Archives |
---|
Contents
April 13: WikiWednesday Salon NYC and Mini-Video Opportunity
Wednesday April 13, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon NYC and Mini-Video Opportunity | |
---|---|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. Special this month, a Mini-Video opportunity for individuals to share their Wikipedia experiences (during pre-meeting, 6-7pm, and in side-office during regular meetup). A videographer will be present to record 1-3 minute Mini-Videos of folks informally speaking, sharing anything about their Wikipedia-related projects, whether an edit-a-thon they joined, an article they edited, or a class project they were a part of, etc. We will also follow up on plans for recent (Art+Feminism!) and upcoming edit-a-thons, and other outreach activities. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also place our chapter's votes for the global Wikimedia Foundation board. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
I can't comment at AE
I can leave messages on uninvolved admin pages. But here's another thinly veiled diff. I was brought to 3RR and no action. Certainly not editing to call anyone a "pedophile." The redaction (and oversight) was a single word (Redacted) and my comment otherwise stands. I am arguing that the person who is being pawned by both sides in the GG dispute need not be in the article and for that I am being rather harshly criticized by the subject of AE enforcement. I don't know how Gamaliel is neutral regarding enforcement as he has banned me from his talk page and the topic ban originated because he didn't want AE requests against MB (whence the immediate DROPTHESTICK). In November, the block imposed by HJ Mitchell was overturned and Gamaliels revdel's were reversed (only time I've seen that). That's when he modified the topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I frankly can't unravel all the procedural history here of who's allowed to do what or to interact with whom and when; it has become more complicated than some of the cases I'm actually paid to litigate, and life is short. But looking at what you've just pointed me to, my first reaction is that the relative seriousness of concerted online harassment and bullying, on the one hand, and of making silly references to Trump's hands, on the other, is so different that it is a category mistake, a distraction, and a disservice to discuss the two in the same posting. That is aimed at everyone, including User:MarkBernstein although I understand what he was saying there, and yet at no one in particular. As for whether a victim of concerted harassment or criminal activity should be named in a Wikipedia article, that is an everpresent issue that I've written about dating back to 2007 (see links on my userpage); I don't know what specific instance you're referring to as a current instance, but it certainly doesn't sound good based on the limited information you've provided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've requested and argued that the "topic ban" be lifted because it's not enforced and it's too complicated. I'd rather have just have regular civility rather than the complicated history. The short version, if you care, the person in question that I don't wish to have in WP is someone that was harassed for her employment, had some things dug up about her regarding "child sexual agency" that she had written about. While investigating that, her childrens toy maker employer discovered a second job and terminated her with a statement it was unrelated to the other issue. Her employer was roundly seen as "caving." Neither disclosed the second job. A week later it was discovered and published. All sides of it is in reliable sources so she has become a pawn in a battle to condemn harassment or exonerate her employer. There's no way to cover this properly as a non-notable person, not charged with a crime but an obvious victim of harassment. There's nothing new in the methods, so it's IMO a gratuitous scalp counting exercise. It's the most bizarre collection of antagonists w/ absurd alliances (like gamers that want original Japanese sexualised content basically on the same side as anti-pedophelia foundations). --DHeyward (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I was the one who revision-deleted the statement, as a BLP vio. Repeating the redacted content here is way out of line. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: No names were used. Both terms are in reliable sources (one you left on the talk page because it's in the WaPo and used by MB.) Now if the WaPo is going there and the only reason it's okay is because you agree with the point it makes, highlights the problem of having the content on WP. "Upping the body count" is not okay. Selectively biased oversight to support a POV is really problematic. I deleted that paragraph about her in the article before the latest came out in uncanny foresight so we don't have to keep updating it with details. If you really want to help, weigh in that this young women's life need not be paraded on WP and used as fodder for a cause. Deleting the deletion argument, while retaining the insertion argument that use the language for occupation is not okay. --DHeyward (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLPTALK we need to avoid repeating allegations onwiki. The Washington Post has decided to include these allegations, but until it's decided that they should be included on Wikipedia, we should not. I had not seen MarkBernstein's mention of it—that is now also revision-deleted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: Excellent, however I hope you reflect on how you were brought in and it is likely manipulative. If it's like in the past, other admins were duped into becoming involved only to learn they were being used to further an argument rather than protecting the encyclopedia. My apologies if you weren't solicited to oversight and consider the source if you were. --DHeyward (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLPTALK we need to avoid repeating allegations onwiki. The Washington Post has decided to include these allegations, but until it's decided that they should be included on Wikipedia, we should not. I had not seen MarkBernstein's mention of it—that is now also revision-deleted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: No names were used. Both terms are in reliable sources (one you left on the talk page because it's in the WaPo and used by MB.) Now if the WaPo is going there and the only reason it's okay is because you agree with the point it makes, highlights the problem of having the content on WP. "Upping the body count" is not okay. Selectively biased oversight to support a POV is really problematic. I deleted that paragraph about her in the article before the latest came out in uncanny foresight so we don't have to keep updating it with details. If you really want to help, weigh in that this young women's life need not be paraded on WP and used as fodder for a cause. Deleting the deletion argument, while retaining the insertion argument that use the language for occupation is not okay. --DHeyward (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This can be answered in by those involved in this conversation without repeating the information whose inclusion is disputed. Let us assume that individual X is the victim of serious acts of harassment. Let us also assume that everyone in this conversation deplores such harassment and would like to raise awareness that harassment exists and must be combatted, without inflicting further harm on the victim. To what extent, if any, is this purpose served by making reference to specifics of the harassment on-wiki? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Considering the tactics are not new and harassment is covered, I would say X need not be named. I don't advocate including that individual at all. The problem starts when circumstances surrounding X become "complicated" and broad societal issues are focused on the single individual. X's views on those issues and harassment are not purely X's individually and WP shouldn't focus so keenly on individuals, especially in news cycles and when they became prominent only when inserted between two public figures, without any method of consent. Even if their views are directly questioned by public figures or other views lead to a very public termination. There are usually public figure advocates that can address the broader issues, but personalizing it doesn't always sharpen the focus. If X is "complicated" and doesn't bring clarity to the issue, then X's personal story is not particularly relevant. A lot like sexual assault, which we all agree is wrong, we don't need to go into naming victims, their history, beliefs, etc, to understand that it's wrong at any level or that it's a prevalent issue. When X chooses not to address it and they are not a public figure, WP should get out of the news cycle. Once we got to the point that naming and sourcing opened up Pandora's box and clouded the issue, it's time to close it. --DHeyward (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
standing strong | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 99 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Saturday April 30: Contemporary Art of the Middle East and North Africa @ Guggenheim
Saturday April 30, 1-6pm: Contemporary Art of the Middle East and North Africa @ Guggenheim | |
---|---|
On Saturday April 30, 2016, in conjunction with a global campaign, the Guggenheim will host its fourth Wikipedia edit-a-thon — or, #guggathon — to enhance Wikipedia's coverage of modern and contemporary artists from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, and to counter geocultural systemic bias on Wikipedia. The Guggenheim aims to further the goals of the Guggenheim UBS MAP Global Art Initiative, and build on the model of campaigns like the Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Guggenheim: Women in Architecture, Wikipedia Asian Month, and Art+Feminism. New and experienced editors are welcome. The event will include a training session for participants who are new to Wikipedia and Wikipedia specialists will be on hand to provide basic instruction and editing support. Can’t join us in New York? Visit our global MENA Artists Month partnership page to coordinate international and online events as well.
Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) ~~~~~ |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Decided not to bother with DRV
It's not worth the trouble. Dingsuntil (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.