In a message dated 11/29/2010 10:00:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pbeaudette(a)wikimedia.org writes:
> To suggest that the WMF (which means what, exactly, in this context?
> Staff? Mailing list participants?) does not feel accountable to anyone but
> donors is to make a careless generalization, and one that borders on
> trolling.
>
> The people who make up the staff and the volunteers of our projects are
> driven and give tremendously of their time. I defy anyone to find me a
> single one of them who only feels accountable to donors. You can't. I
> guarantee it. >>
>
Exactly the reason why I called that generalization into question.
If you read the thread you will see who made it, and who questioned it.
Will
In a message dated 11/29/2010 9:34:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
russnelson(a)gmail.com writes:
> Huh?? Editors are donors as well, as are people who contribute to mailing
> lists, as are you.
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:13 AM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 11/29/2010 8:48:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > russnelson(a)gmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> > > Those with the passwords are accountable to the foundation, which is
> > > accountable to the donors. The foundation needs to make sure that the
> > > money
> > > donated to it is spent wisely, and not frittered away on frivolous
> > > requirements. If the foundation does a bad job of that, it will be
> > > replaced
> > > by some party which CAN do a good job of being responsible to donors. >
> >
> > >
> >
> > So it is your belief, that the WMF is not accountable at all to it's
> > volunteers, such as editors? Just to its donors?
>
Is it your belief, that the WMF is not accountable at all, to the thousands
or perhaps millions of volunteers who are not also financial contributors
i.e. not donors ?
In a message dated 11/28/2010 9:06:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
russnelson(a)gmail.com writes:
> The policy is very explicit. It says that logs may be kept. If you know
> anything about operational requirements, you will understand that that
> means
> that logs are not routinely kept, but may be kept in order to diagnose
> problems. It's not practical to be more explicit than that. Aude has
> already
> explained that in the usual case, the http server itself keeps no logs
> (because they'd just tell ops which squids are accessing which server),
> and
> the squids themselves discard 99.9% of all accesses.
>
> You're not likely to get any better explanation of what happens, because
> it's simply not practical or productive to keep you informed of which
> squids
> or servers have had logging turned on. Rest assures that nobody at the WMF
> cares who is accessing what page. They have more interesting problems to
> solve!
>
Yes I agree, the policy is extremely vague.
We may be struck by lightning, we may be abducted by aliens, we may be
sentient beings.
May doesn't say anything. Why have a policy which uses "may"? So you can
do anything at all and say "well we did say we MAY..."
That's not a policy, it's a non-policy.
I know quite a lot about operational requirements, and I know that policies
should state clearly what IS being done, not what may be done.
It's quite practical to be more explicit. For example, the policy could
state clearly what exactly is being done. That would be more explicit.
I know what Aude stated. I asked for a citation to the actual policy of
the WMF on that point. But apparently there isn't any.
You mean it's not practical or productive to keep users informed of what
information is being stored on them.
Why bother with a clear privacy policy, why not simply ignore anyone who
pushes for one? And then claim you're not....
Very clever.
W
In a message dated 11/29/2010 11:33:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
midom.lists(a)gmail.com writes:
> Hi!
>
> > Go on record, then I'll cite you.
> > An email list is not a citable source, per our policy.
>
> Why would I care about your policy? Which policy is 'our' policy? Why does
> it apply to anything here?
>
> > However a page on the server is citable.
> > So put your reputation up for view, then you'll be citable :)
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062730.html
>
>
> Domas
>
It's isn't my policy, it's our policy.
If you don't know to what I refer, then perhaps you can read up on it.
As far as citing the archives of an email list, that is also not a citable
source.
If Foundation staff and supporters themselves, are *not prepared* to go on
the record with their claims, then why should anyone trust anything they say
on an email list?
That is the very nature of *false authority*, the bane of our project. I
must say, I'm quite surprised that some people here don't grasp this concept
yet, after the projects being in existence for so many years now, almost a
decade right? It is a fundamental principle, that we should be citing actual
authorities, not false claims to authority.
W
In a message dated 11/29/2010 2:14:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
midom.lists(a)gmail.com writes:
> This isn't Wikipedia, this is Wikimedia. You can cite me, if you want.
>
Go on record, then I'll cite you.
An email list is not a citable source, per our policy.
However a page on the server is citable.
So put your reputation up for view, then you'll be citable :)
W
If that's the case, I would suggest, if it does not do so already, that the
server also grab details about "How did you get here?" such as keywords
used, or page-come-from and so on.
Also I would want it to grab geographic location (where known), which would
help us to know, for example, if we're getting a lot of readers from
Nigeria, or none.
