Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
154 messages Options
1234 ... 8
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Daniel R. Tobias
On 10 Mar 2006 at 20:25, "David Gerard" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Else you may be blocked or temporarily desysopped. These tags are
> bloody serious, the WP:OFFICE rule is only used in case of actual
> problems, and the Foundation handles them as expeditiously as they
> possibly can. I expect everyone will piss and moan, but removing a
> WP:OFFICE tag is a really really dickish thing to do. So please don't.

Not that I have any intention of doing such a thing... but I still
have some concerns about the whole WP:OFFICE business. Sure, I
realize the necessity for something like that; as long as Wikipedia
and its parent foundation exist as real-world entities rather than
just disembodied Internet phenomena, there will be people in charge
who have bills to pay, legalities to comply with, servers to keep
running, and so on... and, hence, concerns for which their butts are
on the line in a manner not shared by the typical geek just editing
Wikipedia for the fun of it.  Nevertheless, in a site which prides
itself on openness and rule by community consensus, having actions
take place unilaterally and secretively goes against the grain, and
should be kept to an absolute minimum.

There's kind of a feel that, if an article happens to offend the
"wrong" people (who have some kind of political, financial, or legal
leverage to use against Wikipedia/Wikimedia?), the Wikipedia Secret
Police can just make it disappear, and community consensus (and all
the Wikipedia pillars) be damned.

We already know that the community is secondary to the goal of
producing an excellent encyclopedia.  But is that, in turn, secondary
to some secret corporate agenda held by the Foundation Office?  
Blanking articles into sub-stubs and protecting them doesn't seem
conducive to producing an excellent encyclopedia, and doing this
without explanation is not conducive to the community.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Cormac Lawler
On 3/11/06, Daniel R. Tobias <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10 Mar 2006 at 20:25, "David Gerard" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Else you may be blocked or temporarily desysopped. These tags are
> > bloody serious, the WP:OFFICE rule is only used in case of actual
> > problems, and the Foundation handles them as expeditiously as they
> > possibly can. I expect everyone will piss and moan, but removing a
> > WP:OFFICE tag is a really really dickish thing to do. So please don't.
>
> Not that I have any intention of doing such a thing... but I still
> have some concerns about the whole WP:OFFICE business. Sure, I
> realize the necessity for something like that; as long as Wikipedia
> and its parent foundation exist as real-world entities rather than
> just disembodied Internet phenomena, there will be people in charge
> who have bills to pay, legalities to comply with, servers to keep
> running, and so on... and, hence, concerns for which their butts are
> on the line in a manner not shared by the typical geek just editing
> Wikipedia for the fun of it.  Nevertheless, in a site which prides
> itself on openness and rule by community consensus, having actions
> take place unilaterally and secretively goes against the grain, and
> should be kept to an absolute minimum.
>
> There's kind of a feel that, if an article happens to offend the
> "wrong" people (who have some kind of political, financial, or legal
> leverage to use against Wikipedia/Wikimedia?), the Wikipedia Secret
> Police can just make it disappear, and community consensus (and all
> the Wikipedia pillars) be damned.
>
> We already know that the community is secondary to the goal of
> producing an excellent encyclopedia.  But is that, in turn, secondary
> to some secret corporate agenda held by the Foundation Office?
> Blanking articles into sub-stubs and protecting them doesn't seem
> conducive to producing an excellent encyclopedia, and doing this
> without explanation is not conducive to the community.
>
> --
> == Dan ==
> Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
> Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
> Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


Dan, I think if you actually *read* the policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_Actions you'll see that
it's nothing like the secretive, corporate, anti-Wikipedia,
anti-community type of thing you suggest. It says on the page that it
is a "temporary action to allow us to be kind while we sort out the
encyclopedic way forward". Community consensus won't tell us when
we're in danger of being sued - that's more likely to be ascertained
by the person who's just received the angry email/phonecall - but
community consensus will, as always, be what actually writes the
balanced article in the end.

N'est pas?

