On Dec 24, 2007 8:09 AM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/12/2007, Steve Bennett
<stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/25/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
The foundation sleeps. Wikipedia does not. For
maximum speed contact
will tend to need to be made by the first person in the right
geographical area who is prepared to do so.
I really don't like this idea. Surely we can elevate certain people to
responsible positions. What is some school supposed to do when someone
claiming to be acting on behalf of "Wikipedia" rings up? What
credentials do they have? Who can vouch for them? We are *not* all
spokespeople for Wikipedia.
This is correct. You are simply private citizens carrying out your
civic responsibility to make sure the reliant people are informed when
such issues arise. That the issue has something to with wikipedia is a
mere detail.
It is important for Wikipedia to not be seen to be impeding people who
are concerned about a posting from making such reports, though. That
was a thread I tried to weave into the current WP:SUICIDE essay - if
you are concerned by something, on Wikipedia or in Real Life, you as a
concerned citizen can and should report it to proper authorities for
them to evaluate and respond if appropriate. We don't want to hinder
your doing that. We would like you to tell the foundation and other
admins via ANI or whatnot as well as the authorities.
I would not be opposed to shifting WP:SUICIDE from essay to guideline.
I did it as an essay to document best policy as performed by admins
and other concerned users, after two complete flops of normal policy
process on "what to do". It may be easier to keep it as an essay, or
it may have gelled with enough buy-in that making it official now will
just work. But I don't want to wreck it by having another "policy
process" fight over it.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com