W
Hello all,
Olaf Simons, a literature researcher and Wikipedian, wrote a mail on the
mailing list of the German chapter about his experience both as a
researcher and as a Wikipedian. I find his experience very insightful
and got his allowance to forward the mail here, because I think these
experiences are could also be very interesting for the folks here. We
had here also from time to time (and not before long) discussions about
the relations between researchers and Wikipedia. I will give a shortend
summary in English about his mail, please use a translator for details
(after all, I believe this is an international mailing list).
Olaf wrote about two incidents where he got into conflict in his two roles.
* In the first case he was the main author of the article Roman (novel)
[1] in de-wp. Some time later after he worked on this article he was
asked by an print literature encyclopedia (Enzyklopädie der Frühen
Neuzeit) to wrote an article about the novels of the time between 1470
and 1800. He reused his earlier article from de-wp, shortend the content
very strongly and submitted his article. Only at the last editorial
process the publisher noticed that the article is "copied" from
Wikipedia. Although the no texts are directly copied from de-wp (and
Olaf was the author for both articles), one can notice that the
argumentations are very similar. After the publisher discovered the
similarities he rejected the article from Olaf.
* In the second case Olaf rewrited the article Aufklärung (Enlightening)
[2]. While he was working on the article other Wikipedians gave their
own inputs, which Olaf thought could be problematic or at least
debatable. He found himself very reluctant in tell his colleagues that
the article on Wikipedia was written by him, because it is now a mixed
product and contains content that he may not support, and his colleagues
would not be so precise to find which part was exactly written by him
and which part by the others. And he fears that his colleagues could
think that he follows certain schools although he is not.
I think it is very important for us to understand the difficulties
academics face if they want to join the Wikimedian community. And maybe
we should rethink about our strategy and approach on working with academics.
Greetings
Ting
[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman
[2] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufkl%C3%A4rung
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [VereinDE-l] Bericht zur Verleihung der Zedler-Medaille
und Academy
Datum: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:02:56 +0100 (CET)
Von: Olaf Simons <olaf.simons(a)pierre-marteau.com>
Antwort an: Mailingliste des Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. / mailing list
of Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. <vereinde-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
An: Mailingliste des Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. / mailing list of
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. <vereinde-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> ... Vorallem in Bezug auf die Gewinnung von Autoren
> aus den Wissenschaften, was mE bisher nicht recht gelungen ist. Andererseits
> scheint die Veranstaltung bei den Partnern durchaus beliebt zu sein
> (immerhin zB BASF und RoG dabei).
Ich denke, wir sollten grundsätzlicher darüber nachdenken, welche immensen
Probleme Wikipedia Wissenschaftlern stellt, Zwei kann ich Euch kurz notieren:
Ich schrieb, kein Geheimnis, den WP-Artikel "Roman" - vielleicht bin ich jemand,
der das beruflich tun sollte. 2005 trat die ''Enzyklopädie der Frühen Neuzeit''
an mich heran mit der Anfrage für sie den Artikel "Erzählliteratur (ca.
1470-1800)" zu schreiben. Das tat ich (weit kürzer als im WP-Artikel), meine
Seiten durchliefen die Redaktionsschritte bei Metzler unbeanstandet, bis ich in
der letzten Situng vor dem Druck wie ein kleiner Student als Wikipedia-Plagiator
aufflog. Man hatte in meinen Seiten nicht direkt Wortgleichhheiten aber doch
eine ähnliche Argumentation wie im Wikipedia-Artikel gefunden. Es ließ sich
aufklären, dass das kein Wunder ist - der dortige Artikel ist von mir, aber es
war für die ''Enzyklopädie der Frühen Neuzeit'' danach doch unmöglich, den
Artikel zu drucken. Man wird ihn wohl durch zwei Artikel zu Roman und Novelle
ersetzen, ich bin da als Autor tot. (Noch bange ich, dass sie in Reclams
demnächst erscheinenden Lexikon ähnliches feststellen, ich schrieb auch dort in
einem kleinen Lexikon auf Einladung den Artikel Roman, mühte mich diesmal
redlich, den Text so schwer zu machen, dass niemand bei Wikipedia gegenliest).
Geschichte 2: Ich schreib vor einigen Wochen den Artikel "Aufklärung" neu und
hatte zwischenzeitlich immense Bauchschmerzen. Edits kamen hinein, bei denen es
mir das wissenschaftliche Genick gebrochen hätte, hätte man sie meiner Person
zugeordnet. Man kann sagen: ist doch kein Problem: Die Versionsgeschichte
klärt's - ist aber doch eines, da niemand so genau nachsieht. In Fachkreisen
kann man den Artikel mir zuordnen, ich muss da seitdem einen heiklen Balanceakt
durchführen: Wie stelle ich sicher, dass nur in die Passagen merkwürdige Edits
einfließen, die man mir ganz sicher nicht zutraut? Das Problem ist dabei extrem
diffizil: Ich bin auch dann als Fachwissenschaftler bedroht, wenn Edits anderer
WP-Autoren sich mit Fußnoten aus der Sekundärliteratur absichern. Zum Thema
Aufklärung gibt es Fragen und Fachliteratur, zu denen ich besser nicht Bezug
nehme. Unter Fachkollegen sterbe ich, wenn mir auf einer Konferenz Leute
begegnen und sagen: "Ich wusste gar nicht, dass Sie dieser und jener
wissenschaftlichen Richtung angehören, vermutete, Sie finden solche
Argumentationen suspekt..." Allein die Tatsache, dass Wissenschaftler
irgendetwas nachweislich behaupten rettet mich nicht als wissenschaftlichen
Autor, der selbst für eine bestimmte Position einstehen muss...
