[Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

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

[Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

sashi
Hello,

I am writing to ask if there are any plans to render the English
Wikipedia compliant with French privacy laws.  Currently, if a French
high school student goes to a French library, reserves a computer, and
types "List of French Jews" into Google, Duckduckgo, or Dogpile, an
adhoc en.wikipedia list of over 850 people (approximately half of them
living) appears in the #2 position (Category: French Jews). In the first
position is the English Wikipedia page "List of French Jews" containing
the following text, originally added in 2010, showing that the
en.wikipedia community is aware that they are breaking French law:

"The French nationality law itself, strongly secular, forbids any
statistics or lists based on ethnic or religious membership."

A French person tagging biographies of living people in en.wp with the
category "French Jews" is a violation of French privacy law which would
expose the Wikipedian to a penalty of €300,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment:

"Le fait, hors les cas prévus par la loi, de mettre ou de conserver en
mémoire informatisée, sans le consentement exprès de l’intéressé, des
données à caractère personnel qui, directement ou indirectement, font
apparaître les origines raciales ou ethniques, les opinions politiques,
philosophiques ou religieuses, ou les appartenances syndicales des
personnes, ou qui sont relatives à la santé ou à l’orientation ou à
l'identité sexuelle de celles-ci, est puni de cinq ans d’emprisonnement
et de 300 000 € d’amende." (source: 
https://www.cnil.fr/fr/les-sanctions-penales )

There is, to the best of my knowledge, no such category on fr.wp, as
people in France are well aware of the law.

See also "List of West European Jews" / Category: French People of
Jewish descent / Category: French People of Arab descent / Category:
French Freemasons (167), Category: French Atheists (93 including a
recent president), etc.

I noticed in researching the question that the Category "French rapists"
(2 BLP) is associated with the hidden category "No indexed", whereas the
category "French Jews" (100s of BLP) is associated with the hidden
category: "categories requiring diffusion".  As a temporary measure (to
avoid actively feeding this info into search engines), perhaps
categories related to racial/ethnic origins, religious & philosophical
opinions could be tagged "No indexed" rather than "requiring diffusion"?

The WMF hosts their servers in the US, the Netherlands and will soon
also be hosting off-shore in Singapore, which probably leads WMF legal
to believe that this grants them immunity from French privacy laws. 
Nevertheless, I thought I would mention that this is a potentially
significant problem going forward.  Discussion leading to action
correcting this potential avenue of abuse might help the WMF to avoid
litigation, given that the current policies on English Wikipedia
actively facilitate violation of French laws.

(data from petscan.wmflabs.org): French Christians (21 members), French
Hindus (17 members), French Buddhists (9 members), French Muslims (0
members), French Jews (862 members).

Thank you for your time considering how best to address this problem.

sashi



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

Todd Allen
We should no more follow French censorship laws than we should follow
Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for compliance with the laws in
their jurisdiction.

