Mailing List Archive

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:59 PM, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance
> with
> things like this;
>
> http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf
>
> This is a german code of conduct - but there are many more (I've also
> spoken
> with these chaps =- http://www.iia.net.au/ - and I got the feeling that
> they'd very much like to engage with both communities, and the foundation
> as
> the 'service provider')
>
> My interest stems from discussing sexual content on wikimedia foundation
> projects, but obviously engagement with such external bodies / codes of
> practice etc. is far from limited to that sphere,
>
> best,
>
> Peter,
> PM.
>

The sexual content issue aside, that code prohibits, among other things:
Propaganda and other material issued by anti-constitutional organisations,
as defined in § 86 of the German Criminal Code, § 86 a of the same code, and
§ 4, sect.1, subsections 1 and 2 of the Interstate Treaty on the Protection
of Minors in the Media
Portrayals of violence, as defined in § 131 of the German Criminal Code, and
§ 4, sect. 1, subsection 5 of the Interstate Treaty on the Protection of
Minors in the Media
Affronts to human dignity, as defined in § 4, section. 1, subsection 8 of
the Interstate Treaty on the Protection of Minors in the Media
This doesn't seem consistent with our goals and principles.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/8/7 private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance with
> things like this;
>
> http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf
>
> This is a german code of conduct - but there are many more (I've also spoken
> with these chaps =- http://www.iia.net.au/ - and I got the feeling that
> they'd very much like to engage with both communities, and the foundation as
> the 'service provider')
>
> My interest stems from discussing sexual content on wikimedia foundation
> projects, but obviously engagement with such external bodies / codes of
> practice etc. is far from limited to that sphere,
>
> best,
>
> Peter,
> PM.


Is based on German law so no. There are rather a lot of other flaws
but that one is a complete killer.



--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:21 AM, geni<geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/8/7 private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance with
>> things like this;
>>
>> http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf
>>
>> This is a german code of conduct - but there are many more (I've also spoken
>> with these chaps =- http://www.iia.net.au/ - and I got the feeling that
>> they'd very much like to engage with both communities, and the foundation as
>> the 'service provider')
>>
>> My interest stems from discussing sexual content on wikimedia foundation
>> projects, but obviously engagement with such external bodies / codes of
>> practice etc. is far from limited to that sphere,
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Peter,
>> PM.
>
>
> Is based on German law so no. There are rather a lot of other flaws
> but that one is a complete killer.

We may consider to use Saudi Arabia and North Korea laws, too.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly.

I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing /
evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there -
perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at,
Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important
factor?)

cheers,

Peter,
PM.




On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:21 AM, geni<geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2009/8/7 private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance
> with
> >> things like this;
> >>
> >> http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf
> >>
> >> This is a german code of conduct - but there are many more (I've also
> spoken
> >> with these chaps =- http://www.iia.net.au/ - and I got the feeling that
> >> they'd very much like to engage with both communities, and the
> foundation as
> >> the 'service provider')
> >>
> >> My interest stems from discussing sexual content on wikimedia foundation
> >> projects, but obviously engagement with such external bodies / codes of
> >> practice etc. is far from limited to that sphere,
> >>
> >> best,
> >>
> >> Peter,
> >> PM.
> >
> >
> > Is based on German law so no. There are rather a lot of other flaws
> > but that one is a complete killer.
>
> We may consider to use Saudi Arabia and North Korea laws, too.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musings<thepmaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly.
>
> I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing /
> evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there -
> perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at,
> Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important
> factor?)

I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't
have to follow.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I quite agree (the analogy of paying taxes comes to mind!) - however I don't
see any tension between that position and also feeling that it's a good idea
to take a look at the principles involved in such codes of conduct etc. and
to see where 'we' (the broad WMF family, I guess) fit in....

http://www.iia.net.au/ also publish codes of conduct which we're under no
obligation to follow - it's just that we might like to take a look, and
discuss.....

I'll carry on / explain a bit more, if you might agree?

cheers,

Peter,
PM.

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musings<thepmaccount@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly.
> >
> > I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing /
> > evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there -
> > perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting
> at,
> > Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important
> > factor?)
>
> I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't
> have to follow.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:15 AM, private musings<thepmaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
> I quite agree (the analogy of paying taxes comes to mind!) - however I don't
> see any tension between that position and also feeling that it's a good idea
> to take a look at the principles involved in such codes of conduct etc. and
> to see where 'we' (the broad WMF family, I guess) fit in....
>
> http://www.iia.net.au/ also publish codes of conduct which we're under no
> obligation to follow - it's just that we might like to take a look, and
> discuss.....
>
> I'll carry on / explain a bit more, if you might agree?

Of course. Discussion is a much better option than many other ones :)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Milos Rancic<millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musings<thepmaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly.
>>
>> I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing /
>> evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there -
>> perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at,
>> Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important
>> factor?)
>
> I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't
> have to follow.

We don't have to follow the internet norm that making your web page
text BLINKING YELLOW ON BLUE is something you don't do… and yet we do.

Don't think of this has "obeying laws", think of it that there are
some things we don't have to do, which aren't in conflict with our
mission, and which would be in our interests.

Although the starting premise that we don't comply with a (multitude
of) code(s) of conduct is a bit flawed. The projects clearly do—
though they may not be ones written down by third parties and they may
be inadequate...

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

actually - might a WMF 'code of conduct' for projects be a good idea? (as in
something perhaps a dollop more pragmatic than 'comply with our mission
statement'!) - sounds like an idea for the strategy wiki... :-)

(which just in case folk haven't seen is here -->
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and looks really good to me!)

cheers,

Peter,
PM.

