> categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual > orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do > not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria, > especially for categories, are often not defined
Absolutely correct, Yaroslav. Compare the original design plan from 2003: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categorization_requirements and the current set of conventions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization with bona-fide academic scholarship on subject categorization: https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ital/article/view/8930/pdf Wikipedians have a long way to go to achieve a reputable classification scheme that cares more about the essential characteristics of subjects including living people and doesn't classify them by non-noteworthy incidentals like ethnicity. On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Yaroslav Blanter <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi David, > >>It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every >>instance is cited to best BLP standards? > > no, likely not (nobody has gone through the cat). In my experience, > categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual > orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do > not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria, > especially for categories, are often not defined. For example, if we are > talking about French jews - are we talking about observing religious jews, > or anybody of Jewish origin, including those who are not religious or > converted to other religions? The list is very clear that it is about the > origin, the category does not say anything. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > > > > > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 1:41 AM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm not 100% comfortable with the approach of doing it because we legally >> can - we do a lot of stuff because it's the right thing, not just because >> we're legally obliged to. The concern is a real one and worth giving >> serious consideration. >> >> (As I noted in my email about the GDPR, we do a lot of stuff because it's >> the right thing to do, not just because we're forced to - hence our >> ridiculously low DMCA rate.) >> >> It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every >> instance is cited to best BLP standards? >> >> >> - d. >> >> >> >> On 28 May 2018 at 00:33, Todd Allen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > "Privacy" is often censorship by another name. Seems so here too. >> > >> > Of course, if the information is not sourced, or is not well sourced, it >> > can and should be removed as a potential BLP issue. But if it is sourced, >> > we're not making anything available to the public that wasn't already >> > publicly known--after all, our source already published the information! >> > >> > It has nothing to do with "humble" or not. We don't, and shouldn't, worry >> > about the laws of countries with no jurisdiction. Be that France or >> Vatican >> > City, doesn't matter. We of course have to follow US law, because the US >> > actually does have jurisdiction. >> > >> > Todd >> > >> > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 8:41 AM, sashi <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > Hello again, >> > > >> > > Thanks for your input on this question! I'll add a few clarifications >> > > here to respond to points raised in the discussion so far. (As I'm >> > > subscribed in digest mode, I'll have to cut & paste.) >> > > >> > > ------- >> > > Nathan commented: "I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia >> > > should adhere to this law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If >> France >> > > passed a law banning Internet-published photos of living people, how >> > would >> > > we approach that law? If Germany barred publishing the place of birth, >> > date >> > > of birth or religious preference of public figures? If the United >> States >> > > banned publishing the name of individuals accused of mass murder?" >> > > ------- >> > > >> > > Since I quoted it the law of 6 January 1978 in French, I'm pretty sure >> I >> > > got it right. ^^ On the other hand, I didn't translate or interpret the >> > law >> > > in the context of current jurisprudence, so yes, maybe some more should >> > be >> > > said... >> > > >> > > It is legal in France to write an article about a notable person and >> > > mention their religious affiliation if they volunteer that information. >> > > What is *not* legal is to extract that information about them and add >> it >> > to >> > > a database which lists Catholics -- as was done during the Vichy regime >> > > with punchcards. How exactly were Jewish people rounded up and sent >> off >> > to >> > > concentration camps? (How did prefects go about locating Freemasons >> > during >> > > the war?). While there was certainly some collaboration with the >> National >> > > Statistics Service (SNS) established during the Occupation, the most >> > recent >> > > research suggests that this collaboration was not as significant as was >> > > once commonly assumed. The 1978 law was written before this research. >> > > >> > > The fact that -- today on en.wp -- these religious categories are being >> > > overwhelmingly applied to Jews (and to a lesser degree to Freemasons) >> is >> > > certainly striking. (cf. the 862 members of Category:French Jews & >> the >> > 21 >> > > members of the Category:French Christians). >> > > >> > > Regarding the hypothetical situations you evoke (the first of which, of >> > > course, being particularly relevant since people in France do have