Todd

On Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:53 PM sashi <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am writing to ask if there are any plans to render the English
> Wikipedia compliant with French privacy laws.  Currently, if a French
> high school student goes to a French library, reserves a computer, and
> types "List of French Jews" into Google, Duckduckgo, or Dogpile, an
> adhoc en.wikipedia list of over 850 people (approximately half of them
> living) appears in the #2 position (Category: French Jews). In the first
> position is the English Wikipedia page "List of French Jews" containing
> the following text, originally added in 2010, showing that the
> en.wikipedia community is aware that they are breaking French law:
>
> "The French nationality law itself, strongly secular, forbids any
> statistics or lists based on ethnic or religious membership."
>
> A French person tagging biographies of living people in en.wp with the
> category "French Jews" is a violation of French privacy law which would
> expose the Wikipedian to a penalty of €300,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment:
>
> "Le fait, hors les cas prévus par la loi, de mettre ou de conserver en
> mémoire informatisée, sans le consentement exprès de l’intéressé, des
> données à caractère personnel qui, directement ou indirectement, font
> apparaître les origines raciales ou ethniques, les opinions politiques,
> philosophiques ou religieuses, ou les appartenances syndicales des
> personnes, ou qui sont relatives à la santé ou à l’orientation ou à
> l'identité sexuelle de celles-ci, est puni de cinq ans d’emprisonnement
> et de 300 000 € d’amende." (source:
> https://www.cnil.fr/fr/les-sanctions-penales )
>
> There is, to the best of my knowledge, no such category on fr.wp, as
> people in France are well aware of the law.
>
> See also "List of West European Jews" / Category: French People of
> Jewish descent / Category: French People of Arab descent / Category:
> French Freemasons (167), Category: French Atheists (93 including a
> recent president), etc.
>
> I noticed in researching the question that the Category "French rapists"
> (2 BLP) is associated with the hidden category "No indexed", whereas the
> category "French Jews" (100s of BLP) is associated with the hidden
> category: "categories requiring diffusion".  As a temporary measure (to
> avoid actively feeding this info into search engines), perhaps
> categories related to racial/ethnic origins, religious & philosophical
> opinions could be tagged "No indexed" rather than "requiring diffusion"?
>
> The WMF hosts their servers in the US, the Netherlands and will soon
> also be hosting off-shore in Singapore, which probably leads WMF legal
> to believe that this grants them immunity from French privacy laws.
> Nevertheless, I thought I would mention that this is a potentially
> significant problem going forward.  Discussion leading to action
> correcting this potential avenue of abuse might help the WMF to avoid
> litigation, given that the current policies on English Wikipedia
> actively facilitate violation of French laws.
>
> (data from petscan.wmflabs.org): French Christians (21 members), French
> Hindus (17 members), French Buddhists (9 members), French Muslims (0
> members), French Jews (862 members).
>
> Thank you for your time considering how best to address this problem.
>
> sashi
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

Yaroslav Blanter
Whereas I absolutely agree with Todd, let me note that in the list many
entries are unsourced or poorly sourced and can not be there according to
the policies.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We should no more follow French censorship laws than we should follow
> Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for compliance with the laws in
> their jurisdiction.
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:53 PM sashi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am writing to ask if there are any plans to render the English
> > Wikipedia compliant with French privacy laws.  Currently, if a French
> > high school student goes to a French library, reserves a computer, and
> > types "List of French Jews" into Google, Duckduckgo, or Dogpile, an
> > adhoc en.wikipedia list of over 850 people (approximately half of them
> > living) appears in the #2 position (Category: French Jews). In the first
> > position is the English Wikipedia page "List of French Jews" containing
> > the following text, originally added in 2010, showing that the
> > en.wikipedia community is aware that they are breaking French law:
> >
> > "The French nationality law itself, strongly secular, forbids any
> > statistics or lists based on ethnic or religious membership."
> >
> > A French person tagging biographies of living people in en.wp with the
> > category "French Jews" is a violation of French privacy law which would
> > expose the Wikipedian to a penalty of €300,000 and/or 5 years
> imprisonment:
> >
> > "Le fait, hors les cas prévus par la loi, de mettre ou de conserver en
> > mémoire informatisée, sans le consentement exprès de l’intéressé, des
> > données à caractère personnel qui, directement ou indirectement, font
> > apparaître les origines raciales ou ethniques, les opinions politiques,
> > philosophiques ou religieuses, ou les appartenances syndicales des
> > personnes, ou qui sont relatives à la santé ou à l’orientation ou à
> > l'identité sexuelle de celles-ci, est puni de cinq ans d’emprisonnement
> > et de 300 000 € d’amende." (source:
> > https://www.cnil.fr/fr/les-sanctions-penales )
> >
> > There is, to the best of my knowledge, no such category on fr.wp, as
> > people in France are well aware of the law.
> >
> > See also "List of West European Jews" / Category: French People of
> > Jewish descent / Category: French People of Arab descent / Category:
> > French Freemasons (167), Category: French Atheists (93 including a
> > recent president), etc.
> >
> > I noticed in researching the question that the Category "French rapists"
> > (2 BLP) is associated with the hidden category "No indexed", whereas the
> > category "French Jews" (100s of BLP) is associated with the hidden
> > category: "categories requiring diffusion".  As a temporary measure (to
> > avoid actively feeding this info into search engines), perhaps
> > categories related to racial/ethnic origins, religious & philosophical
> > opinions could be tagged "No indexed" rather than "requiring diffusion"?
> >
> > The WMF hosts their servers in the US, the Netherlands and will soon
> > also be hosting off-shore in Singapore, which probably leads WMF legal
> > to believe that this grants them immunity from French privacy laws.
> > Nevertheless, I thought I would mention that this is a potentially
> > significant problem going forward.  Discussion leading to action
> > correcting this potential avenue of abuse might help the WMF to avoid
> > litigation, given that the current policies on English Wikipedia
> > actively facilitate violation of French laws.
> >
> > (data from petscan.wmflabs.org): French Christians (21 members), French
> > Hindus (17 members), French Buddhists (9 members), French Muslims (0
> > members), French Jews (862 members).
> >
> > Thank you for your time considering how best to address this problem.
> >
> > sashi
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

