WikiConference UK 2012/Elections/Questions/Questions

1. What different groups and communities are you part of? --Filceolaire (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2012‎ (UTC)
2. What motivated you to stand for the board of Wikimedia UK? --Rock drum (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2012‎ (UTC)
3. Wikiversity has been set up as a sister project to serve as a platform for Open Educational Resources. Many people feel that it is not really meeting its potential. In light of a serious commitment to education probably emerging from the WMUK Strategic Plan, please name at least one element you feel might help take things forward. --Leutha (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
4. What projects should WMUK pursue over the next five years. Where should we be in five years time? See Talk:Draft 2012 Five Year Plan/Counterproposal for some ideas. What's your idea? --Filceolaire (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
5. When Wikimedia UK submits information to the Charity Commission, a parliamentary committee, or another public authority, is it more important to present Wikimedia in a positive light or to answer questions as accurately and completely as possible even when this might cast WMUK, Wikipedia or the individual answering the questions in a negative light? --Peter cohen (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
6. If Wikimedia UK submits information to the Charity Commission, a parliamentary committee, or another public authority, and that information subsequently turns out to be inaccurate, incomplete or liable to be interpreted in a manner that places Wikimedia in an overly positive light then what action should WMUK take? --Peter cohen (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Arbitration decisions in the English Wikipedia as well as press reports (e.g. [1][2]) have highlighted that Wikipedia's biographies of living people – like all articles the result of an anonymous content generation process – can fall victim to malicious editing. Do you think Wikipedia's process for writing biographies of living people needs reform, and if so, what changes would you like to see, and what role should Wiki UK play in bringing these changes about? -- --Jayen466 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
8. Both Wikipedia and Commons provide unfiltered access to hardcore pornography. This includes videos showing such acts as Wikimedia contributors masturbating and ejaculating on themselves, a dog engaging in sex acts with a woman dressed as a nun, etc. The lack of any filter or tags marking adult media means that much of this material is accessible on computers in UK schools. Given that Wikipedia is alone among the world's top websites in not offering any filtering of adult material, do you support the present Wikimedia policy of not even offering users an optional image filter? -- --Jayen466 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
9. Would you advise UK schools to allow pupils access to Wikipedia, given that the aforementioned material has been found to pass school filters? -- --Jayen466 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
10. A Commons contributor was recently globally locked from all Wikimedia sites after an off-site critic posted information identifying him as having a prior child pornography conviction. During his work in Commons, the contributor had invited dozens of other anonymous Commons users to contribute sexual images to his private porn wiki by posting to their talk pages. Various contributors who raised the issue in Commons were blocked by Commons administrators. The Commons community refused to take any action against the contributor, forcing the Wikimedia Foundation office to step in. Do you support the action taken by the Foundation office? -- --Jayen466 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
11. In a recent board resolution, the Wikimedia Foundation board stated that concerns about "human dignity and respect for personal privacy" are "not always taken into account with regards to media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission". This applies in particular to sexual images where the word of an anonymous uploader is taken as evidence that the person depicted is aware of and has consented to the upload. Complaints received demonstrate that this is often not the case. In a case recently highlighted on the Commons mailing list (Personality rights thread), Commons received complaints that images taken in a private place were hosted without model consent, yet consistently refused to remove them (and they are still present on Commons today, although the present deletion discussion is leaning towards delete). Do you agree with the Wikimedia Foundation board that Commons processes for ascertaining model consent need to be improved, and if so, what if any role do you think Wiki UK should play in this? -- --Jayen466 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
12. In Wikimedia Commons, decisions on whether particular media are in the public domain, and available to the global public for re-use, are usually taken by unqualified anonymous contributors. The professional standard of this decision-making is extremely poor at times (example). In a recent court case in Germany, Wikimedia Foundation Inc. was found to have been a contributor to copyright infringement, when Commons incorrectly declared German stamps to be in the public domain. Do you feel the present Commons process provides the public with an adequate assurance that media declared free by Wikimedia Commons contributors are in fact safe to use, without exposing commercial re-users to the risk of litigation, and if not, how would you propose to improve the process? -- --Jayen466 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)