[23:02] <@Keegan> <begin logging>
[23:02] <harej> First post!
[23:02] <@Keegan> Sure, let me get my links up
[23:03] <@Keegan> I've only been on my feet for the past twelve hours :P
[23:03] <bastique> Is that Kevin Kevin?
[23:03] <kevin_g> Hey Cary, yes it is
[23:03] * Keegan changes topic to 'Open forum | Public log will be posted | Agenda: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/IRC_Agendas'
[23:04] <pakaran> I've heard on enwiki the backlog has been reduced significantly?
[23:04] <@Keegan> Okay, I'm going to get the ball rolling here
[23:04] <@Keegan> Basically, what the ultimate goal of this task force is is to produce a policy on living people, applicable globally, that can be enforced by the Board of Trustees
[23:05] <@Keegan> The other ideas are ways to work toward that goal, including the recommendations process
[23:05] <@Keegan> At this point we're looking at filtering out the ideas to the appropriate venues, whether it is policy, board recommendation, or task force recommendations
[23:06] <@Keegan> Right now we funneling the board recommendations to figure out writing a functional policy
[23:06] <@Keegan> So let's get started on Board recommendations.
[23:06] <@Keegan> At this point we have semi-protection (which can be expanded into other admin functions)
[23:07] <@Keegan> And the other ideas relate to just having people be nice to each other
[23:07] <@Keegan> Go!
[23:07] <NuclearWarfare> Protection has to be made more flexible
[23:07] <NuclearWarfare> Not just with flagged revisions
[23:07] <pakaran> semi-protection, while it works well against drive-by vandalism, doesn't help against deliberate malice.
[23:07] <harej> How do you make protection more flexible? Add more editing levels?
[23:08] <NuclearWarfare> No, allowing admins to configure what "confirmed" is for that individual article.
[23:08] <irregardless> protection also does nothing about problems that already exist
[23:08] <NuclearWarfare> Instead of 10 edits and 4 days
[23:08] <@Keegan> pakaran has a good point, many issues are from systemic harrassment from non-wikimedia sites and RL
[23:08] <NuclearWarfare> Say 1000 edits and a month
[23:08] <pakaran> in other words, if someone changes a lead sentence to '''John Smith''' is gay (born 1970) is...
[23:08] <irregardless> it arguably makes them worse, since it limits the number of people who can fix them
[23:08] <pakaran> it gets caught fast.
[23:09] <@Keegan> So following that, how you y'all imagine parsing consumer complaints? Naturally people often feel harassed for legitimate and illegitimate concerns
[23:09] <pakaran> and using semi-prot to stop that driveby change from getting in, is fine, but...
[23:09] <irregardless> I would only support protection if it followed a manual review of the article
[23:09] <KFP> NuclearWarfare: Hmm, that could present some problems.
[23:09] * @Keegan nods
[23:09] <pakaran> irregardless, on the other hand, semi-protection prevents a greater proportion of bad edits than good ones.
[23:10] <irregardless> supposedly
[23:10] <irregardless> on a high-traffic page, sure, on an article that only gets 1 edit a month, maybe not
[23:10] <pakaran> noww I do agree if we could protect certain pages to an "editor' level (say, make it about as hard to get as rollback), and let those articles continue to be improved during bad times (e.g. celebrities in scandal)
[23:10] <KFP> NuclearWarfare: I mean, having different standards for different topics and articles can be problematic. Although we already do have that, of course.
[23:11] <pakaran> KFP, of course we do. The Obama article will liekly be semi-protected forever. articles on beetle species, less so.
[23:11] <@Keegan> So, what I personally feel, is that we have a lack of assumption of good faith
[23:11] <KFP> pakaran: Yup.
[23:11] <@Keegan> If a subject edits in good faith, they should be treated that way
[23:11] <irregardless> but the last thing we want to do is protect libel, which is why review is important
[23:11] <@Keegan> Are there any more effective measures of asking people to be nice?
[23:12] <@Keegan> irregardless: correct
[23:12] <irregardless> ban them from editing BLPs if they act like a dick to the subject?
[23:12] <harej> It appears GW Bush is still semi-protected.
[23:12] <@Keegan> irregardless: I'm looking for a more...vague approach
[23:12] <NuclearWarfare> We shouldn't be that nice. If anything, we should just block them all together
[23:13] <NuclearWarfare> But that's not really the issue, I don't think. We can handle things if we manage to detect that someone is acting like a dick on a BLP
[23:13] <irregardless> though part of the problem is that article subjects often don't act in what would be considered the best interest of the project
[23:13] <NuclearWarfare> The issue is actually detecting
[23:13] <harej> What about a person who adds "contentious information", but is doing so in good faith for the purposes of augmenting the article and not being a prick? If you think from the perspective of someone who has never edited Wikipedia, it's a plausible scenario.
[23:13] <@Keegan> NW: Well, the issue there is that we're supposed to play nice with other editors
[23:14] <@Keegan> harej: More than plausible
[23:14] <NuclearWarfare> We're quite too nice, if you ask me.
[23:14] <NuclearWarfare> We really ought to be blocking on the first signs of BLP vandalism
[23:14] <@Keegan> Globally?
[23:14] <@Keegan> Remember, we're not talking about en.wiki
[23:14] <pakaran> harej, things like that arguably have happened. look at michael phelps' article from the time of the bong scandal.
[23:14] <NuclearWarfare> Every project ought to do that
[23:15] <harej> Keegan, like it or not, enwiki gets the most attention.
