Talk:Wikipedia: Difference between revisions

Line 17:

::''I would immediately email the oversight team if this was on any other page, however, with a page like LTA, I want to see consensus first, so I don't make any mistakes.''

::Maybe the FULU Foundation should consider acquiring [https://accountabilitywiki.org/wiki/Main_Page Accountability Wiki] to serve as a sister project as an off-ramp in the event that Consumer Rights Wiki declines to include the information even though it was made clear multiple times that topics about Wikipedia are edge cases unlike incidents at many other tech platforms like TikTok?[[Special:Contributions/15.254.3.204|15.254.3.204]] 20:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

:::I think acquiring Accountability Wiki would be substantial scope creep for FULU - FULU is an organisation pretty squarely focused on reforming Sec. 1201 of the DMCA. This wiki has substantial overlap with that goal, and FULU supports it because it expects the wiki to be a useful resource in collating and presenting evidence that can be used while lobbying, and our scope/policies are designed to try and avoid veering off into the wider societal/other issues that the accountability wiki seems interested in dealing with. In general, the scope of the accountability wiki seems to be a lot broader and vaguer in a way that's likely to make it challenging to seem like a reliable source to outsiders reading it, which is a core component of our mission.

:::From the way that person you quoted is talking about the issue, it really does feel like an internal moderation policy decision, rather than a consumer rights issue. I suppose an equivalent example might be: if a large Youtuber such as Mr Beast were to name and shame someone who was harrassing him, would that make sense to include here, if he posted it on an official business account? Or if Louis named and shamed a disruptive customer that came into his shop? It could certainly be a controversy that gets talked about, but I've got a gut feeling that it isn't really the type of thing that belongs on this wiki.

:::Anonymous blog comments also don't really contribute to notability - if there was a full blog article written about it in the site then that could potentially contribute to notability (though I'm still not sure about its relevancy). [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 21:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

::Update: I found [https://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/7656139826145924223/3949145738341765543 a comment] at the pro-Israeli "Wikipedia Flood" blog talking about the name and shame pages meaning that there's a modicum of notability at least.[[Special:Contributions/70.224.233.194|70.224.233.194]] 20:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ::''I would immediately email the oversight team if this was on any other page, however, with a page like LTA, I want to see consensus first, so I don't make any mistakes.''
 ::Maybe the FULU Foundation should consider acquiring [https://accountabilitywiki.org/wiki/Main_Page Accountability Wiki] to serve as a sister project as an off-ramp in the event that Consumer Rights Wiki declines to include the information even though it was made clear multiple times that topics about Wikipedia are edge cases unlike incidents at many other tech platforms like TikTok?[[Special:Contributions/15.254.3.204|15.254.3.204]] 20:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
+:::I think acquiring Accountability Wiki would be substantial scope creep for FULU - FULU is an organisation pretty squarely focused on reforming Sec. 1201 of the DMCA. This wiki has substantial overlap with that goal, and FULU supports it because it expects the wiki to be a useful resource in collating and presenting evidence that can be used while lobbying, and our scope/policies are designed to try and avoid veering off into the wider societal/other issues that the accountability wiki seems interested in dealing with. In general, the scope of the accountability wiki seems to be a lot broader and vaguer in a way that's likely to make it challenging to seem like a reliable source to outsiders reading it, which is a core component of our mission.
+:::From the way that person you quoted is talking about the issue, it really does feel like an internal moderation policy decision, rather than a consumer rights issue. I suppose an equivalent example might be: if a large Youtuber such as Mr Beast were to name and shame someone who was harrassing him, would that make sense to include here, if he posted it on an official business account? Or if Louis named and shamed a disruptive customer that came into his shop? It could certainly be a controversy that gets talked about, but I've got a gut feeling that it isn't really the type of thing that belongs on this wiki.
+:::Anonymous blog comments also don't really contribute to notability - if there was a full blog article written about it in the site then that could potentially contribute to notability (though I'm still not sure about its relevancy). [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 21:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
 ::Update: I found [https://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/7656139826145924223/3949145738341765543 a comment] at the pro-Israeli "Wikipedia Flood" blog talking about the name and shame pages meaning that there's a modicum of notability at least.[[Special:Contributions/70.224.233.194|70.224.233.194]] 20:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)