User talk:Jayen466

Welcome on my talk page! You can call me Andreas.

AGM Questions

Andreas, regarding this - yes, it was me! You were right to be cautious. I was on the train at the time on the way back from Monmouth, and couldn't log in to my account. Anyway, I have a few issues with the questions you've asked - mostly to do with scope and brevity - which I'll explain in greater detail tomorrow at work, after talking with the other teller (James Farrar). We're quite happy to have difficult or 'awkward' questions this year, though - let me be clear on that! Richard Symonds (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, good to hear from you. Safe journey, and speak to you tomorrow. --Jayen466 (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

For ease of reference, here are the questions I would like to ask:

1. 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)
2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)

What we're worried about is a few things:

1. These questions delve very deeply into various facets of Wikipedia politics, which are simply unanswerable by non-Wikipedian candidates.
2. A fair few questions - for example, the last one - are about issues which WMUK has no control over. In the example of the last question, it's not up to Wikimedia UK to improve the process, nor is it appropriate for candidates (or current trustees) to comment on legal problems that the WMF has been involved with. While we share some goals with the WMF and have a similar name, we are independent of the WMF.
3. There are five questions being asked by yourself, compared to only one or two by others. This creates big problems with balance - these questions will dominate the hustings, which isn't fair on either candidates or others who may want to ask questions.

In summary, I think it might be OK to ask one or two questions directly related to a candidates stance on issues directly related to Wikimedia UK - for example, "Would you support Wikimedia UK funding an image filter for Wikimedia projects, to prevent objectionable images from being seen by children?", or "What is your opinion of the quality of articles about living people on Wikipedia?". However, the questions you've asked are not appropriate in their present form. We ideally want an election where non-members can ask questions, but I don't feel that your questions are ones which WMUK members want answering, and I think they will turn the hustings into an overly complex and heated discussion rather than a civil and organised process. I hope this helps clarify things - we're more than willing to consider shorter, less complex questions which relate directly to the activities, aims or values of Wikimedia UK. Richard Symonds (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)