L3X1 en
Todd is correct, en.wiki and the WMF operate out of the US and are not subject to other nation’s laws regarding content for the most part. Also, all entries should be blue-linked, else they must be in compliance with LISTN and V. For the rest, a inline citation is not required.
Lexi

> On May 25, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Whereas I absolutely agree with Todd, let me note that in the list many
> entries are unsourced or poorly sourced and can not be there according to
> the policies.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> We should no more follow French censorship laws than we should follow
>> Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for compliance with the laws in
>> their jurisdiction.
>>
>> Todd
>>
>> On Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:53 PM sashi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am writing to ask if there are any plans to render the English
>>> Wikipedia compliant with French privacy laws.  Currently, if a French
>>> high school student goes to a French library, reserves a computer, and
>>> types "List of French Jews" into Google, Duckduckgo, or Dogpile, an
>>> adhoc en.wikipedia list of over 850 people (approximately half of them
>>> living) appears in the #2 position (Category: French Jews). In the first
>>> position is the English Wikipedia page "List of French Jews" containing
>>> the following text, originally added in 2010, showing that the
>>> en.wikipedia community is aware that they are breaking French law:
>>>
>>> "The French nationality law itself, strongly secular, forbids any
>>> statistics or lists based on ethnic or religious membership."
>>>
>>> A French person tagging biographies of living people in en.wp with the
>>> category "French Jews" is a violation of French privacy law which would
>>> expose the Wikipedian to a penalty of €300,000 and/or 5 years
>> imprisonment:
>>>
>>> "Le fait, hors les cas prévus par la loi, de mettre ou de conserver en
>>> mémoire informatisée, sans le consentement exprès de l’intéressé, des
>>> données à caractère personnel qui, directement ou indirectement, font
>>> apparaître les origines raciales ou ethniques, les opinions politiques,
>>> philosophiques ou religieuses, ou les appartenances syndicales des
>>> personnes, ou qui sont relatives à la santé ou à l’orientation ou à
>>> l'identité sexuelle de celles-ci, est puni de cinq ans d’emprisonnement
>>> et de 300 000 € d’amende." (source:
>>> https://www.cnil.fr/fr/les-sanctions-penales )
>>>
>>> There is, to the best of my knowledge, no such category on fr.wp, as
>>> people in France are well aware of the law.
>>>
>>> See also "List of West European Jews" / Category: French People of
>>> Jewish descent / Category: French People of Arab descent / Category:
>>> French Freemasons (167), Category: French Atheists (93 including a
>>> recent president), etc.
>>>
>>> I noticed in researching the question that the Category "French rapists"
>>> (2 BLP) is associated with the hidden category "No indexed", whereas the
>>> category "French Jews" (100s of BLP) is associated with the hidden
>>> category: "categories requiring diffusion".  As a temporary measure (to
>>> avoid actively feeding this info into search engines), perhaps
>>> categories related to racial/ethnic origins, religious & philosophical
>>> opinions could be tagged "No indexed" rather than "requiring diffusion"?
>>>
>>> The WMF hosts their servers in the US, the Netherlands and will soon
>>> also be hosting off-shore in Singapore, which probably leads WMF legal
>>> to believe that this grants them immunity from French privacy laws.
>>> Nevertheless, I thought I would mention that this is a potentially
>>> significant problem going forward.  Discussion leading to action
>>> correcting this potential avenue of abuse might help the WMF to avoid
>>> litigation, given that the current policies on English Wikipedia
>>> actively facilitate violation of French laws.
>>>
>>> (data from petscan.wmflabs.org): French Christians (21 members), French
>>> Hindus (17 members), French Buddhists (9 members), French Muslims (0
>>> members), French Jews (862 members).
>>>
>>> Thank you for your time considering how best to address this problem.
>>>
>>> sashi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by sashi
I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia should adhere to this
law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If France passed a law banning
Internet-published photos of living people, how would we approach that law?
If Germany barred publishing the place of birth, date of birth or religious
preference of public figures? If the United States banned publishing the
name of individuals accused of mass murder? Passionate arguments could be
made in favor of each, but none of them would support the perspective of an
educational organization dedicated to the freedom of knowledge.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

