User talk:YWelinder (WMF)/Archive 1
Hello YWelinder, could you please tell me how the Child protection policy protects children from being bullied on the sites that belong to the WMF? 184.108.40.206 16:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yana. I appreciated your commentary here on child protection issues. My children are almost of age now but I was always concerned about them using the internet. I have a few questions.
- This rule applies to the soliciting of ' personally identifiable' information. Does this include email addresses of children when (like many email addresses) they do not containing identifying information other than the email address itself?
- I have been using Wikipedia (on and off) for more than 10 years. I never heard of the email@example.com address. Are there plans to make this more visible to vulnerable users?
- You say " If a threat is determined to be credible". How do you determine if it is credible? See my point above about determining whether a user has an 'illegal purpose' or not.
- I recently wrote a piece about the importance of protecting whistleblowers. Many people (see the comments) objected that this person was not a whistleblower but a troll. How do you apply the w:Precautionary principle in such cases? The principle dictates there is a doubt about whether child safety is at stake, or whether the whistleblower is a troll, you err on the side of safety. In my country, the gas company will investigate a reported leak, and the fire brigade will turn up to a reported fire, even when there is a strong suspicion that the reports are false. N.B. I discussed the case offline with the whistleblower and he assures me he made every effort to alert the En arbitration committee, but he was ignored.
- Again, if it is known that whistleblowing in such borderline cases will lead to a block or a ban (as in this case), how do you mitigate the deterrent effect this will have on other people who have concerns?
- I raised concerns about other children who had been contacted by the suspicious user with Arbcom, with Jimmy and with several different departments of the WMF. All the emails were ignored and left strictly unanswered. One of them was to Michelle Paulson. (Geoff was away last week). This was even when I had been advised by the teacher of one of the boys (the only person I was able to contact in this case) to call the UK police.
- When I called the British police, they said they could not take action unless they knew the identity of the children. I replied that, because of the 'don’t ask don’t tell' policy of Wikipedia, I did not know the identities of the children. They said they could not investigate without knowing identities, and advised contacting 'Wikipedia'. However (see above) my emails were not replied to. How do you advise reporting this issue, as the police have suggested?
Any chance of a reply
Any chance of a reply to my questions? As a lawyer you must surely know that failure to reply or respond can create as much of, or more of, a liability than replying or responding. The questions are above. With every kind wish Peter Damian (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Howdy peter, welcome to wikipedia. Suggest your questions are something to be discussed by private email, since you sound like you need to reveal private information about the people involved. Are you worried about a particular incident with respect to your children? Then this public talkpage is not the place. User:YWelinder is some sort of lawyer, I understand, and this is the "office hours" talkpage for their WMF duties, but it's not a public forum, all userpages are supposed to be used for improving the encyclopedia qua encyclopedianess, if you'll pardon the grammar. Over on the http://en.wikipedia.org website there is a contact-us link (or use the same link on whatever website you are having troubles). Hope this helps. 220.127.116.11 17:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yana, thanks for your reply to my question at Talk:Community_Logo/Request_for_consultation#Collective_Membership_Mark. I have posted a follow-up question, for when you have a spare moment. Thanks in advance! :-). Craig Franklin (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC).
Logo TM discussions
You know some of my own thoughts about trademarking community logos, and the possibility of [over]protecting marks. And I am quite aware that part of the motivation of the current round of TM activity is a Board resolution. Which I feel is being interpreted fairly, if perhaps more thoroughly than the resolution authors intended. It may be useful to return to first principles in understanding the reasons for and ripple effects of different levels of protection.
I greatly admire the way you are handling the current community consultation. And I would like to have this related discussion with you, however you would find helpful. If you don't mind having both here on Meta, we could do that in a couple of new sections on the existing discussion page. However email would be fine as well. Please let me know which you prefer.
- I have also posted some questions, of a much more generic nature. Talk:Trademark_policy#Collective_membership_mark. If you are lawyer-code-of-ethics-ally unable, or merely time-constraints-prevent-unable, to answer them, ask that you please ping somebody from WMF that can, as it may help civilize the discourse. Meanwhile, I'll go ask Sj about my more pragmatic questions, to keep *them* off the talkpage. :-) Thanks for improving wikipedia. 18.104.22.168 17:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
"unless the member has the consent of the other lawyer"
Blog vs Wiki
I will be happy to supply an unsourcing review of the draft policy vs the first round consultation over the next week or so, and I strongly suspect less than half of the draft will have been originally sourced from the community. However, I don't think such a point-by-point rebuttal is either polite or helpful on the blog. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 16:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)