Cormac




>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Daniel R. Tobias
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

> Not that I have any intention of doing such a thing... but I still
> have some concerns about the whole WP:OFFICE business. Sure, I
> realize the necessity for something like that; as long as Wikipedia
> and its parent foundation exist as real-world entities rather than
> just disembodied Internet phenomena, there will be people in charge
> who have bills to pay, legalities to comply with, servers to keep
> running, and so on... and, hence, concerns for which their butts are
> on the line in a manner not shared by the typical geek just editing
> Wikipedia for the fun of it.  Nevertheless, in a site which prides
> itself on openness and rule by community consensus, having actions
> take place unilaterally and secretively goes against the grain, and
> should be kept to an absolute minimum.
It is not just about legalities, but also about common human courtesy
and good customer service.  If you are thinking of this as "the
foundation against the community" then you're not thinking of it in the
way that I'm thinking of it, so let me explain further.

We, as a community, write articles.  We write articles about some people
who happen to be alive.  Sometimes those articles are temporarily biased
or contain misinformation, and sometimes that bias or misinformation can
hurt someone's feelings.  Sometimes, indeed, our articles are *not*
biased and do *not* contain misinformation, and yet they can *still*
hurt someone's feeelings (if they don't care for the neutral facts).
The latter is, in my experience, quite rare.  Quite. Rare.

Mostly, when people call us on the phone with a beef, quiet upset, they
are not complaining about a neutral presentation of the facts.  They are
upset because someone has written a one-sided hack job.   Often it is
*not* libel, but just bad writing.

What should we do in such a case?  Well, our fundamental goal *as a
community* is to write a really great encyclopedia.  Being jerks toward
people who have their feelings hurt *and* who know nothing about how we
operate, does not strike me as a very useful way to respond.

Rather, we should respond quickly and politely to their concerns,
including in most cases, *blanking or deleting the article* and
*starting over*, being *extremely* careful as a community to get all the
facts right, to strike a fair and neutral tone, and to cite sources even
more extensively than normal.

That's what WP:OFFICE is all about -- good customer service.

Ideally, it should be thought of as an action that could and should be
taken by any good Wikipedian in the face of a bad article.  A very firm
"blank and rewrite with proper cites" is a perfectly valid move for
articles like this.

> There's kind of a feel that, if an article happens to offend the
> "wrong" people (who have some kind of political, financial, or legal
> leverage to use against Wikipedia/Wikimedia?), the Wikipedia Secret
> Police can just make it disappear, and community consensus (and all
> the Wikipedia pillars) be damned.

Why is there any such feel like this?  That's absurd and inflammatory.
WP:OFFICE *specifically* says that it is to be used sparingly,
temporarily, and is not meant to override or replace community consensus.

And honestly, you should know me well enough by now.  No amount of
political, financial, or legal leverage in the entire universe would
persuade me to do the wrong thing by our mission.  We have, as a
community, principles and integrity.  This is what we are all about.

> We already know that the community is secondary to the goal of
> producing an excellent encyclopedia.  But is that, in turn, secondary
> to some secret corporate agenda held by the Foundation Office?  

Again, this is really inflammatory and not helpful to a serious
discussion of the issues.  "secret corporate agenda" geez.

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Cormac Lawler
Cormac Lawler wrote:

> Dan, I think if you actually *read* the policy
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_Actions you'll see that
> it's nothing like the secretive, corporate, anti-Wikipedia,
> anti-community type of thing you suggest. It says on the page that it
> is a "temporary action to allow us to be kind while we sort out the
> encyclopedic way forward". Community consensus won't tell us when
> we're in danger of being sued - that's more likely to be ascertained
> by the person who's just received the angry email/phonecall - but
> community consensus will, as always, be what actually writes the
> balanced article in the end.
>
> N'est pas?
Very well put.



--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

geni
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
On 3/11/06, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It is not just about legalities, but also about common human courtesy
> and good customer service.  If you are thinking of this as "the
> foundation against the community" then you're not thinking of it in the
> way that I'm thinking of it, so let me explain further.
>

The people we are writeing articles about are not customers.