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Milos Rancic<millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musings<thepmaccount@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly.
> >>
> >> I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing /
> >> evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there -
> >> perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting
> at,
> >> Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important
> >> factor?)
> >
> > I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't
> > have to follow.
>
> We don't have to follow the internet norm that making your web page
> text BLINKING YELLOW ON BLUE is something you don't do… and yet we do.
>
> Don't think of this has "obeying laws", think of it that there are
> some things we don't have to do, which aren't in conflict with our
> mission, and which would be in our interests.
>
> Although the starting premise that we don't comply with a (multitude
> of) code(s) of conduct is a bit flawed. The projects clearly do—
> though they may not be ones written down by third parties and they may
> be inadequate...
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

private musings wrote:
> Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly.
>
> I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing /
> evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there -
> perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at,
> Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important
> factor?)
>

I think the key factor is that *anyone* - really anyone - can
voluntarily put up a mirror (or fork) that complies with whatever
arbitrary code of conduct in terms of what they display.

The fact that such mirrors (and/or forks) will not have anything
to do with our site but the fact that they may use all or some
of our content, should not dissuade you from either financing
such mirrors (A/OF) yourself, or encouraging others to finance
such, nor should it cloud the fact that it would be quite untenable
to attempt to try to make wikimedia go that route.

I think it is clear this has been said to you likely so many times that
you would probably already have to money for your own server, if you
got a dime for every time people told you were tilting at windmills.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Gregory Maxwell<gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> We don't have to follow the internet norm that making your web page
> text BLINKING YELLOW ON BLUE is something you don't do… and yet we do.
>
> Don't think of this has "obeying laws", think of it that there are
> some things we don't have to do, which aren't in conflict with our
> mission, and which would be in our interests.
>
> Although the starting premise that we don't comply with a (multitude
> of) code(s) of conduct is a bit flawed. The projects clearly do—
> though they may not be ones written down by third parties and they may
> be inadequate...

Completely other thing is what do we want to follow, which is,
actually, more restrictive than many legal systems. (A classical
example for that are "just for Wikipedia" materials.)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
You morals are fine. They are not mine and I am glad that we have to live to
the best of our abilities with what we can achieve. The problem that I have
with your morals is that you want to impose them onto others with a
multitude of justifications. You have been given to understand that there is
no consensus to be had for your point of view. You continue to persue you
objectives and that is fine however, with your insistence you make the
chance of actually succeeding less.

It is ironic that I accuse you of something I am guilty off; never wavering
in trying to achieve a goal. For me the support of the "other" languages,
the support of the "other" cultures is what I am working for. It is the
reason why I stand for election as a board member of the foundation. The big
advantage that I have is that I can always work on achieving little things
and making things ready to tacle the issues. that are big to me. The problem
that you have is that you are in an all or nothing game.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/8/7 private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>

> actually - might a WMF 'code of conduct' for projects be a good idea? (as
> in
> something perhaps a dollop more pragmatic than 'comply with our mission
> statement'!) - sounds like an idea for the strategy wiki... :-)
>
> (which just in case folk haven't seen is here -->
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and looks really good to me!)
>
> cheers,
>
> Peter,
> PM.
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Milos Rancic<millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musings<thepmaccount@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > >> Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit
> silly.
> > >>
> > >> I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing
> /
> > >> evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there -
> > >> perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting
> > at,
> > >> Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important
> > >> factor?)
> > >
> > > I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't
> > > have to follow.
> >
> > We don't have to follow the internet norm that making your web page
> > text BLINKING YELLOW ON BLUE is something you don't do… and yet we do.
> >
> > Don't think of this has "obeying laws", think of it that there are
> > some things we don't have to do, which aren't in conflict with our
> > mission, and which would be in our interests.
> >
> > Although the starting premise that we don't comply with a (multitude
> > of) code(s) of conduct is a bit flawed. The projects clearly do—
> > though they may not be ones written down by third parties and they may
> > be inadequate...
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

private musings wrote:

> Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards
> compliance with things like this;
> http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf

Are you saying that WMF is already heading in that direction (that
would be news to me), and now you want our comments on that? Or
are you suggesting that WMF should head in that direction?

Organizations that agree to such a code of conduct do it for some
benefit, for example to avoid the threat of government censorship.
I'm sure that if Wikipedia self-restricted itself enough, Chinese
authorities would never need to block Wikipedia. But do we need
any such benefit? We would rather speak freely (within the scope
of encyclopedic knowledge) and be blocked.

So, if you are suggesting that any code of conduct would be
appropriate, what benefit is it that you have in mind? Who
threatens to block Wikipedia unless we voluntarily agree?


--
Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

private musings wrote:
> Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly.
>
> I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing /
> evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there -
> perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at,
> Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important
> factor?)
>
At its root the US standard would be based on the first amendment.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 8/7/09 12:25 AM, private musings wrote:
> actually - might a WMF 'code of conduct' for projects be a good idea? (as in
> something perhaps a dollop more pragmatic than 'comply with our mission
> statement'!) - sounds like an idea for the strategy wiki... :-)

I'd say yes, but that a "code of conduct" is primarily about personal
interaction, reminding people to treat other people reasonably.

This is traditionally covered by common-sense rules like
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick -- but sometimes we
really need a few basics written down! ;)


As far as things apply to _types of content_ that's a much trickier road
to navigate; we want to concentrate not on limiting _what_ can be posted
but _how it's presented_ and discussed... preferably civilly and
respectfully.

-- brion

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l