Die zwei Geschichten zeigen, dass es in der Praxis extrem heikel für den
einzelnen Wissenschaftler werden kann, in Wikipedia zu veröffentlichen. Ich
schlug deswegen vorlängst schon einmal vor, ganz anders über den Wissenschaftler
bei Wikipedia nachzudenken. Wir sollten nicht unbedingt Wissenschaftler als
Artikel-Autoren gewinnen. Wir können ihnen nur bei harmlosen Einträgen wie
bibliographischen oder naturwissenschaftlichen einige Sicherheit bieten, sic da
nicht selbst zu prostituieren.
Nachdenken sollten wird darüber, wie Wissenschaftler publizieren müssen - und
ihnen bei uns eine adäquate Plattform geben: so etwas wie eine Wissenschaftliche
Reihe, in der Konferenzbeiträge erscheinen, und die bei uns im Druck wie auch
online verfügbar werden. Für Wissenschaftler spricht nichts dagegen diese
Beiträge unter eine Commons-Lizenz zu stellen. Sie erhalten auch bei Rodopi,
Metzler oder Reclam nichts für ihre Arbeit. Wichtig ist für sie, dass klar ist,
was sie wann schrieben. Was andere danach mit ihnen machen, ist egal. Sie an uns
anzubinden, ihre Beiträge in WP auszuwerten, sie mit WP zu vernetzen, wäre ein
Gewinn. Wikiversity wird nicht die Lösung dieses Problems sein. Wir müssen über
den WP-Tellerand sehen und begreifen, unter welchen Bedingungen und welchem
spezifischen Leistungs- und Konsistenzdruck Wissenschaftler agieren müssen. Hier
sehe ich bislang (Kompass 2020 las ich mir durch und erschauerte) nur ganz
prekäre Gedanken eines Zuschnitts der gänzlich vorbeigeht an den realen
Problemen der gewünschten Interaktion.
Die Zedler-Medaille – ich fuhr nach Frankfurt, um zu sehen, was ich von ihr
denken soll. Inhaltlich ist sie prekär. Wikipedia spannt die Mainzer Akademie,
BASF und Reporter ohne Grenzen ein, um seine eigenen Autoren zu ehren. Als Event
ist sie indes gelungen: Es muss uns darum gehen, derartige Institutionen an uns
anzubinden. Faktisch spielen diese mit, weil wir ein kleiner Mediengigant sind
und sie sich selbst mit uns schmücken. Die Win/Win-Situation deckt das
Unternehmen, doch das allein kann uns eigentlich nicht genügen, um das einmal so
heikel zu sagen.
Olaf
--
Dr. Olaf Simons
Forschungszentrum Gotha
der Uni Erfurt etc.
_______________________________________________
VereinDE-l mailing list
VereinDE-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/vereinde-l
Again Aude, this is your statement only. This is not an official
statement of what the policy is or isn't, nor what is or isn't done under any
policy which may or may not exist. You may be satisfied that you are right, but
I would rather have a citable source. Humans are not citable sources, per
our policy.
W
In a message dated 11/28/2010 4:24:14 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
aude.wiki(a)gmail.com writes:
Under the policy, WMF is permitted to collect and keep apache and squid
logs
but the policy gives more leeway than what is done in practice. WMF does
collect squid logs but quite sure it's only 1/1000 sample. They don't keep
apache access logs.
In a message dated 11/28/2010 8:09:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
nawrich(a)gmail.com writes:
> There's a joke in here somewhere, maybe about applying en.wp talkpage
> style argumentation to "real life", but maybe we can just call this a
> dead issue and move on rather than argue in circles forever with Will.
>
>
I would say that you are trying to paint me as some kind of antagonist who
has no purpose in my argument direction. No Ad Hominem attacks please.
There is a quite definite purpose in my point.
That the WMF has no specific policy on what to retain, nor how long to
retain it.
That is a rather important issue for many people.
I hope that people will be considerate of the nature of this privacy issue
and not try to sweep it under the rug. It should be addressed clearly and
directly.