> What should we do in such a case?  Well, our fundamental goal *as a
> community* is to write a really great encyclopedia.  Being jerks toward
> people who have their feelings hurt *and* who know nothing about how we
> operate, does not strike me as a very useful way to respond.

No. Explaining how things work is probably the best responce.



> Rather, we should respond quickly and politely to their concerns,
> including in most cases, *blanking or deleting the article* and
> *starting over*, being *extremely* careful as a community to get all the
> facts right, to strike a fair and neutral tone, and to cite sources even
> more extensively than normal.

blanking or deleting the article= writeing off the work. Not a nice
way to treat the previous writers. Telling them what is wrong might
work better.

It is a bit difficult to tell how many references [[Jack Thompson
(attorney)]] had since two different systems were being used but it
was probably over 100 (absolute minium=99). how many do you want?

> That's what WP:OFFICE is all about -- good customer service.

I seem to recall the justification was something to do with legal
worries. Are you stateing that is not the case?

> Ideally, it should be thought of as an action that could and should be
> taken by any good Wikipedian in the face of a bad article.  A very firm
> "blank and rewrite with proper cites" is a perfectly valid move for
> articles like this.
>

/Temp exists for such purposes. Outright blanking is pretty much
garenteeded to be reverted.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Jimmy Wales
geni wrote:
>>It is not just about legalities, but also about common human courtesy
>>and good customer service.  If you are thinking of this as "the
>>foundation against the community" then you're not thinking of it in the
>>way that I'm thinking of it, so let me explain further.
>
> The people we are writeing articles about are not customers.

Everyone is a customer. :)

> No. Explaining how things work is probably the best responce.

It is of course *part* of the best response.

> I seem to recall the justification was something to do with legal
> worries. Are you stateing that is not the case?

Instead of "seem to recall" why don't you actually read it?  And then we
can have a coherent discussion, ok?

--Jimbo

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Tony Sidaway-3
In reply to this post by geni
On 3/11/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 3/11/06, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > It is not just about legalities, but also about common human courtesy
> > and good customer service.  If you are thinking of this as "the
> > foundation against the community" then you're not thinking of it in the
> > way that I'm thinking of it, so let me explain further.
> >
>
> The people we are writeing articles about are not customers.

Perhaps that isn't quite the right word, but they're living people
with whom, by choosing to write about them in our encyclopedia, we
have initiated a relationship.

We owe them a moral duty to be factual and fair, and this duty also
jibes well with our aim of writing a great encyclopedia.

In the interests of the encyclopedia, we should also take reasonable
steps to avoid any problems in our relationship with them escalating
to the point where they completely lose confidence in our willingness
to listen to their complaints.  We could, after all, be in the wrong.
Being the number one reference site in the world packs a sting, both
ways.

Wikipedia is not a news site, it has no deadline.  We can afford to
put things away temporarily in order to facilitate discussion.
Takedown is not only a recognised way of responding to legal
complaints, it's also very good practise in public relations even
where there are no legal issues.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

geni
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
On 3/11/06, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> Everyone is a customer. :)
>

Then ignoreing the work of a large number of customers simply in order
to keep one customer happy is not exactly logical

> > No. Explaining how things work is probably the best responce.
>
> It is of course *part* of the best response.
>

True. You should use the article talk page to tell editors what the
problem is. I still don't know why [[Harry Reid]] was protected
although I guess it had something to do with the whole Abramoff thing.

Protecting is bad because it means we can't fix the article. Deletion
is bad because it means we have problems getting acess to any of the
past information.




> > I seem to recall the justification was something to do with legal
> > worries. Are you stateing that is not the case?
>


> Instead of "seem to recall" why don't you actually read it?  And then we
> can have a coherent discussion, ok?
>
> --Jimbo

I have but I also read the other contents of my inbox. Strangly most
of the people yelling at me have been citing legal concerns. Probably
because they relise how weak the "we should ignore the community in
order to keep the subjects of articles happy" case is.

