Task force/Living People/Internet relay chat meetings/03.08.2010

From Strategic Planning
Jump to: navigation, search
[23:06:10] <Keegan> Okay, begin public logging
[23:06:27] <evil_saltine> ay captain
[23:06:28] |<-- Soxred93|afk has left freenode (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
[23:06:29] <Keegan> These logs will be published on strategy shortly after conclusion
[23:06:30] <[Wordsmith]> Are we to assume that all logs are released under CC-BY-SA?
[23:06:37] <Keegan> Yup
[23:06:54] <Keegan> Okay
[23:07:06] <Keegan> Here's what's going on
[23:07:24] <Keegan> Sorry, webz iz slow for links
[23:07:29] <Natalie> I think I may have found a new IRC client.
[23:07:30] <Natalie> Maybe.
[23:07:44] <The_Thing|Laptop> My internet has been rather slow for Wikipedia tonight
[23:07:47] <Keegan> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Task_force/Living_People#Where_we_stand_so_far_in_planning_4120
[23:08:03] <Keegan> And we now have the draft
[23:08:19] <Natalie> Why does it append that silly number?
[23:08:29] <Keegan> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/Recommendations_to_the_Board_of_Trustees/Draft_2
[23:08:35] <Keegan> Blame liquid threads
[23:08:37] <Keegan> Anyway
[23:08:45] <Natalie> I do.
[23:09:08] <Keegan> So let's have a look at what I call the "preamble"
[23:09:12] <Keegan> Thoughts?
[23:09:20] <Natalie> I have a question.
[23:09:28] <Natalie> What are the odds that the BoT decides to reject these recommendations?
[23:09:34] <Keegan> Oh, and NuclearWarfare will be moderating
[23:09:47] <NuclearWarfare> It was news to me too
[23:09:49] <Natalie> Or, what are the odds that they do nothing?
[23:09:50] * NuclearWarfare pokes Keegan
[23:10:01] <--| Tiptoety has left #wikimedia-strategy
[23:10:05] <Philippe|Wiki> I think it's unlikely that they'll reject.  I think it's likely they'll accept in whole or in part, probably with minor modifications.
[23:10:08] <Keegan> What does that matter?  We're examining the content
[23:10:33] <Philippe|Wiki> In either case, I don't think it impacts the work of the task force, which is charged with giving its best recommendations
[23:10:58] <Natalie> I thought the goal of the task force was to make progress.
[23:11:17] <Keegan> Natalie, let's not get into this at the moment
[23:11:19] <Natalie> If the Board is going to simply reject or ignore the recommendations, I don't see much progress. I'm asking what the odds are.
[23:11:31] <NuclearWarfare> "I think it's unlikely that they'll reject. I think it's likely they'll accept in whole or in part, probably with minor modifications."
[23:11:35] <Keegan> So examining the first part
[23:11:38] <NuclearWarfare> so, low I assume
[23:11:47] <NuclearWarfare> So, the preamble
[23:11:51] <NuclearWarfare> I think it's pretty good
[23:12:01] <NuclearWarfare> It could be a bit stronger though
[23:12:04] <The_Thing|Laptop> "our moral responsibility is to deal with living people"
[23:12:21] <Natalie> I think it needs a copyedit.
[23:12:23] <Keegan> It's a bit faux legalese
[23:12:25] <The_Thing|Laptop> That wording makes it seem like living people are a problem.
[23:12:37] <Keegan> Natalie, Newyorkbrad will be writing the final version
[23:12:40] <[Wordsmith]> needs more flowery language
[23:12:55] <[Wordsmith]> Keegan: so we can expect the final version to be three times this size
[23:13:09] <The_Thing|Laptop> Well, actually they are a problem, but in a different way...
[23:13:15] <Philippe|Wiki> The_Thing|Laptop: They are :-)
[23:13:18] <Philippe|Wiki> but yes.
[23:13:26] <Keegan> Ha, well, kinda.  I don't think he'll do much with the points
[23:13:33] <NuclearWarfare> "Individual projects hosted on Wikimedia servers are welcome to provide their own policy and guidelines as long as they are within the constraints designated by the Board, and are welcome to narrow the scope of individual projects."
[23:13:40] <NuclearWarfare> I feel like that should be stronger
[23:13:54] <Keegan> But the wording of the first bit I'm not comfortable with even though I wrote it, but I think it's the general gist
[23:14:02] <NuclearWarfare> Saying that projects overall are obliged to respect global policies...or something like that
[23:14:14] <Keegan> This is true
[23:14:14] <NuclearWarfare> I'm not exactly sure what I just said, but hopefully you understood?
[23:14:32] <Keegan> Yeah
[23:14:42] <Keegan> That would strengthen the meta project too
[23:14:51] -->| Blurpeace (~Blurpeace@wikimedia/Blurpeace) has joined #wikimedia-strategy
[23:15:34] <Keegan> So point one
[23:15:46] <NuclearWarfare> "   1. The Board recommends that all projects carefully examine and/or establish stringent policies on the use of blocking disruptive contributors or vandals and on protecting articles, keeping in mind such policies' application of assuming good faith of positive attempts to contribute content."
[23:15:57] <Keegan> That's not aimed at en.wiki, it's at more "stringent" projects
[23:16:04] <Natalie> The language is giving me a headache.
[23:16:12] <NuclearWarfare> (BTW Keegan, I did make some changes since you last touched this)
[23:16:18] <NuclearWarfare> I can revert for now if you wish
[23:16:28] <Natalie> Keegan: What meta project?
[23:16:48] <Keegan> The Foundation receives complaints about blocking regularly in all languages
[23:17:01] <Keegan> meta.wikimedia.org, where you're a sysop'
[23:17:06] <Keegan> *sysop
[23:17:14] <Natalie> <Keegan> That would strengthen the meta project too
[23:17:21] <Natalie> You're trying to strengthen Meta-Wiki?
[23:17:22] <Natalie> Why?
[23:17:31] <Keegan> As a host for global policies
[23:17:35] <Keegan> Anyway
[23:17:48] <Keegan> Thoughts about point one?
[23:18:08] <Philippe|Wiki> I'd strike the final clause
[23:18:11] <Keegan> Other than complaining about the language and getting into tangential debates to make a point?
[23:18:12] <Natalie> It's rather lousy?
[23:18:21] <Philippe|Wiki> I don't think we necessarily need to talk about the AGF applications
[23:18:24] <Natalie> Point one should be the primary point, shouldn't it?
[23:18:37] |<-- LauraHale has left freenode ()
[23:18:40] <Keegan> It can be reordered
[23:18:50] <Keegan> I think eight should be primary, personally
[23:19:05] <Blurpeace> "and/or"?
[23:19:06] <Keegan> But I wrote them in the order I developed them, not importance
[23:19:12] <NuclearWarfare> For the purposes of the meeting, it should probably kept as is
[23:19:26] <Keegan> I'll make a note about ordering
[23:19:29] <Philippe|Wiki> there are a couple ways to think about that:  the first would be to use the initial points as a framework for the strongest points; the second would be in order of importance
[23:19:32] <Natalie> I think it's kind of rude to tell projects to block vandals.
[23:19:33] <Philippe|Wiki> i'm agnostic about which is better.
[23:19:41] <Keegan> But these weren't meant to represent ranking of importance
[23:19:50] <Natalie> In the condescending sense of the word.
[23:20:08] <NuclearWarfare> How about a rewrite to: "all projects carefully re-examine or establish stringent policies on the blocking of disruptive contributors or vandals and on protecting articles."
[23:20:15] <Natalie> Then perhaps they should be unenumerated?
[23:20:28] <Keegan> Natalie: It's to differentiate between vandalism and good faith subjects or representatives
[23:20:28] <Natalie> Why are you telling projects to block disruptive users?
[23:20:37] <Natalie> Oh, well that's not clear.
[23:20:41] -->| vonRanke (~wsaryn@wikipedia/LeonardBloom) has joined #wikimedia-strategy
[23:20:53] <Keegan> Natalie: How would you clarify?
[23:20:57] <Keegan> If you were to say it
[23:20:59] <NuclearWarfare> Natalie: Cause a lot of them are far too stringent, including enwiki
[23:21:20] <Natalie> en.wiki is too stringent about what?
[23:21:20] <NuclearWarfare> far too kind*
[23:21:22] <NuclearWarfare> I'm sorry
[23:21:37] <Keegan> There's a dichotomy
[23:21:49] <Keegan> en.wiki is pretty liberal, but templates cause problems
[23:21:56] <Natalie> I still don't see the point of such a statement.
[23:21:58] <Keegan> wiktionary, for example, is too strict
[23:22:17] <Keegan> We need a middle ground of care to non-blatant vandals
[23:23:06] <Keegan> So how would you, Natalie, write that idea?
[23:23:17] <Natalie> I would remove it and focus on something else.
[23:23:24] <Natalie> The issue isn't one of articulation.
[23:23:32] <Natalie> Though "on the use of blocking disruptive contributors or vandals and on protecting articles, keeping in mind such policies' application of assuming good faith of positive attempts to contribute content." really makes no sense.
[23:24:52] <Keegan> Okay, moving on to point two
[23:25:00] * The_Thing|Laptop essentially reads it as "block the trolls and make it harder for them to do it in the first place, but still make editing as accessible as possible"
[23:25:12] <NuclearWarfare> Exactly, The Thing
[23:25:21] * Keegan nods
[23:25:23] <NuclearWarfare> Point two: "all projects ensure that readers and especially subjects of content are able to easily contribute to their articles, or point out flaws in relation to how they are represented in content and context."
[23:25:23] <Philippe|Wiki> just a thought, but... why not say that?
[23:25:26] <Natalie> Then, uh, write that.
[23:25:41] <Philippe|Wiki> Damn, i hate agreeing wtih Natalie
[23:25:45] * Keegan claps
[23:25:46] -->| britty (~Aphaia@wikimedia/Aphaia) has joined #wikimedia-strategy
[23:25:48] <Philippe|Wiki> goes against everything i stand for.
[23:25:53] <The_Thing|Laptop> heh
[23:26:10] <NuclearWarfare> Keegan's the one who doesn't to use the flowery, faux-legal language
[23:26:17] <NuclearWarfare> I mean...never mind
[23:26:24] |<-- sj| has left freenode (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
[23:26:25] <NuclearWarfare> I don't make any sense after 11:00 local
[23:26:25] <Natalie> to use?
[23:26:35] <Natalie> Okay.
[23:26:44] <NuclearWarfare> who wanted* was where I originally intended on going
[23:27:05] <Keegan> I didn't want to, I just wrote it because I'm verbose
[23:27:07] <Natalie> Point two is fine, I guess.
[23:27:23] <Natalie> I don't know how far these recommendations are supposed to go.
[23:27:48] <NuclearWarfare> That's one issue I had as well - how specific are we going to be?
[23:27:52] <Keegan> Well, that gets to the complicated part later down the road
[23:28:07] <Natalie> Why not say "the 'Contact Us' aspect of every WMF wiki is woefully inadequate and should be enhanced as quickly as possible'?
[23:28:12] <Keegan> coming up with ways to get the communities involved.  Remember, this is strategy, it will take years
[23:28:31] <Natalie> Strategy isn't supposed to be the part that takes years.
[23:28:45] <Keegan> Implementation
[23:28:57] <Keegan> Anyway
[23:29:09] <Keegan> The language will be cleaned up, but yeah that is the gist of two
[23:29:26] <Natalie> There seems to be a large gap between meaning and message.
[23:29:33] <Keegan> Point three needs more teeth
[23:29:52] <Natalie> What you mean and what's written aren't aligned, which makes most of this discussion useless.
[23:29:56] <NuclearWarfare> "all projects carefully examine the use of the software capabilities of MediaWiki and approved extensions, and how they may be appropriately implemented in areas that deal with living people. A list of useful extensions can be found at strategy:Task force/Living People/Useful MediaWiki extensions."
[23:30:05] <NuclearWarfare> Natalie: That's why we are having this
[23:30:12] <Natalie> Is it?
[23:30:13] <NuclearWarfare> So that this draft can be rewritten
[23:30:14] <Keegan> Actually, it helps articulate what needs to be changed
[23:30:40] <Natalie> strategy.wiki should never be used for something like a list of MW extensions.
[23:30:42] <Natalie> That's a Meta thing.
[23:31:09] <Natalie> And "useful" is a stupid word in context.
[23:31:26] <britty> i'd love to say some parts of strategywiki (specially non-en parts) could be obsolates
[23:31:30] <britty> and bad translation
[23:31:44] <britty> i'm afraid not every parts of strategywiki is useful ...
[23:31:57] === britty <~Aphaia@wikimedia/Aphaia> ``Kizu "Britty" Naoko''
[23:31:57] === britty: member of #wikimedia-strategy and #wikimedia
[23:31:57] === britty: attached to gibson.freenode.net ``Oslo, Norway''
[23:31:57] === britty is logged in as britty
[23:31:57] --- End of WHOIS information for britty.
[23:32:21] <NuclearWarfare> [[m:Living People MediaWiki extensions]]
[23:32:23] <NuclearWarfare> ?
[23:32:39] <Natalie> Something like that, yeah.
[23:33:07] <Natalie> I guess you're talking about AbuseFilter and FlaggedRevs, mostly?
[23:33:16] <britty> we propose a new extention on meta today?
[23:33:17] <NuclearWarfare> Well, I'm not really sure
[23:33:23] <NuclearWarfare> No one has bothered to catalog this
[23:33:27] <Keegan> And patrolled
[23:33:30] <Philippe|Wiki> Also, a tool for rating article quality.
[23:33:30] <NuclearWarfare> So I figured that we should somewhere
[23:33:36] <Keegan> Not all projects use them, not all need to
[23:33:58] <Natalie> If we're talking about patrolling as well, genericize the page title from "MW extensions" to "software" or something.
[23:33:58] <britty> keegan, board issued a resolution it means someday they need it ...
[23:34:24] <Natalie> NuclearWarfare: That's fair.
[23:34:26] -->| sj| (~sj@c-24-91-152-135.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) has joined #wikimedia-strategy
[23:34:26] |<-- sj| has left freenode (Changing host)
[23:34:26] -->| sj| (~sj@wikipedia/sj) has joined #wikimedia-strategy
[23:34:50] <Keegan> Oh look, a Board member!
[23:35:58] <Keegan> Point four has to do with timeframes
[23:36:13] <Keegan> For instance, they set up a system on commons for permissions and processing
[23:36:25] <Keegan> It seems to be working out, I from what I hear
[23:36:36] <Keegan> s/I/
[23:36:41] <NuclearWarfare> all hosted content is examined and continually patrolled by projects in a timely and effective manner to ensure the quality, relevance, and treatment of the content. Pursuant to this objective, Board further recommends that all projects enable the 'Patrolled Revisions' extension
[23:36:51] <NuclearWarfare> I added that last sentence today
[23:36:53] <NuclearWarfare> Thoughts?
[23:37:05] <Natalie> It's missing "the"
[23:37:16] <Natalie> Patrolled revisions aren't an extension.
[23:37:34] <Natalie> And you're getting back to the "level of detail" question again.
[23:37:37] <NuclearWarfare> Is it just a variation of Flagged Revisions?
[23:37:51] <Natalie> It's part of MW core. It's a whole separate thing from FR.
[23:38:06] <britty> natalie is right
[23:38:22] <britty> it has been there for years just not activated on WMF wikis
[23:38:36] <britty> not every WMF wikis i meant
[23:38:48] <britty> some has been using
[23:39:46] -->| Blurredpeace (~Blurpeace@wikimedia/Blurpeace) has joined #wikimedia-strategy
[23:40:13] <Keegan> Naturally we've all agreed that my writing sucks
[23:40:21] * Keegan is a talker
[23:40:52] <Keegan> Point five is just a general thing
[23:41:09] <NuclearWarfare> all projects examine interpersonal interaction, the key to a successful collaborative environment, and adopt local policies relevant to such if the project has not already done so.