James Salsman-2
Nathan, the Enwiki organic category system is not very good. For
example, there are no consistent ontological constraints placed on the
entire ontological tree (which should not be surprising because the
Library of Congress Card Number system, the Dewey decimal system, the
SIC ontology, and even Wordnet to some extent, are all insufficient
for topic subject matter classification as specializations increase.)
As ontologies go, it barely ranks in the fourth decile. Wikidata
already has inherent ontology patches to the organic category system,
and most if not all of them are compliant with European laws. I am
going to love what happens to Wikipedia's organic categories as they
meet normal forms.

Enjoy!

Best regards,
Jim


On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia should adhere to this
> law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If France passed a law banning
> Internet-published photos of living people, how would we approach that law?
> If Germany barred publishing the place of birth, date of birth or religious
> preference of public figures? If the United States banned publishing the
> name of individuals accused of mass murder? Passionate arguments could be
> made in favor of each, but none of them would support the perspective of an
> educational organization dedicated to the freedom of knowledge.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

sashi
In reply to this post by sashi
Hello again,

Thanks for your input on this question!  I'll add a few clarifications
here to respond to points raised in the discussion so far.  (As I'm
subscribed in digest mode, I'll have to cut & paste.)

-------
Nathan commented:  "I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia
should adhere to this law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If
France passed a law banning Internet-published photos of living people,
how would we approach that law? If Germany barred publishing the place
of birth, date of birth or religious preference of public figures? If
the United States banned publishing the name of individuals accused of
mass murder?"
-------

Since I quoted it the law of 6 January 1978 in French, I'm pretty sure I
got it right. ^^ On the other hand, I didn't translate or interpret the
law in the context of current jurisprudence, so yes, maybe some more
should be said...

It is  legal in France to write an article about a notable person and
mention their religious affiliation if they volunteer that information. 
What is *not* legal is to extract that information about them and add it
to a database which lists Catholics -- as was done during the Vichy
regime with punchcards.  How exactly were Jewish people rounded up and
sent off to concentration camps? (How did prefects go about locating
Freemasons during the war?). While there was certainly some
collaboration with the National Statistics Service (SNS) established
during the Occupation, the most recent research suggests that this
collaboration was not as significant as was once commonly assumed.  The
1978 law was written before this research.

The fact that -- today on en.wp -- these religious categories are being
overwhelmingly applied to Jews (and to a lesser degree to Freemasons) is
certainly striking.  (cf.  the 862 members of Category:French Jews & the
21 members of the Category:French Christians).

Regarding the hypothetical situations you evoke (the first of which, of
course, being particularly relevant since people in France do have a
right to refuse the publication of their image (*unless* they are for
some reason newsworthy))...  I imagine that they will have to be dealt
with on a case by case basis until national laws have been superseded by
the new-wikiwiki-order of supranational arbitration.

