Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

Lodewijk
Hi all,

Although I do realize this is a Dutch Wikipedia-topic, I would like to
get a somewhat broader set of input on this. I'll first sketch the
situation a bit, and then explain what my interpretation is.

On the Dutch Wikipedia, there are two related, relatively long
standing, policies:
* Usernames linked to companies / organizations / brands are not allowed
* Usernames are supposed to be strictly personal: groups of people
using one user name is not allowed.
This is enforced by a group of moderators by blocking the usernames
who fulfill one of these conditions, and notifying them on their
talkpage they can create a new username, but that their current is
blocked indefinitely.

I find this practice very unfortunate, for a few reasons. For one, we
assume bad faith: We assume that companies or even organizations are
not able and willing to edit NPOV. This is mentioned often as a main
reason for this policy. Often they are already blocked before they
even can make their first edit. This does not only harm their
feelings, it leaves a trail on the internet that is potentially
harmful for their PR (just imagine: "Company XX got blocked on
Wikipedia on sight"). As soon as a search engine does not fully
respect (intentionally or not) the limitations we asked them to comply
with, such as not search in these talk pages, this might even show up
in a query. In short: companies and organizations are being punisched
for trying to identify themselves.

In the past, there was a lot of hush about companies and organizations
who edited anonymously and they were even named and shamed (although
not by us). Now companies tell in advance who they are, so we can pay
close attention to their edits, and we ask them now to take another
name, which would be not recognizable? I think that is actually an
editorial disadvantage! If we can recognize them easier, we can make
sure they edit NPOV. Please, let's judge users on their actions, not
on their names... This way, also the Tropenmuseum got blocked at some
point, even though the account was created on another wiki!

Also, why would group accounts be bad? I mean, the only one that has
disadvantage from it, is the people using the account, right? If we
treat them as if they are one user, and we block them accordingly if
necessary, it is their problem if someone else on that account did
something bad and got the whole account blocked for it. We don't block
IP-adresses either just because they could be used by multiple people?

I assume this is no WMF topic (thy shall not block people because of
their username won't make it I guess), but I would like to get a
little more insight and experiences from you guys.

* Should editing by multiple people from one account be reason for
blocking on sight?
* Should usernames related to a company/organization name be blocked on sight?
** If not, should additional measures be taken for identification?
* Should wiki's be allowed in the first place to have naming policies
considering the SUL?
** If yes, should they be allowed to enforce them on people who
registered on another wiki?

Thanks,

Lodewijk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

Milos Rancic-2
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This is enforced by a group of moderators by blocking the usernames
> who fulfill one of these conditions, and notifying them on their
> talkpage they can create a new username, but that their current is
> blocked indefinitely.

I support policy that no organizational/group accounts should be used.
It is not just about NPOV, but about liability, as well as WMF's
position toward other organizations (imagine an account "Coca Cola";
is it really Coca Cola account? should we ask every such entity to
prove that it is so? and so on).

However, you described the exactly wrong method for doing so. While it
is not so easy to give some definite suggestions to English or Chinese
Wikipedia because of the amount of possible companies, on the projects
with smaller number of speakers (like Dutch is), I suggest much softer
approach: Don't block them immediately. Talk with them. Explain to
them that it is a problem for Wikipedia. Ask them to create their own
accounts. And after that, with their approval, block the original
account indefinitely.

> * Should editing by multiple people from one account be reason for
> blocking on sight?

No. As explained above.

> * Should usernames related to a company/organization name be blocked on sight?
> ** If not, should additional measures be taken for identification?

No. No. As explained above.

> * Should wiki's be allowed in the first place to have naming policies
> considering the SUL?
> ** If yes, should they be allowed to enforce them on people who
> registered on another wiki?

This is a general rule, not just nl.wp rule. Probably, it should be
WMF rule and thus in this particular case it is not a valid question.

