Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Discussions on Wikimedia governance
User avatar
Moonage Daydream
Habitué
Posts: 1856
kołdry
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:41 pm

Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Moonage Daydream » Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:44 am

Those of you who live in or near London (and not banned from WMUK events) may be interested in attending WikiConference UK 2012:
The Wikimedia UK Annual Conference 2012 will be held on May 12 in the Directors' Suite at the Science Museum in London. The conference will incorporate both presentations and talks about Wikipedia/Wikimedia, as well as Wikimedia UK's Annual General Meeting. It will be free to attend for members, and lots of fun.
The WMUK AGM will include election of the board and voting on various resolutions. Of particular interest may be the resolution to apply for charity status in Scotland.

User avatar
Moonage Daydream
Habitué
Posts: 1856
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:41 pm

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Moonage Daydream » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:19 pm

The statements from the candidates have been posted.

User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Notvelty » Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:31 pm

Moonage Daydream wrote:The statements from the candidates have been posted.
Given the last time they had an election, the most eligibile and qualified candidate by light years (bar one, who was only miles behind) was also the only candidate not elected. I wonder if there's something in this that will give us a good indication of the results this year?

Notvelty
-----------
Notvelty

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Peter Damian » Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:55 pm

And look at these cheeky questions from our own Peter Cohen. (Am I allowed to say 'cheeky'?) At what point is someone from the committee going to complain about 'travelling circuses' and the like?
When Wikimedia UK submits information to the Charity Commission, a parliamentary committee, or another public authority, is it more important to present Wikimedia in a positive light or to answer questions as accurately and completely as possible even when this might cast WMUK, Wikipedia or the individual answering the questions in a negative light? --Peter cohen (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If Wikimedia UK submits information to the Charity Commission, a parliamentary committee, or another public authority, and that information subsequently turns out to be inaccurate, incomplete or liable to be interpreted in a manner that places Wikimedia in an overly positive light then what action should WMUK take? --Peter cohen (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The different answers are quite interesting.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:42 pm

Peter Damian wrote:And look at these cheeky questions from our own Peter Cohen. (Am I allowed to say 'cheeky'?) At what point is someone from the committee going to complain about 'travelling circuses' and the like?
When Wikimedia UK submits information to the Charity Commission, a parliamentary committee, or another public authority, is it more important to present Wikimedia in a positive light or to answer questions as accurately and completely as possible even when this might cast WMUK, Wikipedia or the individual answering the questions in a negative light? --Peter cohen (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If Wikimedia UK submits information to the Charity Commission, a parliamentary committee, or another public authority, and that information subsequently turns out to be inaccurate, incomplete or liable to be interpreted in a manner that places Wikimedia in an overly positive light then what action should WMUK take? --Peter cohen (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The different answers are quite interesting.
Well, my questions have just been removed.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:58 pm

For reference, the questions I mean to ask are the following:
{{WikiCon12/Question|Arbitration decisions in the English Wikipedia as well as press reports (e.g. [http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/54695 ... tism-slurl][http://web.archive.org/web/201105200922 ... 469270.ece]) have highlighted that Wikipedia's biographies of living people – like all articles the result of an anonymous content generation process – can fall victim to malicious editing. Do you think Wikipedia's process for writing biographies of living people needs reform, and if so, what changes would you like to see, and what role should Wiki UK play in bringing these changes about? | --~~~~}}

{{WikiCon12/Question|Both Wikipedia and Commons provide unfiltered access to hardcore pornography. This includes videos showing such acts as Wikimedia contributors masturbating and ejaculating on themselves, a dog engaging in sex acts with a woman dressed as a nun, etc. The lack of any filter or tags marking adult media means that much of this material is accessible on computers in UK schools. Given that Wikipedia is alone among the world's top websites in not offering any filtering of adult material, do you support the present Wikimedia policy of not even offering users an optional image filter? | --~~~~}}

{{WikiCon12/Question|Would you advise UK schools to allow pupils access to Wikipedia, given that the aforementioned material has been found to pass school filters? | --~~~~}}

{{WikiCon12/Question|A Commons contributor was recently globally locked from all Wikimedia sites after an off-site critic posted information identifying him as having a prior child pornography conviction. During his work in Commons, the contributor had invited dozens of other anonymous Commons users to contribute sexual images to his private porn wiki by posting to their talk pages. Various contributors who raised the issue in Commons were blocked by Commons administrators. The Commons community refused to take any action against the contributor, forcing the Wikimedia Foundation office to step in. Do you support the action taken by the Foundation office? | --~~~~}}

{{WikiCon12/Question|In a recent [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Res ... ble_people board resolution], the Wikimedia Foundation board stated that concerns about "human dignity and respect for personal privacy" are "not always taken into account with regards to media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission". This applies in particular to sexual images where the word of an anonymous uploader is taken as evidence that the person depicted is aware of and has consented to the upload. Complaints received demonstrate that this is often not the case. In a case recently highlighted on the [http://www.mail-archive.com/commons-l@l ... llist.html Commons mailing list] (Personality rights thread), Commons received complaints that images taken in a private place were hosted without model consent, yet consistently refused to remove them (and they are still present on Commons today, although the present deletion discussion is leaning towards delete). Do you agree with the Wikimedia Foundation board that Commons processes for ascertaining model consent need to be improved, and if so, what if any role do you think Wiki UK should play in this? | --~~~~}}

{{WikiCon12/Question|In Wikimedia Commons, decisions on whether particular media are in the public domain, and available to the global public for re-use, are usually taken by unqualified anonymous contributors. The professional standard of this decision-making is extremely poor at times ([http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commo ... Stalin.jpg example]). In a recent court case in Germany, Wikimedia Foundation Inc. was found to have been a contributor to copyright infringement, when Commons incorrectly declared German stamps to be in the public domain. Do you feel the present Commons process provides the public with an adequate assurance that media declared free by Wikimedia Commons contributors are in fact safe to use, without exposing commercial re-users to the risk of litigation, and if not, how would you propose to improve the process? | --~~~~ }}
To my mind, these are important questions. Does anyone understand what is wrong with them? Did I miss some instructions somewhere?

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Peter Damian » Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:13 pm

You revert back, and then Richard Symonds removes again

http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ldid=21698

Suspect it was him the first time from the IP. This is guaranteed to make these questions interesting to all.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:36 pm

Peter Damian wrote:You revert back, and then Richard Symonds removes again

http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ldid=21698
:angry: :furious: :tearinghairout:

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:58 pm

Well, Richard (aka Chase me) has dropped me a message on my talk page, and says we'll discuss it tomorrow. Richard is generally an alright guy; we'll see how it goes, and what the concerns are.

ErrantX
Critic
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:39 am
Wikipedia User: ErrantX

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by ErrantX » Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:29 am

HRIP7 wrote:Well, Richard (aka Chase me) has dropped me a message on my talk page, and says we'll discuss it tomorrow. Richard is generally an alright guy; we'll see how it goes, and what the concerns are.
Hmm, they do look a bit soapboxy - and related to matters of Wikipedia policy, rather than WMUK activities...

Seeing as the WMUK has no especial status on Wikipedia (and indeed, to my annoyance, most are only light users) I don't see how their stances on those issues will be of use.

Just my 2p.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by HRIP7 » Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:43 pm

ErrantX wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:Well, Richard (aka Chase me) has dropped me a message on my talk page, and says we'll discuss it tomorrow. Richard is generally an alright guy; we'll see how it goes, and what the concerns are.
Hmm, they do look a bit soapboxy - and related to matters of Wikipedia policy, rather than WMUK activities...

Seeing as the WMUK has no especial status on Wikipedia (and indeed, to my annoyance, most are only light users) I don't see how their stances on those issues will be of use.

Just my 2p.
Chapters and their trustees –

– determine a number of seats on the WMF board, which does have the power to make fundamental decisions about project policy,
– represent the project towards the public, local and national government, and academic institutions.

Before I vote or don't vote for someone, I would like to know their views on these topics. Some of these issues have, after all, repeatedly been in the news recently. Besides, weren't most of these questions about Commons?

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by HRIP7 » Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:12 pm

Well, this seems to be more difficult than I thought.

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... _Questions

Richard Symonds insists that I am not a member (even though I signed up and paid up yesterday), claims that even for members "there are limits attached to the number and style of questions they can ask" without saying what those limits are, and asserts that my questions are "too many in number, too complex, and too out of scope of WMUK's activities for us to allow them in their present form."

It seems to me that the fact of the matter is very simple: the questions mention porn, and they don't want it mentioned. But if they don't want it mentioned, they shouldn't host it. Can't have it both ways.

User avatar
Kevin
Critic
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:56 am
Wikipedia User: Kevin
Wikipedia Review Member: Kevin
Actual Name: Kevin Godfrey
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Contact:

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Kevin » Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:27 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Well, this seems to be more difficult than I thought.

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... _Questions

Richard Symonds insists that I am not a member (even though I signed up and paid up yesterday), claims that even for members "there are limits attached to the number and style of questions they can ask" without saying what those limits are, and asserts that my questions are "too many in number, too complex, and too out of scope of WMUK's activities for us to allow them in their present form."

It seems to me that the fact of the matter is very simple: the questions mention porn, and they don't want it mentioned. But if they don't want it mentioned, they shouldn't host it. Can't have it both ways.
I see your membership is 'pending approval'. Or 'pending you dropping the whole question thing', as I read it.

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by The Joy » Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:48 pm

Kevin wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:Well, this seems to be more difficult than I thought.

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... _Questions

Richard Symonds insists that I am not a member (even though I signed up and paid up yesterday), claims that even for members "there are limits attached to the number and style of questions they can ask" without saying what those limits are, and asserts that my questions are "too many in number, too complex, and too out of scope of WMUK's activities for us to allow them in their present form."

It seems to me that the fact of the matter is very simple: the questions mention porn, and they don't want it mentioned. But if they don't want it mentioned, they shouldn't host it. Can't have it both ways.
I see your membership is 'pending approval'. Or 'pending you dropping the whole question thing', as I read it.
I don't think Jayen's membership is going to go through. :(
For completeness, I should also note that by signing the application form, you have agreed "...to support the Objects of the Company, will not bring the Company into disrepute and am aware of my legal responsibilities and duties should I be accepted as a member of Wiki UK Limited.". I'm sure you've read it, but I want to make doubly sure! Richard Symonds (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ldid=21874
Is this a polite way of saying "Fuck off?" :angry:
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

dogbiscuit
Retired
Posts: 2723
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by dogbiscuit » Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:57 pm

The Joy wrote:
Kevin wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:Well, this seems to be more difficult than I thought.

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... _Questions

Richard Symonds insists that I am not a member (even though I signed up and paid up yesterday), claims that even for members "there are limits attached to the number and style of questions they can ask" without saying what those limits are, and asserts that my questions are "too many in number, too complex, and too out of scope of WMUK's activities for us to allow them in their present form."

It seems to me that the fact of the matter is very simple: the questions mention porn, and they don't want it mentioned. But if they don't want it mentioned, they shouldn't host it. Can't have it both ways.
I see your membership is 'pending approval'. Or 'pending you dropping the whole question thing', as I read it.
I don't think Jayen's membership is going to go through. :(
For completeness, I should also note that by signing the application form, you have agreed "...to support the Objects of the Company, will not bring the Company into disrepute and am aware of my legal responsibilities and duties should I be accepted as a member of Wiki UK Limited.". I'm sure you've read it, but I want to make doubly sure! Richard Symonds (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ldid=21874
Is this a polite way of saying "Fuck off?" :angry:
I think it is a great way of collecting evidence to send to the Charities Commission that the organisation does not have proper checks and controls :popcorn:
Time for a new signature.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Peter Damian » Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:43 am

For completeness, I should also note that by signing the application form, you have agreed "...to support the Objects of the Company, will not bring the Company into disrepute and am aware of my legal responsibilities and duties should I be accepted as a member of Wiki UK Limited.". I'm sure you've read it, but I want to make doubly sure! Richard Symonds (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Which members of WMUK are 'bringing the Company into disrepute'?

But seriously, if an organisation which is committed to openness and transparency is labelling any form of criticism as 'bringing it into disrepute', there is something very seriously wrong.

By the way, I am meeting Jon Davies next week to discuss some of these issues.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

dogbiscuit
Retired
Posts: 2723
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by dogbiscuit » Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:35 am

Peter Damian wrote:
For completeness, I should also note that by signing the application form, you have agreed "...to support the Objects of the Company, will not bring the Company into disrepute and am aware of my legal responsibilities and duties should I be accepted as a member of Wiki UK Limited.". I'm sure you've read it, but I want to make doubly sure! Richard Symonds (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Which members of WMUK are 'bringing the Company into disrepute'?

But seriously, if an organisation which is committed to openness and transparency is labelling any form of criticism as 'bringing it into disrepute', there is something very seriously wrong.

By the way, I am meeting Jon Davies next week to discuss some of these issues.
Typically, publishing pictures of yourself in sexually compromising positions is considered inappropriate and there are numerous examples of people being dismissed for such stunts.

Strangely, in Wiki UK Ltd, that seems to position yourself for the highest office, though of course we are not supposed to know that those pictures were of Fae, are we???

If Wiki UK Ltd will not discuss the problem of inappropriate and illegal materials on the site that they are committed to supporting, then it is they themselves that will ultimately bring the organisation into disrepute. Has anyone spoken with the likes of the British Museum to alert them to what they are allying themselves to?
Time for a new signature.

User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Notvelty » Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:34 pm

dogbiscuit wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:

Which members of WMUK are 'bringing the Company into disrepute'?

But seriously, if an organisation which is committed to openness and transparency is labelling any form of criticism as 'bringing it into disrepute', there is something very seriously wrong.

By the way, I am meeting Jon Davies next week to discuss some of these issues.
Typically, publishing pictures of yourself in sexually compromising positions is considered inappropriate and there are numerous examples of people being dismissed for such stunts.

Strangely, in Wiki UK Ltd, that seems to position yourself for the highest office, though of course we are not supposed to know that those pictures were of Fae, are we???

If Wiki UK Ltd will not discuss the problem of inappropriate and illegal materials on the site that they are committed to supporting, then it is they themselves that will ultimately bring the organisation into disrepute. Has anyone spoken with the likes of the British Museum to alert them to what they are allying themselves to?
I suspect the likes of the British Museum already know. Clearly someone with sufficient clout has "free culture" leanings else Cotzee would never have been allowed near the collection. The major donors to the British Museum on the other hand...

I suspect that list of people would be a much better target. Particularly if we can work out which custodian or director authorised it.

Notvelty
-----------
Notvelty

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by HRIP7 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:41 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
For completeness, I should also note that by signing the application form, you have agreed "...to support the Objects of the Company, will not bring the Company into disrepute and am aware of my legal responsibilities and duties should I be accepted as a member of Wiki UK Limited.". I'm sure you've read it, but I want to make doubly sure! Richard Symonds (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Which members of WMUK are 'bringing the Company into disrepute'?

But seriously, if an organisation which is committed to openness and transparency is labelling any form of criticism as 'bringing it into disrepute', there is something very seriously wrong.

By the way, I am meeting Jon Davies next week to discuss some of these issues.
How come?

The disrepute thing is funny. It sounds a bit like, "Yes, we host unfiltered bestiality porn. But if you say so in public, you are bringing us into disrepute."

So, if I am a member, and have pledged not to bring Wikimedia into disrepute ... :twilightzone:

User avatar
SB_Johnny
Habitué
Posts: 4640
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:26 am
Wikipedia User: SB_Johnny
Wikipedia Review Member: SB_Johnny

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by SB_Johnny » Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:24 pm

It's a shame Dan Murphy's article isn't out yet.
This is not a signature.

ErrantX
Critic
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:39 am
Wikipedia User: ErrantX

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by ErrantX » Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:06 am

HRIP7 wrote:Well, this seems to be more difficult than I thought.

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... _Questions

Richard Symonds insists that I am not a member (even though I signed up and paid up yesterday), claims that even for members "there are limits attached to the number and style of questions they can ask" without saying what those limits are, and asserts that my questions are "too many in number, too complex, and too out of scope of WMUK's activities for us to allow them in their present form."

It seems to me that the fact of the matter is very simple: the questions mention porn, and they don't want it mentioned. But if they don't want it mentioned, they shouldn't host it. Can't have it both ways.
Your soapboxing in all of those questions (which is the attitude problem you and I have always disagreed over, I think).

User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Notvelty » Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:11 am

ErrantX wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:Well, this seems to be more difficult than I thought.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... _Questions
It seems to me that the fact of the matter is very simple: the questions mention porn, and they don't want it mentioned. But if they don't want it mentioned, they shouldn't host it. Can't have it both ways.
Your soapboxing in all of those questions (which is the attitude problem you and I have always disagreed over, I think).
What a load of unmitigated, self indulgent bullshit. Don't for one second dare to suggest that you or any other one of these incompetent; childish morons would have done a thing about any of this if it were not for Andreas. Even now, in the face of incontoverable evidence of behaviour to the extent of protecting pedoes, these worms are making veiled threats to honest whistleblowers. Grow up.
-----------
Notvelty

User avatar
Moonage Daydream
Habitué
Posts: 1856
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:41 pm

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Moonage Daydream » Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:38 am

How is your membership to WMUK coming?
I hope that the only effect of these threads won't have been that everybody got to have a catharsis, and can now live more happily again with things hurtling on along the existing trajectory. --JN466 14:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was precisely the outcome you were aiming for, considering you have been shouting drink! feck! girls! arse! penis! feck! on every possible soapbox you can find until everyone has tuned you out. Thanks for the catharsis, the rest of us moved on some time ago. If you are ready to help with meaningful change, you are a smart enough guy to know what you have to do, it just is not as easy as hurling abuse or collaborating with the sort of people who think is is funny to make personal attacks under the guise of nasty jokes about "fae gots". --Fæ (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop impugning the mentality and motives of JN. JN and I disagree frequently on WP at a fundamental level, but I do respect him for his integrity and dedication to the principles he holds. This snide little "fae gots" jab is nothing but an attempt to denigrate him for guilt by association. If you have a problem with the person that used that phrase, take it up with them. JN didn't say it, JN wouldn't say it, and that's completely bogus of you to bring up. Carrite (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to consider calling someone "smart" as impugning thier mentality, or that it is "bogus" to point out the fact that they collaborate with people who are prepared to make jokes like "fae got" to attack someone who is openly gay, or that they freely choose to support the same forums as those that make direct personal threats against Wikipedians using anonymous accounts. I have no doubt that Jayen466 is dedicated, his actions show he his highly dedicated to the aim of removing Wikimedia's charitable status. --Fæ (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Jayen466, repeatedly using press interest in a horrific case of a mass murderer currently on trial, as a reason to cast him as a poster boy for your soapboxing is disgusting. While you continue to use the lowest possible tactics in debate, there is no point in seriously attempting to discuss the issues you are lobbying on. Grow up and get serious if you want things to change. --Fæ (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User avatar
SB_Johnny
Habitué
Posts: 4640
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:26 am
Wikipedia User: SB_Johnny
Wikipedia Review Member: SB_Johnny

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by SB_Johnny » Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:52 am

Moonage Daydream wrote:How is your membership to WMUK coming?
I hope that the only effect of these threads won't have been that everybody got to have a catharsis, and can now live more happily again with things hurtling on along the existing trajectory. --JN466 14:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was precisely the outcome you were aiming for, considering you have been shouting drink! feck! girls! arse! penis! feck! on every possible soapbox you can find until everyone has tuned you out. Thanks for the catharsis, the rest of us moved on some time ago. If you are ready to help with meaningful change, you are a smart enough guy to know what you have to do, it just is not as easy as hurling abuse or collaborating with the sort of people who think is is funny to make personal attacks under the guise of nasty jokes about "fae gots". --Fæ (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop impugning the mentality and motives of JN. JN and I disagree frequently on WP at a fundamental level, but I do respect him for his integrity and dedication to the principles he holds. This snide little "fae gots" jab is nothing but an attempt to denigrate him for guilt by association. If you have a problem with the person that used that phrase, take it up with them. JN didn't say it, JN wouldn't say it, and that's completely bogus of you to bring up. Carrite (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to consider calling someone "smart" as impugning thier mentality, or that it is "bogus" to point out the fact that they collaborate with people who are prepared to make jokes like "fae got" to attack someone who is openly gay, or that they freely choose to support the same forums as those that make direct personal threats against Wikipedians using anonymous accounts. I have no doubt that Jayen466 is dedicated, his actions show he his highly dedicated to the aim of removing Wikimedia's charitable status. --Fæ (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Jayen466, repeatedly using press interest in a horrific case of a mass murderer currently on trial, as a reason to cast him as a poster boy for your soapboxing is disgusting. While you continue to use the lowest possible tactics in debate, there is no point in seriously attempting to discuss the issues you are lobbying on. Grow up and get serious if you want things to change. --Fæ (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
More fodder for Dan's article right there. If it's not grown into a series by this point!
This is not a signature.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by thekohser » Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:32 pm

"to attack someone who is openly gay"

First off, it wasn't an "attack". It was an attempt at a witty poke that fell woefully flat, for which I apologized and offered to talk personally to Fae about it.

Second of all, since when is Fae "openly gay"? Wouldn't being "open" about it include associating your real-life name with the User name? I thought Fae insists that nobody call him "Ashley Van Haeften", who would be the gay person, as far as I can tell. So, how is his status "open" at all?
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Moonage Daydream
Habitué
Posts: 1856
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:41 pm

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Moonage Daydream » Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:08 pm

thekohser wrote:Second of all, since when is Fae "openly gay"? Wouldn't being "open" about it include associating your real-life name with the User name? I thought Fae insists that nobody call him "Ashley Van Haeften", who would be the gay person, as far as I can tell. So, how is his status "open" at all?
Fae is openly gay. Ashley Van Haeften is also openly gay.

I enjoyed this part of a recent message from Fae on the members-only public mailing list:
As part of our value of openness, Wikimedia UK is the only chapter to
currently broadcast a live feed from our board meetings, though as you
might expect, the CEO performance review by trustees will be held
in-camera and is expected to take around 40 minutes. Watch out on this
list for a link to the live stream from Monmouth in Wales, if you
fancy observing the rest of the meeting and chipping in with
suggestions during the day.

Cheers,
Fae
Wikimedia UK Chairman
I wonder how many other Wikimedia chapters have chairs who identify themselves with a pseudonym? And not just any pseudonym, but one with a special character that just happens to make it harder to write. I wonder if that was done deliberately to make it harder for people to Google?

ErrantX
Critic
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:39 am
Wikipedia User: ErrantX

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by ErrantX » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:53 pm

Notvelty wrote:
ErrantX wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:Well, this seems to be more difficult than I thought.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... _Questions
It seems to me that the fact of the matter is very simple: the questions mention porn, and they don't want it mentioned. But if they don't want it mentioned, they shouldn't host it. Can't have it both ways.
Your soapboxing in all of those questions (which is the attitude problem you and I have always disagreed over, I think).
What a load of unmitigated, self indulgent bullshit. Don't for one second dare to suggest that you or any other one of these incompetent; childish morons would have done a thing about any of this if it were not for Andreas. Even now, in the face of incontoverable evidence of behaviour to the extent of protecting pedoes, these worms are making veiled threats to honest whistleblowers. Grow up.
Amusing, certainly. I question his tactics, not his motivation.

His tactics undermine the issues at hand and tend to be disruptive to the point of being next to impossible to engage with.

He has cropped up in just about every single venue even remotely tangential in the last few weeks with the same screed - and it is becoming beyond tiresome. I note this from experience; continual whining mostly just anaesthetises people to valid issues (they see your disruption before your point).

For example; a lot of positive movement was happening on the PR editing issues recently. In the last week that has basically floundered - in large part due to Andreas bringing his agendas into all that mess. The CREWE Facebook group, a previously collegial environment, has declined in quality tremendously to the point that little of constructive merit is discussed any more (it's just Wikipedians bickering).

Andreas has good ideas, many of which I agree with - but he is also a significant part of the problem, where discussions stall over argument and ongoing personal disputes. I've told him that, but it's not getting in.

But what do I know, I just catch pedos for a living. *shrug* All I will point out is this; I'm not the one slinging insults like "childish moron" - which ironically tends to be a fairly childish, and moronic, let alone bitter activity :)

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Peter Damian » Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:15 pm

Notvelty wrote:I suspect the likes of the British Museum already know. Clearly someone with sufficient clout has "free culture" leanings else Cotzee would never have been allowed near the collection. The major donors to the British Museum on the other hand...
No not at all. Things don't work like that. As far as I can see, all this was set in motion by Richard Power, who is a 'Web coordinator' or 'intranet coordinator' or something like that. Not a very senior position and nothing to do with the actual business of the British Library.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by EricBarbour » Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:12 pm

ErrantX wrote:For example; a lot of positive movement was happening on the PR editing issues recently. In the last week that has basically floundered - in large part due to Andreas bringing his agendas into all that mess. The CREWE Facebook group, a previously collegial environment, has declined in quality tremendously to the point that little of constructive merit is discussed any more (it's just Wikipedians bickering).

Andreas has good ideas, many of which I agree with - but he is also a significant part of the problem, where discussions stall over argument and ongoing personal disputes. I've told him that, but it's not getting in.
I beg to differ. If Andreas were not "bringing agendas", others would bring their own agendas.

I think Andreas is being just as effective as the manipulators like Fae, who throw up semi-coherent walls of text to try and "bury" issues.
Andreas is simply using their own tactic against them. I do not agree that this "brings the organization into disrepute", because it already
IS in disrepute. And people's constant attempts to rationalize the presence of penis photos, the general hatred of paid editors, and other
forms of systemic lunacy do not help alleviate the "disrepute".

You ought to look into Everyking's treatment on en-WP. He is obviously one of their best content writers, ever, for all time.
Yet since 2005 he has been constantly dragged in front of Arbcom and attacked by random nerds, because "they don't like him".
Instead of awards, he gets a massive block log for his trouble.

User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Notvelty » Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:27 pm

" I question his tactics, not his motivation"

I read your garbage the first time. And by first time, I mean the real first time almost a decade ago when Gerard and Wales were spouting it in defence of some other wiki evil. It got old quickly then and reasonable people do not believe it for a second now: they see it for the self-justifying misdirection it is.

You've all had years to fix this with you sel-congradulatory circle-jerking. Time for the adults to deal with it.

Notvelty
-----------
Notvelty

ErrantX
Critic
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:39 am
Wikipedia User: ErrantX

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by ErrantX » Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:47 am

EricBarbour wrote:I think Andreas is being just as effective as the manipulators like Fae, who throw up semi-coherent walls of text to try and "bury" issues.
Andreas is simply using their own tactic against them.
Oh of course.

In my experience this simply won't work, though.
You ought to look into Everyking's treatment on en-WP. He is obviously one of their best content writers, ever, for all time.
Yet since 2005 he has been constantly dragged in front of Arbcom and attacked by random nerds, because "they don't like him".
Instead of awards, he gets a massive block log for his trouble.
I mean I see a pretty disastrous period prior to 2007 - but since then he seems to have merrily skipped along to hundreds of thousands of edits and has been an admin since 2010. Unless I am missing a critical piece of the puzzle the word "constantly" is misplaced ;)

The life of an editor is interesting; had I hung around back in 2006 I fully expect I would have been blocked by now, having been a prick. My hope is that, slowly, many of the "new guard" are maturing into Wikipedia. There are quite a few likely types I have noticed who have enthusiasm and sense, but don't quite have the experience yet.

We all grow up eventually.
Notvelty wrote:You've all had years to fix this with you sel-congradulatory circle-jerking. Time for the adults to deal with it.

Notvelty
Well. Some do.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Peter Damian » Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:31 pm

HRIP7 wrote:It seems to me that the fact of the matter is very simple: the questions mention porn, and they don't want it mentioned. But if they don't want it mentioned, they shouldn't host it. Can't have it both ways.
Two possibilities:

(1) Reduce the number of questions, and turn the statement parts of the remaining questions so you only have questions, and perhaps shorten so the main question is right at the front.

(2) Forget about it. We have links to the deletions, and comments like Orwellian "there are too many questions being asked here", and it builds our case nicely.

If Richard Symonds is reading this, and I know he does read this forum regularly, here is an explanation of 'Orwellian' for you Richard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian Not a bad article that, actually.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by HRIP7 » Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:02 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:It seems to me that the fact of the matter is very simple: the questions mention porn, and they don't want it mentioned. But if they don't want it mentioned, they shouldn't host it. Can't have it both ways.
Two possibilities:

(1) Reduce the number of questions, and turn the statement parts of the remaining questions so you only have questions, and perhaps shorten so the main question is right at the front.

(2) Forget about it. We have links to the deletions, and comments like Orwellian "there are too many questions being asked here", and it builds our case nicely.

If Richard Symonds is reading this, and I know he does read this forum regularly, here is an explanation of 'Orwellian' for you Richard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian Not a bad article that, actually.
Well, if you look at the bottom of the talk page, he's submitted shorter versions of three questions, and we have sort of agreed a wording for those that I could now post:
1. What role do you think Wikimedia UK could play in ensuring that Wikipedia's articles about living people are kept accurate and free of malice?

2. What are your views on having an opt-in image filter installed on Wikimedia projects, to enable users to opt out of seeing images they feel are inappropriate?

5. Do you agree with the Wikimedia Foundation board (link) that processes for ascertaining model consent in images need to be improved, and if so, what (if any) role do you think Wikimedia UK should play in this?

The sticking point is question 3:
3. Would you advise UK schools to allow pupils access to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia, given that unfiltered hardcore pornography can presently be found on both?
[...] 3 is more complex though, because I think it's a misrepresentation to say that unfiltered hardcore pornography is available on Commons. It's a question with a strict yes/no answer that tends to force candidates into either 'approving of pornography in schools' or 'banning Wikipedia in schools', when in actual fact there are more nuanced answers; I think it would be better worded as an open-ended question, which would allow the candidates to give a more informative and insightful answer. We're brainstorming a possible question at the moment, but please bear in mind that this isn't the ArbCom elections, and it doesn't work quite the same way. Richard Symonds (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Richard, I don't think it is a misrepresentation. The content of this page for example is, by any definition, hardcore pornography; so is this. We can make it an open question, rather than a Yes-No question; something like this: How would you advise UK schools to handle Commons and Wikipedia, given that both contain pages displaying unfiltered hardcore pornography? What we can't do is beat about the bush on this. Commons does contain hardcore pornography. (This is probably the most egregious example.) Regards --Andreas JN 16:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I've written a long post to send to the Wikimedia and WikimediaUK mailing lists, asking for wider community input on whether people should be allowed to ask candidates tough questions, and arguing that ducked questions become unresolved problems. At the moment I'm wondering whether I should send it off, or wait; if I get to ask the school question, I might save myself the bother and just settle for those four, even though they are now somewhat emasculated.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by HRIP7 » Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:52 pm

Richard is arguing that it is not fair to say that Commons is hosting hardcore pornography. So I put up a gallery of Commons media and challenged him to find equivalents on educational sites rather than porn sites. He deleted the gallery with the edit summary
That gallery included an R18-rated film, which is the UK rating for hardcore pornography. I should mention that that film may be illegal in your jurisdiction, depending on the country you're in.

dogbiscuit
Retired
Posts: 2723
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by dogbiscuit » Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:25 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Richard is arguing that it is not fair to say that Commons is hosting hardcore pornography. So I put up a gallery of Commons media and challenged him to find equivalents on educational sites rather than porn sites. He deleted the gallery with the edit summary
That gallery included an R18-rated film, which is the UK rating for hardcore pornography. I should mention that that film may be illegal in your jurisdiction, depending on the country you're in.
Richard is clearly acting in an official capacity there, so he ought to be far more careful about giving the appearance of interfering in an election. Indeed one is tempted to ask if it is really the case that Wiki Uk Ltd is NOTCENSORED. Again, all good evidence for the Charity Commission.

What is interesting is that you now have a record of trying to address a significant problem through the appropriate channels of the organisation and you have been obstructed by the trustees. At this point, the problem for Wiki UK Ltd is that it triggers the ability to complain about their handling of this issue (they are not acting illegally themselves but they are risking the reputation of the charity* and also potentially bringing the CC into question as an effective regulator seeing as these issues have already been raised)..

* 1. By being seen to actively support the retention of inappropriate materials; 2. By bringing into question the governance of the charity.
Time for a new signature.

User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Notvelty » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:14 am

I've yet to see any evidence that any of the general populationof WP have ever grown up, unless it is to do so and immediately leave.

That you still spout the same party line and pretend it's something new is not evidence to the contrary. The real world is sick of the smug bullshit. Being angry about it is not only par for the course but also necessary.

You'll receive no false civility from me, only contempt. I've no part of the wiki fantasy world you and the rest of th frei kulture kinder have created for yourselves.

I call you childish because you do childish things. You, who like any true wikipediot, can't come up with his own material, say I am so for not buying the crap that's been shown to have failed for ten years.
-----------
Notvelty

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by EricBarbour » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:50 am

ErrantX wrote:
You ought to look into Everyking's treatment on en-WP.
I mean I see a pretty disastrous period prior to 2007 - but since then he seems to have merrily skipped along to hundreds of thousands of edits and has been an admin since 2010. Unless I am missing a critical piece of the puzzle the word "constantly" is misplaced ;)
Okay, prior to 2010 anyway. He finally learned to shut up and stop arguing with systemic abusers.

Let me summarize for you:

==2004==
First RFA May 2004. Very early in WP's history, he was already popular.

==2005==
Blocked, January 2005, for editwarring.

First arbitration, January 2005, over the bloody Ashlee Simpson article. Apparently he is in love with her.

Another bizarre dispute, February.

Second arbitration, April 2005. Fighting with Snowspinner.

Third arbitration, August 2005, repeatedly amended. He had still been fighting with Snowspinner, predictably.

"Parole violation", December. Snowspinner abusing his power.

Commandment not to interact with Snowspinner, later in December.

==2006==
Everyking desysop, 4 Sept 2006, because he offered to help the evil Wordbomb with Mantanmoreland/Gary Weiss on WR.

Second RFA, September 2006. Failed because of the above incident.

==2007==
Request to resysop, January 2007. Failed.

Third RFA, February 2007. Take a wild guess.

Blocked, October 2007, for "restoring comments made by Amorrow sockpuppets". Could not be confirmed.

==2008==
Fourth RFA, September 2008. Getting better, but despite co-nomination by Acalamari and Durova, still failed. Note that he had amassed 111,000 edits by then, mostly content.

==2009==
All sanctions lifted by Arbcom, January 2009.

Fifth RFA, May 2009 -- much the same as the previous one.

Bizarre argument relating to fifth RFA somehow.

==2010==
Sixth RFA, January 2010. Succeeded, finally. Barely. Look at who voted "oppose", it's almost a who's who of the worst admins on WP at the time.


Getting the picture yet?

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by HRIP7 » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:17 am

HRIP7 wrote:That gallery included an R18-rated film, which is the UK rating for hardcore pornography. I should mention that that film may be illegal in your jurisdiction, depending on the country you're in.
Incidentally, over the past 90 days, the dog-on-nun film has been viewed 75,000 times (link). Not bad for a media file that is not used in any project. If it continues at that rate, it will hit 1 million views in early 2015.

ErrantX
Critic
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:39 am
Wikipedia User: ErrantX

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by ErrantX » Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:34 am

I hate to keep saying it but Richard may have a point r.e. that question - in that it is leading and basically gives the questioned two options:

- Say they would recommend it, and therefore be accused of forcing pornography on children
- Say they wouldn't recommend it

Neither option really advances the situation - it's just a point score for you :)

I'd suggest a more open ended question might force a little more debate and better, more involved, answers... How about:
"With the current concerns over adult and other inappropriate content appearing unfiltered on Commons, how would you advise schools and other youth groups to handle access to that site?"
This has the advantage of forcing them to actually think about the issues and come up with more than a couple of words in answer. If you're genuinely looking to drive debate then I think that is the way forward.
Notvelty wrote:I call you childish because you do childish things. You, who like any true wikipediot, can't come up with his own material, say I am so for not buying the crap that's been shown to have failed for ten years.
I think I might make you my new mascot, you're so cuddly and cutsey, even when cross! :)

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by HRIP7 » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:20 am

ErrantX wrote:I hate to keep saying it but Richard may have a point r.e. that question - in that it is leading and basically gives the questioned two options:

- Say they would recommend it, and therefore be accused of forcing pornography on children
- Say they wouldn't recommend it

Neither option really advances the situation - it's just a point score for you :)
Errant, some of the candidates may be genuinely unaware just how explicit this material is, in which case it is better that they learn about it, so they can give informed advice if the question of schools ever does come up later in their dealings with journalists or officials. Such informed advice is of benefit to the general public which Wikimedia UK serves.

I understand there is a minor involved in Wiki UK election preparations, and part of the concern is that he and his parents should not be freaked out by this question at the AGM. (Are these questions discussed at the AGM hustings then, Errant? I thought they are only asked and answered on the Wikimedia UK website.) But if we are concerned about this young Wikimedian, we must be equally concerned about the approx. 75,000 people who are likely to be watching this video over the next three months alone. Several thousand of them are likely to be UK minors just like that young volunteer, with parents who we'd assume would be just as concerned as those of our volunteer. We have to do right by them, too.
ErrantX wrote:I'd suggest a more open ended question might force a little more debate and better, more involved, answers... How about:
"With the current concerns over adult and other inappropriate content appearing unfiltered on Commons, how would you advise schools and other youth groups to handle access to that site?"
This has the advantage of forcing them to actually think about the issues and come up with more than a couple of words in answer. If you're genuinely looking to drive debate then I think that is the way forward.
As for the first part of your suggested wording, the problem with wordings like this is that it allows the candidates to imagine anything here, and that it also introduces plausible deniability for them. They may think (or say they thought) that I am a Christian fundamentalist talking about girls in bikinis, and advise the public accordingly. That does the public a disservice. It's good for the general public if the candidates know what they are talking about, are seen to know what they are talking about, and give responsible, knowledgeable advice.

I agree by the way with you and Richard that it should be an open-ended question, and the latest proposal I had made began with the words "How would you advise UK schools to handle Commons and Wikipedia ...". Your wording is an improvement on that, and I'll use it. (Thanks.)

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by thekohser » Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:28 am

ErrantX wrote:...Richard may have a point r.e. that question
I'm not familiar with that abbreviation, Errant. What does 'r.e.' mean?
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

ErrantX
Critic
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:39 am
Wikipedia User: ErrantX

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by ErrantX » Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:33 am

thekohser wrote:
ErrantX wrote:...Richard may have a point r.e. that question
I'm not familiar with that abbreviation, Errant. What does 'r.e.' mean?
r.e. = regarding

I've always used it, but not sure where I picked it up from :D

ErrantX
Critic
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:39 am
Wikipedia User: ErrantX

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by ErrantX » Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:41 am

HRIP7 wrote:
ErrantX wrote:I hate to keep saying it but Richard may have a point r.e. that question - in that it is leading and basically gives the questioned two options:

- Say they would recommend it, and therefore be accused of forcing pornography on children
- Say they wouldn't recommend it

Neither option really advances the situation - it's just a point score for you :)
Errant, some of the candidates may be genuinely unaware just how explicit this material is, in which case it is better that they learn about it, so they can give informed advice if the question of schools ever does come up later in their dealings with journalists or officials. Such informed advice is of benefit to the general public which Wikimedia UK serves.
I agree; but I suggest it would be better to show them this without putting them into a catch 22 scenario - as that risks alienating them :)
I understand there is a minor involved in Wiki UK election preparations, and part of the concern is that he and his parents should not be freaked out by this question at the AGM. (Are these questions discussed at the AGM hustings then, Errant? I thought they are only asked and answered on the Wikimedia UK website.)
I have no idea about that, or who that might be. But these are the issues that must be dealt with so if he is unequipped to deal with them... in my experience minors above the age of about 14 have a much dirtier mind than me anyway ;)

The questions won't be asked at the hustings according to the schedule due to lack of time (it's going to be a bit of a rushed day).
As for the first part of your suggested wording, the problem with wordings like this is that it allows the candidates to imagine anything here, and that it also introduces plausible deniability for them. They may think (or say they thought) that I am a Christian fundamentalist talking about girls in bikinis, and advise the public accordingly. That does the public a disservice. It's good for the general public if the candidates know what they are talking about, are seen to know what they are talking about, and give responsible, knowledgeable advice.
Revise as appropriate; "explicit pornography" might be a better phrasing.
I agree by the way with you and Richard that it should be an open-ended question, and the latest proposal I had made began with the words "How would you advise UK schools to handle Commons and Wikipedia ...". Your wording is an improvement on that, and I'll use it. (Thanks.)
Sweet :)

Andreas; are you in the UK? It might be worth considering running a talk (at the AGM) about the issue of pornography, there is a call for talks atm.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by thekohser » Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:52 am

ErrantX wrote:
thekohser wrote:
ErrantX wrote:...Richard may have a point r.e. that question
I'm not familiar with that abbreviation, Errant. What does 'r.e.' mean?
r.e. = regarding

I've always used it, but not sure where I picked it up from :D
Just a helpful hint... I suggest you stop using it, because it's wrong. 'Re' is a preposition, just fine on its own. The above would be like typing t.o. when you mean 'to', or a.r.o.u.n.d. when you mean 'around'.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Notvelty » Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:55 pm

ErrantX wrote:
I agree; but I suggest it would be better to show them this without putting them into a catch 22 scenario - as that risks alienating them :)
Look, I may have been a bit harsh on you - guilt by association is not fair.

But, seriously, read what you're writing!

We can't ask people seeking election tough questions because it risks alienating them?? What are you? A representative of the Australian Greens?

The question is tough because what is currently happening is -wrong-. The answer is "what is happening is wrong and we need to do X about it" or "No, we should not be piping pornography into schools, so we shall put reasonable measures in place to filter our content and these are the measures..."

Of course, the -real- problem is that most of the twits want to answer "I wanna pornography baaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwww". And, I'm afraid, while you keep running the line that we should somehow avoid alienating these people, it's very hard to take you seriously.

Of course we should alienate these people. They shouldn't be within 100 miles of a collaborative educational project.
-----------
Notvelty

ErrantX
Critic
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:39 am
Wikipedia User: ErrantX

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by ErrantX » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:20 am

Notvelty wrote:
ErrantX wrote:
I agree; but I suggest it would be better to show them this without putting them into a catch 22 scenario - as that risks alienating them :)
Look, I may have been a bit harsh on you - guilt by association is not fair.

But, seriously, read what you're writing!

We can't ask people seeking election tough questions because it risks alienating them?? What are you? A representative of the Australian Greens?
No; read again. I argue that putting them into a catch 22 situation, where part of the point is the catch them in an unfortunate response, is self-defeating. Having a question that boils down to "Would you recommend showing porn to children?" isn't a difficult question.

The question of "Commons has highly visible porn, what advice would you give to schools and other youth groups?" much more focuses on the point of asking such a question.

Catching someone out in saying "Yes" is fun and all, but doesn't really do all that much in the long term.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by HRIP7 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:23 am

ErrantX wrote:No; read again. I argue that putting them into a catch 22 situation, where part of the point is the catch them in an unfortunate response, is self-defeating. Having a question that boils down to "Would you recommend showing porn to children?" isn't a difficult question.

The question of "Commons has highly visible porn, what advice would you give to schools and other youth groups?" much more focuses on the point of asking such a question.

