Jump to content

User talk:SarahStierch

From Wikimania 2012 • Washington, D.C., USA
Latest comment: 12 years ago by PhanuelB in topic PhanuelB Comment

If you are interested in learning why I graded your presentation submission the way I did, be polite and ask!


Ma dame, je vais vous revoir bientôt... [1]

I see you soon. XXX


I cannot wait :) SarahStierch (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Activity on Commons

Hello! Hola!

I write you becouse you signed up for an event of digital commons suggested for Wikimania program. The event was not selected for the program, but we are organizing it anyway as a meet up. I let you here the link in case it could be of your interest: http://wikimania2012.wikimedia.org/wiki/Digital_Commons_Meetup

Commons as an umbrella for social transformation: Wikimedia and free knowledge as digital commons

  • Date & Time: Friday, July 13th, 16:30pm-18:30pm
  • Location: 301
  • Description: There is an each time larger emerging Commons paradigm. It builds upon commons tradition such as the natural commons well described by Nobel Economic Prize 2009 Elinor Ostrom, and it is reinvented by the new models of digital commons, such as Wikipedia. In this regard, we would like to reflect and exchange experiences and lessons on how commons as metaphor and umbrella for social transformation might open up new opportunities for Wikipedia/Wikimedia meaning, impact, expansion and networking.
  • Further program and overall information Digital Commons Meetup
  • Facilitators: Mike Linksvayer and Lilaroja e-mail mayo.fuster(at)eui.eu

Have a nice day! --Lilaroja (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

PhanuelB Comment

Hi Sarah:

I was in DC for all four days of Wikimania 2012. I've met you before in New York.

I have a concern.

The recent Slate Article that mentions you does say that, "Stierch rallied the troops, and the article remains available." I am fully supportive of your efforts to involve more women in the project and I don't think there was anything wrong whatsoever with your "rallying of the troops." Technically, however, your actions could be called vote stacking or canvassing.

The problem is how this relates to an ugly dispute surrounding the Murder of Meredith Kercher Article. I and others believe there was a concerted effort to block all those with a POV opposed by the administrators who had taken control of the page. They would use any and every way possible to block those they disagreed with. Many of the approximately 12 indefinite blocks on this topic involve allegations of precisely the same actions that you took.

In the infamous Christmas Massacre of 2010 by Black Kite editors were blocked simply because they came to express their opinions on a question put out for review. If Black Kite didn't like their opinion or thought they shouldn't be there, he would block them. The result was an article described by Jimmy Wales as highly biased and marked by systematic exclusion of reliable sources. He talked of censorship and an agenda, all understatements.

I also do not understand why those such as you who care about women's issues have never taken an interest in the Amanda Knox article. Wikipedia (90% male) was a central player in the dissemination of false and misleading information about her case and this resulted in terrible harm to both her and her boyfriend. It was 10,000 times worse than anything involving John Seigenthaller who was never harmed in any significant way.

I had also talked with Steven Zhang who had given a presentation on dispute resolution. My point to him was that Wikipedia lacked an effective internal affairs mechanism to challenge administrator misconduct. A good judicial branch of government begins with the integrity of the judges and cops. If a cop sees somebody break the law, and looks the other way, then he can lose the credibility of those he/she serves. The law must be equally applied to all. I believe that in the MoMk topic the deviations from these important principles have been significant. I and others were often accused of BLP violations. The ice cold facts are that all material was impeccably sourced; the false allegations were just part of an attempt to expel those with the wrong POV.

So anyway, I enjoyed Wikmania 2012. I'm curious what your thoughts are on this? I'd also be curious to know if you know of a more troubled entry than the MoMK article.

Here is a Groundreport Article I wrote

While I'm at it, I would really like to see the Wikimedia Foundation impanel a commission to examine what happened with the Murder of Meredith Kercher Article.

PhanuelB (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply