Talking to Jimmy Wales about discussion

[Will L <Nabble>]

I emailed Jimmy Wales about adding a "real" discussion function to
Wikipedia. He suggested that I post to this mailing list to start a
discussion. Below are the 4 emails we exchanged. What do you think?

1. My initial email:
--------------------------------
Hi,

This is Will. I am the co-founder of Nabble, a project for making
discussions better.

I have been following the discussions on the wikia mailing list
(http://n2.nabble.com/Wikia-Search-f738587.html). I like your product
design work and philosophy, for example, "avoid excessive a priori
thinking", we do the same in our work.

I write to you because you don't seem to care much about discussions.
On Wikipedia, the "discussion" tab is ubiquitous, but you don't allow
people to discuss the subject there because discussions can ONLY be
about improving the main page.

This rule sounds arbitrary. Why can't a I ask a question about the
subject there? You have many experts and  fellow users visiting the
same page, wouldn't it be good if they can talk and socialize and help
each other out? Communities grow there. You can have a separate
discussion area dedicated to editors. But currently it's all editors.
What's more, the design of the discussion function is so wiki-centric,
you probably designed it on purpose in order to keep the regular guys
out. You seem to be missing a community opportunity here.

I hope to continue this conversation, if you are interested...

Regards,
Will


2. Jimmy Wales' response:
--------------------------------
I think you're just mistaken.  On the main page, the discussion is
about the main page.  On every other page, the discussion is about the
subject.

Or wait, maybe you aren't mistaken but just I am confused by your
terminology.  When we say "main page" we are always referring to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

But maybe you are making a more subtle point about the distinction
between "article space" and "talk space"?

So, you are asking, why can't I just ask a question about Thomas
Jefferson, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Jefferson

Is that right?

Well, because that's not what we *do*.  Nor is it something we want to do.

We care about community, but the community is always subordinate to
the goals of the community.  Being a general chat board is a good
thing for... general chat boards.

At Wikia, we do support those.


3. My response:
--------------------------------
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I made at least ten drafts
for this reply. I hope you see my point.

> So, you are asking, why can't I just ask a question about Thomas Jefferson, here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Jefferson

> Is that right?

Yes. You got my point.  Asking questions and debating and watching
other people ask and debate is a crucial part of learning. Have you
ever learned a subject by just reading an article? For example, you
can read an article on breast cancer, but if your wife has it, then
you WILL have tons of questions, few of which are addressed by that
article. Similarly, you can read the article on SEO, but if you are a
web start-up that needs it, then you will have questions.

Learning is called "学问" in Chinese. 学 means to "study", and  问 means
to "question". Wikipedia has 学 but not 问. I am not just being
philosophical here. I am a practical guy and I use wikipedia a lot.
Right now I do the 问 part in other places, but you could have me
easily. It will be a natural addition to Wikipedia.

> We care about community, but the community is always subordinate to
> the goals of the community.

You are saying that your goal is to create an encyclopedia and there
is nothing else to it, right? You can always reject a new idea by
stating an old goal. I say it's an old goal because it was already
achieved a few years ago. Wiki is already history as Wikipedia has
done nothing new since you started working on search engines.

Maybe we can ask what is the goal of an encyclopedia? If you see it
along the lines of learning (学问), then you will see my point as
relevant. Otherwise, nice talking to you. I appreciate you actually
get back to me.

4. Jimmy Wales' response:
--------------------------------
:-)  It is very interesting, and is affecting my thinking.  But of
course decisions like this are not up to me really.  They are more up
to the community... you might want to start a discussion on wikien-l.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[geni]

2008/9/2 Will <will@...>:

> I emailed Jimmy Wales about adding a "real" discussion function to
> Wikipedia. He suggested that I post to this mailing list to start a
> discussion. Below are the 4 emails we exchanged. What do you think?
>
> 1. My initial email:
> --------------------------------
> Hi,
>
> This is Will. I am the co-founder of Nabble, a project for making
> discussions better.
>
> I have been following the discussions on the wikia mailing list
> (http://n2.nabble.com/Wikia-Search-f738587.html). I like your product
> design work and philosophy, for example, "avoid excessive a priori
> thinking", we do the same in our work.
>
> I write to you because you don't seem to care much about discussions.
> On Wikipedia, the "discussion" tab is ubiquitous, but you don't allow
> people to discuss the subject there because discussions can ONLY be
> about improving the main page.
>
> This rule sounds arbitrary. Why can't a I ask a question about the
> subject there? You have many experts and  fellow users visiting the
> same page, wouldn't it be good if they can talk and socialize and help
> each other out? Communities grow there. You can have a separate
> discussion area dedicated to editors. But currently it's all editors.
> What's more, the design of the discussion function is so wiki-centric,
> you probably designed it on purpose in order to keep the regular guys
> out. You seem to be missing a community opportunity here.
>
> I hope to continue this conversation, if you are interested...
>
> Regards,
> Will

Your software does not appear to be open source.





> Yes. You got my point.  Asking questions and debating and watching
> other people ask and debate is a crucial part of learning. Have you
> ever learned a subject by just reading an article? For example, you
> can read an article on breast cancer, but if your wife has it, then
> you WILL have tons of questions, few of which are addressed by that
> article.

And those questions are best answered by a doctor.

>Similarly, you can read the article on SEO, but if you are a
> web start-up that needs it, then you will have questions.

Perhaps but there are no shortage of SEO forums on the web.

> Learning is called "学问" in Chinese. 学 means to "study", and  问 means
> to "question". Wikipedia has 学 but not 问. I am not just being
> philosophical here. I am a practical guy and I use wikipedia a lot.
> Right now I do the 问 part in other places, but you could have me
> easily. It will be a natural addition to Wikipedia.

Not really. You don't get discussion with say encarta.


> You are saying that your goal is to create an encyclopedia and there
> is nothing else to it, right? You can always reject a new idea by
> stating an old goal. I say it's an old goal because it was already
> achieved a few years ago. Wiki is already history as Wikipedia has
> done nothing new since you started working on search engines.
>


Nothing new? Wikiversity? The in browser video player?

> Maybe we can ask what is the goal of an encyclopedia? If you see it
> along the lines of learning (学问), then you will see my point as
> relevant. Otherwise, nice talking to you. I appreciate you actually
> get back to me.

An encyclopedia is a general source of knowledge.


--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

How to frame a question so that it improves the article.
 
Step 1 -- Always include a phrase like "this article" or "I don't see  where"
 
Step 2 -- Always include a phrase like "I'd like to see" or "it would  
improve this article if"
 
Step 3 -- Slip your question in, sideways between these catchphrases.
 
Example
Anna Nicole Smith
 
"I don't see where in this article they discuss how many men have been  
knocked unconscious when she suddenly turned sideways.  I think it would  improve
this article to have those details.  Also this article does not  appear to
address what exactly her bust size was prior to her implants.   I'd like to see
that added to this article.  Thanks. -- Booboo kitty the  Fourth"
 
Will Johnson



**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.      
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

> Yes. You got my point.  Asking questions and debating and watching
> other people ask and debate is a crucial part of learning. Have you
> ever learned a subject by just reading an article?

No, certainly not. Learning involves far more than just reading an
encyclopaedia article, but Wikipedia's goal isn't to teach, it's to
create a free encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia is a very useful tool in
learning, but it's not the end of the matter and never will be. If
there are relevant encyclopaedic facts that are missing from the
article, you can ask about them on the talk page or on the Reference
Desks. If your questions are very specific or are more about a
difficulty understanding the topic (and not just because the article
is poorly written - that you can suggest we fix) then you need to
consult an expert in whatever way is appropriate for the topic in
question (a question about your wife's breast cancer would be directed
at a doctor, a desire for a greater understanding of breast cancer
would involve enrolling in medical school (you could try a textbook
first, but they are often difficult to understand without the
necessary prior knowledge) - Wikipedia will never be a replacement for
those two options, even if we wanted it to be).

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Judson Dunn-2]

This is kinda interesting, but I don't think it's within the goals of
Wikipedia, or, more importantly, within the cultural model of
Wikipedia.

There is an assumed goal that Wikipedia wants more eyeballs/pageviews.
If you ranked the importance of pageviews to most wikipedians it would
be very low. It is a goal, in as much as we want people to benefit
from wikipedia, but I think it would certainly fall below core
principles like neutrality, free content, and the other [[WP:5P]]s.
There are probably lots of other normal policies that people would
rate higher than pageviews.

Realizing that, the culture is not such that we want millions of
random people saying they like pokemon, or pop-culture-icon of the
week, or even discussing their health concerns. These are all valid
things to do, but unless you are working on Wikipedia (which we
encourage!) there is really no reason to lure people in.

Our culture is very much more like co-workers with a shared goal, than
is it a bunch of chums at the pub. (with a few exceptions of course :)

This might be a great opportunity for another site though, maybe a
browser plug-in. Want to talk about this topic? One click away at
nabble, or something.

In general though, I think centralized discussions about general
topics are a dying breed of website. People are better served by
specific fora (http://community.breastcancer.org/ for example) for
subjects not everyone has an opinion on. For subjects that are in the
general awareness, as more and more people come online, the likelihood
of people you know in real life being online goes up, and people start
to realize they care more about what their actual friends think than
random people in Australia.

Just some thoughts, I got carried away! :o

Judson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

I'm not sure I fully agree with this.  It would depend on the  question.
The internet allows people to check and re-check what they've been  told.
In that sense, our article on digitalis should strive to represent the  
average knowledge of the medical community, not just be a source of  entertainment
for example.
 
If our article on breast cancer could be improved in some way, that is a  
good thing.
 
 
In a message dated 9/5/2008 2:51:44 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
thomas.dalton@... writes:

a  question about your wife's breast cancer would be directed
at a doctor,  




**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.      
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Nathan Awrich]

Hi Will,

Thanks for your interest. I think Jimmy and Thomas have made the standard
points above - that our aim is to provide a source of accessible and
comprehensive information. It isn't a primary teaching tool. We aim to, for
instance, contain all the material you might find in a standard general
chemistry textbook (as an example). What we do not do, though, is provide
this material in a manner suitable for actually learning general chemistry.
We also, obviously, don't provide an instructor.

One of the key benefits of the Wikipedia development model is that it allows
for improvements by people who are not terribly well informed, on the
assumption that in time enough people will have enough aggregate knowledge
that the general quality of our articles will be high. The editors who might
respond about a subject on the talkpage of a random article can't be assumed
to have complete knowledge, or even to know much of anything at all. They
might still make valuable contributions to the article, but you wouldn't
want to ask a question (say, about breast cancer) where an accurate answer
would require a broad depth of knowledge on related subjects.

On the other hand, we do have the reference desk. General subject questions
are often answered there, and perhaps that is a form of the tool you're
looking for? Kind of a Wikipedia-style Google Answers?

Nathan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2008/9/5 Judson Dunn <cohesion@...>:

> There is an assumed goal that Wikipedia wants more eyeballs/pageviews.
> If you ranked the importance of pageviews to most wikipedians it would
> be very low. It is a goal, in as much as we want people to benefit
> from wikipedia, but I think it would certainly fall below core
> principles like neutrality, free content, and the other [[WP:5P]]s.
> There are probably lots of other normal policies that people would
> rate higher than pageviews.


In fact, Wikipedia has achieved its vast mainstream popularity
precisely by concentrating on being an encyclopedia. No ads, no hooks,
no idea if anyone's reading this ...


> Our culture is very much more like co-workers with a shared goal, than
> is it a bunch of chums at the pub. (with a few exceptions of course :)


Both work well together! There's nothing quite like a pile of
encyclopedists down a pub!


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2008/9/5  <WJhonson@...>:

> I'm not sure I fully agree with this.  It would depend on the  question.
> The internet allows people to check and re-check what they've been  told.
> In that sense, our article on digitalis should strive to represent the
> average knowledge of the medical community, not just be a source of  entertainment
> for example.
> If our article on breast cancer could be improved in some way, that is a
> good thing.


If there are specific questions actual readers have when they go to a
topic, that's a very good thing to know, because it suggests the
article would increase in usefulness by mentioning it, e.g. give an
example or two of how to use something rather than just abstract
descriptions. Wikipedia can be improved by knowing this.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2008/9/5 Nathan <nawrich@...>:

> On the other hand, we do have the reference desk. General subject questions
> are often answered there, and perhaps that is a form of the tool you're
> looking for? Kind of a Wikipedia-style Google Answers?


Is much Reference Desk stuff consciously fed back to the articles?


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Alec Conroy-2]

On 9/2/08, Will <will@...> wrote:
> I emailed Jimmy Wales about adding a "real" discussion function to
>  Wikipedia.

Will,

I for one think it's a marvelous idea to have some sort of project
with discussion boards for... EVERYTHING, or at least everything
that's notable.  A wonderful idea, and someone's going to do it.  If
not us, someone else.  But such an idea is so good, it is inevitable
that it will occur.

