, the message is lost.
on 3/5/09 6:02 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> None of these were excessively difficult,
Yes, perhaps they were, D
Hoi,
My English is considered to be quite good. I have not learned any new words
and I do not mind to have an occassional word. For me this was excessive and
it stopped my reading and my interest.
Thanks,
Gerard
PS David, what was you first language again ?
2009/3/5 David Gerard
> 2009/3/
2009/3/5 Gerard Meijssen :
> It is not that I am not able to look up words in a dictionary.. When an
> excess of dificult word is used, the message is lost.
None of these were excessively difficult, and now you know more English words.
- d.
___
foun
Hoi,
It is not that I am not able to look up words in a dictionary.. When an
excess of dificult word is used, the message is lost.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/3/4 quiddity
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium "a formal expression of praise"
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography "a biography tha
Any proposals to allow input from the person on the deletion of the
article will inevitable tend to reject the medium-important articles
which show something unfavorable but documented and relevant and keep
those that show only favorable things. What this amounts to is saying,
that if someone is re
> Those that involve themselves in BLP matters should perhaps frequent
> AFD more often. Provided that is still how we delete articles that aren't
> speedyable.
>
> -Chad
I've left a suggestion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Biographies.27_
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Alex wrote:
> Chad wrote:
>>
>> While working with OTRS, I actually sent several articles through AfD. And I
>> typically didn't announce that it was an OTRS thing, so as to let the
>> community
>> judge the article on its own merits. This would actually be a dece
Chad wrote:
>
> While working with OTRS, I actually sent several articles through AfD. And I
> typically didn't announce that it was an OTRS thing, so as to let the
> community
> judge the article on its own merits. This would actually be a decent policy to
> follow: encourage OTRS respondents to
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Nathan wrote:
> [snip]
>
> (4) How many requests do we actually get from article subjects to delete the
> article about them? I would think most would be happier with an article that
> speaks well of them and/or is simply factually correct. If we were to adopt
> thi
I'd like to put forth for consideration the issue and problem of
whitewashing, where the subject of an article wants there to be an article,
but wants negative information removed from it despite the negative
information being true and verifyable and notable.
I've been working one of these since i
There are a couple of reasons I can think of why shifting to
delete-on-request for marginally notable BLPs would be problematic.
(1) As Tomasz notes, the idea of marginal notability is one that doesn't
play well to non-Wikipedians and isn't well defined in any case.
(2) We'd still have to have a
2009/3/4 Sue Gardner :
> Erik had proposed that articles which meet these three criteria be deleted
> upon request: 1) they are not balanced and complete, 2) the subject is only
> marginally notable, and 3) the subject wants the article deleted. This would
> shift the bar towards a more deletioni
2009/3/4 Nathan
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
> > As far as granting significant weight to the wishes of a subject? Subject
> > request has consistently been rejected as a basis for deleting an
> article,
> > and many comments in the deletion discussions I've read have even
>
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/4 KillerChihuahua :
>
>
>> I cannot stress enough how strongly I agree with this assessment. If
>> NPOV, V, and RS were followed - as they should be by normally
>> intelligent adults wishing to write good articles - BLP isn't even
>> needed at all. I support BLP exis
2009/3/4 KillerChihuahua :
> I cannot stress enough how strongly I agree with this assessment. If
> NPOV, V, and RS were followed - as they should be by normally
> intelligent adults wishing to write good articles - BLP isn't even
> needed at all. I support BLP existing, although I've seen it misu
> 2009/3/4 Dominic
>
>> Sue Gardner wrote:
>> > I am just clarifying - "default to delete unless consensus to keep"
>> would
>> be
>> > a change from current state, right?
>>
>> In terms of policy, "default to delete" is the current state for BLPs.
>> To be more exact, the important bit is: "If th
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
>
> According to Dominic's quote, it says default to delete if the article is
> *not* a marginally notable BLP. Not a very elegant way of changing the
> policy, but perhaps it was intended to slip past wide notice. While deleting
> marginally notabl
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> I'm confused. Doesn't the current (English) policy say "if there's no
> consensus ... the page is kept." So, default to _keep_, rather than
> default
> to delete...?
>
> It's only the English policy, so I realize it's not necessarily
> represe
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Fred Bauder :
>
>
>> How about something a little more helpful?
>>
>
>
> Uh, I think pointing out obvious problems counts, particularly when
> the solution offered is to do the same things that are already
> problematic twice as hard.
>
> The hard part is to l
2009/3/4 Dominic
> Sue Gardner wrote:
> > I am just clarifying - "default to delete unless consensus to keep" would
> be
> > a change from current state, right?
>
> In terms of policy, "default to delete" is the current state for BLPs.
> To be more exact, the important bit is: "If there is no rou
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:27 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/4 quiddity :
>
>> http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium "a formal expression of praise"
>> http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography "a biography that idealizes or
>> idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint)"
>> http://www.onel
2009/3/4 Sue Gardner :
> 2009/3/3 Michael Snow
>
>> But someone making a request is a sign that the article really needs a
>> hard look, and quite possibly should be removed for not meeting our
>> standards. So the reversed presumption of "default to delete, unless
>> consensus to keep" is a good
2009/3/4 quiddity :
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium "a formal expression of praise"
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography "a biography that idealizes or
> idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint)"
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=saccharine "overly sweet"
*cough* you mean, of c
http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium "a formal expression of praise"
http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography "a biography that idealizes or
idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint)"
http://www.onelook.com/?w=saccharine "overly sweet"
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wr
It is unfortunately not unheard of for policy proposals to be
rejected, and then added to policy pages nonetheless.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Sue,
>
> As far as "default to delete" goes... There was a high profile proposal
> about it awhile back, written by Doc_glasgow (now
Sue,
As far as "default to delete" goes... There was a high profile proposal
about it awhile back, written by Doc_glasgow (now en:User:Scott_MacDonald),
which got significant support but appeared to fall short of a consensus.
Nonetheless the deletion of articles on marginally notable living peopl
2009/3/4 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/4 Andrew Gray :
>
>> I did a headcount the other week of all the OTRS simple vandalism and
>> "uncomplicated" BLP tickets I handled - ie, all the ones not needing
>> digging and arguing with people and so on. 80-90% of them would have
>> been avoided by flagged revi
2009/3/4 Andrew Gray :
> I did a headcount the other week of all the OTRS simple vandalism and
> "uncomplicated" BLP tickets I handled - ie, all the ones not needing
> digging and arguing with people and so on. 80-90% of them would have
> been avoided by flagged revisions.
Please say this REALLY
2009/3/2 David Gerard :
> As far as I can make out, the present situation on en:wp is: a
> proposal was put which got 59% support. That's not a sufficiently
> convincing support level. So Jimbo is currently putting together a
> better proposal, with the aim of at least 2/3 support and hoping for
>
On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:17 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> Ha. Tie this into Thomas's suggestion...
>
> ...print up a sheaf of business cards, with "Got a problem? info @
> wikimedia.org" in nice clear bold lettering, the puzzle-globe at one
> edge; the other side just WIKIPEDIA writ large. Distribute the
2009/3/4 Andrew Gray :
> 2009/3/2 David Gerard :
>> (My usual answer: "Email info at wikimedia dot org, that's wikimedia
>> with an M. It'll get funneled to the right place. All other ways of
>> contacting us end up there anyway." This seems to work a bit.)
> Ha. Tie this into Thomas's suggestion
2009/3/2 David Gerard :
> (My usual answer: "Email info at wikimedia dot org, that's wikimedia
> with an M. It'll get funneled to the right place. All other ways of
> contacting us end up there anyway." This seems to work a bit.)
Ha. Tie this into Thomas's suggestion...
...print up a sheaf of bu
Sue Gardner wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Michael Snow
>
>
>> But someone making a request is a sign that the article really needs a
>> hard look, and quite possibly should be removed for not meeting our
>> standards. So the reversed presumption of "default to delete, unless
>> consensus to keep" is a good
Hoi,
What is:
* encomium
* hagiographical
* saccharine sentiment
PS You lost me.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> Michael Snow wrote:
> > Jimmy Wales wrote:
> >
> >> Let me repeat that in a different way, for emphasis: I think that a
> >> great number of our biographies, a
If I'm not mistaken it should be possible to detect the presence of a
text which describe a person, and then include a link to a contact form
about BLP.
John
Nathan skrev:
> Personally, I'd like to see a prominent "Report a problem with this article"
> link or box only on BLPs for starters. We do
In Norway it seems that neglecting to do something will not lead to any
real danger of legal actions, its phrased "uforstand", but gross
neglectence, or "grov uforstand" could be punishable by law. An example
given is that if an admin is notified on email about specific child porn
in an article (th
In Norway its covered in "Lov om behandling av personopplysninger
(personopplysningsloven)" §7; Forholdet til ytringsfriheten (Relation to
freedom of speech) [http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-2414-031-001.html#7]
It is an exception for "kunstneriske, litterære eller journalistiske,
herunder opinio
At no.wp there was a link in the sidebar with email address to OTRS to
ease reporting of such problems. It generated to many emails to the
liking of some of the people on the OTRS list. After a poll with 3
against the link - they wanted an alternate solution, two for the link,
one unclear and one w
David Gerard wrote:
> If bad writing were curable by guidelines and policies, English
> Wikipedia would be brilliant prose from end to end.
This should be printed on coffee mugs and sold in the web shop.
--
Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
___
Sue Gardner wrote:
> I am just clarifying - "default to delete unless consensus to keep" would be
> a change from current state, right?
In terms of policy, "default to delete" is the current state for BLPs.
To be more exact, the important bit is: "If there is no rough consensus
and the page is n
2009/3/3 Michael Snow
> But someone making a request is a sign that the article really needs a
> hard look, and quite possibly should be removed for not meeting our
> standards. So the reversed presumption of "default to delete, unless
> consensus to keep" is a good idea for living subjects. I wo
Fred Bauder wrote:
>> This would exclude a great deal of pornographic actresses and actors.
>> Which I don't think is a bad thing, in fact. I'm far from a prude,
>> but someone who is solely notable for appearing in a few pornographic
>> films seems to contradict what our policy is regarding other
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>> Sue Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> * Wikimedians have developed lots of tools for preventing/fixing vandalism
>>> and errors of fact. Where less progress has been made, I think, is on the
>>> question of disproportionate criticism. It seems to me that the solution may
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> I'm making a point of replying to this before I read any of the other
>> responses to avoid being tainted by them.
>>
> Since I think you make several insightful observations
> well worth focusing on, I hope you will in return not
>
2009/3/4 Fred Bauder :
> How about something a little more helpful?
Uh, I think pointing out obvious problems counts, particularly when
the solution offered is to do the same things that are already
problematic twice as hard.
The hard part is to lead the community to a standard of living bio
th
> 2009/3/3 Matthew Brown :
>
>> I see no reason why having an article on someone need include
>> information not published in reliable sources. Â If they're well-known
>> for something in the public eye but details of their life elsewhere
>> are not prevalent, then that's how our article should be
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>
>> Sure, the persons themselves can not be harmed, but our
>> deep understanding of the forces of history, and what force
>> personality, heredity, cultural context and up-bringing play
>> within it, is immeasurably impoverished by getti
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> 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:
>
>> * The editors I've spoken with about BLPs are pretty serious about them –
>> they are generally conservative, restrained, privacy-
2009/3/3 Matthew Brown :
> I see no reason why having an article on someone need include
> information not published in reliable sources. If they're well-known
> for something in the public eye but details of their life elsewhere
> are not prevalent, then that's how our article should be as well.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> That would not preclude an article about the movie, if notable, although
> only a few films spring to mind. And the name of the actor can be
> mentioned but ought not be a redlink, unless the person's private life is
> notable and the subject of
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> 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
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I'm making a point of replying to this before I read any of the other
> responses to avoid being tainted by them.
>
>
And I am keeping with the spirit of a statement I made in an
earlier post, and am keeping my replies to specific focused
points short and sweet.
> Sue Ga
Michael Snow wrote:
> 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
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Bear with me. I started with that, because that is something
> at the periphery, easily overlooked. I will focus on the meat
> of the issue in due time.
Then I ask you to get to the point and stay on it, because this needs
to be a thread focused on this specifi
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>
>> Sure, the persons themselves can not be harmed, but our
>> deep understanding of the forces of history, and what force
>> personality, heredity, cultural context and up-bringing play
>> within it, is immeasurably impoverished by getti
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Sure, the persons themselves can not be harmed, but our
> deep understanding of the forces of history, and what force
> personality, heredity, cultural context and up-bringing play
> within it, is immeasurably impoverished by getting a view that
> is faulty.
In
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I'm making a point of replying to this before I read any of the other
> responses to avoid being tainted by them.
>
>
Since I think you make several insightful observations
well worth focusing on, I hope you will in return not
mind me replying in several messages to your
David Gerard wrote:
> If bad writing were curable by guidelines and policies, English
> Wikipedia would be brilliant prose from end to end. It isn't - there's
> a discernible "Wikipedia style" which is flat, grey and neutralised.
>
This would seem to put us in the same class as such great publi
2009/3/3 Fred Bauder :
> With respect to biographies of living persons, unless there is sufficient
> reliable published information about a person to flesh out a well
> balanced article we shouldn't have one.
This is an important principle, I think. Not necessarily in this form
- but IMO the discu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>> The English Wikipedia is probably the worst offender. Until that
>> is sorted out a Wikipedia wide policy is premature. The
>> qualities at the beginning of you paragraph are important, but a
>> level of common sense also n
The whole issue might be approached in these steps:
1) Determine the role of the Foundation
We claim that WMF does not interfere with the content. How true is this, and
how true we want to make it? It is pretty easy to say that "our national
Wikimedia organisation" is not the owner, but WMF in a c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Aude wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen
> wrote:
>
>> Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies we have related
>> to BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more resource in
>> the inforcement of these policies. The meetin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder wrote:
>> 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
--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Aude wrote:
> From: Aude
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living
> people
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 2:52 AM
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 3
--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Sue Gardner wrote:
> From: Sue Gardner
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living
> people
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 2:17 AM
> 2009/3/2 philippe
>
> &g
Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/3/3 David Gerard :
>
>> 2009/3/3 Sue Gardner :
>>
>>> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
>>> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
>>> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other
> 2009/3/3 Fred Bauder :
>
>> With respect to biographies of living persons, unless there is
>> sufficient
>> reliable published information about a person to flesh out a well
>> balanced article we shouldn't have one.
>
>
> The question them becomes "reliable." "Reliable sources" usually print
> w
2009/3/3 Fred Bauder :
> With respect to biographies of living persons, unless there is sufficient
> reliable published information about a person to flesh out a well
> balanced article we shouldn't have one.
The question them becomes "reliable." "Reliable sources" usually print
whatever the sub
>
> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the
> notability
> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request
> is a
> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should
> shift
> closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permis
2009/3/3 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/3 Sue Gardner :
>
>> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
>> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
>> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
>> closer t
2009/3/2 Sue Gardner :
> So, two questions strike me:
> 2) When it comes to the German Wikipedia and other language versions which
> put an unusually high priority on quality . I am curious to know what
> quality-supportive measures (be they technical, social/cultural, or
> policy-level) those
I probably should have used the word "implement" rather than "enforce."
I agree that in some sense "the death penalty" qualifies as enforcement, but
it doesn't actually make any particular article adhere to NPOV. It's the
community, not the Foundation, that is trusted with ensuring that individu
Aude schrieb:
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies we have related to
>>> BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more resource in the
>>> inforcement of these policies. The meetings Philipp mentioned in Germany
>>
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:35 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Aude :
>
> > Inclusion criteria, such as the "one news event" is helpful. If we could
> > make the inclusion criteria for BLP more stringent in other such ways to
> > weed out some of the garbage or tabloidy BLPs, that would be welco
2009/3/2 Mike Godwin :
> I'm unclear as to how it seems inconsistent to you. Can you explain what you
> think is unreconciled? I assume you recognize that NPOV has been adopted by
> the Wikipedia community and is enforced by it (and not by the Foundation).
That statement is actually false - Wiki
2009/3/3 Aude :
> Inclusion criteria, such as the "one news event" is helpful. If we could
> make the inclusion criteria for BLP more stringent in other such ways to
> weed out some of the garbage or tabloidy BLPs, that would be welcome in my
> opinion.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NO
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
> > Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the
> notability
> > threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request
> is a
> > bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikiped
2009/3/3 Sue Gardner :
> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
> closer to the German Wikipedia's genera
2009/3/3 Sue Gardner :
> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
> closer to the German Wikipedia's genera
2009/3/3 Michael Snow :
> I've made this observation before, but I think it bears repeating. At
> least on the English Wikipedia, a frequent practice is to start a
> section called "Criticism and controversy" or some variation thereof.
> This indicates to me an utter failure to write an actual bio
2009/3/3 Ting Chen :
> yes I think the english and the german wikipedias are two models and
> examples that are often used for the other language versions. I remember
> the talk from Harel in Taipei about the Hebrew Wikipedia and had the
> impression that they orient themselves more on the german
Sue Gardner wrote:
> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
> closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-l
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
>
>>
>> Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies we have related to
>> BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more resource in the
>> inforcement of these policies. The meetings Philipp mentioned in Germany
>> are a very good start
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
>
> Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies we have related to
> BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more resource in the
> inforcement of these policies. The meetings Philipp mentioned in Germany
> are a very good start point. Pe
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Sue Gardner wrote:
>
> It seems obvious to me from the conversation on this thread that part of
> the
> reason the German Wikipedia seems better able to manage its BLPs (assuming
> that is true - but it seems true) is because there is a smaller number of
> them. Pr
2009/3/2 philippe
>
>
> 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 figure
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 187 matches
Mail list logo