-------
Todd commented: "We should no more follow French censorship laws than we
should follow Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for compliance
with the laws in their jurisdiction."
-------

First, the issue is privacy, not censorship.  Nobody has prosecuted or
will prosecute a newspaper for mentioning, for example, that Vincent
Bolloré is Catholic (since he is open about that fact and does not
object to having it reported).  However, when the CRIF (a Jewish
foundation) petitioned the CNIL for the right to compile a list of folks
whose surnames were the same as the 150 most common donors to the
foundation for the purposes of a survey they were told this would be a
clear violation of the law.
(https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCnil.do?oldAction=rechExpCnil&id=CNILTEXT000017651919)

What exists on en.wp is an ad-hoc categorization that does not guarantee
the quality of sourcing.  Anyone can add the category "French Jews" to
100s of living people's biographies with hotcat in a matter of minutes
(with or without a source).  Only the vigilance of the community is a
safeguard against this sort of action.  The state of the database at the
moment is, again, telling: there are not 40 times more Jews in France
than Christians nor are Freemasons likely to be 7 times more numerous
than Christians. Yet this is precisely the *deformed* picture that
emerges from this ad-hoc categorization system.  As James and Yarsolav
both observed, this is likely due to a problem of "bad editing" on
en.wp.  (I didn't mention it in my OP, but just as there are no such
categories on French Wikipedia, Wikidata also does not seem to have
categories based on the religion of living French people. Based on my
limited research into the question, the ontology at Wikidata does indeed
seem more respectful of personal privacy.)

Second, concerning legally responsibility: of course!  The WMF only
supplies the platform. The anonymous individuals who make use of it are
legally responsible for their contributions.  As a result, living people
not wanting to have their religion included in a system of automatic
list-generation would need to file a complaint against X (porter plainte
contre X) in order to try to get the WMF to react to the violation of
their privacy if they cannot convince the anonymous volunteer they
contact in order to enforce their privacy rights (by deleting the
ethnic/religious category from their Wikipedia entry).

Still, it could be persuasively argued that a foundation has a *duty of
care* to its volunteers and should not facilitate their contributors
(whose age they don't verify) falling afoul of their national laws. 
Simply excluding members of Category:BLP & Category:French
Jews/Catholics/Muslims/Freemasons/etc. from the hidden Category
"requiring diffusion" and adding them to the hidden Category "noindex"
would go a long way towards protecting privacy rights (at least as far
as google is concerned).

Finally -- again -- how useful are these automatically generated lists
towards advancing the "freedom of knowledge" (as Nathan put it)?   To
repeat: these categories make it seem that there are/have been 40 times
more notable Jewish people and five times more notable Muslims in France
than notable Christians .  This (derived) "knowledge" is patently
false.  Now, granted, the purpose of the automatically generated
categories is not to come up with a comparative tally of noteworthy
people; but I think what this tally shows is in itself revealing:  
Wikipedians are 40 times more likely to tag notable Jewish people as
Jews and 5 times more likely to tag notable Muslims as Muslim than they
are to tag notable Christians as Christians.  This is worth thinking
about for a minute...

Why would it be so hard to be humble and respect national laws by making
it such that membership in the category would not be diffused concerning
living people in countries where such lists are illegal? (As Yaroslav
points out, there is no guarantee of the quality of the sourcing). 
En.wp might be wise to learn from the conservative approach to this
question taken by fr.wp and wikidata.

I hope this helps to clarify the original post.

    sashi

ps:  *Correction*:  Contrary to what I mistakenly wrote in my OP there
are 96 members of the category French Muslims (not 0).


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

Benjamin Lees
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 10:41 AM, sashi <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The fact that -- today on en.wp -- these religious categories are being
> overwhelmingly applied to Jews (and to a lesser degree to Freemasons) is
> certainly striking.  (cf.  the 862 members of Category:French Jews & the 21
> members of the Category:French Christians).

No, French Christians are just tagged with subcategories of
Category:French Christians. The "requiring diffusion" category that
you complain of is in fact a way to tell editors that pages in the
category should really be in subcategories instead.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by sashi
"Privacy" is often censorship by another name. Seems so here too.

Of course, if the information is not sourced, or is not well sourced, it
can and should be removed as a potential BLP issue. But if it is sourced,
we're not making anything available to the public that wasn't already
publicly known--after all, our source already published the information!

It has nothing to do with "humble" or not. We don't, and shouldn't, worry
about the laws of countries with no jurisdiction. Be that France or Vatican
City, doesn't matter. We of course have to follow US law, because the US
actually does have jurisdiction.

Todd

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 8:41 AM, sashi <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello again,
>
> Thanks for your input on this question!  I'll add a few clarifications
> here to respond to points raised in the discussion so far.  (As I'm
> subscribed in digest mode, I'll have to cut & paste.)
>
> -------
> Nathan commented:  "I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia
> should adhere to this law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If France
> passed a law banning Internet-published photos of living people, how would
> we approach that law? If Germany barred publishing the place of birth, date
> of birth or religious preference of public figures? If the United States
> banned publishing the name of individuals accused of mass murder?"
> -------
>
> Since I quoted it the law of 6 January 1978 in French, I'm pretty sure I
> got it right. ^^ On the other hand, I didn't translate or interpret the law
> in the context of current jurisprudence, so yes, maybe some more should be
> said...
>
> It is  legal in France to write an article about a notable person and
> mention their religious affiliation if they volunteer that information.
> What is *not* legal is to extract that information about them and add it to
> a database which lists Catholics -- as was done during the Vichy regime
> with punchcards.  How exactly were Jewish people rounded up and sent off to
> concentration camps? (How did prefects go about locating Freemasons during
> the war?). While there was certainly some collaboration with the National
> Statistics Service (SNS) established during the Occupation, the most recent
> research suggests that this collaboration was not as significant as was
> once commonly assumed.  The 1978 law was written before this research.
>
> The fact that -- today on en.wp -- these religious categories are being
> overwhelmingly applied to Jews (and to a lesser degree to Freemasons) is
> certainly striking.  (cf.  the 862 members of Category:French Jews & the 21
> members of the Category:French Christians).
>
> Regarding the hypothetical situations you evoke (the first of which, of
> course, being particularly relevant since people in France do have a right
> to refuse the publication of their image (*unless* they are for some reason
> newsworthy))...  I imagine that they will have to be dealt with on a case
> by case basis until national laws have been superseded by the
> new-wikiwiki-order of supranational arbitration.
>
> -------
> Todd commented: "We should no more follow French censorship laws than we
> should follow Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for compliance with
> the laws in their jurisdiction."
> -------
>
> First, the issue is privacy, not censorship.  Nobody has prosecuted or
> will prosecute a newspaper for mentioning, for example, that Vincent
> Bolloré is Catholic (since he is open about that fact and does not object
> to having it reported).  However, when the CRIF (a Jewish foundation)
> petitioned the CNIL for the right to compile a list of folks whose surnames
> were the same as the 150 most common donors to the foundation for the
> purposes of a survey they were told this would be a clear violation of the
> law. (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCnil.do?oldAction=rech
> ExpCnil&id=CNILTEXT000017651919)
>
> What exists on en.wp is an ad-hoc categorization that does not guarantee
> the quality of sourcing.  Anyone can add the category "French Jews" to 100s
> of living people's biographies with hotcat in a matter of minutes (with or
> without a source).  Only the vigilance of the community is a safeguard
> against this sort of action.  The state of the database at the moment is,
> again, telling: there are not 40 times more Jews in France than Christians
> nor are Freemasons likely to be 7 times more numerous than Christians. Yet
> this is precisely the *deformed* picture that emerges from this ad-hoc
> categorization system.  As James and Yarsolav both observed, this is likely
> due to a problem of "bad editing" on en.wp.  (I didn't mention it in my OP,
> but just as there are no such categories on French Wikipedia, Wikidata also
> does not seem to have categories based on the religion of living French
> people. Based on my limited research into the question, the ontology at
> Wikidata does indeed seem more respectful of personal privacy.)
>
> Second, concerning legally responsibility: of course!  The WMF only
> supplies the platform. The anonymous individuals who make use of it are
> legally responsible for their contributions.  As a result, living people
> not wanting to have their religion included in a system of automatic
> list-generation would need to file a complaint against X (porter plainte
> contre X) in order to try to get the WMF to react to the violation of their
> privacy if they cannot convince the anonymous volunteer they contact in
> order to enforce their privacy rights (by deleting the ethnic/religious
> category from their Wikipedia entry).
>
> Still, it could be persuasively argued that a foundation has a *duty of
> care* to its volunteers and should not facilitate their contributors (whose
> age they don't verify) falling afoul of their national laws.  Simply
> excluding members of Category:BLP & Category:French
> Jews/Catholics/Muslims/Freemasons/etc. from the hidden Category
> "requiring diffusion" and adding them to the hidden Category "noindex"
> would go a long way towards protecting privacy rights (at least as far as
> google is concerned).
>
> Finally -- again -- how useful are these automatically generated lists
> towards advancing the "freedom of knowledge" (as Nathan put it)?   To
> repeat: these categories make it seem that there are/have been 40 times
> more notable Jewish people and five times more notable Muslims in France
> than notable Christians .  This (derived) "knowledge" is patently false.
> Now, granted, the purpose of the automatically generated categories is not
> to come up with a comparative tally of noteworthy people; but I think what
> this tally shows is in itself revealing:   Wikipedians are 40 times more
> likely to tag notable Jewish people as Jews and 5 times more likely to tag
> notable Muslims as Muslim than they are to tag notable Christians as
> Christians.  This is worth thinking about for a minute...
>
> Why would it be so hard to be humble and respect national laws by making
> it such that membership in the category would not be diffused concerning
> living people in countries where such lists are illegal? (As Yaroslav
> points out, there is no guarantee of the quality of the sourcing).  En.wp
> might be wise to learn from the conservative approach to this question
> taken by fr.wp and wikidata.
>
> I hope this helps to clarify the original post.
>
>    sashi
>
> ps:  *Correction*:  Contrary to what I mistakenly wrote in my OP there are
> 96 members of the category French Muslims (not 0).
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

