headers
private musings | 1 Dec 02:15
Picon

volunteering outreach

G'day all :-)
I mentioned in a previous post (
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056092.html)
that I was personally interested in getting some external advice from
Volunteering Australia (
http://www.volunteeringaustralia.org/html/s01_home/home.asp ) about good
practice, and learning a bit more about how other large volunteer
organisations manage things - I'm going to be popping in to Volunteering
Australia in the next couple of weeks or so to have a meet and greet sort of
chat - I've been very clear that I'm just a volunteer who enjoys
contributing to wikimedia projects, and I hope they may be able to offer
some interesting ideas, as well as answer a few questions I've got - I've
copied Jay from the foundation in on this too, as well as the australian
chapter list really just to let folk know :-)
Having chatted about this a little with Witty Lama following the aussie
chapter AGM, I'm pleased that he's coming along too - I'll update this
thread following the chat with any interesting news or ideas :-)
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Levy | 1 Dec 06:25
Picon

Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

Anthony wrote:

> Right, because the only two possible solutions are to ban everyone and
> to ban no one.

Obviously not.  Likewise, we have more possible outcomes than "banning
all known pedophiles" and "banning no known pedophiles."

> > Also, please address my point that banning self-identified pedophiles
> > from editing merely entourages pedophile editors to *not* identify
> > themselves as such (thereby increasing the likelihood that problematic
> > activities will be overlooked).

> If that were true, then we wouldn't have banned any self-identified
> pedophiles, and we won't every ban another one, and this whole
> conversation is pointless.

So...you're justifying the status quo by its existence?

> Pedophile editors already have plenty of reasons to not identify
> themselves as such.

Agreed, and I doubt that many do.

> I don't think they're going to change just because what they're doing is
> bannable.  In fact, I think in the vast majority of cases these editors
> fully expect to eventually be banned

Including the ones that make no on-wiki mentions of their pedophilia?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Gerard Meijssen | 1 Dec 06:49
Picon

Re: Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family

Hoi,
You might have waved a red rag, time to hoist the pirate flag... What
nonsense. Wikipedia is the Wikimedia Foundation's biggest project and indeed
it gets most of the attention and most of the tender loving care. HOWEVER,
there are other projects that are most definitely not encyclopaedic and that
are massively important, relevant even succesful. Not just Commons, but also
projects like Wiktionary, Wikinews...

These projects are successful despite the lack of focussed attention given
to Wikipedia. This will be partially remedied with the Commons project.
Similar projects could and should be considered for the other projects. The
best argument I have heard so far why this is not done is that the WMF lacks
the resources to do this and do this well at this time.

It has been argued in the past that projects like Wiktionary would do better
outside the WMF. This might be true, personally I am not sure.
Thanks,,
     GerardM

2009/12/1 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>

> Ryan Lomonaco <wiki.ral315@...> wrote:
> > I don't see how that would be an issue.  Notability is not a foundation
> > policy, it's a community guideline that was enacted by editors of the
> > English Wikipedia.  Other projects within the WMF family would not
> > necessarily be subject to the same standards, in the same way that the
> > Spanish Wikipedia does not allow fair use images while the English
> Wikipedia
> > does.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
George Herbert | 1 Dec 06:52
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair@...> wrote:
>> > The "hand in hand with children" wording seems to conflate physical
>> > space with cyberspace.
>
>> How about "collaborating with children"?
>
> That's accurate, but I'm not quibbling over terminology.  As I
> explained to George, my point is that some measures commonly taken in
> physical space are ineffective in cyberspace.

Wikipedia's strong culture of pseudonymity and anonymity makes
protecting anyone, or detecting anyone, a nearly lost cause if they
have any clue and sense of privacy.  Unlike real life, we can't make
guarantees with anything approaching a straight face.

However - there's a difference between being unable to effectively
screen people by real world standards, and not having a policy of
acting when we do detect something.  One is acknowledging cultural and
technical reality - because of who and where we are, we couldn't
possibly do better than random luck at finding these people.  The
other is disregarding any responsibility as a site and community to
protect our younger members and our community from harm, if we find
out via whatever means.

Witch hunts looking for people don't seem helpful or productive to me.
 But if they out themselves somewhere else and are noticed here, then
we're aware and on notice.  The question is, entirely, what do we do
then.

Do we owe the underaged users a duty to protect them from known threats?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Anthony | 1 Dec 03:41
Gravatar

Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair@...> wrote:
>> I think it is germane, because it means the choice we have is to ban a
>> pedophile from the start, before s/he gets a chance to cause any damage,
>> or to wait far too long to ban the pedophile, after much damage has
>> already been done.  If the banning process were much simpler, efficient,
>> and effective, and the ability of damage to become widely disseminated
>> minimalized, we could better afford to give people enough rope to hang
>> themselves with.
>
> To be extra-safe, let's just ban everyone before they can do any damage.

Right, because the only two possible solutions are to ban everyone and
to ban no one.

> Also, please address my point that banning self-identified pedophiles
> from editing merely entourages pedophile editors to *not* identify
> themselves as such (thereby increasing the likelihood that problematic
> activities will be overlooked).

If that were true, then we wouldn't have banned any self-identified
pedophiles, and we won't every ban another one, and this whole
conversation is pointless.

Pedophile editors already have plenty of reasons to not identify
themselves as such.  It's only the most bold and/or irrational ones
that are going to do it anyway.  I don't think they're going to change
just because what they're doing is bannable.  In fact, I think in the
vast majority of cases these editors fully expect to eventually be
banned - the only question is how much we put up with before banning
them.  And looking at the edits of whatshisname, I think he fits in
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
David Levy | 1 Dec 07:17
Picon

Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

George William Herbert wrote:

> Wikipedia's strong culture of pseudonymity and anonymity makes protecting
> anyone, or detecting anyone, a nearly lost cause if they have any clue
> and sense of privacy.  Unlike real life, we can't make guarantees with
> anything approaching a straight face.
>
> However - there's a difference between being unable to effectively screen
> people by real world standards, and not having a policy of acting when we
> do detect something.  One is acknowledging cultural and technical
> reality - because of who and where we are, we couldn't possibly do better
> than random luck at finding these people.  The other is disregarding any
> responsibility as a site and community to protect our younger members and
> our community from harm, if we find out via whatever means.
>
> Witch hunts looking for people don't seem helpful or productive to me.
> But if they out themselves somewhere else and are noticed here, then
> we're aware and on notice.  The question is, entirely, what do we do
> then.
>
> Do we owe the underaged users a duty to protect them from known threats?

In my view, we're doing nothing of the sort (and constructing a false
sense of security by claiming otherwise).

I doubt that many pedophiles will seek to recruit victims via our
wikis, but if this occurs, these account bans are highly unlikely to
counter it to any significant extent.

> Do we owe the project as a whole a duty to protect it from disgrace by
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
effe iets anders | 1 Dec 13:36
Picon

Re: Board meeting update

Hi Michael,

thanks a lot for sharing this short overview with us. I look forward
to more extensive minutes of course and hope they will be published
not too long from now - especially considering the strategic process
that is going on.

You mentioned the nominating committee and their imput. I'm glad that
this kind of things is constantly under review and consideration. Is
this input public, or otherwise at least to the chapters? (who will
need to get started with the chapter selected board seats in the next
months as well) That way community members and chapters can think with
the nominating committee and give perhaps some additional suggestions.

With kind regards,

Lodewijk

2009/11/30 Michael Snow <wikipedia@...>:
> With our last board meeting falling a little later in the year than
> usual, and coming close to holidays, I'm a little late in giving this
> brief report on what happened. As you know, the board approved the
> audited financial statements for the 2008-2009 fiscal year, and those
> were posted on the Wikimedia Foundation website a couple weeks ago.
>
> As the organization has gotten settled in San Francisco, this has become
> a smoother process than in years past. It's not just that we're on solid
> financial ground (that's good, though even in the past we haven't been
> in immediate danger financially), but also as we've established the
> necessary infrastructure, we're better at tracking our finances and
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Anthony | 1 Dec 16:24
Gravatar

Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

>> > Also, please address my point that banning self-identified pedophiles
>> > from editing merely entourages pedophile editors to *not* identify
>> > themselves as such (thereby increasing the likelihood that problematic
>> > activities will be overlooked).
>
>> If that were true, then we wouldn't have banned any self-identified
>> pedophiles, and we won't every ban another one, and this whole
>> conversation is pointless.
>
> So...you're justifying the status quo by its existence?

No, you asked me to address your point that <insert untrue statement>.
 I addressed it by pointing out that it's not true.

>> I don't think they're going to change just because what they're doing is
>> bannable.  In fact, I think in the vast majority of cases these editors
>> fully expect to eventually be banned
>
> Including the ones that make no on-wiki mentions of their pedophilia?

I only know of one such case, and in that case, yes, I think he
clearly expected to eventually be banned.

I'm not including the pedophiles who make no public on-Internet
mentions of their pedophilia.

>> - the only question is how much we put up with before banning them.
>
> How much non-wiki-related behavior we put up with?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Cary Bass | 2 Dec 01:32
Picon

Office hours next Thursday, December 3


Hello all!

Next Thursday's office hours will feature Jay Walsh, the Foundation's
Head of Communications.  If you don't know Jay you can learn all about
him at <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:JayWalsh>.

Office hours on Thursday are from 1700 to 1800 UTC (9:00 AM - 10:00 AM PST).

If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat
using a web browser:  First is using the Wikizine chat gateway at
<http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi>.  Type a
nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and
#wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join.

Also, you can access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/,
typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as
the channel.   You may be prompted to click through a security warning.
It should be all right.

Please feel free to forward (and translate!) this email to any other
relevant email lists you happen to be on.

--
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Tim Landscheidt | 2 Dec 03:22
Picon

Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

George Herbert <george.herbert@...> wrote:

>> The "hand in hand with children" wording seems to conflate physical
>> space with cyberspace.  Please see my relevant reply to George William
>> Herbert.

> There's a known and ancedotally (but not known to be statistically)
> significant trend of pedophiles attracting victims online.

> Also, apparently, of them coordinating amongst themselves to pass tips
> about possible victims in specific areas.

Still, pedophiliac "preying" (whether on- or offline, not to
speak of the coordination thereof) seems marginal at best
compared to traditional run-of-the-mill child abuse which
involves non-pedophiliac adults often related to the victim
looking for substitute sex "partners". Should those other
potential perpetrators be banned as well? "Do we care for
their victims as much?"

  And if we assume that it is the parents' duty to supervise
their children's access to Wikipedia as content not suitable
for them may be displayed, how could there be any danger to
them?

  It would have been so much nicer if there had been a dif-
ferent reason to ban this user.

Tim
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane