Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC/June 2008

June 1?

This was the date raised at the last meetup. Is this a good date for everyone?--Pharos (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I should be able to make it. I'd prefer May 25, but can't have everything, I guess. Enigma ^message 01:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Any possibility of May 25? Enigma ^message 02:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I think people objected at the March meetup because it's Memorial Day weekend.--Pharos (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Limits on Photography at Meet-ups

No more shots like this, unless everyone in the frame knows.

Given the current situation with User:Newyorkbrad's pending retirement, I would like that at all future Meet-Ups it become very known and clear to people who want anonymity the situation that Newyorkbrad has endured. I also think shots of people in the background not knowingly the subject of the photograph be banned. Newyorkbrad will be retiring from Wikipedia in the morning - the root of this is that he has been photographed at New York Meet Ups. That was his choice, but there is a lesson to be learned and shared. We need to stop being so sloppy. --David Shankbone 03:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with David, no cameras! no recording things! Also, it would be nice if we could get a list of media invitees in advance...besides David of course :) MBisanz ^talk 14:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Knowing media attendees in advance will not always be practical. We had two media people at the March meeting who didn't contact us beforehand (the third person did).--Pharos (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's only because you want to know who they are so you can threaten them not to take any compromising photos of yourself! :o Anyway, I agree with David. It's a form of collateral damage. It's great to have photos and video, but some people need to be able to protect their privacy. We could have the "no photo and video zone" similar to a no-smoking room. Enigma ^message 15:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, given the layout of the room that very hard to do, and still have them able to see the screen. MBisanz ^talk 15:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I thought where brad sat was a good example. It's away from the main table, so he'd miss the "group shots" of people sitting around the table, and yet he was able to see the screen as long as no one stood in front of him. Enigma ^message 15:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In an email with Pharos, we both agreed we don't want a "Cold War mentality" to take hold, and if there are 30 people at a meet-up, and 5 of them have privacy concerns, we simply need to say at the outset to everyone to be aware of who they are, and then also direct them to not sit in prominent places in the room, and that there be no more shots like the one on the right. --David Shankbone 15:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's 8 people in the background and parts of two others. :o Enigma ^message 15:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should make clear announcements at the beginning of the meeting, designate an "out of frame" area for the recording, and only photograph people with their permission. We should probably brief each of the people with cameras too, so they're aware of the guidelines.--Pharos (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

An outsiders view: Working for gay/lesbian issues in Oklahoma is sometimes... a challenge... and we deal with some of these same "outing" concerns. Most of our major events have either a "sit her and be out of the frame" area, or a designated "holler-cuz-I'm-takin'-a-picture" rule. Before you take a picture, you give 10 seconds (LOUD) notice to the room. Sure, it's sometimes distracting, but let me tell you: every once in a while you see people scamper and it reminds you why you have the rule. Something similar would probably be helpful at your meets. - Philippe 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is one reason why I've always said that wiki-meetup photos should not be uploaded under the GFDL or any free licenses (trouble is, it is either that or upload to an external site, because non-free pics can't be used in userspace or projectspace). And I always take care to make sure there are no people in the pictures I upload to Commons. Even direct photographs of people should, ideally, not include others in the picture, both for wiki-meetups and for encyclopedic pictures. Either that, or crop and fuzz the background of such pictures. Carcharoth (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add a personal note. I stopped attending NYC meetups specifically because of the photography. Ditto, any meetup events involving photography and real names. Lots of haters put there, as I learned in a prior career. Hard to believe people didn't see this sort of thing coming. BusterD (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that there will be no photography of you at the upcoming meetup, or of anyone else who wishes to maintain their privacy. Pharos (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2008

I can best protect my privacy by refraining from attending meetup events at which any photography and/or real names are involved. I'm one of those who'd really like to reveal my identity eventually, but until I choose to do so, I'm very unhappy reconciling a desire to document our meetups visually with a desire not to negatively impact a human life or career, especially those not involved with Wikipedia, as apparently occurred in Brad's case. There's simply no comparison in priority. BusterD (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if someone accidentally photographs you and uploads it, the image will be deleted immediately.--Pharos (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Less risk if no such photograph exists. BusterD (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Buster, we are trying to be practical, without fostering a bunker-like atmosphere. I think that the limitations proposed are reasonable. You have never needed to give your real identity, and we will outline the limitations on photography; however, I find banning photos outright to be unreasonable. I'm sorry if that means you will not attend, but, the desire for other willing participants to take photos of each other outweighs your desire to stop them even though there are no unwilling participants in the frame. Perhaps one day we will see you, but there are no "proven risks" - NYB allowed himself to be photographed, and joined in group photos. It's not the same thing. --David Shankbone 02:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, look, there was no problem of a "rogue photographer" with Brad. The picture itself was taken by a quite well-meaning person. If a rogue photographer does appear, complain to me and as interim Chapter President I will officially authorize beating the crap out of him and taking his camera :)--Pharos (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Pharos, you're so butch! --David Shankbone 02:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In Pharos' recent photography event, such real names were justifiable for necessary security, and that affected my participation. I'm not complaining, but mentioning it in relation to Brad's outing. As long as David Shankbone's statement "I'm sorry if that means you will not attend" is the accepted standard for photography, similar harm is bound to accrue, and it's likely mine will not be the only participation discouraged. I'm one long-time Wikipedian who will not be party to the proven risks of harming uninvolved others, just because a frequent photography contributor to Wikipedia even now finds banning photos outright to be unreasonable, and doesn't see any COI in his opinion. BusterD (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. First, COI is a *guideline* that applies to editing in articlespace; not on whether we should allow photography at unofficial, off-wiki events (add "COI" to the list of annoying over-used guidelines, along with NPA). Second, I have already stated on-wiki I will no longer do photography at Meet-ups. Third, it was Brad's *choice* to be photographed (such as in this highly orchestrated group photo - that's not some quick snapshot. Lastly, your desire to not be photographed can be acommodated, and so can the desire of people to take photos of each other when they are willing. Frankly, looking at your sea of uncontroversial edits in uncontroversial topics, and that you are willing to "come out" makes your fear perplexing. Unfortunately, we can't allow your fear to dictate what everyone else does as consenting adults. --David Shankbone 03:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's very different for an editor like David Shankbone, who edits under his real name. BusterD (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your animosity, Buster, is perplexing, and no, David Shankbone does not edit under his "real" name. --David Shankbone 03:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised, I beg your pardon; I thought given your stridency that you were "out" (to use your terminology). I have no animosity toward you at all; my concern, especially after the departure of a user of such universally beloved stature (heck, and while we're at it, Doc and MONGO) is first to protect those uninvolved who might be affected by a hater's response when I do choose to make edits (worthy of your judgment as) controversial in nature. We've seen what one dedicated hater can pull off, and he's not the only legitimate threat (see CAMERA). After this my concern is for my own career and reputation, without which I can't continue to raise my children. You have children, David Shankbone? Any Encyclopedia Dramatica or Scientology loonies approach your kids recently? A million other concerns involve me which are a higher long-term priority than online involvement of any kind. And yet, I love this pedia, and choose to work on it in my own way and at my own pace. I've not rendered judgment on your behaviors or actions (other than calling your attention to them), yet you chose to characterize my editing history in a disparaging way. I'm trying to establish priorities. My concerns are real. BusterD (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Buster, I am one editor giving one opinion, just as you are. You are under the mistaken impression I set photography policy. I don't. I am voicing an opinion and if yours is the more persuasive, then I will lose out. Anyone is welcome to come here and say "no photography whatsoever" but let's not confuse the issue: allowing people to take photographs of each other at events had nothing to do with Newyorkbrad, Doc or MONGO leaving. Newyorkbrad taking consenting to having his photograph taken, against his better judgment, is what the problem is. And I'm sorry, Buster, I'm about the last person you have any right to speak to in this way, since my real name is known (I don't edit under it) and I have been the subject of the worst harassment on Wikipeida (enough that it will probably be the cause of new Foundation policy) and of physical threats - including one centered on the last Meet-up. So stop talking out of your ass when you know not one thing about me and my experience. At this point, I hope you don't come if this is how you go at people for simply voicing their opinions. --David Shankbone 04:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry this thread has devolved a bit into a back-and-forth. The bottom line, though, is that I have tried to give you every possible assurance, and if you wish we can discuss this further by e-mail. One thing I am not willing to do, though, is operate this chapter as a secret society, and ban people taking photographs when they have the explicit permission of the subjects.--Pharos (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And of course there's Image:No photographs stickers.png, because nothing is ever completely new. BusterD (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I would very much enjoy wearing an obscenely large no photographs sticker. :D Enigma ^message 01:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I support Pharos on this. No secret societies, and if any participants do not wish, for any reason whatsoever, to be photographed, they won't be, whether they are in the foreground or background. I can't see how outright banning of recording or photography will help. David has made some very good points, and BusterD has every right to bring up his concerns. And for some, they are very real concerns. I have concerns also, as I edit very controversial articles (although not in the same league as David). However, life is inherently risky, and all we can do is to attempt to manage risk and mitigate it's effects as best we can by making reasonable and informed decisions and contingency plans. In this case, providing assurances that no unwanted photographs will be taken is a reasonable and balanced decision. But a bunker mentality or excessive risk avoidance is not the answer, as that will permeate other aspects of this group and act as a chilling effect. And that would be a damn shame. IMHO. — Becksguy (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymity at larger events