[23:41:11] <Natalie> continually patrolled --> continually monitored
[23:41:12] <NuclearWarfare> I don't even think we need that
[23:41:35] <NuclearWarfare> mhmm Natalie
[23:41:38] <Keegan> Well, not all wikis have clear policies on civility and assuming good faith and all that
[23:41:45] <Natalie> Point 7 seems like a dupe of point 2.
[23:41:50] |<-- yann_ has left freenode (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
[23:41:58] <Natalie> Keegan: That's not within scope.
[23:42:16] <Philippe|Wiki> Natalie: Disagree.
[23:42:27] <britty> Keegan, right, so why not keeping the writing in generic?
[23:42:32] <Keegan> The scope has to do with all interaction between people
[23:42:32] <Natalie> You're already trying to dictate global BLP policy. If you try to dictate a bunch of other global policies as well, you're going to decrease your already low odds.
[23:42:33] <NuclearWarfare> Agree with Natalie. It's nice, but it's more part of Community Health than BLPs
[23:42:38] |<-- Blurpeace has left freenode (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
[23:42:42] <britty> not reminding a particular policy or guideline
[23:42:43] <Keegan> It's not about biographies
[23:42:56] <Natalie> It's not about Civility policies either.
[23:43:16] <Natalie> KISS is the relevant principle here.
[23:43:43] <Philippe|Wiki> Sorry, but civility and collaboration is the core of everything we do.  It's well within scope.
[23:43:59] <britty> Natalie, what's KISS?
[23:44:10] <Keegan> "Keep it simple, stupid"
[23:44:17] <britty> ok
[23:44:32] <Natalie> Yes, sorry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle
[23:44:39] <Natalie> Philippe|Wiki: No it's not.
[23:44:52] <Philippe|Wiki> <shrug> suit yourself.  I disagree.
[23:44:57] <Keegan> Natalie: You didn't establish the scope :)
[23:44:58] <Natalie> That's like saying you need a bullet on the virtue of free content because it's clearly within scope.
[23:45:06] <Philippe|Wiki> Natalie: I'm okay with that too.
[23:45:10] <Natalie> The scope is content related to living people, not civility policies.
[23:45:24] <Keegan> That doesn't relate to living people?
[23:45:25] <Natalie> Then the meeting ought to focus on that.
[23:45:28] <Keegan> You're a living person
[23:45:34] <britty> Natalie, agreed but BLP idea is entirely based on civility i understand
[23:45:39] <Natalie> Keegan: And?
[23:45:50] <Keegan> Civility matters
[23:45:57] <Keegan> So on to point six
[23:46:00] <Natalie> So do a lot of things.
[23:46:08] <Philippe|Wiki> THe question is also whether we're civil to the subjects of the biographies.
[23:46:12] <Natalie> You're saying "X is important, so it should be included."
[23:46:18] <britty> Philippe|Wiki, right
[23:46:18] <NuclearWarfare> Hold on before we're get to point 6
[23:46:22] <Philippe|Wiki> If, when coming on site, they're treated poorly, have we fulfilled our obligation to them?
[23:46:31] <Philippe|Wiki> Sorry, Keegan, I think this is a huge point.
[23:46:46] <britty> BLP is beyond just not being defamation
[23:46:51] <Keegan> Oh that's fine, keep talking
[23:46:57] <Natalie> That's not what the "civility policy" is about.
[23:46:58] <Natalie> And that's what's being referenced.
[23:47:03] <Philippe|Wiki> Natalie: Of course it is.
[23:47:08] <Philippe|Wiki> It's about treating everyone with civility
[23:47:13] <Philippe|Wiki> including the subjects of biographies.
[23:47:17] <Natalie> What?