[23:15] <NuclearWarfare> If someone disrupts a biography of a living person, they have obviously shown that they don't care about ethics
[23:15] <harej> When people think of Wikipedia, or the Wikimedia Foundation, they think of its flagship product.
[23:15] <@Keegan> en.wiki is also the most lenient of all
[23:15] <pakaran> Keegan, really?
[23:15] <harej> more lenient than swahili wikipedia?
[23:15] <kevin_g> how do other wikis than en deal with BLP vandalism?
[23:16] <@Keegan> Have you tried editing wiktionary? :)
[23:16] <NuclearWarfare> Hmm, this is an issue
[23:16] <harej> True, Keegan. They say off the bat that they'll ban your ass if you whistle at a white woman.
[23:16] <NuclearWarfare> guillom, how does frwiki deal with BLP vandalism?
[23:16] <@Keegan> Well, our European friends can't join us for this, but that's why we have them involved
[23:16] <guillom> NuclearWarfare, they don't; we don't have a BLP policy AFAIK
[23:17] <guillom> i mean, they deal with it the same way they deal with any vandalism
[23:17] <NuclearWarfare> OK, hmm
[23:17] <@Keegan> de.wiki has the most strict policies
[23:17] <NuclearWarfare> Isn't frwiki the fourth largest wiki?
[23:17] <@Keegan> Relating to image and text
[23:17] <bastique> NuclearWarfare, third
[23:17] <NuclearWarfare> What about jawiki
[23:17] <bastique> actually, fifth if you count frwiktionary enwiktionary
[23:17] <@Keegan> jawiki is mainly manga articles
[23:17] <bastique> in terms of articles
[23:18] <harej> Keegan, de.wiki also has flagged revisions *grr8
[23:18] <harej> *grr* *
[23:18] <@Keegan> Oh yeah, I meant to add that into the current recommendations draft
[23:18] <pakaran> flagged revisions wouldn't solvve everything.
[23:18] <harej> I have flagged revisions running on my own wiki. It works like a damn charm.
[23:18] * @Keegan notes to do that later
[23:18] * KFP is now known as KFP_sleep
[23:18] <bastique> guillom, that isn't to say that there aren't problems with biographies on frwiki, or dewiki
[23:18] <harej> It wouldn't, pakaran, just as semi-protection doesn't solve everything. But it's a tool we can use to our advantage.
[23:19] <bastique> and the French are much more happy to serve lawsuits :)
[23:19] <pakaran> if an IP adds subtle misinformation to a higher section, and you're editing and save a section 5 pages down the article, it will be the flagged revision
[23:19] <NuclearWarfare> pakaran: But it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now
[23:19] <pakaran> sorrry if i screwed up the terminology
[23:19] <kevin_g> we cant expect any 1 thing to solve everything though, and shouldn't expect to
[23:19] <guillom> bastique, don't talk to me about lawsuits; actually, I can't hear you
[23:19] <@Keegan> pakaran: What semi and FR do, more than anything, is to alleviate the passion that offended subjects may have
[23:19] <bastique> :)
[23:19] <@Keegan> If you can point to a way that we can help control their integrity, that little bit helps
[23:20] * @Keegan afk for thirty seconds, please keep chatting
[23:20] <harej> bastique, happier than Americans? I find that hard to believe.[23:20] <pakaran> and it does stop the random driveby "subject is a MASSIVE ASSHOLE"
[23:20] <pakaran> (which, however, is LESS of a libel issue than more subtle stuff)
[23:20] <NuclearWarfare> ^
[23:20] <harej> typical vandalism patrolling stops the blatant stuff pretty well
[23:20] <harej> i don't think childish vandalism is a real problem with our current anti-vandalism software.
[23:20] <NuclearWarfare> I feel that more so than flagged revisions, patrolled revisions could help a lot
[23:21] <NuclearWarfare> And we really ought to make that a priority
[23:21] <@Keegan> Remember, this is a two-pronged approach
[23:21] <NuclearWarfare> That could be launched on all wikis without an issue
[23:21] <kevin_g> how so? i thought that was the weaker part of the FR/PR proposal
[23:21] <pakaran> AFAIK, the developer working on it is working as fast as he can.
[23:21] <@Keegan> We want to protect the subjects, as well as our function and reputation
[23:21] <@Keegan> They go hand in hand
[23:21] <harej> well flagged revisions has different settings. one for "this revision is not vandalism" and "this one is not just not vandalism but it's really good"
[23:21] <harej> and stuff in between
[23:21] <pakaran> which doesn't stop someone from complaining on Jimbo's talk page (because, uhm, jimbo's role is fixing everything) every other day
[23:22] <NuclearWarfare> It's certainly weaker, but it allows for the review of articles, no matter what the project has decided on for the "anyone can edit and have their edit immediately shown"
[23:22] <pakaran> harej, that's good. I know there's articles where I would dbe happy flagging "no unexpected penis" (to paraphrase someone), but not be sure of all the minor things
[23:23] <@Keegan> Hrm
[23:23] <@Keegan> Okay
[23:23] <@Keegan> So what I'm getting from this is
[23:23] <@Keegan> Semi-protection and FR recommendations serve the two prongs
[23:23] * Alison (~Alison@wikipedia/Alison) has joined #wikipedia-blptf
[23:23] <@Keegan> Hi Allie
[23:23] <Alison> ^_^
[23:23] <Alison> Hi there
[23:23] <Alison> Found yaz
[23:23] <KFP_sleep> Hey Alison.
[23:24] <NuclearWarfare> Hey Alison
[23:24] <bastique> Alison can make the decisions.
[23:24] <Alison> lol - riiight
[23:24] <@Keegan> She decides what I eat for lunch every day when she packs it
[23:24] <Alison> Ok, I delegate all tasks to Flonight
[23:24] <Alison> ;)
[23:24] <Alison> Decision made!
[23:25] <Alison> (seeing as she's not here :D )
[23:25] <Alison> Sorry I'm late, guys
[23:25] <NuclearWarfare> No problem
[23:25] <pakaran> I do think we need to encourage more people to do new page patrol.
[23:25] <NuclearWarfare> OK, time to restart the recap Keegan?
[23:25] <pakaran> Right now, it's not something that "looks good in your rfa".
[23:25] <pakaran> Or not as much as some other things.
[23:25] <@Keegan> Anyway, @bastique mainly, what do you think about the feasibility of a recommendation that projects adopt FR (once it is finalized software wise, which will be about the same time this wraps up)?
[23:25] <@Keegan> NW: Alison's in the skinny, I talked to her about it the other night
[23:26] <NuclearWarfare> kk
[23:26] <Alison> 'skinny' is not a word I identify with :D
[23:26] <bastique> Sure.
[23:26] <bastique> I'll issue that recommendation tomorrow :)
[23:26] <@Keegan> Leave my southern euphemisms alone!
[23:27] <bastique> With the backing of the Living Persons Task Force
[23:27] <Alison> Does anyone actually have a rollout date for FR on enwiki yet?
[23:27] <NuclearWarfare> Alison: No
[23:27] <@Keegan> What I mean is, is that a rail worth touching?
[23:27] <Alison> kk
[23:27] <irregardless> we don't currently have an estimate as to when the rollout date will be estimated
[23:27] <bastique> I know people are working hard on it.
[23:27] <NuclearWarfare> theoretically
[23:28] <NuclearWarfare> [/cynicism]
[23:28] <pakaran> and theoretically, we could just implement skynet to use AI to detect false revisions and shock users through their keyboards.
[23:28] <pakaran> i think the question is what we can do in the meantime.
[23:29] <pakaran> sorry for the tone there.
[23:29] <NuclearWarfare> Hmm, I kinda like that idea...[[Extension:ClueBotShocker]]?
[23:29] <pakaran> [[User:ClueBatBot]]?
[23:29] <NuclearWarfare> OK, back on track
[23:30] <@Keegan> Right right
[23:30] <NuclearWarfare> What exactly did we decide on for semi-protection
[23:30] <NuclearWarfare> It's a good thing, but only catches the blatant vandalism and shouldn't be relied on?
[23:30] <@Keegan> It works for a recommendation at the reasonable request of the subject based on the edit history
[23:30] <bastique> I think indefinite semi-protection for biographies with any history of issues.
[23:31] <@Keegan> ^
[23:31] <kevin_g> it is more useful for the unwatched articles
[23:31] <Alison> +1 Bastique
[23:31] <@Keegan> Which leads to another issue of the finding of fact on dealing with people
[23:31] <pakaran> kevin_g, well, yeah, anyone who vandalizes obama is going to be rolled back and warned in a minute.
[23:31] <@Keegan> Reasonable AGF of subject requests
[23:31] <pakaran> flagged protection, semi protection, or no protection
[23:32] <pakaran> which is why we'll never have seigenthaller like issues with him
[23:32] <NuclearWarfare> [23:31:43] <pakaran> kevin_g, well, yeah, anyone who vandalizes obama is going to be rolled back and warned in a minute.
[23:32] <NuclearWarfare> It ought to be blocked, not warned.
[23:32] <@Keegan> NW: Well yeah, in theory
[23:32] <pakaran> if you want to be taken to ANI for blocking without warning.
[23:32] <@Keegan> But we're doing the delicate dance of meshing theory and practice
[23:33] <NuclearWarfare> pakaran: I've been doing to for 6 months now
[23:33] <pakaran> nice.
[23:33] * Krimpet (fran@wikimedia/Fran-Rogers) has joined #wikipedia-blptf
[23:33] <Alison> Heyya Fran
[23:33] <@Keegan> So how can we focus local projects assuming good faith for the actions of administrators?
[23:33] <bastique> Krimpet, lovely cottage :)
[23:33] <@Keegan> Bear in mind, en.wiki is a different creature
[23:34] <NuclearWarfare> Keegan, I'm not sure what you mean?
[23:34] <@Keegan> Like pakaran said about being taken to AN/I
[23:34] <harej> Each individual project is a different culture. How can one group of white Americans dictate what the different ethnicities and different projects do?
[23:34] <@Keegan> There's no need to cause stress for someone trying to maintain the projects
[23:34] <Krimpet> bastique, I'm at a loss how it fit inside an egg. And I think it's covered in yolk. >_>
[23:34] <bastique> harej, I assure you there are plenty of Asian Americans running things on Wikipedia too
[23:34] <@Keegan> harej: Right, we're not trying to dictate anything
[23:35] <NuclearWarfare> This task force is quite broad, too
[23:35] <NuclearWarfare> Anyway
[23:35] <pakaran> harej, yeah, i don't think it's a cultural or language issue to make an effort not to hurt living people.
[23:35] <@Keegan> harej: Remember my comment about pessimism and unconstructive projects :)
[23:35] <pakaran> I'm tempted to quote the tao te ching here, actually.
[23:35] <NuclearWarfare> Administrators should be given much broader discretion when dealing with BLPs, on any project, for sure
[23:36] <pakaran> the theory, on enwiki, is that they are.
[23:36] <@Keegan> NW: Well, that gets into what I'm thinking about
[23:36] <kevin_g> officially admins have great discretion to act, but the reality is different
[23:36] <@Keegan> It's not about latitude, it's about...well, respect
[23:36] <NuclearWarfare> The arbitration committee on enwiki tried something like that ~two years ago with the Footnoted Quotes decision
[23:36] <bastique> We're people familiar with En Wikipedia right now. And that seems to be where our focus is. When we have FloNight and Hei Ber around, we'll be able to talk about more cross-project things
[23:36] <pakaran> and enwiki, arguably, has the most acute issue.
[23:36] <pakaran> (and the one that tends to cast the greatest negative light on wmf)
[23:37] <@Keegan> kevin_g: Right
[23:37] <@Keegan> Theory v practice
[23:37] <NuclearWarfare> I'm not sure how you instill a culture change on an entire project
[23:37] <bastique> pakaran, I've seen a lot of the (generally frivolous) litigation brought on in relation to other Wikipedias
[23:37] <@Keegan> NW: You can't
[23:37] <@Keegan> You can only provide the inspiration
[23:37] <bastique> And lets not forget the Rush Limbaugh / Wikiquote debacle.
[23:37] <@Keegan> Like free content issues
[23:37] <@Keegan> s/content/images
[23:38] <pakaran> bastique, sorry.
[23:38] <harej> Whether Wikiquote should exist is a whole other debate, albeit one I'd gladly participate in.
[23:38] <@Keegan> We'll get to non-text issues shortly
[23:38] <@Keegan> Here's my example
[23:38] <bastique> I personally think that Wikiquote should exist as a separate project but under the policies of the related language Wikipedia
[23:38] * @Keegan looks
[23:38] <bastique> and administration.
[23:39] <kevin_g> @bastique:sounds reasonable
[23:39] <bastique> And that's my official personal opinion.
[23:39] <@Keegan> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&action=historysubmit&diff=343621893&oldid=343434073
[23:39] <@Keegan> That was removed the *moment* the caller mentioned it
[23:39] <@Keegan> Followed by Wikipedia bashing
[23:40] <@Keegan> So I suppose that's to awareness we can fix issues
[23:40] <bastique> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&diff=next&oldid=343621893
[23:40] <@Keegan> I emailed Mr. Hannity about it
[23:40] <NuclearWarfare> Keegan: The thing is, that sort of material would have stayed under the current BLP policy, and even likely a stricter one
[23:40] <@Keegan> Probably hear from his this week
[23:40] <@Keegan> Point is the outreach
[23:41] <@Keegan> *him
[23:41] <@Keegan> NW: The point is that it can be fixed
[23:41] <pakaran> oh, here's an issue. What about subtle bias, not necessarily confined to articles that actually ARE BLPs? Particularly in content brought in from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
[23:41] <@Keegan> Real time
[23:41] <pakaran> some of that sort of thing could become BLP sensitive.
[23:41] <bastique> Hmm...that editor looks like a deliberate problematic editor.
[23:42] <@Keegan> pakaran: That's able to be handled by the part of the en.wiki MOS with "controversy and criticism" sections ;)
[23:42] <@Keegan> But I digress
[23:42] <@Keegan> Recommendation ideas on outreach to both project volunteers and subjects?
[23:42] <bastique> Okay: here's a proposal. A team of response agents, specifically concerned with Living Persons
[23:43] <bastique> Kind of what some of what you guys are doing now.
[23:43] <Alison> Question: are we working to this agenda tonight? http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/IRC_Agendas
[23:43] * Alison is confusted
[23:43] <NuclearWarfare> How's that different from OTRS cary?
[23:43] <@Keegan> Alison: Yup
[23:43] <NuclearWarfare> Alison: Ostensibly yes
[23:43] <pakaran> Alison, we, erm, were until we got distracted.
[23:43] <bastique> NuclearWarfare, OTRS is much broader.
[23:43] <Alison> kk
[23:43] <Alison> Thanks :)
[23:43] <bastique> Alison, we all have ADHD
[23:43] * pakaran had a caffeine pill today.
[23:43] <Alison> lol
[23:43] <pakaran> :'(
[23:43] <pakaran> anyhow.
[23:44] <@Keegan> Well, we moved from technical stuff like protection and flagged revisions to the philosophical nature of dealing with people
[23:44] * Alison is drinking diet coke & eating hot scones from the oven. See my FB :)
[23:44] <bastique> Philippe just signed on.
[23:44] * @Keegan is sitting a small room of the restaurant, imagining a beer
[23:44] <@Keegan> Anyway
[23:44] <NuclearWarfare> Mike Godwin was on IRC in #wikimedia-office yesterday, and I believe he said that only 1 new lawsuit had been filed last year. So how to get people to understand that lawsuits aren't the biggest deal, but our ethical responsibility is
[23:45] <harej> Alison, does your last name begin with a C?
[23:45] <@Keegan> NW: How it's different involves identifying and assigning such a...sensitive role
[23:45] <Risker> It strikes me that there is a need for a specialised group that is recognised as having the "people skills" to deal with subjects
[23:45] * pakaran only has two or three wikimedians on facebook.
[23:45] <Alison> harej: yes
[23:45] <Alison> Whyyyy?
[23:45] <NuclearWarfare> And that getting it right for BLPs is far more important
[23:45] <bastique> NuclearWarfare, our goal is not to prevent lawsuits, but to do the right thing, right?
[23:45] <NuclearWarfare> Yep
[23:45] <harej> I'm trying to see if you are who I tihnk you are without necessarily outing you.
[23:45] <Risker> okay, all you ADHD folks, back to the subjecvt
[23:45] <@Keegan> Risker: Well, yeah, because it's not easy
[23:45] * Alison blinks
[23:45] <NuclearWarfare> Not everyone gets that though cary
[23:45] <Alison> My dox are largely out already
[23:46] * @Keegan goes afk for a minute, talk about feasible recommendations from the board
[23:46] <pakaran> Keegan, yeah. That's part of why I'm less active in OTRS now.
[23:46] <@Keegan> TF recommendations are different
[23:46] <pakaran> some of the calls you have to make dealing with subjects make RFA look easy.
[23:46] <bastique> To prevent people from losing jobs because they had a drunk driving violation in 1973 and it's in the first paragraph of their biography
[23:46] <NuclearWarfare> This isn't so much a recommendation that the board could make, but a clear statement about our ethical responsibility to do the right thing has to be in the first paragraph of any board resolution
[23:47] <NuclearWarfare> And something that is much stronger than the one from April (?)
[23:47] <@Keegan> That would be in the policy, next month's goal
[23:47] * coffee (~blongy@wikipedia/Coffee) has joined #wikipedia-blptf
[23:47] <@Keegan> Right
[23:47] <@Keegan> This is why we're filtering ;)
[23:47] <@Keegan> brb
[23:48] <coffee> damn I'm late again
[23:48] * coffee fixes his clock
[23:48] <bastique> coffee, it's still going on.
[23:48] <pakaran> in terms of subjects, i guess a question is what the subjects' concerns *are*. i mean, I look around here, all but a few of us are enwiki sysops, we have tens of thousands of edits... we know the WP side, but not so much the subject side.
[23:49] <Risker> how about "information about a living person should only be included in an article when it is notable in relation to the person. If the notability of the information is not directly related to the notability of the person, it should not be included."
[23:49] <pakaran> and even those of us who have done otrs, etc, tend to get a distorted impression
[23:49] <pakaran> so where is the line drawn there?
[23:49] <kevin_g> Notability is a large grey area
[23:50] <bastique> Risker, that's very good. There is a lot of irellevant information about notable people on the project.
[23:50] <pakaran> for example, a politician's notability doesn't necessarily relate to his affair
[23:50] <pakaran> but having the affair is part of his public life (in many cases)
[23:50] <coffee> Risker: sounds good, addresses a problem I've seen a lot on articles recently
[23:50] <Alison> Good point, Risker
[23:50] * @Keegan takes a note
[23:50] <@Keegan> Basically, it's Jimbo's famous <citationneeded> quote in a less philosophical form
[23:51] <coffee> pakaran: but the affair would be notable anyways
[23:51] <coffee> usually
[23:51] <bastique> pakaran, well, generally politicians and affairs are quite the newsmakers...
[23:51] <coffee> aye
[23:51] <pakaran> true.
[23:51] <@Keegan> ...and stalkers of social networking
[23:51] <pakaran> it's more the marginal cases.
[23:51] <kevin_g> how do we decide what is really notable and what is not? counting the weight of sources fails with the online news sources available nowadays
[23:51] <NuclearWarfare> Well, how far does that go. For example, I'm dealing with an issue right now about a Philosophy Professor who has sharply criticized other academics on his blog
[23:51] <@Keegan> kevin_g: That's just kinda like a beach ball, really
[23:52] <NuclearWarfare> The Boston Globe gave it half a page of the space on a 3 page article
[23:52] <NuclearWarfare> Does that make it relevant to his 10 paragraph biography?
[23:52] <pakaran> I also think that going by the interests of subjects leads to a certain bias.
[23:52] <Risker> see now, I would probably consider that notable, NW, and I'm pretty tough about notability
[23:52] <@Keegan> Okay, so focus up here
[23:52] <pakaran> When the subject is involved in WP (if only their own article), things get taken out that otherwise might not.
[23:52] <@Keegan> At what point can we, globally, consider what is notable? Or can we not?
[23:53] <coffee> NuclearWarfare: That would seem to be notable, especially in that particular field of biographies.
[23:53] <pakaran> I can think of one case where someone involved with WMF managed to get information relating to their romantic life, which was actually veriiable, removed from their article.
[23:53] <coffee> Keegan: I think at least a border needs to be set, if not a whole structure.
[23:53] <@Keegan> I'm leaning toward leaving it out and making it a local issue that's a recommendation from the TF, not the board, that "Hey, guys, examine this issue"
[23:53] <@Keegan> Doesn't mean they will, of course
[23:54] <@Keegan> But the horse to water etc
[23:54] <NuclearWarfare> Right. I'm not sure notability is something that the board should really be considering, at least not at this point
[23:54] <coffee> pakaran: but if the romantic life in and of itself isn't notbale it really has no place in he article
[23:54] <coffee> NuclearWarfare: It needs to be top down.
[23:55] <pakaran> true. and if that's the line drawn, we should be doing that for other subjects.
[23:55] <coffee> That's something the community will never decide on.
[23:55] <NuclearWarfare> But how can you define notability across 700 projects.
[23:55] <@Keegan> NW, you can't
[23:55] <coffee> Well you could make exceptions per project.
