Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-03-26/News and notes

Just gonna stick this here to address any "wtf" thoughts that people may have upon seeing that I'm on a Wikibreak shortly after being appointed: my editing will be reduced, but I can accommodate crat stuff no problem; renaming a few users every day or so is not exactly time-consuming. WilliamH (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * God, that's kind of an awful picture of us. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   17:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Really like the idea of the Wikimedia shop – but please provide a valid certificate, that kinda ruins the opening. Nageh (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that James is working on that - it's not just a certificate problem, it has something to do with the Shopify store. I'll point him here.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For those using the HTTPS Everywhere browser extension, a quick note that we contacted our friends at EFF and they already modified their ruleset to prevent this problem from occurring with http://shop.wikimedia.org . It should be deployed with their next release. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder if a misunderstanding was introduced into this article during copy-editing? Before copy-editing, the sentences said this: "On the broader picture of the saga the RfC came just after debates on another controversial issue, allegations of child porn." It now says this: "The RfC came shortly after debates on another controversial content issue: allegations that Wikimedia projects host child pornography." These are, of course, very different sentences. :) The discussion linked contains no allegations of or debates out (unless I'm missing them) child pornography being hosted on Wikimedia projects. If there are other discussions meant, could we get a link to those? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * thanks Maggie, you are of course right. i indeed drafted intentionally & carefully the way i did. i reversed the sentence to my old version, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the allegations were that Beta M had, at one time, been convicted for possession of child pornography, and did not involve WMF content at all except tangentially. In light of this, I find its connection to the Muhammad case to be tenuous, and I'm not sure it should have been mentioned in that section. Dcoetzee 03:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * what i was primarily considering on this aspect of the design of this part of the transwiki-section on the case you and others debated was:
 * a) have relevant amounts of explicit transwiki-references to past controversial content debates been made in debating the case? de:WD:K especially but not exclusively provided such.
 * b) were "implicit" references to such past debates made in discussing the case by using arguments originated in such past debates (in significant ways)? the introducing post of the related discussion at User talk:Jimbo_Wales, for example, was primarily built on press coverage, published one day (june 25) after the announcement (june 24) of the june 2010-resolution (no explicit reference to the resolution in the press article, btw).
 * looking at the debates on commons, de.wp, and en.wp under a) and b) it turned out to be justified in regard to editorial (especially contextual) aspects, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)