a >> > right >> > > to refuse the publication of their image (*unless* they are for some >> > reason >> > > newsworthy))... I imagine that they will have to be dealt with on a >> case >> > > by case basis until national laws have been superseded by the >> > > new-wikiwiki-order of supranational arbitration. >> > > >> > > ------- >> > > Todd commented: "We should no more follow French censorship laws than >> we >> > > should follow Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for compliance >> > with >> > > the laws in their jurisdiction." >> > > ------- >> > > >> > > First, the issue is privacy, not censorship. Nobody has prosecuted or >> > > will prosecute a newspaper for mentioning, for example, that Vincent >> > > Bolloré is Catholic (since he is open about that fact and does not >> object >> > > to having it reported). However, when the CRIF (a Jewish foundation) >> > > petitioned the CNIL for the right to compile a list of folks whose >> > surnames >> > > were the same as the 150 most common donors to the foundation for the >> > > purposes of a survey they were told this would be a clear violation of >> > the >> > > law. (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCnil.do?oldAction=rech >> > > ExpCnil&id=CNILTEXT000017651919) >> > > >> > > What exists on en.wp is an ad-hoc categorization that does not >> guarantee >> > > the quality of sourcing. Anyone can add the category "French Jews" to >> > 100s >> > > of living people's biographies with hotcat in a matter of minutes (with >> > or >> > > without a source). Only the vigilance of the community is a safeguard >> > > against this sort of action. The state of the database at the moment >> is, >> > > again, telling: there are not 40 times more Jews in France than >> > Christians >> > > nor are Freemasons likely to be 7 times more numerous than Christians. >> > Yet >> > > this is precisely the *deformed* picture that emerges from this ad-hoc >> > > categorization system. As James and Yarsolav both observed, this is >> > likely >> > > due to a problem of "bad editing" on en.wp. (I didn't mention it in my >> > OP, >> > > but just as there are no such categories on French Wikipedia, Wikidata >> > also >> > > does not seem to have categories based on the religion of living French >> > > people. Based on my limited research into the question, the ontology at >> > > Wikidata does indeed seem more respectful of personal privacy.) >> > > >> > > Second, concerning legally responsibility: of course! The WMF only >> > > supplies the platform. The anonymous individuals who make use of it are >> > > legally responsible for their contributions. As a result, living >> people >> > > not wanting to have their religion included in a system of automatic >> > > list-generation would need to file a complaint against X (porter >> plainte >> > > contre X) in order to try to get the WMF to react to the violation of >> > their >> > > privacy if they cannot convince the anonymous volunteer they contact in >> > > order to enforce their privacy rights (by deleting the ethnic/religious >> > > category from their Wikipedia entry). >> > > >> > > Still, it could be persuasively argued that a foundation has a *duty of >> > > care* to its volunteers and should not facilitate their contributors >> > (whose >> > > age they don't verify) falling afoul of their national laws. Simply >> > > excluding members of Category:BLP & Category:French >> > > Jews/Catholics/Muslims/Freemasons/etc. from the hidden Category >> > > "requiring diffusion" and adding them to the hidden Category "noindex" >> > > would go a long way towards protecting privacy rights (at least as far >> as >> > > google is concerned). >> > > >> > > Finally -- again -- how useful are these automatically generated lists >> > > towards advancing the "freedom of knowledge" (as Nathan put it)? To >> > > repeat: these categories make it seem that there are/have been 40 times >> > > more notable Jewish people and five times more notable Muslims in >> France >> > > than notable Christians . This (derived) "knowledge" is patently >> false. >> > > Now, granted, the purpose of the automatically generated categories is >> > not >> > > to come up with a comparative tally of noteworthy people; but I think >> > what >> > > this tally shows is in itself revealing: Wikipedians are 40 times >> more >> > > likely to tag notable Jewish people as Jews and 5 times more likely to >> > tag >> > > notable Muslims as Muslim than they are to tag notable Christians as >> > > Christians. This is worth thinking about for a minute... >> > > >> > > Why would it be so hard to be humble and respect national laws by >> making >> > > it such that membership in the category would not be diffused >> concerning >> > > living people in countries where such lists are illegal? (As Yaroslav >> > > points out, there is no guarantee of the quality of the sourcing). >> En.wp >> > > might be wise to learn from the conservative approach to this question >> > > taken by fr.wp and wikidata. >> > > >> > > I hope this helps to clarify the original post. >> > > >> > > sashi >> > > >> > > ps: *Correction*: Contrary to what I mistakenly wrote in my OP there >> > are >> > > 96 members of the category French Muslims (not 0). >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik >> > > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik >> > i/Wikimedia-l >> > > New messages to: [email protected] >> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik >> > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >> wiki/Wikimedia-l >> > New messages to: [email protected] >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >> wiki/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