[23:55] <NuclearWarfare> exactluy
[23:55] <@Keegan> I'm scratching that off the list
[23:55] <coffee> meh
[23:55] <coffee> pakaran: yeah, which comes back to the point Risker was making
[23:56] <@Keegan> Okay, so the technical measures are covered
[23:56] <NuclearWarfare> Keegan, where are we on the agenda?
[23:56] <NuclearWarfare> OK
[23:57] <@Keegan> I think the philosophical aspect sitting in draft is part of the future policy drafting
[23:57] <@Keegan> Umm...what we have left is things we've kind of touched on
[23:57] <@Keegan> We danced around quotes in general, not just Wikiquote
[23:57] <@Keegan> Images...sorta
[23:57] <@Keegan> Thoughts on those
[23:58] <NuclearWarfare> Pornography and age verification
[23:58] <NuclearWarfare> Ought we be doing something about that
[23:59] <bastique> ...
[23:59] <bastique> is that on the agenda?
[23:59] <@Keegan> bastique: No, but it can be for the future
[23:59] <NuclearWarfare> ...anyone?
[00:00] <kevin_g> I think we ought to do something, but not sure what can be done technically
[00:00] <@Keegan> I think that the WMF projects do what they can within the bounds of COPA
[00:00] <@Keegan> kevin_g: Nothing can be done, imo. No on knows you're a dog on the internet
[00:00] <coffee> an interesting question but I would think it's not something that would be easy to handle
[00:00] <Alison> Keegan: COPPA, yes?
[00:01] <kevin_g> what about for the subjects of images?
[00:01] <@Keegan> If it weren't for the fact that five people in this room can verify that I'm not a dog, *shrug*
[00:01] <kevin_g> do we always know who they are? definitively?
[00:01] <NuclearWarfare> COPPA always struck me as a bit worthless, to be honest.
[00:01] <coffee> Keegan: we were on the idea that you were a cat
[00:01] * bastique is now known as cary-biglove
[00:01] <@Keegan> Oh, six, coffee has seen me
[00:01] <@Keegan> Anywho, you get the point
[00:01] <Alison> NW: The fact that WPs don't even give it a basic nod is significant. I see that as a serious failing
[00:02] <NuclearWarfare> Well, we don't collect any personal information when registering
[00:02] <coffee> kevin_g: but how to implement something like that... someone else takes the image and then there's no way for us to make the subject release their age or any PII that would say how old they are
[00:02] <Alison> Sure
[00:02] * @Keegan is lagging
[00:02] <kevin_g> so delete it
[00:02] <Alison> But when information becomes known, or is logged somewheres ...
[00:03] * cary-biglove is now known as {b|biglove}
[00:03] <Alison> Is this part of our remit, BTW. Re editors?
[00:03] <NuclearWarfare> Don't we have a Protecting Children's Privacy policy, or at least a de facto policy
[00:03] <@Keegan> Alison: Nope
[00:03] * Alison nods. Okay :(
[00:03] <@Keegan> Stuff like that gets into legal
[00:03] <Alison> Another day/battle
[00:03] <coffee> NuclearWarfare: something about under 1 and not being able to release PII on Wikipedia
[00:03] <coffee> *13
[00:03] <coffee> *media
[00:04] <@Keegan> coffee: And we take care of that pretty well by the global oversight policy, especially after its cleanup
[00:04] <Alison> NW: Protecting Children isn't policy. I wish it was :(
[00:04] <coffee> Keegan: tru.dat
[00:04] <Alison> It's a grey area re. suppression of userpages, etc
[00:05] <NuclearWarfare> Well, wrt what I had mentioned with explicit images: Should we be requiring model releases through OTRS?
[00:05] <Alison> Personally, I wish it was firmed up. But if it's not part of LP, then on we goes ....
[00:05] <NuclearWarfare> And assertions that the model is indeed above 18
[00:05] <@Keegan> NW: here's the thing
[00:05] <kevin_g> for explicit images: yes
[00:05] <NuclearWarfare> That's certainly related to our remit?
[00:05] <@Keegan> That gets into legal issues that we can't resolve
[00:05] <@Keegan> What's the code
[00:05] * @Keegan looks
[00:05] <coffee> NuclearWarfare: would be nice to implement, but only for explicit images as kevin_g said
[00:06] <kevin_g> Keegan: how so?
[00:07] <@Keegan> 18 USC 2257 on hosting of documentation
[00:07] <pakaran> kevin_g, there's a US law that if you provide porn, not sure how defined, you need to keep proof on file for years that the models were legal age.
[00:07] <@Keegan> Way out of my league
[00:07] <Alison> 2257 is significant
[00:07] <Alison> It's part of the policy that ED folks really care about
[00:07] <kevin_g> we can abide by the spirit of the law, if not the letter...
[00:07] <Alison> The onus is on the group hosting the imagehs
[00:07] <coffee> agree
[00:08] <Alison> to provided documentary evidence re. the age/legality of a subject
[00:08] <pakaran> wait... ED is against us having child porn?
[00:08] <@Keegan> ...which would be the WMF. We are *not* the WMF
[00:08] <Alison> and if it's questioned ...
[00:08] <pakaran> ...sorry. but it made me double take
[00:08] <@Keegan> So that passes along to legal issues
[00:08] <Alison> pakaran: it's one of the ways images get removed from ED
[00:08] <pakaran> ah.
[00:08] <pakaran> nod.
[00:08] <Alison> if it's *stated* it may be CP and is unknown
[00:08] <Alison> then it gets removed rapidly
[00:08] <Alison> That applies to us, too
[00:08] <Alison> It's the law
[00:09] <Alison> per USC 2257
[00:09] <Alison> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html
[00:09] <Alison> ^^^ recommended reading on borderline/unknown porn images being hosted
[00:09] <NuclearWarfare> Huh
[00:09] <NuclearWarfare> Alison's most definitely correct here
[00:09] <pakaran> well, and quite seriously, can WP know that none of our anatomy pictures are of underage persons?
[00:10] <pakaran> and is there a risk of that biting us sooner or later?
[00:10] <NuclearWarfare> Per this, actually 99.9% of our explicit material should be deleted
[00:10] <Alison> That acually *is* a problem
[00:10] <Alison> Seriously
[00:10] <kevin_g> Pakaran: if you cannot identify an individual person it probably matters less
[00:10] <@Keegan> pakaran: My thing is that is a legal issue that maybe we can pass as a recommendation that the WMF legal time step up to the plate
[00:10] <@Keegan> But we can't do anything as a group
[00:11] <pakaran> kevin_g, as I'm reading that law, that doesn't matter.
[00:11] <@Keegan> What kevin_g said, that's up to the owner of "personality rights"
[00:11] <@Keegan> Which is, well, the person
[00:11] <coffee> pakaran: how would anyone prove that the picture was of a minor?
[00:12] <Alison> The burden of proof is upon those hosting
[00:12] <kevin_g> all very well if they know their image is hosted here...
[00:12] <pakaran> (f) It shall be unlawful—
[00:12] <pakaran> (1) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to fail to create or maintain the records as required by subsections (a) and (c) or by any regulation promulgated under this section;
[00:12] <Alison> And it doesn't matter about personality rights in a case like that
[00:12] <pakaran> (i) Whoever violates this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both.
[00:12] <Alison> It's already a bigger issue
[00:13] <pakaran> and it's something we really should be caring a lot more about.
[00:13] <coffee> Keegan: "Whoever produces"
[00:13] <Alison> Furthermore, we've already (recently) had issues with images
[00:13] <coffee> which would seem to mean the picture taker and the image hoster
[00:13] <pakaran> (incidentally, on a peersonal level, i don't necessarily agree with the law. and iirc it was written in part to make the commercial porn industry too expensive to keep operating)
[00:13] <Alison> which, though legal and licensed, were serious BLP violations
[00:13] <Risker> I tend to agree with Alison on this issue, the *hosting* is the key word here, and it applies in most Western countries
[00:13] <@Keegan> Okay, agenda wise
[00:13] <Alison> ergo, images a very much on the agenda
[00:14] <@Keegan> It seems that we've covered everything but this last image bit
[00:14] * Alison nods. What Risker said
[00:14] <@Keegan> Well, yeah, I typed it :P
[00:14] <pakaran> and this is a tangent.
[00:14] <@Keegan> No, it's not really
[00:14] <Alison> Ok. Can we capture this in the minutes, at least?
[00:14] <@Keegan> It's a fundamental issue
[00:14] <pakaran> our anatomy images, whatever else they may be, aren't blp issues because the subjects mostly aren't identifiable.
[00:14] <@Keegan> Yup, I haven't ended the log :)
[00:15] <Risker> we don't know that, pakaran
[00:15] <Alison> Pakaran: right, but this is not BLP related. It's legal
[00:15] <Alison> I think it's still within remit
[00:15] <coffee> aye
[00:15] <Risker> well, it is both, in my mind.
[00:15] <Alison> And there is also the encompassing issue of BLP *and* images
[00:15] <pakaran> and it's worth being concerned about. whatever else it may be.
[00:15] * @Keegan agrees with Risker, as usual
[00:15] <Risker> :D
[00:15] <@Keegan> Sometimes I think we share a brain
[00:15] <Alison> Where images are just not suitable, tho' licensed
[00:15] <Risker> :~
[00:15] <NuclearWarfare> Hmm
[00:16] <@Keegan> Okay...this has been useful for me
[00:16] <@Keegan> Others?
[00:16] <Alison> I can think of a dozen image-related BLP problems, just like that
[00:16] <NuclearWarfare> We really ought to be trying to get some of the biggest opponents of BLP change (on enwiki) into these discussions
[00:16] <@Keegan> Please feel free to keep chatting, but I've been in this building for 13 hours
[00:16] <coffee> Alison: Should there not be a notability requirement for image subjects?
[00:16] <Risker> Alison, I agree with you there, I ran into someone's personal porn collection on Commons yesterday, none of the images are encyclopedic or even particularly useful, and none of them are used anywhere
[00:16] <@Keegan> NW: Are you logging?
[00:16] <coffee> NuclearWarfare: gah I'd be /ignoring left and right
[00:17] <NuclearWarfare> Keegan: I'm logging, but I missed ~30 seconds somewhere when I accidentally logged out
[00:17] <@Keegan> I can fill that gap
[00:17] <Risker> I have a log if it is needed
[00:17] <@Keegan> This guy is needed to stop by the store and go home
[00:17] <pakaran> NuclearWarfare, i think we also need to make people understand the distinction between being "against blp change" and being able to recognize that, whether or not certain cowboy behavior by certain enwiki sysops in january helped solve the blp problem, the problem does exist and does need to be solved.
[00:17] <Alison> Risker: Me too. Tho' they're licensed, they're out of scope, right??