[23:47:18] <Natalie> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility
[23:47:22] <Keegan> Ping me when you're ready to move on
[23:47:29] <NuclearWarfare> But the civility policies that we traditionally refer to are internal
[23:47:38] <Natalie> Where does that policy discuss article content, much less living people?
[23:47:40] <NuclearWarfare> Wikimedian-Wikimedian interactions
[23:48:03] <Natalie> "Civility" in any Wikimedia-related sense refers to interaction between editors.
[23:48:07] <Philippe|Wiki> NuclearWarfare: When someone edits to tell us their biography is defamatory, they're on site
[23:48:07] <britty> Natalie, keep away from a local policy and be back to the word meaning in general
[23:48:10] <Philippe|Wiki> they're entiteled to civility
[23:48:23] <britty> so you'll see BLP is a civility matter i think
[23:48:24] <Philippe|Wiki> They are, arguably, a part of the Wikimedia community at that point.
[23:48:37] <Natalie> britty: It's not being referenced generally. It's being referenced specifically.
[23:48:44] <NuclearWarfare> I have never seen that as a problem though
[23:48:58] <Philippe|Wiki> I disagree strongly, NuclearWarfare
[23:49:06] <britty> Natalie, i guess the global community think civility in a general sense, not in enwiki policy meaning if referred
[23:49:26] <Philippe|Wiki> Look, if you want to reword it to say that subjects of biographies deserve to be treated with fairness and courtesy, I'm okay with that.
[23:49:28] <NuclearWarfare> I'll defer to your judgment, because you deal with this far more often than I do, but could you provide some situations?
[23:49:29] <Natalie> britty: I think if we can avoid that specific word altogether, we can reduce confusion, on en.wiki and elsewhere. :-)
[23:49:46] <Natalie> Philippe|Wiki: This is (yet another) meaning vs. message issue........
[23:49:48] <Philippe|Wiki> But not putting something in there is an abdication of our core responsibilities.
[23:49:55] <britty> Natalie, haha right
[23:49:59] <Philippe|Wiki> Natalie: That's why I'm saying a rewording is fine...
[23:50:13] <britty> but i have no good alternative ...
[23:50:15] <Natalie> Philippe|Wiki: You want a point about the virtue of free content too?
[23:50:28] <Philippe|Wiki> Natalie: If you think it's important, I'm willing to back you on that. :)
[23:50:32] <Philippe|Wiki> but I don't feel strongly about it.
[23:50:38] <Philippe|Wiki> Because I don't think it's immediately germane
[23:50:50] <Philippe|Wiki> What I do think is germane is treating BLP subjects with kindness and courtesy.
[23:50:57] <Philippe|Wiki> And I think we should spell that out.
[23:51:08] <Keegan> back in a few, NW please move to the next point if this ends and I'm not back
[23:51:09] <Philippe|Wiki> Unless, of course, you don't think they're entitled to that as a basic premise :)
[23:51:15] <Natalie> So say that instead.
[23:51:17] <NuclearWarfare> Keegan: sure
[23:51:28] <Philippe|Wiki> Geez, Natalie, didn't I just say I'm okay with a rewording?
[23:51:33] <NuclearWarfare> Point 5 could just be "all projects treat subjects of content with fairness and courtesy
[23:51:33] <Philippe|Wiki> What part of that wasn't clear? :)
[23:51:53] <Natalie> Philippe|Wiki: The whole thing needs rewriting, apparently.
[23:51:56] <Philippe|Wiki> NW, that meets my needs
[23:52:30] <NuclearWarfare> Point 6, quotes and images
[23:52:30] <NuclearWarfare> all projects take adequate care in the use of images and quotations, and the relevance and context of placement to building quality content. This includes the use of public/free images as well as fair use, and proper application to reduce undue weight on sight and promote neutrality in text and format.
[23:53:06] <Natalie> What's the purpose of that point?
[23:53:28] <Natalie> (It seems to be three different points in one.)
[23:53:31] <NuclearWarfare> indeed
[23:53:35] <Natalie> ((Parentheses.))
[23:53:42] <NuclearWarfare> The Undue weight part is the most critical of them all
[23:53:47] <Natalie> (((Trapped forever.)))
