Re: [Foundation-l] Can you tell us about ... - An Idea to encourage more edits

The idea is not bad (especially on wikis that might have more low-hanging fruits), but it might need some work to make it work (e.g. anons cannot create a new article on enwiki, and seeing these red links without the ability to write the articles might be annoying to them). There is something simi

[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

In the wake of this RfB on the English Wikipediawe really need some clarification from the foundation on this issue. It's my personal view that in general these kinds of situations fall pretty clearly under the Non discr

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

Jake, It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus, an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales. In a

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

Actually, I think the better argument is that pedophilia activism on Wikipedia harms the project. Fred > Jake, > > It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless > they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the > project. Such bannings usually requi

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

I am not talking about "pedophilia activism", but instances where the individual in question is not disruptively editing. --- Jake Wartenberg On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > Actually, I think the better argument is that pedophilia activism on > Wikipedia harms the projec

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg wrote: > I am not talking about "pedophilia activism", but instances where the > individual in question is not disruptively editing. There are a wide variety of reasons to permanently block people who were elsewhere identified (more commonly, self-

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Jake Wartenberg wrote: > It's > my personal view that in general these kinds of situations fall pretty > clearly under the Non discrimination policy of the > Foundation >as > it is written now. > > I d

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:37 PM, George Herbert wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg > wrote: > > I am not talking about "pedophilia activism", but instances where the > > individual in question is not disruptively editing. > > There are a wide variety of reasons to permanent

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

This would be a great thing for the foundation to clarify. We should probably go by the text and not by how the policy is linked to on a template. It states *"This policy may **not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects."* On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Benjamin Lees

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:37 PM, George Herbert wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg > wrote: >> I am not talking about "pedophilia activism", but instances where the >> individual in question is not disruptively editing. > > There are a wide variety of reasons to permanentl

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

So you are taking a stance based on one particular class of criminal behavior? Following your reasoning, we should be blocking all self professed hackers/crackers too. They might do something illegal for jollies to disrupt the community, so lets block em! Fr

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

I am going by the text. The Credit Card Usage Policy and the Pluralism, Internationalism, and Diversity Policy also carry that boilerplate, but they very clearly do not apply to the projects. Indeed, the Code of Conduct Policy specifically states that it not a policy for community members. Still

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

> If [it] brings the project in disrepute, then so be it. > André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com It is our responsibility to avoid harm to the project. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

It's important to keep in mind what the enforceability (or lack thereof) of whatever determination we make will be. That is, pedophiles will always be able to edit unless we radically change the nature of the project. All we can do is prevent them from using their real identities or declaring the

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Jake Wartenberg wrote: > That is, pedophiles will always be > able to edit unless we radically change the nature of the project. What? Radically change Wikipedia because of paedophiles? Change it how? When someone's about to make an edit we have a pop-up that

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

I wasn't saying we should. --- Jake Wartenberg On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Bod Notbod wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Jake Wartenberg > wrote: > > > That is, pedophiles will always be > > able to edit unless we radically change the nature of the project. > > What? > > Radical

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

Andre Engels wrote: > > If [allowing self-identified pedophiles to edit] brings the project in > > disrepute, then so be it. Fred Bauder replied: > It is our responsibility to avoid harm to the project. By that logic, we ought to disallow public editing altogether. After all, wikis (and Wikipe

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:57 PM, David Levy wrote: > but what sort of project are we left with? Let's just have Paedo-Wiki and be done with it. We have wikis for over 200 languages. It would be wrong not to allow paedos to express themselves. ___ f

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

Bod Notbod wrote: > Let's just have Paedo-Wiki and be done with it. > > We have wikis for over 200 languages. It would be wrong not to allow > paedos to express themselves. I recognize your sarcasm, but not your point. ___ foundation-l mailing list fou

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM, David Levy wrote: >> Let's just have Paedo-Wiki and be done with it. >> >> We have wikis for over 200 languages. It would be wrong not to allow >> paedos to express themselves. > > I recognize your sarcasm, but not your point. Well, I guess I just don't know whe

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

Bod Notbod wrote: > Well, I guess I just don't know where this conversation is going. > > A paedophile might know a lot about the Spanish Civil War and could > usefully add stuff. > > A murderer might know a lot about Pokemon. > > A rapist might know a lot about physics. > > It's not like we're go