[00:17] <coffee> Keegan: get a gallon of milk on the way
[00:18] <@Keegan> Thanks for showing, I have some good thoughts out of this. Please continue discussion, end logging when everyone...well, stops talking :)
[00:18] <Risker> Alison, precisely. And that still hasn't addressed any personality rights issues
[00:18] <NuclearWarfare> Mhmm. I was talking about the former group
[00:18] <coffee> pakaran: I am of the belief that that is impossible.
[00:18] <Alison> Yep!
[00:18] <@Keegan> Back in about 35 minutes
[00:18] <NuclearWarfare> See ya'
[00:18] <Alison> NW: You didn't miss anything last time you logged out
[00:19] <coffee> pakaran: I've tried to be reasonable, even in the recent RFC with a compromise of sorts... and of course half of the people oppose just because that PRODs would be done
[00:19] <coffee> likewise
[00:19] <coffee> if we tried to be reasonble here
[00:19] <pakaran> i've mostly been staying out of it.
[00:19] <coffee> I don't see a change in reaction
[00:20] * kevin_g assesses level of reasonableness
[00:20] <NuclearWarfare> So I'm looking at the licensing policy resolution (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy) and I'm wondering
[00:20] <pakaran> so i guess the question is is there a need for the foundation to do something strong, and what can be done without alienating the community.
[00:20] <NuclearWarfare> Did the WMF also issue NFCC, or was that built by the community based on the resolution
[00:20] <coffee> pakaran: Sadly this is one area where the WMF needs to step up and even in some areas ignore the community,
[00:21] <Risker> NW, that was a foundation mandate
[00:21] <pakaran> NFCC?
[00:21] <coffee> NuclearWarfare: What you missed when you logged out: [22:59:01] <bastique> is that on the agenda?
[00:22] <kevin_g> That licensing policy deals with copyright, has nothing on personality rights
[00:22] <NuclearWarfare> I wasn't thinking of it for that. It was the only other Foundation Resolution that actually did something, and it works fairly well today
[00:22] * @Keegan (~chatzilla@wikimedia/Keegan) Quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds[00:23] <NuclearWarfare> Though I understand it did have some issue when it was passed
[00:25] <Risker> that would be something of an understatement, NW, but the kerfuffle only lasted a few months
[00:25] <Risker> and now everyone sees what we are doing as "normal"
[00:26] <kevin_g> what prompted the WMF to act in that case?
[00:26] <pakaran> though we're still not perfectly complying.
[00:27] <pakaran> I've found images out there in the last year or two with rationales like "fair use because it's only fair that WP use it"
[00:28] <pakaran> which no bot can catch.
[00:28] * Alison is busy --> http://s660.photobucket.com/albums/uu328/alliewiki/?action=view¤t=18331_353759391000_507466000_510979.jpg&newest=1
[00:33] <NuclearWarfare> kevin_g: [00:33:30] <darkfalls> NuclearWarfare: I believe the German wikipedia got sued for something or another, therefore we needed to flesh out the licensing..
[00:33] <NuclearWarfare> [00:33:39] <darkfalls> but I'm not sure.
[00:35] <NuclearWarfare> But hmm
[00:35] <NuclearWarfare> That isn't encouraging
[00:35] <NuclearWarfare> I don't want to wait for another Seigenthaler [sic] before we implement real change
[00:36] <Alison> Agreed
[00:36] <kevin_g> I'm not going to wait
[00:36] <kevin_g> oops - that just slipped out ;)
[00:36] <Alison> :D
[00:38] <kevin_g> in my line of work I'm expected to anticipate adverse events, and act to prevent them. Post-crisis action is generally frowned upon
[00:39] <NuclearWarfare> Hmm, one issue here is most definitely groupthink
[00:40] <pakaran> in what sense, NW?
[00:40] <NuclearWarfare> We have to get more people who generally have disliked BLP prod processes
[00:40] <NuclearWarfare> And have them communicate their concerns
[00:40] <NuclearWarfare> To make sure than we aren't just going to impose something that will be so bitterly resisted that it ends up failing
[00:41] <kevin_g> true
[00:42] <pakaran> yeah.
[00:45] <kevin_g> the previous task force felt quite polarised, and was much less useful because of it
[00:51] <pakaran> oh, something worth raising... some have mentioned letting subjects, essentially, veto whether they have a bio on WP.
[00:52] <pakaran> I guess the question is where we draw the line. I mean, if Charles Manson wants his article deleted for calling him a criminal... where do we draw that line?
[00:52] * guillom (~guillaume@wikimedia/guillom) Quit (Quit: Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
[00:52] <NuclearWarfare> Oh, opt-out
[00:52] <pakaran> yeah.
[00:52] <pakaran> brb.
[00:52] <@Keegan> Pakaran: That's a judgement call by projects
[00:52] <NuclearWarfare> Keegan said that's probably too specific for the task force to consider
[00:52] <NuclearWarfare> Oh hey, you're back
[00:53] <@Keegan> Sometimes AfD on en.wiki goes by consideration, sometimes not
[00:53] <@Keegan> Home
[00:53] <NuclearWarfare> Basically nothing got done while you were gone
[00:53] <NuclearWarfare> But I suggested that we get some more people who generally disagree with some of the people here
[00:53] <pakaran> and btw I'm sorry I used a BLP as an example.
[00:53] <pakaran> butt I think that was a fairly uncontroversal one to use
[00:53] <pakaran> anyhow, brb
[00:53] <@Keegan> I'm a force to be reckoned with :)
[00:53] <@Keegan> NW: Absolutely
[00:54] <@Keegan> Someone email me the logs stopping now
[00:54] <@Keegan> <end logging>
