Are Wikipedia's publicly accessible pages anything other than public spaces?
Does bringing wide attention to editor actions cause them unnecessary harm?
Should/do editors assume that wide attention will not be brought to their editing actions?

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:

You can still describe [your] point of conversation without quoting
them, while leaving the conversation inside of the extended materials
of your work, available on demand. If it matters, of course.

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 16:33, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I may not have make clear what I mean. In the humanities, you often
> have to quote conversations. But when I do, I reveal automatically
> reveal who said what, even if it is not important for me what was said
> exactly by whom. Wikipedians tend to dislike these quote, because they
> can be used to name and shame, and bringing up old disputes, and maybe
> reveal the real identity when done at a large scale.
>
> For example, I copied a piece of conversation here, and replaced the
> user names. Still, it is easy to retrieve the original conversation
> with the Search.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Surely this is just self promotion? I have seen othger articles about
> websites be delted as they are regarded as self-promotion. —UserA
>
> The article tries to be balanced and neutral, and provide facts
> about the project and a summary of criticism directed at it without
> prejudice. How well it achieves this is of course open to
> interpretation – UserB
>
> I'm very surprised that anyone would think Wikipedia should
> not have an article on itself. Imagine that someone wants to read a
> summary of this project. How would they do it? They would have to go
> through thousands of help pages, which is impossible. So they can come
> to this article and have the project explained in one place. The
> article has to be unbiassed of course and point out the flaws of the
> project as well as the strengths. As someone said elsewhere, you would
> surely expect to find the word "dictionary" in a dictionary so I would
> expect to find Wikipedia in Wikipedia! -UserC
>
>
>
>
> 2010/10/25 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 21:30, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> There is one problem that I met several times with relation to Wiki
>>> research. On the one hand, it is importand to reference to one's
>>> "primary sources", e.g. link to a sentence in a WP discussion we are
>>> talking about. On the other hand, we want to preserve the privacy of
>>> our users.
>>>
>>> For example, in Leipzig a lecturer talked about a certain discussion,
>>> and he tried to keep it anonimously because it was about the
>>> discussion itself, not to embarass the persons. But, the anonimity was
>>> soon destroyed by curious listeners, anyway.
>>>
>>> Did you already encounter that problem yourself?
>>
>> The best way for keeping anonymity is to present derivative work, not
>> source itself. It is regular part of scientific work in social
>> sciences. And you guarantee for the validity by your scientific
>> integrity, as well as by sources which you are keeping for yourself
>> for possible check by other scientist who would keep the sources
>> confidential, too.
>>
>> For example, I remember one sociolinguistic research, where scientists
>> taped speech of one Irish community. They gathered all private data
>> and connected them with records. Then, they renamed subjects with
>> letters: A, B, etc. At the end, they made a digest record which they
>> are willing to show to other interested scientists just on demand, as
>> well if I remember well, with a kind of confidentiality agreement with
>> them. I think that the research is from 1970s.
>>
>> So, you should combine all of the tools which you can have: derivative
>> works, digesting, stating that the sources are confidential, finding
>> other [trusting] scientist who would check your sources and guarantee
>> for them, too.
>>
>> And, yes, sources should be handled carefully. There are just a couple
>> of thousands core Wikimedians and it is relatively easy to understand
>> who is the person from the source.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RCom-l mailing list
>> RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> Niederlande
>
> _______________________________________________
> RCom-l mailing list
> RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
>

_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l