I agree with the many people who have said that that thing is not
Wikipedia.  We're an encyclopedia, and have worked hard to generate
the "brand image" that we're not just a group of random lunatics
saying whatever we want about anything.   Incorporating a "discuss the
subject itself" area into Wikipedia itself would probably lead to
confusion.

I would suggest asking the foundation to start up a new project which
is specifically devoted to talking about subject itself.  Wikidiscuss
or Wikitalk or something like that.

And then, through templating, we could direct people to THAT project
whenever they discuss things directly (rather than discussing the
article).  For subjects where an extensive discussion is ongoing, we
could include links to that discussion in the same way that we include
links to other projects (like Commons or WikiSource).

But in general, I think it's a wonderful idea, and if you could help
the foundation make such a thing come to pass, without it being part
of Wikipedia proper, I think it would be a wonderful addition to the
family.

Alec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2008/9/6 Alec Conroy <alecmconroy@...>:

> I agree with the many people who have said that that thing is not
> Wikipedia.  We're an encyclopedia, and have worked hard to generate
> the "brand image" that we're not just a group of random lunatics
> saying whatever we want about anything.   Incorporating a "discuss the
> subject itself" area into Wikipedia itself would probably lead to
> confusion.
> I would suggest asking the foundation to start up a new project which
> is specifically devoted to talking about subject itself.  Wikidiscuss
> or Wikitalk or something like that.


It's arguably related to what we do - c.f. the reference desk.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

2008/9/5 David Gerard <dgerard@...>:
> 2008/9/5 Nathan <nawrich@...>:
>
>> On the other hand, we do have the reference desk. General subject questions
>> are often answered there, and perhaps that is a form of the tool you're
>> looking for? Kind of a Wikipedia-style Google Answers?
>
>
> Is much Reference Desk stuff consciously fed back to the articles?

I know some certainly is, I'm not sure how much, though.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

2008/9/5  <WJhonson@...>:
> I'm not sure I fully agree with this.  It would depend on the  question.
> The internet allows people to check and re-check what they've been  told.
> In that sense, our article on digitalis should strive to represent the
> average knowledge of the medical community, not just be a source of  entertainment
> for example.
>
> If our article on breast cancer could be improved in some way, that is a
> good thing.

I'll clarify a key point about what I said: Questions about *your
wife's* breast cancer should be directed to a doctor. Questions about
breast cancer *in general* could well be answered on Wikipedia and if
they're not already in the article the reference desk would be happy
to help (be careful how you phrase the question though or it might be
interpreted as a request for medical advice and deleted). If you want
to re-check what a doctor has told you about your specific case, you
go to a different doctor.

More generally, the issue of how encyclopaedic facts apply to a given
case is not, itself, encyclopaedic. The application of facts is a
matter for professionals, we just concern ourselves with the facts
themselves (the reference desks will sometimes help out with the
application, but generally the desks exist to help people find out
encyclopaedic facts, although sometimes facts too obscure to be
included in the encyclopaedia proper [yet, at least]).

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

I don't fully see the distinction you are trying to draw.
If I want information on my specific cancer, I will look at the specific  
articles about it and the various specific procedures and drugs available.
 
That information applies to me, as well as it does to other cases.  If  the
information is in just a widely general presentation that no one can apply  it,
then why have it at all?  It serves no purpose to write in such a vague  way
that no one can apply that knowledge.
 
"Can I eat with this medicine?" is a specific question that can be  
specifically answered in our article, without the need to consult another  doctor.
 
 
 
In a message dated 9/5/2008 4:24:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
thomas.dalton@... writes:

2008/9/5  <WJhonson@...>:
> I'm not sure I fully  agree with this.  It would depend on the  question.
> The  internet allows people to check and re-check what they've been   told.
> In that sense, our article on digitalis should strive to  represent the
> average knowledge of the medical community, not just be  a source of  
entertainment
> for example.
>
> If our  article on breast cancer could be improved in some way, that is a
> good  thing.

I'll clarify a key point about what I said: Questions about  *your
wife's* breast cancer should be directed to a doctor. Questions  about
breast cancer *in general* could well be answered on Wikipedia and  if
they're not already in the article the reference desk would be  happy
to help (be careful how you phrase the question though or it might  be
interpreted as a request for medical advice and deleted). If you  want
to re-check what a doctor has told you about your specific case,  you
go to a different doctor.