[23:54:09] <Natalie> Keegan: Pingggggggggggggggg.
[23:54:12] <Philippe|Wiki> (btw, I'm sitting in a room with Godwin: he feels equally strongly that we include a line such as NW's suggested language for point 5)
[23:54:30] <Natalie> I'm sitting in a room with a bag of chips.
[23:54:39] <Natalie> It doesn't have many views on the matter.
[23:54:52] <Philippe|Wiki> Dumb as a bag of chips?
[23:55:02] <Natalie> Just not the chatty type, I guess.
[23:55:09] <Philippe|Wiki> That must be nice, in your house.
[23:55:35] <Natalie> You have the media portion, the free/fair use portion, and the undue weight portion.
[23:55:51] <Natalie> Someone needs to figure out what the intent of the point is/was and then adjust it so it can be discussed.
[23:55:55] <Natalie> It's not discussable in current form.
[23:56:05] <Natalie> And point 7 is a dupe of point 2, I think I said above.
[23:56:23] <NuclearWarfare> OK, we'll come back to 6 when Keegan gets back
[23:56:45] <NuclearWarfare> 7: all projects set up a proper framework for handling issues relating to living people if they have not already done so. This includes identifying and encouraging volunteers and groups within each project to better the social environments in the aim of content building ("WikiProjects"), as well as identifying and working with issues that may be e-mailed to the Wikimedia Foundation.
[23:56:51] <NuclearWarfare> Probably should be merged with 2
[23:56:55] <Natalie> Point 8 is another headache-inducer.
[23:57:18] <NuclearWarfare> yeah, I didn't get it...
[23:57:29] <Natalie> Point 8?
[23:57:39] <Natalie> It's trying to force through "default to delete."
[23:58:08] <Philippe|Wiki> Could someone paste in point 8 please? :)
[23:58:09] <NuclearWarfare> Well, I saw that, but in such a convoluted way...
[23:58:13] <NuclearWarfare> ah, sorry
[23:58:18] <NuclearWarfare> #
[23:58:18] <NuclearWarfare> # all projects examine their deletion policies in an effective manner to deal with living people. This includes the care of the subject's concerns should their notability be deemed minor. Projects must have due diligence with valid issues pertaining to living people, and content is suggested to be removed if the result of a deletion debate determines that there is no consensus to keep the...
[23:58:18] <NuclearWarfare> ...hosted content.
[23:58:47] <Philippe|Wiki> Yeah, it's default to delete.  Just say it.
[23:58:51] <Philippe|Wiki> Or don't, i don't care.
[23:59:02] <Natalie> Such valuable contributions this evening, Philippe|Wiki.
[23:59:03] <Philippe|Wiki> But that's crappy language.  (I didn't write it, did I?  it sounds like me)
[23:59:16] <NuclearWarfare> I think that was Keegan
[23:59:16] <Philippe|Wiki> Natalie: I'm learning from you.
[23:59:21] <Natalie> "Rewrite or not. Fuck it all. Godwin's here!"
[23:59:31] <Natalie> :-)
[23:59:32] <NuclearWarfare> Geez, it's Philippe and Natalie bashing Keegan-day
[23:59:42] <[Wordsmith]> Hitler would be in favor of default to delete
[23:59:45] <Philippe|Wiki> Nah, I actually am fond of Keegan.  I'll bash Natalie .
[23:59:55] <Philippe|Wiki> heh, [Wordsmith]
[00:00:15] <[Wordsmith]> omg, I just invoked Godwin's law while Godwin is here
[00:00:47] <Philippe|Wiki> Godwin says you're allowed to invoke Hitler, since he's not a BLP subject.
[00:00:51] <Natalie> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJoke
[00:01:22] <[Wordsmith]> ah, so this is another exception to Godwin's law
[00:01:33] <[Wordsmith]> it should be put into the wiki article now
[00:01:38] <[Wordsmith]> with this log cited
[00:02:18] <Natalie> Useful discussion is useful.
[00:02:24] <Keegan> I'm back
[00:02:34] <Natalie> In black?