At the other side, there are two approaches: autonomist and globalist.
No one of two approaches allow to one wiki to enforce anything on
another wiki. In the autonomist scenario, if the user comes from one
wiki to another with an unacceptable username, it is up to the
community at the destination wiki would they block such user or not.
(Personally, I don't think that there is a space for any kind of
policy autonomy on Wikimedia projects [if general policies are good
enough]. However, that position is not a dominant one.)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

Liam Wyatt
Although I can understand that there are genuine reasons why the "anti
organisational account" rule is in place, can I mention that having an
organisational account is one of the main things that GLAM institutions have
asked from us. If a museum wants to upload their own photographs to Commons
(something which I think we all would love to support) they have requested
that they be able to upload those images under their own organisational
username. This in itself doesn't necessarily mean we should change our
policies, but it's just an example of a good outcome that changing our flat
ban on organisational accounts would achieve.

-Liam [[witty lama]]

wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata


On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > This is enforced by a group of moderators by blocking the usernames
> > who fulfill one of these conditions, and notifying them on their
> > talkpage they can create a new username, but that their current is
> > blocked indefinitely.
>
> I support policy that no organizational/group accounts should be used.
> It is not just about NPOV, but about liability, as well as WMF's
> position toward other organizations (imagine an account "Coca Cola";
> is it really Coca Cola account? should we ask every such entity to
> prove that it is so? and so on).
>
> However, you described the exactly wrong method for doing so. While it
> is not so easy to give some definite suggestions to English or Chinese
> Wikipedia because of the amount of possible companies, on the projects
> with smaller number of speakers (like Dutch is), I suggest much softer
> approach: Don't block them immediately. Talk with them. Explain to
> them that it is a problem for Wikipedia. Ask them to create their own
> accounts. And after that, with their approval, block the original
> account indefinitely.
>
> > * Should editing by multiple people from one account be reason for
> > blocking on sight?
>
> No. As explained above.
>
> > * Should usernames related to a company/organization name be blocked on
> sight?
> > ** If not, should additional measures be taken for identification?
>
> No. No. As explained above.
>
> > * Should wiki's be allowed in the first place to have naming policies
> > considering the SUL?
> > ** If yes, should they be allowed to enforce them on people who
> > registered on another wiki?
>
> This is a general rule, not just nl.wp rule. Probably, it should be
> WMF rule and thus in this particular case it is not a valid question.
>
> At the other side, there are two approaches: autonomist and globalist.
> No one of two approaches allow to one wiki to enforce anything on
> another wiki. In the autonomist scenario, if the user comes from one
> wiki to another with an unacceptable username, it is up to the
> community at the destination wiki would they block such user or not.
> (Personally, I don't think that there is a space for any kind of
> policy autonomy on Wikimedia projects [if general policies are good
> enough]. However, that position is not a dominant one.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

Milos Rancic-2
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Although I can understand that there are genuine reasons why the "anti
> organisational account" rule is in place, can I mention that having an
> organisational account is one of the main things that GLAM institutions have
> asked from us. If a museum wants to upload their own photographs to Commons
> (something which I think we all would love to support) they have requested
> that they be able to upload those images under their own organisational
> username. This in itself doesn't necessarily mean we should change our
> policies, but it's just an example of a good outcome that changing our flat
> ban on organisational accounts would achieve.

Then they should sign contracts with WMF. OR: They should send their
identification to WMF staff and WMF should make clear that those accounts are
exceptions from the general policy.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

Effe iets anders
could you perhaps point to that general WMF policy? Or do you mean you would
like to see such a policy, but there is none yet?

Lodewijk

2009/12/3 Milos Rancic <[hidden email]>

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Although I can understand that there are genuine reasons why the "anti
> > organisational account" rule is in place, can I mention that having an
> > organisational account is one of the main things that GLAM institutions
> have
> > asked from us. If a museum wants to upload their own photographs to
> Commons
> > (something which I think we all would love to support) they have
> requested
> > that they be able to upload those images under their own organisational
> > username. This in itself doesn't necessarily mean we should change our
> > policies, but it's just an example of a good outcome that changing our
> flat
> > ban on organisational accounts would achieve.
>
> Then they should sign contracts with WMF. OR: They should send their
> identification to WMF staff and WMF should make clear that those accounts
> are
> exceptions from the general policy.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

Liam Wyatt
But perhaps what you are suggesting is something along the lines of a
"verified account" (like in Twitter recently). Perhaps it wouldn't scale
well, I'm not sure. This is probably digressing from the original subject
but perhaps it might be an interesting technical solution for a question
that many experts/academics/GLAMs etc. have asked - "we would like
recognition". Could this mean that the user (e.g. a museum) could place
their logo on their userpage and say "these are our official actions on
Wikipedia and these are our official photograph uploads to Wikimedia
Commons". This would give us the ability to offer something that has made
FlickrCommons so popular - institutional recognition.