More generally, the issue of how  encyclopaedic facts apply to a given
case is not, itself, encyclopaedic.  The application of facts is a
matter for professionals, we just concern  ourselves with the facts
themselves (the reference desks will sometimes  help out with the
application, but generally the desks exist to help people  find out
encyclopaedic facts, although sometimes facts too obscure to  be
included in the encyclopaedia proper [yet, at  least]).

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l  mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this  mailing list,  visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l





**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.      
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

2008/9/6  <WJhonson@...>:
> I don't fully see the distinction you are trying to draw.
> If I want information on my specific cancer, I will look at the specific
> articles about it and the various specific procedures and drugs available.

You misunderstand me. By "your wife's breast cancer" I don't mean the
particular type of breast cancer that she has, I mean her actual case.
Every case is different. If we require information about your wife in
order to answer the question, it's not out place to do so.

> That information applies to me, as well as it does to other cases.  If  the
> information is in just a widely general presentation that no one can apply  it,
> then why have it at all?  It serves no purpose to write in such a vague  way
> that no one can apply that knowledge.

People can apply it for themselves but we're not going to apply it for them.

> "Can I eat with this medicine?" is a specific question that can be
> specifically answered in our article, without the need to consult another  doctor.

"Can a person with no other relevant conditions and on no other
relevant medications eat with this medicine?" is a general question
which can be answered in our article. Your question is a specific
question which requires consulting a doctor.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Wilhelm Schnotz]

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy@...> wrote:

> On 9/2/08, Will <will@...> wrote:
>> I emailed Jimmy Wales about adding a "real" discussion function to
>>  Wikipedia.
>
> Will,
>
> I for one think it's a marvelous idea to have some sort of project
> with discussion boards for... EVERYTHING, or at least everything
> that's notable.  A wonderful idea, and someone's going to do it.  If
> not us, someone else.  But such an idea is so good, it is inevitable
> that it will occur.

It already has, its called usenet <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet>. :P.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Angela-5]

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Will <will@...> wrote:

> I write to you because you don't seem to care much about discussions.
> On Wikipedia, the "discussion" tab is ubiquitous, but you don't allow
> people to discuss the subject there because discussions can ONLY be
> about improving the main page.

You might be better off talking to Wikinewsies than Wikipedians
considering Wikinews already does allow discussion about the topic (as
opposed to discussion about the article).

<http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=&to=&namespace=102>
shows pages from their comment namespace, which is used for non-NPOV
chat not related to improving the article.

There's more information on it here:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Commentary_pages_on_news_events

Angela

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2008/9/6 Angela <beesley@...>:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Will <will@...> wrote:

>> I write to you because you don't seem to care much about discussions.
>> On Wikipedia, the "discussion" tab is ubiquitous, but you don't allow
>> people to discuss the subject there because discussions can ONLY be
>> about improving the main page.

> You might be better off talking to Wikinewsies than Wikipedians
> considering Wikinews already does allow discussion about the topic (as
> opposed to discussion about the article).
> <http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=&to=&namespace=102>
> shows pages from their comment namespace, which is used for non-NPOV
> chat not related to improving the article.
> There's more information on it here:
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Commentary_pages_on_news_events


Something like this would be tempting for Wikipedia articles, but it'd
be a BLP and confidential info nightmare on anything controversial ...


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Alec Conroy-2]

On 9/6/08, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:

> 2008/9/6 Angela <beesley@...>:
>
>  > You might be better off talking to Wikinewsies than Wikipedians
>  > considering Wikinews already does allow discussion about the topic (as
>  > opposed to discussion about the article).
>  > <http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=&to=&namespace=102>
>  > shows pages from their comment namespace, which is used for non-NPOV
>  > chat not related to improving the article.
>  > There's more information on it here:
>  > http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Commentary_pages_on_news_events
>
> Something like this would be tempting for Wikipedia articles, but it'd
>  be a BLP and confidential info nightmare on anything controversial ...

Would BLP concerns even need to apply to a project/subproject that is
a straightforward simple message board host? At least in
article-space, someone can make an argument that the foundation
"endorses" the article or otherwise contributes to a libel.  But a
message board host should be every bit as free from liability as the
US Postal Service for the letters it carries, or the phone company for
calls that go through its lines, or for the emails written on Gmail.

But of course, I'm not a lawyer, and would love to know if I know what
I'm talking about. :)

Alec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l