David Gerard-2
I'm not 100% comfortable with the approach of doing it because we legally
can - we do a lot of stuff because it's the right thing, not just because
we're legally obliged to. The concern is a real one and worth giving
serious consideration.

(As I noted in my email about the GDPR, we do a lot of stuff because it's
the right thing to do, not just because we're forced to - hence our
ridiculously low DMCA rate.)

It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every
instance is cited to best BLP standards?


- d.



On 28 May 2018 at 00:33, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

Yaroslav Blanter
Hi David,

>It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every
>instance is cited to best BLP standards?

no, likely not (nobody has gone through the cat). In my experience,
categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual
orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do
not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria,
especially for categories, are often not defined. For example, if we are
talking about French jews - are we talking about observing religious jews,
or anybody of Jewish origin, including those who are not religious or
converted to other religions? The list is very clear that it is about the
origin, the category does not say anything.

Cheers
Yaroslav





On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 1:41 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

James Salsman-2
> categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual
> orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do
> not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria,
> especially for categories, are often not defined

Absolutely correct, Yaroslav. Compare the original design plan from 2003:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categorization_requirements

and the current set of conventions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization

with bona-fide academic scholarship on subject categorization:

https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ital/article/view/8930/pdf

Wikipedians have a long way to go to achieve a reputable
classification scheme that cares more about the essential
characteristics of subjects including living people and doesn't
classify them by non-noteworthy incidentals like ethnicity.



On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

James Salsman-2
It's also important to point out that Wikidata can be used to
semi-automatically replace the wikipedias' manual category trees:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Ontology

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Ontology/Classes

It looks like some of the Wikidata people discussing such solutions
are semi-active on this list. I'm sure the Foundation would prefer
that volunteers address this issue, but I wonder how much can happen
without concerted behavior between enwiki admins and legal.

Until we get a Foundation official clearly stating that ethnicity
isn't an essential characteristic of living people, relative to their
accomplishments and the events for which they are notable, I doubt
anyone is going to actually put in the effort.



On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:50 AM, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>