If there was a way to verify that a user with an institutional name was the
"real" institution (that wasn't too bureaucratically difficult to set up, or
administer) would that go some of the way to solving the problem of why we
don't accept institutional accounts?

It doesn't solve the other reason why institutional user accounts are banned
- because they can be "promotional" - but that is more a matter of the
content that they create rather than the username itself.

-Liam [[witty lama]]

wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata


On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:07 PM, effe iets anders
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> could you perhaps point to that general WMF policy? Or do you mean you
> would
> like to see such a policy, but there is none yet?
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2009/12/3 Milos Rancic <[hidden email]>
>
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Although I can understand that there are genuine reasons why the "anti
> > > organisational account" rule is in place, can I mention that having an
> > > organisational account is one of the main things that GLAM institutions
> > have
> > > asked from us. If a museum wants to upload their own photographs to
> > Commons
> > > (something which I think we all would love to support) they have
> > requested
> > > that they be able to upload those images under their own organisational
> > > username. This in itself doesn't necessarily mean we should change our
> > > policies, but it's just an example of a good outcome that changing our
> > flat
> > > ban on organisational accounts would achieve.
> >
> > Then they should sign contracts with WMF. OR: They should send their
> > identification to WMF staff and WMF should make clear that those accounts
> > are
> > exceptions from the general policy.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

Yaroslav M. Blanter
In reply to this post by Lodewijk
What if someone registers an account 'Miscrosoft" and starts vandal
editing? The media reports like 'Miscosoft blocked for vandalism in
Wikipedia'" would be hardly better than 'Microsoft blocked on sight'.

Concerning the joint accounts I thought the main problem is that someone
should be held responsible for the edits. I mean if there are some illegal
edits done from this account and then someone claims it is not him, it is
another user who uses the same account? On ru.wp we ban the joint accounts
on sight, even though the company name policy has not been really
enforced.

Cheers
Yaroslav


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

Delphine Ménard
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 18:18, Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What if someone registers an account 'Miscrosoft" and starts vandal
> editing? The media reports like 'Miscosoft blocked for vandalism in
> Wikipedia'" would be hardly better than 'Microsoft blocked on sight'.
>
> Concerning the joint accounts I thought the main problem is that someone
> should be held responsible for the edits. I mean if there are some illegal
> edits done from this account and then someone claims it is not him, it is
> another user who uses the same account? On ru.wp we ban the joint accounts
> on sight, even though the company name policy has not been really
> enforced.


I support Liam's idea and think we might want to look at a two-tier policy:

1- have "verified" accounts, which are used by some
companies/organisation to do "encyclopedic work"
2- disallow using a company's name in one's user name if they have not
asked for a verification - and provided the right credentials

This said, I am completely with Lodewijk on the fact that I find
incredible that we push companies to actually make what is nothing
else than sock puppets accounts, because we don't allow to have a
company's name in the user name. I am sure this has been debated at
length, but I fail to see how this can be better than being able to
identify staff from a company contributing to an article.


Delphine

--
~notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

Nathan Awrich
2009/12/3 Delphine Ménard <[hidden email]>:

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 18:18, Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I support Liam's idea and think we might want to look at a two-tier policy:
>
> 1- have "verified" accounts, which are used by some
> companies/organisation to do "encyclopedic work"
> 2- disallow using a company's name in one's user name if they have not
> asked for a verification - and provided the right credentials
>
> This said, I am completely with Lodewijk on the fact that I find
> incredible that we push companies to actually make what is nothing
> else than sock puppets accounts, because we don't allow to have a
> company's name in the user name. I am sure this has been debated at
> length, but I fail to see how this can be better than being able to
> identify staff from a company contributing to an article.
>
>
> Delphine
>

The idea of verified accounts raises all sorts of questions and
potential problems. The Wikimedia Foundation might be able to verify
that users requesting a "company account" are connected to that
company, if the account is on the English Wikipedia. But can the
Foundation be sure that the existence of a company account is
authorized by that company? Can they do anything at all in other
languages? Should the process of "verification" be left to OTRS, or
some other group on each wiki? If verified status is granted
erroneously, and it impacts the reputation of a particular company,
who is responsible?

