Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-30/News and notes

I hope the WMF are taking into account that one of their "strategic key areas" for which they are increasing support, is affected by the recent arbcom ruling that "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed" are now covered by standard discretionary sanctions. This may affect the Wikipedia experience of new and inexperienced editors recruited in the subcontinent. Discussion of this is here.

A minor point on the Telegraph article, is that its author seems unaware that arbcom members are not required to be administrators, they just almost always are. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's regrettable that WMF can't try to get at least one Wikipedian photo credentials for this Olympics. It is probably difficult, but it would be worth it to try. Maybe in Sochi?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the Olympics. Sochi feels like a reach. (Accreditation probably would need to be submitted by mid-2013.) 2014 Commonwealth Games not as much. Even if we had an accredited photographer there, the pictures would only be allowable under fair use because of Olympic AND Foundation licensing restrictions. If people seriously want to make this happen, supporting the 2012 Paralympic coverage on Wikipedia and especially on Wikinews will be vitally important. Details on how to help can be found at Wikinews:Paralympic Games‎. --LauraHale (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph story

"He wrongly confuses the English Wikipedia's rules for controversial content with those of Commons, writing somewhat boldly that "Wikimedia Commons makes massive volumes of pornography freely available to any Wikipedia visitor."" Ahem, but each and every Commons file is accessible through a Wikipedia search (NSFW examples: [1], [2]), and every Commons file has its own page in Wikipedia: example (NSFW). Besides, Wikipedia contains thousands upon thousands of Commons links, especially so in articles dealing with adult content. J N 466 14:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And where exactly does Williams even so much as hint that there is child pornography on Wikipedia? Paranoid much? All he says is, But the incident will fuel debate over Wikipedia’s permissive policy on pornography. Fundraising materials boast that Wikipedia “is a safe and trustworthy website for children to do their research”, yet Wikimedia Commons makes massive volumes of pornography freely available to any Wikipedia visitor. He is contrasting fundraiser materials presenting Wikipedia as God's gift to underprivileged children, and a child-safe resource, with the presence of copious amounts of unfiltered adult material on this site. --J N 466 15:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen says, :And where exactly does Williams even so much as hint that there is child pornography on Wikipedia?"—This is part of it: "and with the UK government's proposed new controls "to protect children online ... potentially limiting access to Wikipedia".Tony (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reach. The plain reading of that is that "protecting children online" includes limiting their access to pornography, including the stuff hosted on Wikimedia projects. No hint about CP there. Ntsimp (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 J N 466 16:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that someone edit this piece to remove the statement which falsely claims that there is a linkage to child porn in the Telegraph story. For one thing, there is no such connection made, and for another, this seems very much like the tactic all-too-often used to deflect criticism about the overuse of porn on WP (i.e., bring up the kiddie porn or censorship strawman). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Note that I also undid this edit by The ed17 (talk · contribs). Removing 9.6kb of text with no explanation is clearly not a minor edit. WilliamH (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks William, I have no idea how that happened. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can safely assume ed17 didn't mean to cut off the entire page mid-sentence. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be obvious that the Telegraph was fed this story by one of Fae's enemies, most likely the same tiresome gang of anti-sexual content campaigners who keep pestering Jimbo on his talk page and hang out with the nutters on Wikipediocracy. No doubt they're shopping it around various media outlets, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's further coverage. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley van Haeften/User:Fae should have stepped down from his position as head of Wikimedia UK and the international chapters organization the moment that ArbCom passed the ban against him. This is political common sense and AvH is clearly a political man in a political position; the resignation should have been instantaneous. Now WP gets another black eye. Moreover, the porn issue just keeps on giving and giving — that large infected splinter in Wikipedia's backside will continue to fester until we have the moxie to place Commons under the supervision and control of En-WP.

The whole thing is stupid. No duh that one of AvH's myriad enemies or critics fed the story to the right wing press. That's irrelevant. It was inevitable. It was extremely irresponsible of AvH/Fae to place the project in that position by failing to resign at the appropriate juncture. The best thing he can do now is to do what should have happened a week ago — STAND DOWN. Carrite (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. The technology correspondent of the best-selling broadsheet newspaper in the UK isn't just going to write things because someone rang him up. He writes them because there is a story and the reason there is a story is that Ashley van Haeften has chosen to remain in position, his fellow trustees have decided to back a mate rather than consider what is best for the charity and the Chief Executive has failed in his duty to advise the trustees adequately on what is necessary for the welfare of the charity. The question is will enough of them see sense before the annual fundraiser? Or are they going to risk the story coming back to hit them then?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And might I ask if you were involved in feeding them this story? Prioryman (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The only person to hold responsible for the story is the credited author. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hmm WMUK memebers now trying to get enough people together to force an EGM http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_EGM_2012 .©Geni 01:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good time to consider fixing arbcom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 02:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Fae has now resigned as chair. (link). WilliamH (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which has also been reported by the Telegraph: Wikipedia charity chairman resigns after pornography row. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]