[00:02:57] <Keegan> Nah, the crappy admin t-shirt
[00:03:19] <NuclearWarfare> Keegan: Point 6
[00:03:21] <Keegan> Again, we all agree my language is too flowery faux legal bull
[00:03:22] <NuclearWarfare> We were confused
[00:03:33] <Keegan> Ah
[00:03:47] <Keegan> That has to do with say, mug shots being the infobox photo
[00:04:09] |<-- MrZ-man has left freenode (Quit: Read Error: 118 (Connection to cabal server terminated by remote host))
[00:04:12] <Philippe|Wiki> <shrug>  that's the one I intend to use for Natalie's.
[00:04:46] <Natalie> /mode #wikimedia-strategy +q *!*@wikimedia/Philippe
[00:05:01] <Philippe|Wiki> best of luck with that
[00:05:06] <Natalie> Keegan: Needs to be rewritten.
[00:05:08] <Keegan> anyway
[00:05:16] <Keegan> Yeah, but that's the point of six
[00:05:32] <Natalie> Is there a reason every point is written in code?
[00:05:37] <NuclearWarfare> If that's the point of 6, we also need another one for NPOV and Undue
[00:06:47] <Keegan> {{sofixit}}
[00:07:36] <Keegan> Point seven is an advisement in general of working together to {{sofixit}}
[00:07:41] <Natalie> Keegan: Needs subst:.
[00:07:55] <Natalie> And I thought we were giving feedback.
[00:08:07] <NuclearWarfare> I'll go over the logs tomorrow anyway
[00:08:15] <NuclearWarfare> Implement changes based on discussion
[00:09:14] <Keegan> Natalie, after months of IRC, phone and RL conversations with you, I totally have your feedback memorized
[00:09:36] <Natalie> Time better spent learning to write.
[00:09:54] <NuclearWarfare> Be nice :(
[00:10:02] <Natalie> My B.
[00:10:22] -->| BasketOfPuppies (~BasketOfP@wikipedia/Basket-of-Puppies) has joined #wikimedia-strategy
[00:10:32] <Keegan> 's all good
[00:11:11] * BasketOfPuppies wanders in
[00:11:21] * BasketOfPuppies sniffs everyone in the #
[00:12:21] <Keegan> And eight is the default to delete recommendation
[00:12:23] <Keegan> Yes, needs more teeth
[00:13:08] <BasketOfPuppies> is this a private meeting?
[00:13:34] <The_Thing|Laptop> no
[00:13:35] <Keegan> Nope
[00:13:36] <Keegan> Welcome
[00:13:40] |<-- juliancolton has left freenode (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.85 [Firefox 3.0.18/2010020220])
[00:13:45] * BasketOfPuppies wags her tail
[00:13:47] <The_Thing|Laptop> "default to delete"
[00:13:53] * The_Thing|Laptop wonders where Coffee is...
[00:13:56] <Philippe|Wiki> OK, friends... and puppies... I have to bail.  Long day tomorrow.
[00:14:04] <Keegan> Bye Philippe|Wiki
[00:14:05] * BasketOfPuppies sniffs Philippe|Wiki 
[00:14:05] <Philippe|Wiki> Best of luck, all.
[00:14:08] <NuclearWarfare> Good night Philippe
[00:14:10] * Philippe|Wiki pets the pups
[00:14:15] * BasketOfPuppies licks Philippe|Wiki 
[00:14:19] |<-- Philippe|Wiki has left freenode (Quit: Philippe|Wiki)
[00:14:25] * The_Thing|Laptop snuggles the BasketOfPuppies
[00:14:49] <BasketOfPuppies> is the discussion regarding BLPs and AfD discussions?
[00:14:52] <Keegan> So basically my writing sucks but the points in general are workable
[00:15:07] <NuclearWarfare> BoP: See the topic header
[00:15:55] <Keegan> We're getting to policy drafting next, my writing will suck
[00:16:07] <Keegan> I need to get afk because of real life
[00:16:23] <Keegan> So end public logging, please continue discussion