Among other reasons, the English Wikipedia bans role accounts
(including corporate accounts) because we wish people to act on their
own behalf, and not claim the support or backing of a corporation.
With limited capacity to verify the basis for any claimed role, we end
up treating all such claims as suspect anyway. This restriction may be
inconvenient in some instances, but far more trouble is prevented by
maintaining the simplicity of individual to individual interaction.

As an example, Wikipedia administrators do not take action "on behalf
of Wikipedia" when they enforce project policies. If the user behind
the "ACME Cola" account earned a block, it would be an individual
administrator on their own initiative blocking an account that
represents an entire Fortune 100 corporation. This imbalance of agency
could make administrators hesitate to take otherwise appropriate
action.

Personally, I would much rather deal with an individual than with an
anonymous representative of a corporate giant - and very little that
can be accomplished with a role account can't be accomplished with a
personal account. Simply state on the user page "My name is John
Smith, public relations representative for ACME Cola Inc. Please
contact me at [hidden email] or 800-ACM-COLA, or use my
talkpage." If they want to voluntarily identify their organizational
affiliation, then nothing prevents them from doing so in this way.

Nathan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Effe iets anders
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:07 PM, effe iets anders
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> could you perhaps point to that general WMF policy? Or do you mean you would
> like to see such a policy, but there is none yet?

Are you able to read the whole content or it is so much important to
point bureaucratically to every mistake? Or, to be more clear: your
behavior is the example of one of the main reason of the problems
which you listed and about we are talking last days.

I don't know about such policy, as I stated inside of my first email
in this thread:

"This is a general rule, not just nl.wp rule. Probably, it should be
WMF rule and thus in this particular case it is not a valid question."

Please, don't waste others' time to prove your point.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

Delphine Ménard
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 18:20, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The idea of verified accounts raises all sorts of questions and
> potential problems. The Wikimedia Foundation might be able to verify
> that users requesting a "company account" are connected to that
> company, if the account is on the English Wikipedia. But can the
> Foundation be sure that the existence of a company account is
> authorized by that company? Can they do anything at all in other
> languages? Should the process of "verification" be left to OTRS, or
> some other group on each wiki? If verified status is granted
> erroneously, and it impacts the reputation of a particular company,
> who is responsible?

Well, obviously the "verified" account system should find a way to
answer those questions.

And I fail to see what kind of responsibility would end up on the
shoulders of an administrator for blocking an account on Wikipedia.
It's not like blocking a Wikipedia account actually endangered a
company in any kind of way.

>
> Among other reasons, the English Wikipedia bans role accounts
> (including corporate accounts) because we wish people to act on their
> own behalf, and not claim the support or backing of a corporation.
> With limited capacity to verify the basis for any claimed role, we end
> up treating all such claims as suspect anyway. This restriction may be
> inconvenient in some instances, but far more trouble is prevented by
> maintaining the simplicity of individual to individual interaction.

But as I understand it, accounts such as "Delphine-ACMEcola" are also
blocked on sight right? Which prevents even me from making edits on
behalf of a "company" and being really open about it.

Mind you, if I was there to really make a company shinier on Wikipedia
(see the recent coffee brand case recently talked about in the French
Wikipedia), I would probably avoid having a corporate account at all.
But for people and companies who act in good faith, I still think that
role accounts should be allowed and a verify-system be put in place.




Delphine
--
~notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> This is enforced by a group of moderators by blocking the usernames
>> who fulfill one of these conditions, and notifying them on their
>> talkpage they can create a new username, but that their current is
>> blocked indefinitely.
>
> I support policy that no organizational/group accounts should be used.
> It is not just about NPOV, but about liability, as well as WMF's
> position toward other organizations (imagine an account "Coca Cola";
> is it really Coca Cola account? should we ask every such entity to
> prove that it is so? and so on).

It also hurts the community's position towards other organisations.
Lets say we let them use their company name, and then we block them
for edit-warring or copyvio or something.  What!?  We just blocked a
_company_.

> However, you described the exactly wrong method for doing so. While it
> is not so easy to give some definite suggestions to English or Chinese
> Wikipedia because of the amount of possible companies, on the projects
> with smaller number of speakers (like Dutch is), I suggest much softer
> approach: Don't block them immediately. Talk with them. Explain to
> them that it is a problem for Wikipedia. Ask them to create their own
> accounts. And after that, with their approval, block the original
> account indefinitely.

This is a great way to handle the situation.  Sadly English Wikipedia
tends to want to "fix" each problem that they see _immediately_.

Our policy currently says:

"Since usernames that are the name of a company or group create the
appearance of intent to promote that group, accounts with a company or
group name as a username are indefinitely blocked."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ORGNAME

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Lodewijk
Hoi,
I want to give you two different group / company accounts that I think are
valuable..

Tropenmuseum... If you do not know about it, read the Tropenmuseum article
on Commons
Calcey - a company from Sri Lanka has adopted the localisation of the
Sinhala language. We are really grateful for their work.

There are more great examples of companies, groups that make a difference
... I would like to know more good examples..
Thanks,
     GerardM

2009/12/3 Lodewijk <[hidden email]>

> Hi all,
>
> Although I do realize this is a Dutch Wikipedia-topic, I would like to
> get a somewhat broader set of input on this. I'll first sketch the
> situation a bit, and then explain what my interpretation is.
>
> On the Dutch Wikipedia, there are two related, relatively long
> standing, policies:
> * Usernames linked to companies / organizations / brands are not allowed
> * Usernames are supposed to be strictly personal: groups of people
> using one user name is not allowed.
> This is enforced by a group of moderators by blocking the usernames
> who fulfill one of these conditions, and notifying them on their
> talkpage they can create a new username, but that their current is
> blocked indefinitely.
>
> I find this practice very unfortunate, for a few reasons. For one, we
> assume bad faith: We assume that companies or even organizations are
> not able and willing to edit NPOV. This is mentioned often as a main
> reason for this policy. Often they are already blocked before they
> even can make their first edit. This does not only harm their
> feelings, it leaves a trail on the internet that is potentially
> harmful for their PR (just imagine: "Company XX got blocked on
> Wikipedia on sight"). As soon as a search engine does not fully
> respect (intentionally or not) the limitations we asked them to comply
> with, such as not search in these talk pages, this might even show up
> in a query. In short: companies and organizations are being punisched
> for trying to identify themselves.
>
> In the past, there was a lot of hush about companies and organizations
> who edited anonymously and they were even named and shamed (although
> not by us). Now companies tell in advance who they are, so we can pay
> close attention to their edits, and we ask them now to take another
> name, which would be not recognizable? I think that is actually an
> editorial disadvantage! If we can recognize them easier, we can make
> sure they edit NPOV. Please, let's judge users on their actions, not
> on their names... This way, also the Tropenmuseum got blocked at some
> point, even though the account was created on another wiki!
>
> Also, why would group accounts be bad? I mean, the only one that has
> disadvantage from it, is the people using the account, right? If we
> treat them as if they are one user, and we block them accordingly if
> necessary, it is their problem if someone else on that account did
> something bad and got the whole account blocked for it. We don't block
> IP-adresses either just because they could be used by multiple people?
>
> I assume this is no WMF topic (thy shall not block people because of
> their username won't make it I guess), but I would like to get a
> little more insight and experiences from you guys.
>
> * Should editing by multiple people from one account be reason for
> blocking on sight?
> * Should usernames related to a company/organization name be blocked on
> sight?
> ** If not, should additional measures be taken for identification?
> * Should wiki's be allowed in the first place to have naming policies
> considering the SUL?
> ** If yes, should they be allowed to enforce them on people who
> registered on another wiki?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

John Mark Vandenberg
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> I want to give you two different group / company accounts that I think are
> valuable..
>
> Tropenmuseum... If you do not know about it, read the Tropenmuseum article
> on Commons
> Calcey - a company from Sri Lanka has adopted the localisation of the
> Sinhala language. We are really grateful for their work.
>
> There are more great examples of companies, groups that make a difference
> ... I would like to know more good examples..

