Welcome![edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia, Digital.Maniac! Thank you for your contributions. I am Magicsan and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type ((help me)) at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Magicsan (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Problems with information affecting living persons at Tox (protocol)[edit]
Hi, Digital.Maniac. I'm afraid I've removed the whole section "Disassociation with Tox Foundation" at Tox (protocol), as it contains sensible information about a living person. Though I agree that the issue with the Tox Foundation and migration to the servers is important to the article, our policy regarding potentially libellous content forces us to look for the best quality sources to reference the content; and self-published sources like the Tox webpage, github and reddit are strictly forbidden for that purpose.
We should wait until Tox gains traction and some reliable specialized magazine covers the issue after performing some research, providing us with the required journalistic integrity to cover a subject that could ruin the life of a real person. I hope you understand, and become an active contributor despite this initial hiccup. Welcome to the project! Diego (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I believe that Wikipedia as an important conduit to knowledge for general public shouldn't silence information on such important matters in development, whether available information is "trusted", according to local rules, or not. I've done my best to provide neutral point of view on aforementioned events, and, quite frankly, I'm disappointed with such decision. Nevertheless, I understand that rules are the rules, and I'll await while this situation receive some media coverage. Thank you for explanation and patience. Digital.Maniac (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for understanding. It's not as much "silencing information" as it is "getting information right". It's not enough that we post information coming from both sides; such information might have been tampered with, or the linked sites could "accidentally disappear" in the middle of the debate, leaving us with a non-neutral unverifiable statement without us even noticing. Not to mention that the Wikimedia Foundation who runs the servers would be open to legal action for spreading defaming information. Wikipedia *can* be a place to spread events in development, but only when such risks are averted by using only trusted information of the highest quality. Diego (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that situation is not that simple, due to Qureshi being a head of a legal entity which was used to represent the project; thus, it's theoretically possible for him to tamper the evidence regarding his actions. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, I'll comply with your decision to remove article's section in question, since it's well within the project' rules, and my edits, evidently, are not. I just want to clarify that my only motive is to provide as much info on this matter as possible, not to steamroll over a person. Digital.Maniac (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I never doubted that :-) Had your edits come from more reliable sources, it would have been a fairly decent section. Diego (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, how about that? (https://lwn.net/Articles/651003/) Will this be enough to bring my edits back? Digital.Maniac (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Mmmh, ok, that's a third party reliable source; although it's not a mainstream magazine and should be handled with care. We could use for a very general statement about the existence of a controversy within the project, without entering into too much detail of who claims what. Let me give it a try later today, I'll a couple of sentences with a neutral wording (it's essential that we follow the advice at WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLP1E), and avoid weasel words (particularly claim). BLP-sensible material is difficult to get it right for a newcomer, so I'd prefer that you let me do it this time, and we can later comment on my wording. Diego (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, this is probably the best way to handle the situation, given the circumstances. Digital.Maniac (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Mmmh, ok, that's a third party reliable source; although it's not a mainstream magazine and should be handled with care. We could use for a very general statement about the existence of a controversy within the project, without entering into too much detail of who claims what. Let me give it a try later today, I'll a couple of sentences with a neutral wording (it's essential that we follow the advice at WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLP1E), and avoid weasel words (particularly claim). BLP-sensible material is difficult to get it right for a newcomer, so I'd prefer that you let me do it this time, and we can later comment on my wording. Diego (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, how about that? (https://lwn.net/Articles/651003/) Will this be enough to bring my edits back? Digital.Maniac (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I never doubted that :-) Had your edits come from more reliable sources, it would have been a fairly decent section. Diego (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that situation is not that simple, due to Qureshi being a head of a legal entity which was used to represent the project; thus, it's theoretically possible for him to tamper the evidence regarding his actions. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, I'll comply with your decision to remove article's section in question, since it's well within the project' rules, and my edits, evidently, are not. I just want to clarify that my only motive is to provide as much info on this matter as possible, not to steamroll over a person. Digital.Maniac (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for understanding. It's not as much "silencing information" as it is "getting information right". It's not enough that we post information coming from both sides; such information might have been tampered with, or the linked sites could "accidentally disappear" in the middle of the debate, leaving us with a non-neutral unverifiable statement without us even noticing. Not to mention that the Wikimedia Foundation who runs the servers would be open to legal action for spreading defaming information. Wikipedia *can* be a place to spread events in development, but only when such risks are averted by using only trusted information of the highest quality. Diego (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)