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:57 PM, David Levy wrote: > This is the risk that we run when we begin banning editors because we > dislike beliefs and behaviors unrelated to their participation in the > wikis.  We might avoid some negative attention that would accompany > their involvement, but what sor

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:25 AM, David Levy wrote: > I agree.  When users edit the wikis to reflect > pro-pedophilia/pro-murder/pro-rape/pro-anything (or anti-anything) > agendas, that's when it's appropriate to act (regardless of whether > they've provided advance indication that such an issue

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

George William Herbert wrote: > We have one single class of editors who, as a class, for > non-wiki-behavioral reasons, we ban.  This class' participation is > problematic both for our other users safety and for Wikipedia's > reputation and integrity of content. Integrity of content? Please elab

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Bod Notbod wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM, David Levy wrote: > >>> Let's just have Paedo-Wiki and be done with it. >>> >>> We have wikis for over 200 languages. It would be wrong not to allow >>> paedos to express themselves. >> >> I recognize your sar

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

Let me make a few basic points here. 1. Obviously, we usually have no way of knowing what an editor's personal beliefs or even activities are, unless he or she voluntarily discloses them. 2. At least on English Wikipedia, and I assume on other projects where the issue has come up, there has been

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

Thats baloney. It is a slippery slope. You are making a distinction based on what might happen, and prejudging a class of individuals. This doesn't help wiki, but sends a message that some people are less worthy than others."I don't like it" is not a valid reason to disenfranchise people on susp

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

John Vandenberg wrote: > What about a known paedophile who knows a lot about kiddie topics? And edits the articles in accordance with policy? > Or a known murderer or rapist who edits biographies of potential > targets? i.e. people that live in the same locality. Are the edits in accordance wi

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

Newyorkbrad wrote: > There is also the fact that many users who go out of their way to describe > themselves as pedophiles may or may not actually be such at all, but are > simply trolling for reactions or to create controversy over whether they > should be blocked or not. What about users who ma

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:28 PM, David Levy wrote: > John Vandenberg wrote: > >> What about a known paedophile who knows a lot about kiddie topics? > > And edits the articles in accordance with policy? > >> Or a known murderer or rapist who edits biographies of potential >> targets?  i.e. people t

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

I wrote: > > Are the edits in accordance with policy? Anthony replied: > Which policy?  If someone inserts a sentence into an article without > including a reliable source, have they broken policy? I'll rephrase the question: Are the edits discernible from those that we expect from a contribut

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:28 AM, David Levy wrote: > What about users who make no on-wiki mentions of their pedophilia? I can't believe nobody's told a wikipaedophile joke yet. I went to the Edinburgh Festival a few years ago, watched a stand up comedian, and he asked "does anyone know this fac

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

>> Ryan's block wasn't the first one, or even the first indefinite one. > > Your point being? Your "understanding...that the user in question did not edit inappropriately" appears to be incorrect. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimed

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

Anthony wrote: > Your "understanding...that the user in question did not edit > inappropriately" appears to be incorrect. I'm referring to the rationale behind the ban (and unless I've missed something, Ryan hasn't cited past on-wiki issues as a factor). It appears that the user has not edited W

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM, David Levy wrote: > Anthony wrote: > >> Your "understanding...that the user in question did not edit >> inappropriately" appears to be incorrect. > > I'm referring to the rationale behind the ban Then I'm merely clarifying for anyone else who read your comment lit

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM, David Levy wrote: >> It appears that the user has not edited Wikipedia in a manner >> advocating pedophilia > > With over 10,000 edits, I can't be troubled to look hard enough to say > one way or the other, especi

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

Anthony wrote: > Then I'm merely clarifying for anyone else who read your comment literally. Okay, but I don't see the relevance. > > It appears that the user has not edited Wikipedia in a manner > > advocating pedophilia > With over 10,000 edits, I can't be troubled to look hard enough to say

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:35 PM, David Levy wrote: > Anthony wrote: >> especially since the right thing has been done, and this user has been >> indefinitely blocked. > > Obviously, not all of us are certain that this was "the right thing." Fortunately, that's not my problem. __

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

I wrote: > > Obviously, not all of us are certain that this was "the right thing." Anthony replied: > Fortunately, that's not my problem. It is, however, the subject of a discussion in which you've opted to participate. ___ foundation-l mailing list