You say that now, but what happens when they are blocked.

Or maybe they say something that sounds like a legal threat; are they
speaking for the company?

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
When they are blocked like it happened with the Tropenmuseum, I will ask the
person who did this to reconsider... There has to be a reason for a block
and these organisations do what they do and they do it very well. The notion
that a block on sight is always good is .... not reasonable.
Thanks,
     GerardM



2009/12/5 John Vandenberg <[hidden email]>

> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > I want to give you two different group / company accounts that I think
> are
> > valuable..
> >
> > Tropenmuseum... If you do not know about it, read the Tropenmuseum
> article
> > on Commons
> > Calcey - a company from Sri Lanka has adopted the localisation of the
> > Sinhala language. We are really grateful for their work.
> >
> > There are more great examples of companies, groups that make a difference
> > ... I would like to know more good examples..
>
> You say that now, but what happens when they are blocked.
>
> Or maybe they say something that sounds like a legal threat; are they
> speaking for the company?
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Their own medicine

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
This lets you know why the recording industry needs more money from
consumers. :'(

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096--geist-record-industry-faces-liability-over-infringement

Ec


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

Pharos-3
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
I believe that a "verified" account system for GLAMs specifically
doing encyclopedic work (not for businesses, etc) would not be too
difficult to work out, and would be well worth any such effort.

Such systems, though nothing is 100%, have worked quite well for many
other websites.

Thanks,
Pharos

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> When they are blocked like it happened with the Tropenmuseum, I will ask the
> person who did this to reconsider... There has to be a reason for a block
> and these organisations do what they do and they do it very well. The notion
> that a block on sight is always good is .... not reasonable.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
>
> 2009/12/5 John Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
>
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hoi,
>> > I want to give you two different group / company accounts that I think
>> are
>> > valuable..
>> >
>> > Tropenmuseum... If you do not know about it, read the Tropenmuseum
>> article
>> > on Commons
>> > Calcey - a company from Sri Lanka has adopted the localisation of the
>> > Sinhala language. We are really grateful for their work.
>> >
>> > There are more great examples of companies, groups that make a difference
>> > ... I would like to know more good examples..
>>
>> You say that now, but what happens when they are blocked.
>>
>> Or maybe they say something that sounds like a legal threat; are they
>> speaking for the company?
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

Geoffrey Plourde
The spirit of the one person per account policy was to prevent people from disclaiming responsibility by claiming another person did it. I feel that allowing accounts for GLAMs would not violate the intent of the policy, but suggest that the account be required to verify, maintain a valid email and provide the Foundation with the identities of the authorized users.  




________________________________
From: Pharos <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wed, December 9, 2009 4:16:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

I believe that a "verified" account system for GLAMs specifically
doing encyclopedic work (not for businesses, etc) would not be too
difficult to work out, and would be well worth any such effort.

Such systems, though nothing is 100%, have worked quite well for many
other websites.

Thanks,
Pharos

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> When they are blocked like it happened with the Tropenmuseum, I will ask the
> person who did this to reconsider... There has to be a reason for a block
> and these organisations do what they do and they do it very well. The notion
> that a block on sight is always good is .... not reasonable.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
>
> 2009/12/5 John Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
>
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hoi,
>> > I want to give you two different group / company accounts that I think
>> are
>> > valuable..
>> >
>> > Tropenmuseum... If you do not know about it, read the Tropenmuseum
>> article
>> > on Commons
>> > Calcey - a company from Sri Lanka has adopted the localisation of the
>> > Sinhala language. We are really grateful for their work.
>> >
>> > There are more great examples of companies, groups that make a difference
>> > ... I would like to know more good examples..
>>
>> You say that now, but what happens when they are blocked.
>>
>> Or maybe they say something that sounds like a legal threat; are they
>> speaking for the company?
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

Liam Wyatt
Practically speaking, how would such a verification system work? Would it be
a specific OTRS queue (similar to the way we get proof that a photo's
copyright release is correct) or would it be an email to Cary at the WMF
(similar to the way we make sure people with specific tools are over a
certain age)? Or, would it be a different thing altogether (e.g. the
verification process is via the local chapter who "vouches" for the GLAM)?

