![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Rather than just pile on at your other talk page, I get to be first in line here to say congrats. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
<-outdentI just happened upon your news. Congratulations from me as well! Ladyof Shalott 02:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, with reference to the discussion here, can you please let me know if there is a way to ensure that more number of accounts can be created on a single IP? TIA. -- Strategyprof ( talk) 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
could you, in your new role, perhaps find something out for me? Currently, Wikipedia is testing this Article Feedback Tool on a number of articles. Can you find out, what the intended purpose of this tool is (or tell me, in case you already know the answer)? I have not been able to receive a satisfactory answer to this question here on Wikipedia, yet (see also this thread and this thread). This causes a lot of confusion, not only to me, but to a great number of other users as well (at least that's my impression).
Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 18:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
One other thing—back to article feedback, where is the best place to leave feedback/questions/comments? I wanted to say that dab pages like Saint Regis probably shouldn't be rated (what's an untrustworthy dab page?), but I'm not sure which page would be the best place to leave a comment that someone will see, or if this is already a known bug. / ƒETCH COMMS / 18:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you help resolve the intention of the researcher user right and how a user could request it? If it is within your purview, consider this also a request for the right. Best - My76Strat talk 16:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Maggie, 'Diplomacy is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way as they look forward to the journey.' (I apologize if your American, for the word that may be offensive, but it's the exact one for this quote)
But in this case, it does not apply, I genuinely like these two editors, and I'd be seriously saddened by the loss of either one. I feel differently about my recent request for arbitration though.
Penyulap talk 17:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick rhetorical note to let you know that both editors are back editing ! ex-cell-en-tae !! Penyulap talk 22:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Maggie,
That was my grandmother's name btw (like you wanted to hear that!). Anyway, I was hoping you might be able to help bring the right people together to resolve an issue that has been ongoing for, I dunno, 7 or more years now over at Wikisource. It's in regards to annotated works. For example, The Annotated Strange Case Of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde (c.f. the non-annotated version).
Some people believe Wikisource should only be for curating texts, like a library, and texts should not be marked up and modified with original content, like with annotations. Other people want a place to work on annotating texts, and have used Wikisource over the years to create annotated works there. There is currently a discussion about it, though it's not the first, and probably won't resolve. The usual idea is to move annotated works to Wikibooks, but Wikibooks usually rejects the idea since they are more interested in CliffNotes type classroom material, very different.
So basically we have a small but unorganized number of editors at Wikisource who have created annotated texts over the years, and a core group of admins and editors who don't want them on the project at all, but no one has been able to achieve consensus. In the end, it negatively impacts Wiki by discouraging potential editors from contributing annotated works, which can be quite amazing if you take a look at some of them. They are the ugly step child no one wants, which is really a shame.
I personally think we need someone from MediaWiki "home office" to clearly say if Wikisource's charter is to include user-generated content like annotations, or not. Or Wikibooks. It is a fundamental lack of definition that has haunted the project since day one, creating a lot of confusion and conflict over the years, and held back editors from contributing. If Wikisource had embraced annotations and encouraged it over the years, we could have seen many more examples like the J&Hyde above. But instead its been beset with a political divide between curating librarians, and creative content makers.
Do you have any thoughts on who might be the right person(s) or forum to look at this? Thanks,
--(Steve) Green Cardamom ( talk) 05:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Maggie. The project newsletter has just gone out with a paragraph on the self-assessment (under "Project news"), so I hope that you'll get many more comments in the next few days. Please don't kill me if you have to rewrite the summaries, I didn't think of this until now. :D Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Since you had participated in previous discussions, I felt it would be helpful to notify you of the current discussion regarding WikiAlpha. The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WikiAlpha spam (again). (I wasn't sure whether to let you know on this account's talk page or your non-official admin one. Either way, I've let you know.) Thank you. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 06:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If you could take a look at the legal notice sectionon my talk page, I'm really hesitant to do anything more with the IP address. As a WMF representative, I would appreciate any insights you might have. Hasteur ( talk) 21:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Maggie, I have a question pertaining to India, Indian editors, an upcoming chapter-meet up, and a map. You can see the most recent discussion of the issue at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Map of India, the WikiIndia meet, etc. The concern of a number of Indian users is that the map most commonly used on Wikipedia (and hosted on Commons, I believe) does not reflect the Indian government's preferred version, specifically with reference to disputed territories like Jammu and Kashmir (see Talk:India/FAQ). Furthermore, there is apparently a law in India that says that openly promulgating a map that doesn't reflect the official government stance could be punishable as a criminal act. Now, you and I, not being residents of India, of course have nothing to be concerned about, and neither does the Foundation, not being located in India. Indian editors, presumably, would be told that its their own responsibility for editing in accordance with local laws. The Chapter's concern, though, is that simply by meeting as an organized group, they might be held responsible (or, at least, some politicians might like to hold them responsible) even for content which they never personally edited. That is, they're concerned that their existence as a group, along with their ability to hold public meetings, may place them in danger even if they as individuals never actually add that map to a Wikipedia article. The discussion I pointed you to says that there was some indication in the past that issue was being considered by the Foundation's legal staff, but no final word was ever received. Could you check with the WMF and find out if this is an issue that they are aware of, pursuing, and if yes or no, provide some feedback to address the concerns of the Wikiproject? It's a very difficult discussion to even discuss, because editors even discussing it can easily stray (or appear to stray) into WP:NLT territory, which can often result in swift blocks given our very low tolerance for the issue. So, any input that the Foundation might have (even if its to say that its not their problem) would be helpful. Qwyrxian ( talk) 06:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I have spoken with the legal team on this, and their feedback on the matter is as follows:
Unfortunately, the Wikimedia Foundation is not able to provide legal advice on this matter. We do note, however, that editors should not make edits that violate their local laws. See m:Legal/Legal Policies. Users who are concerned about their own actions or contributions may wish to discuss with local counsel.
From my own perspective and not speaking in any way on their behalf, I would interpret that to suggest that concerned contributors need to determine how local laws may apply to them and what activities they feel appropriate for them based on that information. -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 11:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello.
I wanted to ask if the foundation has any role in the decision regarding the tagline of wikipedia(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia) and its equivalents in different languages. I've initiated a discussion at the hindi wikipedia village pump about a minor change in it, and wanted to be sure that the foundation would have no objections with it. My major concern is whether there's a legal status(copyright, trademark etc.) associated with the tagline, and if present, how a change would affect it.-- Siddhartha Ghai ( talk) 10:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi M, I just wanted to let you know that by far the most active contributor to the Wp gastropods project is User:Snek01 who has been contributing for over 4 years. Some time after one of his run-ins with authority/guidelines, he apparently got disgusted and resigned from Wikipedia, at which time he removed himself from the list of gastropod project page. However he stayed away for only about 2 months and then came back and resumed his activity in the project, i.e. he is still (as before) extremely active, more active than I am, especially in terms of creating new articles. But he declined being listed on the project page. However because he is so extremely active on gastropods you might want to consider asking him too. It's possible he may not want to answer, but I don't doubt he has strong opinions on the questions. Best wishes, Invertzoo ( talk) 18:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Your decision to invite people individually to respond to the questions about the gastropod project seems to have helped the process. Good. Best to you, Invertzoo ( talk) 22:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi MRG. I'm really glad you are our Community Liaison for the WMF. As we know, CorenSearchBot is down because of the issues with Yahoo. Like you, I think this is a significant issue. The last I heard, talks about getting this resolved have stalled and no prgress has been made. I would like to ask, in an official way, that a representative of the WMF attempt to contact the various search engine companies (Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc.) to see if we can work together to find a solution to check for copyright issues by using their search engine. Could you please let me know who I should contact to make such an official request? I feel this is an important issue and think it's in the WMF's best interest to have an "official person" working on this until it gets resolved. Thanks very much for your help. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 04:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi there--was directed here by The Anome. In case you haven't heard, Marshallsumter ( talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely after it emerged he was using Wikipedia for some sort of research project, per this Wikiversity page. Further investigation revealed that a large number of his articles were copyvios. After it emerged that he was actually transferring his articles, copyvios and all, to Wikiversity (at least seven of his Wikipedia articles were confirmed copyvios, and maybe more), this was endorsed as a ban. See the relevant discussion at ANI.
What concerns me the most is the cross-wiki issues. I'm no lawyer, but even I know that in transferring copyvios to Wikiversity, this user is placing the Foundation in off-the-charts legal danger. It doesn't seem that much is being done about it, so if there's any way you could have a look into it, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Blueboy 96 13:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I just saw your reply at WP:VPT#Article feedback tool + WikiLove feature. Thanks for that. I have a lot of discussions to look after, so I initially missed it. :) Much appreciated. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 17:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is still pending
|
---|
Hi, it seems that you are the person to talk with about ArbCom-WMF-Community issues. I have a few concerns or ideas:
Please let me know your thoughts. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think the WMF will ever provide proper protection or legal guidance to its volunteers, because that would risk its section 230 immunity (or at least, they think it would). However, if you are interested, I can suggest a couple of areas that need to be looked into. I'm sure others have more exhaustive lists.
Cheers. Thatcher 21:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Results of the lack of direction previously from WMF on ArbComWhat is apparent from the above, and leading from the Shell Kinney resignation statement, is that the failure to provide en-Wikipedia with a clear mission statement has lead to a community elected group of volunteer editors - on the basis of their dispute resolution capabilities - attempting to put into practice a process by which they can handle issues outside of editorial behaviour in relation to content editing; for good or bad they have followed the lead of those with a legal background in attempting to deal with this. Although it has worked, up to a point certainly, so far it is obviously a stressful and time consuming process, by which evidence is weighed and judged and a fair and neutral decision (hopefully) arrived at. This is reasonably good in dealing with editors who have transgressed the rules regarding content contribution, and even effective when handling individuals who have sought to evade editorial practice to promote or deprecate a subject or viewpoint - it is not, however, suitable for dealing with people who simply wish to use the access provided by the English language Wikipedia for their own purposes.
|
I think it is important not to get bogged down (yet) in the details. Liability and vandalism and security are all sub-issues. The big over-arching issue is this: What responsibilities does the WMF have to its projects, its staff, and its volunteers. This seems like a simple question but it is not, and it is a question that every organization needs to ask itself every couple of years as it evolves. The answers to that question in 2011 are likely to be very different from 2002, or 2005, or even 2009 when I left. It is not clear whether the question has ever been asked, and if so, how it was answered.
There are, of course, many interesting and important sub-issues.
Most importantly, the Foundation needs to start acting like it runs a multi-national corporation and not a lemonade stand. Maybe things have changed, but as of 2 years ago, the WMF board of directors mostly consisted of encyclopedia editors who wrote really nice articles and spent a lot of time building up their Wikimedia credentials. You guys have to realize that, even though you have a budget half the size of one megachurch in California, you have the global reach and influence of Google or Facebook. Judges cite Wikipedia articles. Google and Bing news list Wikipedia articles on news topics. You're on the first page of search results for any topic on any search engine. You need board members with professional experience running complex multinational organizations, with experience managing giant social networks, and with experience as major fundraisers for non-profits. Not guys who can translate an article about tree frogs into 7 different languages.
Then set those experts in managing global organizations to a serious review of the responsibilities of the WMF. Don't start with any one point of view, like liability or security or vandalism. Start bigger, keep an open mind, listen to your most committed volunteers, and set some priorities. Make some real decisions. If it turns out you need a larger staff to handle some of these things, then raise the funds and get the staff. Or whatever else you need to do.
Then, after your review is over and you've decided what the WMF should and should not do, explain it to everyone.
Then, in a year or two, start the review process all over again. Thatcher 20:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Rather than just pile on at your other talk page, I get to be first in line here to say congrats. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
<-outdentI just happened upon your news. Congratulations from me as well! Ladyof Shalott 02:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, with reference to the discussion here, can you please let me know if there is a way to ensure that more number of accounts can be created on a single IP? TIA. -- Strategyprof ( talk) 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
could you, in your new role, perhaps find something out for me? Currently, Wikipedia is testing this Article Feedback Tool on a number of articles. Can you find out, what the intended purpose of this tool is (or tell me, in case you already know the answer)? I have not been able to receive a satisfactory answer to this question here on Wikipedia, yet (see also this thread and this thread). This causes a lot of confusion, not only to me, but to a great number of other users as well (at least that's my impression).
Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 18:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
One other thing—back to article feedback, where is the best place to leave feedback/questions/comments? I wanted to say that dab pages like Saint Regis probably shouldn't be rated (what's an untrustworthy dab page?), but I'm not sure which page would be the best place to leave a comment that someone will see, or if this is already a known bug. / ƒETCH COMMS / 18:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you help resolve the intention of the researcher user right and how a user could request it? If it is within your purview, consider this also a request for the right. Best - My76Strat talk 16:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Maggie, 'Diplomacy is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way as they look forward to the journey.' (I apologize if your American, for the word that may be offensive, but it's the exact one for this quote)
But in this case, it does not apply, I genuinely like these two editors, and I'd be seriously saddened by the loss of either one. I feel differently about my recent request for arbitration though.
Penyulap talk 17:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick rhetorical note to let you know that both editors are back editing ! ex-cell-en-tae !! Penyulap talk 22:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Maggie,
That was my grandmother's name btw (like you wanted to hear that!). Anyway, I was hoping you might be able to help bring the right people together to resolve an issue that has been ongoing for, I dunno, 7 or more years now over at Wikisource. It's in regards to annotated works. For example, The Annotated Strange Case Of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde (c.f. the non-annotated version).
Some people believe Wikisource should only be for curating texts, like a library, and texts should not be marked up and modified with original content, like with annotations. Other people want a place to work on annotating texts, and have used Wikisource over the years to create annotated works there. There is currently a discussion about it, though it's not the first, and probably won't resolve. The usual idea is to move annotated works to Wikibooks, but Wikibooks usually rejects the idea since they are more interested in CliffNotes type classroom material, very different.
So basically we have a small but unorganized number of editors at Wikisource who have created annotated texts over the years, and a core group of admins and editors who don't want them on the project at all, but no one has been able to achieve consensus. In the end, it negatively impacts Wiki by discouraging potential editors from contributing annotated works, which can be quite amazing if you take a look at some of them. They are the ugly step child no one wants, which is really a shame.
I personally think we need someone from MediaWiki "home office" to clearly say if Wikisource's charter is to include user-generated content like annotations, or not. Or Wikibooks. It is a fundamental lack of definition that has haunted the project since day one, creating a lot of confusion and conflict over the years, and held back editors from contributing. If Wikisource had embraced annotations and encouraged it over the years, we could have seen many more examples like the J&Hyde above. But instead its been beset with a political divide between curating librarians, and creative content makers.
Do you have any thoughts on who might be the right person(s) or forum to look at this? Thanks,
--(Steve) Green Cardamom ( talk) 05:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Maggie. The project newsletter has just gone out with a paragraph on the self-assessment (under "Project news"), so I hope that you'll get many more comments in the next few days. Please don't kill me if you have to rewrite the summaries, I didn't think of this until now. :D Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Since you had participated in previous discussions, I felt it would be helpful to notify you of the current discussion regarding WikiAlpha. The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WikiAlpha spam (again). (I wasn't sure whether to let you know on this account's talk page or your non-official admin one. Either way, I've let you know.) Thank you. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 06:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If you could take a look at the legal notice sectionon my talk page, I'm really hesitant to do anything more with the IP address. As a WMF representative, I would appreciate any insights you might have. Hasteur ( talk) 21:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Maggie, I have a question pertaining to India, Indian editors, an upcoming chapter-meet up, and a map. You can see the most recent discussion of the issue at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Map of India, the WikiIndia meet, etc. The concern of a number of Indian users is that the map most commonly used on Wikipedia (and hosted on Commons, I believe) does not reflect the Indian government's preferred version, specifically with reference to disputed territories like Jammu and Kashmir (see Talk:India/FAQ). Furthermore, there is apparently a law in India that says that openly promulgating a map that doesn't reflect the official government stance could be punishable as a criminal act. Now, you and I, not being residents of India, of course have nothing to be concerned about, and neither does the Foundation, not being located in India. Indian editors, presumably, would be told that its their own responsibility for editing in accordance with local laws. The Chapter's concern, though, is that simply by meeting as an organized group, they might be held responsible (or, at least, some politicians might like to hold them responsible) even for content which they never personally edited. That is, they're concerned that their existence as a group, along with their ability to hold public meetings, may place them in danger even if they as individuals never actually add that map to a Wikipedia article. The discussion I pointed you to says that there was some indication in the past that issue was being considered by the Foundation's legal staff, but no final word was ever received. Could you check with the WMF and find out if this is an issue that they are aware of, pursuing, and if yes or no, provide some feedback to address the concerns of the Wikiproject? It's a very difficult discussion to even discuss, because editors even discussing it can easily stray (or appear to stray) into WP:NLT territory, which can often result in swift blocks given our very low tolerance for the issue. So, any input that the Foundation might have (even if its to say that its not their problem) would be helpful. Qwyrxian ( talk) 06:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I have spoken with the legal team on this, and their feedback on the matter is as follows:
Unfortunately, the Wikimedia Foundation is not able to provide legal advice on this matter. We do note, however, that editors should not make edits that violate their local laws. See m:Legal/Legal Policies. Users who are concerned about their own actions or contributions may wish to discuss with local counsel.
From my own perspective and not speaking in any way on their behalf, I would interpret that to suggest that concerned contributors need to determine how local laws may apply to them and what activities they feel appropriate for them based on that information. -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 11:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello.
I wanted to ask if the foundation has any role in the decision regarding the tagline of wikipedia(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia) and its equivalents in different languages. I've initiated a discussion at the hindi wikipedia village pump about a minor change in it, and wanted to be sure that the foundation would have no objections with it. My major concern is whether there's a legal status(copyright, trademark etc.) associated with the tagline, and if present, how a change would affect it.-- Siddhartha Ghai ( talk) 10:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi M, I just wanted to let you know that by far the most active contributor to the Wp gastropods project is User:Snek01 who has been contributing for over 4 years. Some time after one of his run-ins with authority/guidelines, he apparently got disgusted and resigned from Wikipedia, at which time he removed himself from the list of gastropod project page. However he stayed away for only about 2 months and then came back and resumed his activity in the project, i.e. he is still (as before) extremely active, more active than I am, especially in terms of creating new articles. But he declined being listed on the project page. However because he is so extremely active on gastropods you might want to consider asking him too. It's possible he may not want to answer, but I don't doubt he has strong opinions on the questions. Best wishes, Invertzoo ( talk) 18:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Your decision to invite people individually to respond to the questions about the gastropod project seems to have helped the process. Good. Best to you, Invertzoo ( talk) 22:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi MRG. I'm really glad you are our Community Liaison for the WMF. As we know, CorenSearchBot is down because of the issues with Yahoo. Like you, I think this is a significant issue. The last I heard, talks about getting this resolved have stalled and no prgress has been made. I would like to ask, in an official way, that a representative of the WMF attempt to contact the various search engine companies (Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc.) to see if we can work together to find a solution to check for copyright issues by using their search engine. Could you please let me know who I should contact to make such an official request? I feel this is an important issue and think it's in the WMF's best interest to have an "official person" working on this until it gets resolved. Thanks very much for your help. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 04:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi there--was directed here by The Anome. In case you haven't heard, Marshallsumter ( talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely after it emerged he was using Wikipedia for some sort of research project, per this Wikiversity page. Further investigation revealed that a large number of his articles were copyvios. After it emerged that he was actually transferring his articles, copyvios and all, to Wikiversity (at least seven of his Wikipedia articles were confirmed copyvios, and maybe more), this was endorsed as a ban. See the relevant discussion at ANI.
What concerns me the most is the cross-wiki issues. I'm no lawyer, but even I know that in transferring copyvios to Wikiversity, this user is placing the Foundation in off-the-charts legal danger. It doesn't seem that much is being done about it, so if there's any way you could have a look into it, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Blueboy 96 13:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I just saw your reply at WP:VPT#Article feedback tool + WikiLove feature. Thanks for that. I have a lot of discussions to look after, so I initially missed it. :) Much appreciated. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 17:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is still pending
|
---|
Hi, it seems that you are the person to talk with about ArbCom-WMF-Community issues. I have a few concerns or ideas:
Please let me know your thoughts. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think the WMF will ever provide proper protection or legal guidance to its volunteers, because that would risk its section 230 immunity (or at least, they think it would). However, if you are interested, I can suggest a couple of areas that need to be looked into. I'm sure others have more exhaustive lists.
Cheers. Thatcher 21:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Results of the lack of direction previously from WMF on ArbComWhat is apparent from the above, and leading from the Shell Kinney resignation statement, is that the failure to provide en-Wikipedia with a clear mission statement has lead to a community elected group of volunteer editors - on the basis of their dispute resolution capabilities - attempting to put into practice a process by which they can handle issues outside of editorial behaviour in relation to content editing; for good or bad they have followed the lead of those with a legal background in attempting to deal with this. Although it has worked, up to a point certainly, so far it is obviously a stressful and time consuming process, by which evidence is weighed and judged and a fair and neutral decision (hopefully) arrived at. This is reasonably good in dealing with editors who have transgressed the rules regarding content contribution, and even effective when handling individuals who have sought to evade editorial practice to promote or deprecate a subject or viewpoint - it is not, however, suitable for dealing with people who simply wish to use the access provided by the English language Wikipedia for their own purposes.
|
I think it is important not to get bogged down (yet) in the details. Liability and vandalism and security are all sub-issues. The big over-arching issue is this: What responsibilities does the WMF have to its projects, its staff, and its volunteers. This seems like a simple question but it is not, and it is a question that every organization needs to ask itself every couple of years as it evolves. The answers to that question in 2011 are likely to be very different from 2002, or 2005, or even 2009 when I left. It is not clear whether the question has ever been asked, and if so, how it was answered.
There are, of course, many interesting and important sub-issues.
Most importantly, the Foundation needs to start acting like it runs a multi-national corporation and not a lemonade stand. Maybe things have changed, but as of 2 years ago, the WMF board of directors mostly consisted of encyclopedia editors who wrote really nice articles and spent a lot of time building up their Wikimedia credentials. You guys have to realize that, even though you have a budget half the size of one megachurch in California, you have the global reach and influence of Google or Facebook. Judges cite Wikipedia articles. Google and Bing news list Wikipedia articles on news topics. You're on the first page of search results for any topic on any search engine. You need board members with professional experience running complex multinational organizations, with experience managing giant social networks, and with experience as major fundraisers for non-profits. Not guys who can translate an article about tree frogs into 7 different languages.
Then set those experts in managing global organizations to a serious review of the responsibilities of the WMF. Don't start with any one point of view, like liability or security or vandalism. Start bigger, keep an open mind, listen to your most committed volunteers, and set some priorities. Make some real decisions. If it turns out you need a larger staff to handle some of these things, then raise the funds and get the staff. Or whatever else you need to do.
Then, after your review is over and you've decided what the WMF should and should not do, explain it to everyone.
Then, in a year or two, start the review process all over again. Thatcher 20:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)