Catching someone out in saying "Yes" is fun and all, but doesn't really do all that much in the long term.
I agreed that the open question format was more helpful.

But actually, the original question was,
Would you advise UK schools to allow pupils access to Wikipedia, given that the aforementioned material has been found to pass school filters?
I had intended to vote for candidates who answered "No" to that, or "No, unless they are confident they have effective filter software installed." These are perfectly possible and honorable answers.

Three candidates have so far answered the question. Chris Keating (The Land) and Joscelyn Upendran (?) speak of having adult supervision, which is not really practical:
Chris Keating wrote:I would advise schools and youth groups to use Wikipedia in a structured manner and with a level of adult supervision appropriate to the age of the students.
Joscelyn Upendran wrote:I don't think Wikimedia sites are any different to any other site in respect of the advice to schools and youth groups. I would advise they use it in relation to the learning outcomes with appropriate supervision and ground rules for the pupils and young people.
There are computers dotted all over schools, and pupils have the right to use them during breaks and after class; these computers can either access Wikipedia, or they cannot.

Ashley mentions the Wikipedia Selection for Schools DVD, which is useful, and adds some non-committal but not unrealistic comments about filters and stuff along the lines of "It's something one would have to discuss with schools":
Ashley Van Haeften wrote:Most people are unaware of projects such as http://schools-wikipedia.org (Wikipedia Selection for schools) which as it can be pressed to a DVD, is pretty much ideal as an educational resource for computers not connected to the internet. In general, most of the "Junior" Wikipedia projects (not just English) are looking rather dated and revisiting this area might be an interesting part of education sector outreach for WMUK to consider sponsoring.
When suitable optional filters become available (as above) then I would encourage schools and youth groups to review if these might be an effective precaution for them. I am no expert in this area and as a trustee, I would want to seek feedback from these institutions as to their expectations, advice and their current best practices.
In the age when every youth has a smart phone and is able to access anything on the internet, I believe it is far more useful to educate young people as to sensible and cautious internet use. WMUK does have a role in helping this aspect of advising how young people can use and contribute to Wikimedia projects safely. In practice, simple steps like welcoming apparently young users with helpful information such as User:Fae/help/young ought to be strongly encouraged.
As for your earlier question, Errant, I am in the UK. But I don't think a presentation at the AGM about pornography on Wikimedia projects would go down well. What slides would I show? :D

Honestly, a talk bringing people up to speed on what's on Commons today would be R18-rated. I can't show a bunch of R18 stuff at the AGM. It was bad enough discussing this stuff in the House of Commons coffee place.

And if you're not showing the material, then the talk is very short: We have extremely explicit adult material in there, which attracts hundreds of thousands of clicks a day, and we don't do what everybody else is doing who hosts adult material, i.e. stick it behind an 18 wall.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by Peter Damian » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:54 am

HRIP7 wrote: Three candidates have so far answered the question. Chris Keating (The Land) and Joscelyn Upendran (?) speak of having adult supervision, which is not really practical:
On a related note, the Mail is running a high profile campaign where they are explicitly, and rightly, objecting to the 'parents are responsible' principle. Anyone who is a parent knows how difficult it is to monitor internet activity in an age of distributed computing. It's unrealistic and unreasonable to expect them to stand over children's shoulder and applying complex filters is beyond the abilities of many parents. Including me, actually. I recently locked myself out of my own account when I tried to do this.

A nice angle that the Mail and the Telegraph are taking was when a spokesman (Naomi Gummer) from Google said that parents were to blame for children accessing portn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/g ... oogle.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... curbs.html

The angle is that Google and the other Internet giants are no longer the radical buccaneering pioneers of ten years ago. They are the new establishment. And once you are the establishment you have to be seen to be acting responsibly. Another related angle is that the Internet giants are seen to have the ear of the government
[Naomi's] father is Lord Chadlington, a close ally and neighbour of David Cameron – and significant Tory donor. Her candid comments will spark concerns that internet firms arguing against legislation have the ear of the Government, while those campaigning for tougher action to protect children online find it more difficult to be heard.
This may backfire against Jimbo of course. No one has spotted this yet, but his boasting about his Downing Street connections may come back at him in terrible ways.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by EricBarbour » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:07 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Ashley mentions the Wikipedia Selection for Schools DVD, which is useful
Have you actually looked at it? Did you know it has the same subject-level biases as the rest of Wikipedia?
If you're expecting a better selection of "traditional academic subjects" on the DVD.........

Look at the "Everyday Life" section. How many times have I told you that Wikipedia is obsessed with
sports trivia, cartoons, comic books, gaming and television, at the expense of important academic materials?

Ever seen the press release from the SOS Children's Villages charity about Wikipedia For Schools, from 2008?
Who's the WMF press contact? David Gerard! Oh yeah, he's a world-famous prominent educator!

The press release ran on Boing Boing. Read the comments.

How successful is the Wikipedia Selection For Schools? No one knows! The WMF doesn't share any
download statistics and says nothing about how many queries they get. I can find no evidence there was
substantial interest by educators, other than a few blog posts.

Most "open-source" projects like this are offered as purchasable DVDs by various third-party groups.
Linux distros, for example, are usually available on disks for a nominal fee, if you don't have good
broadband or don't want to sit thru a multi-gigabyte download. I've tried and tried to find if anyone
offers DVDs of this for sale, anywhere. Nothing. Not even on eBay or Amazon. (There is a t-shirt, though.)

So, "Wikipedia Selection For Schools" looks like a "ghost project" to me.

(If you want to tell a "prominent educator" that Wikipedia hosts porn and weirdness,
you might start with Wesley Fryer. He seems to love Wikipedia.)
Honestly, a talk bringing people up to speed on what's on Commons today would be R18-rated. I can't show a bunch of R18 stuff at the AGM. It was bad enough discussing this stuff in the House of Commons coffee place.

And if you're not showing the material, then the talk is very short: We have extremely explicit adult material in there, which attracts hundreds of thousands of clicks a day, and we don't do what everybody else is doing who hosts adult material, i.e. stick it behind an 18 wall.
I think you have no choice. You have to stick it in people's faces, and take a chance.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikimedia UK 2012 AGM (including elections)

Unread post by thekohser » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:44 pm

Since Fae opined on Wikijunior, I suppose it's only fair to point out that the (mostly) failed Wikijunior project was for the Wikimedia Foundation one of its first forays into financial graft.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

Post Reply