I'm sure you know about the fuss about the [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad
cartoons controversy]]. We know that article is upseting people
(indeed two people have been upset enough to tell me I'm going to
Hell). Should we blank and delete it?

[[David Miscavige]] will probably complain about his article as will
[[Kaz Demille-Jacobsen]] if she ever finds out about it. Blank and
delete?

[[Uri Geller]] is not going to be happy that his article states that
people think he is a con man. Blank and delete?

[[Sylvia Browne]] is unlikely to be too happy about the contents of
her article. Blank and delete?

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Gordon Joly
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
At 10:58 -0500 11/3/06, Jimmy Wales wrote:

>[[SNIP]]
>
>That's what WP:OFFICE is all about -- good customer service.

[[SNIP]]


Indeed, and I agree with the sentiment.

But who are the "customers"? A customer is somebody who buys
something. Nobody buys a view of Wikipedia, because it is free.

I turn to a well known source for confirmation.

:-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer


"A customer is someone who makes use of the paid products of an
individual or organization. This is typically through purchasing or
renting good (economics) or services."

And this page needs a cleanup, BTW.

--
Gordo (aka LoopZilla)
[hidden email]
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
http://www.loopzilla.org/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Daniel Mayer
In reply to this post by geni
--- geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The people we are writeing articles about are not customers.

Every single person on the planet is a customer. We plan to serve all.

> blanking or deleting the article= writeing off the work. Not a nice
> way to treat the previous writers. Telling them what is wrong might
> work better.

We can not leave potentially wrong, libelous, and/or slanderous text up while the article is being
reviewed and checked per an Office Action. Everything is still in the history and all the good
bits will be put back once they are confirmed and cited. Not doing this opens the foundation up to
lawsuit by unnecessarily pissing off the complaining party while we clean up whatever valid issues
(if any) they have with the article.

> It is a bit difficult to tell how many references [[Jack Thompson
> (attorney)]] had since two different systems were being used but it
> was probably over 100 (absolute minium=99). how many do you want?

Without commenting on those particular references - Not all references are equal. Just because
somebody publishes a completely wrong and biased fact somewhere else does not give us an OK to
cite that information.

> > That's what WP:OFFICE is all about -- good customer service.
>
> I seem to recall the justification was something to do with legal
> worries. Are you stateing that is not the case?

Good customer service is a great way to prevent pissing people off so much that they would be
willing to sue. So the two are closely linked.

> > Ideally, it should be thought of as an action that could and should be
> > taken by any good Wikipedian in the face of a bad article.  A very firm
> > "blank and rewrite with proper cites" is a perfectly valid move for
> > articles like this.
> >
>
> /Temp exists for such purposes. Outright blanking is pretty much
> garenteeded to be reverted.

And reverting an Office Action is pretty much guaranteed to lead to at least temporary desysoping
and blocking. We also need to feel bold enough to do the right thing when we see an utter piece of
POV crap and start over by blanking and verifying each and every fact. Perhaps a better way to do
that is via HTML comments ; text would be commented out until it is verified.

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

geni
On 3/11/06, Daniel Mayer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We can not leave potentially wrong, libelous, and/or slanderous text up while the article >is being reviewed and checked per an Office Action.

Can people make up their mind. Is the justifaction due to legal reasons or not?



>Everything is still in the history and all the good bits will be put
back once they are >confirmed and cited.

Blank and delete remember?

>Not doing this opens the foundation up to lawsuit by unnecessarily
pissing off the >complaining party while we clean up whatever valid
issues (if any) they have with the >article.

A bit hard to clean up a protected article.

> Without commenting on those particular references - Not all references are equal. Just >because somebody publishes a completely wrong and biased fact somewhere else does >not give us an OK to cite that information.

Depends who published it. [[Killian documents]] seems to exist.



> Good customer service is a great way to prevent pissing people off so much that they >would be willing to sue. So the two are closely linked.
>

However WP:OFFICE actions seem desighned to maximise the number of
people who threaten to sue us.


> And reverting an Office Action is pretty much guaranteed to lead to at least temporary >desysoping and blocking.

So are many things.

>We also need to feel bold enough to do the right thing when we see an
utter piece of
> POV crap and start over by blanking and verifying each and every fact.

Problem is that WP:OFFICE actions have not for the most part touched
our piles of POV crap.

> Perhaps a better way to do that is via HTML comments ; text would be commented out >until it is verified.
>
> -- mav

That is a tactic I have used from time to time.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Bryan Derksen
In reply to this post by geni
geni wrote:
> /Temp exists for such purposes. Outright blanking is pretty much
> garenteeded to be reverted.
>  
Weird, I agreed with everything Geni just wrote. :) Requiring an article
to be rewritten from the ground up when there's nothing actually _wrong_
with it, or at least nothing that a little editing can't fix, is silly.
A lot of these articles that get complaints from their subjects have
been the subject of a great deal of editor work and I think it's far
better to be considered a "jerk" by the subject of the article than by
the editors that wrote it and the readers who read it.

Ideally neither, of course - if the subject is tossing about legal
threats and such a temporary blanking might be in order while that gets
sorted out (_not_ temporary deletion - deletion is not a good way to
"store" material out of sight for later use, as I've ranted about
previously). But it must be dealt with in a timely manner and explained
thoroughly and transparently to the people working on the article
itself. A while back I restored Harlan Ellison's article several months
after Jimbo had blanked it because there'd been no indication of any
work being done on the dispute with Ellison since that time, not even
after I asked for an update on Jimbo's talk page. I don't think it'd be
appropriate to block me for taking such action today.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by geni
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:25:23 +0000, you wrote:

>blanking or deleting the article= writeing off the work. Not a nice
>way to treat the previous writers. Telling them what is wrong might
>work better.

I think you've rather missed the point.  An office action is a quick
and temporary  fix for an immediate problem: there is a clear
implication that the problem will be solved by the community in the
usual way we solve problems of accuracy and balance.  After the
pressing problem has been fixed.  

And if the complaint was frivolous or vexatious, or was simply a
misunderstanding, there is not much point in embarrassing whoever
complained.  It's not like it happens often enough to raise concerns
over abuse, even if we didn't trust Jimbo and Danny's discretion.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Carl Fürstenberg
In reply to this post by Bryan Derksen
I think the problem people have with this policy, is that few know who Danny
is (who is Danny?)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
On 3/11/06, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And honestly, you should know me well enough by now.  No amount of
> political, financial, or legal leverage in the entire universe would
> persuade me to do the wrong thing by our mission.  We have, as a
> community, principles and integrity.  This is what we are all about.

You've changed a lot from the early days.  What started out as a
laissez faire "let the community decide for itself" attitude has grown
more and more despotic over time.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Bryan Derksen
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:25:23 +0000, you wrote:
>
>  
>> blanking or deleting the article= writeing off the work. Not a nice
>> way to treat the previous writers. Telling them what is wrong might
>> work better.
>>    
>
> I think you've rather missed the point.  An office action is a quick
> and temporary  fix for an immediate problem: there is a clear
> implication that the problem will be solved by the community in the
> usual way we solve problems of accuracy and balance.  After the
> pressing problem has been fixed.  
>  
Jimbo wrote at 8:58 AM:

> Rather, we should respond quickly and politely to their concerns,
> including in most cases, *blanking or deleting the article* and
> *starting over*, being *extremely* careful as a community to get all the
> facts right, to strike a fair and neutral tone, and to cite sources even
> more extensively than normal.
>  
Deleting and starting over implies writing off the previous work. In
fact, the it'd be really complicated to do otherwise since the GFDL
requires attribution and in the case of deletion the edit history for
the previous version is gone.

He also wrote at 9:04 AM:

> I would say that in most cases, WP:OFFICE need not result in protection
> (semi-protection is more likely), and when there is protection it should
> normally not be for more than a couple of days.
There seem to be some mixed messages coming from him on this subject
since this seems to suggest that most OFFICE actions would be nowhere
near that drastic. Unless he means that the article would be deleted
permanently (to "start over") but not protected in a deleted state for long?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Steve Bennett-4
In reply to this post by Anthony DiPierro
On 3/11/06, Anthony DiPierro <[hidden email]> wrote:
> You've changed a lot from the early days.  What started out as a
> laissez faire "let the community decide for itself" attitude has grown
> more and more despotic over time.

Microsoft probably didn't have internal policies and procedure
documents when it was just Gates and his buddies working in their
apartment, either.

Jimbo seems to be demonstrating a responsible attitude in the face of
one of the few threats that could really hamper Wikipedia's continued
existence or growth. And at present, a grand total of one article is
"office protected". Think about the Seigenthaler incident...*anything*
that prevents that happening again is probably worthwhile, even if the
odd toe gets stepped on, and even if we do temporarily give in to
squeaky wheels.

My only question is...who *is* Danny, and why is he blessed with
surnamelessless?

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Neil Harris-2
In reply to this post by Anthony DiPierro
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> On 3/11/06, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> And honestly, you should know me well enough by now.  No amount of
>> political, financial, or legal leverage in the entire universe would
>> persuade me to do the wrong thing by our mission.  We have, as a
>> community, principles and integrity.  This is what we are all about.
>>    
>
> You've changed a lot from the early days.  What started out as a
> laissez faire "let the community decide for itself" attitude has grown
> more and more despotic over time.
>
> Anthony
>
>  
Whoa. Despotic, you say?

Given the history of Wikipedia, Jimbo's been the most hands-off project
leader in the history of the Internet. Indeed, the community has been
left to decide almost everything for itself; and this has proved, in
almost all cases, to be the right thing to do.

Perhaps some of the current problems, such as the userbox nonsense and
general culture wars, are partly due to this -- without continual
intervention from above, many people may be unaware, or have forgotten,
that the Wikimedia Foundation and its corporate structure even exists
(and, in some cases, may also have forgotten about the whole "Wikipedia
is an encyclopedia" mission thing).

Somebody's got to deal with these problems when they happen. Who would
you prefer?

-- Neil

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Michael Snow
In reply to this post by Daniel R. Tobias
geni wrote:

>>Without commenting on those particular references - Not all references are equal. Just >because somebody publishes a completely wrong and biased fact somewhere else does >not give us an OK to cite that information.
>>    
>>
>Depends who published it. [[Killian documents]] seems to exist.
>  
>
Because the publication itself turned out to be notable, but their
contents should not be cited as fact in Wikipedia. It's not pertinent to
the issue that we can't republish libel and excuse it by citing the
libel to another source.

>However WP:OFFICE actions seem desighned to maximise the number of
>people who threaten to sue us.
>  
>
Most people who threaten to sue us likely are not aware of what has
happened when people contacted the Foundation about previous unrelated
problems. The threats are a function of our visibility and publicity
about things like the Seigenthaler article, and even then the vast
majority probably believe it's the news coverage that made us delete it.

Quite the contrary, office actions are designed to *minimize* the number
of people who *actually* sue us.

--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway-3
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>>>It is not just about legalities, but also about common human courtesy
>>>and good customer service.  If you are thinking of this as "the
>>>foundation against the community" then you're not thinking of it in the
>>>way that I'm thinking of it, so let me explain further.
>>>
>>
>>The people we are writeing articles about are not customers.
>
>
> Perhaps that isn't quite the right word, but they're living people
> with whom, by choosing to write about them in our encyclopedia, we
> have initiated a relationship.
Right.  It's probably a very "American" way of putting it.  "Good
customer service" in the case of Wikipedia should apply to everyone we
are in contact with in any way.

--Jimbo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1234 ... 8