-Liam [[witty lama]]


wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata


On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <[hidden email]>wrote:

> The spirit of the one person per account policy was to prevent people from
> disclaiming responsibility by claiming another person did it. I feel that
> allowing accounts for GLAMs would not violate the intent of the policy, but
> suggest that the account be required to verify, maintain a valid email and
> provide the Foundation with the identities of the authorized users.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pharos <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Wed, December 9, 2009 4:16:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees
>
> I believe that a "verified" account system for GLAMs specifically
> doing encyclopedic work (not for businesses, etc) would not be too
> difficult to work out, and would be well worth any such effort.
>
> Such systems, though nothing is 100%, have worked quite well for many
> other websites.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > When they are blocked like it happened with the Tropenmuseum, I will ask
> the
> > person who did this to reconsider... There has to be a reason for a block
> > and these organisations do what they do and they do it very well. The
> notion
> > that a block on sight is always good is .... not reasonable.
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> > 2009/12/5 John Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
> >
> >> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > Hoi,
> >> > I want to give you two different group / company accounts that I think
> >> are
> >> > valuable..
> >> >
> >> > Tropenmuseum... If you do not know about it, read the Tropenmuseum
> >> article
> >> > on Commons
> >> > Calcey - a company from Sri Lanka has adopted the localisation of the
> >> > Sinhala language. We are really grateful for their work.
> >> >
> >> > There are more great examples of companies, groups that make a
> difference
> >> > ... I would like to know more good examples..
> >>
> >> You say that now, but what happens when they are blocked.
> >>
> >> Or maybe they say something that sounds like a legal threat; are they
> >> speaking for the company?
> >>
> >> --
> >> John Vandenberg
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

John M. Sinclair
In reply to this post by Geoffrey Plourde
I'm new to this discussion, so I may be inserting at the wrong place and
time, but I want to suggest that Wikipedia's counsel determine whether
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act implicitly requires individual
accounts in order to maintain the Foundation's protections under the
Act.  I don't know that it does, but I think it may, or may head in that
direction.

By the way, and by comparison, the federal courts require individual
attorney accounts for use of the online filing system (called Pacer), so
that an individual attorney must take responsibility for her or his
pleadings, and can't hide behind a firm account.  Of course, you can
always locate an individual attorney, and determine what firm they work
for.  


John Sinclair


-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey
Plourde
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:15 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

The spirit of the one person per account policy was to prevent people
from disclaiming responsibility by claiming another person did it. I
feel that allowing accounts for GLAMs would not violate the intent of
the policy, but suggest that the account be required to verify, maintain
a valid email and provide the Foundation with the identities of the
authorized users.  




________________________________
From: Pharos <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wed, December 9, 2009 4:16:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

I believe that a "verified" account system for GLAMs specifically
doing encyclopedic work (not for businesses, etc) would not be too
difficult to work out, and would be well worth any such effort.

Such systems, though nothing is 100%, have worked quite well for many
other websites.

Thanks,
Pharos

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hoi,
> When they are blocked like it happened with the Tropenmuseum, I will
ask the
> person who did this to reconsider... There has to be a reason for a
block
> and these organisations do what they do and they do it very well. The
notion

> that a block on sight is always good is .... not reasonable.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
>
> 2009/12/5 John Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
>
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hoi,
>> > I want to give you two different group / company accounts that I
think
>> are
>> > valuable..
>> >
>> > Tropenmuseum... If you do not know about it, read the Tropenmuseum
>> article
>> > on Commons
>> > Calcey - a company from Sri Lanka has adopted the localisation of
the
>> > Sinhala language. We are really grateful for their work.
>> >
>> > There are more great examples of companies, groups that make a
difference

>> > ... I would like to know more good examples..
>>
>> You say that now, but what happens when they are blocked.
>>
>> Or maybe they say something that sounds like a legal threat; are they
>> speaking for the company?
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12