Not trying to continue any conversation from the previous thread, but in the Wiki takes the City events, is it possible to construct the event so that anonymous editors can remain so? The idea of teams seems contrived, especially since Wikipedians contribute individually. Could not individuals take and upload images without revealing personal info? BusterD (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The real names were necessary for security at the uploading party, which was in a student union building on a college campus, and so we needed names in advance. All of our contributors were actually student non-Wikipedians. Next time, we will hold it off-campus, so we won't need names in advance, and it can be more open. You could have competed individually in the first event, and the same will be true for the second. I don't see why anonymity should be a problem whether you're on a team or not.--Pharos (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which anyone can edit, whether using pseudonym, legal name, or ip. Anonymity is part of the appeal to contribute. When Wikipedia events require identity, something is lost in the process. That's my opinion. BusterD (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a necessity of the situation (I have no say in Columbia University rules). We don't intend to repeat that situation. Certainly not at meetups, not at the next Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and not at other events if we can avoid it. I imagine, though, one day we might have a conference that might need real names; after all, you can't register at Wikimania under a pseudonym (but that would be in the future).--Pharos (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And when I attended Wikimania in Boston, I was happy to give my real name to register. I knew the event had full sanctioning by the foundation, so I expected and enjoyed a serious and forward-thinking conference with no hassle. I shook hands with Brewster Kahle and Larry Lessig. Totally worth the risk of possible public exposure. For uploading pictures at Columbia, not so much... BusterD (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Wiki Week"

Discussion moved to Wiki Week at the front side of this page, for greater visibility. Please comment and make suggestions there.--Pharos (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Free booklet (offer)

I've got a number of copies of a booklet (actually, it looks like a miniature book) from O'Reilly Media, the publisher, and would be happy to provide enough copies so that there is at least one copy per attendee to give away (I'm interested in feedback for the booklet/mini-book for publicity/getting new editors). You'll find information here about Wikipedia Reader's Guide: The Missing Manual. If someone planning to attend the meetup is interested in handing these out, please post a note on my user talk page, and I'll contact you via email to get an address where I can send them. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I got this. Enigma ^message 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agenda

Is DS still going to come? If not, we'll have to make changes to the agenda. Enigma ^message 03:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. In any case, the agenda remains an open one. I would encourage anyone with a desire to present to sign up, and we'll try to make room for you.--Pharos (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't seen, David wrote an article. "I was told that if I showed up to give a scheduled talk at Columbia University, I would be attacked." Enigma ^message 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

He is referring to an issue with the March meetup, when of course he did attend and gave a great presentation without problems. We tried to address the issue at the time.--Pharos (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Directions?

Not too familiar with the neighborhood. Can someone give directions from the listed subway station to Pupin Hall? Thanks! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually got lost last time, wandering all over the Columbia campus, asking for directions from all kinds of people. I think it took me 20 minutes from when I stepped on campus. Finding the campus isn't hard, though. It's right across the street from the subway station. Heh, we can go together if you'd like. Enigma ^message 16:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See this map and this map. You can just walk into the campus at 116th Street and Broadway (between Broadway and Amsterdam, 116 is part of the campus, not an actual street), turn left and walk between the buildings to the end to reach Pupin.--Pharos (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Pharos, thanks for the directions. Enigmaman, sounds like a very good idea. I'll know within a day or two if I'm definitely going and will let you know. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow

Only 14 signed up as likely, and I doubt we'll see David there, so that's 13. I proposed to Pharos an idea I had, if the other presentations/discussions aren't enough. Enigma ^message 06:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:Gmaxwell has been unreachable for awhile now and has not activated the Wikipedia:Geonotice this time, which is a convenient "reminder" for people. I nudged User:Daniel Case a little and he is likely coming and bringing his video camera, but he has not signed up here yet. I would encourage folks who are coming (or "regretting"), to sign up on this page directly. Also, if anyone know an area Wikipedian they'd like to personally invite, I would encourage you to nudge them yourself (the talk page notices were sent out a couple of weeks ago already, and some folks might have forgotten).--Pharos (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have formally indicated I will be coming. Can someone bring a 2 or 4GB SanDisc compatible-memory card? I usually carry only 512MB in the camera, and that won't really work for a lot of videotaping. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, no responses. I would like to help out, but I don't believe I have such a card anywhere. Anyone? Enigma ^message 15:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The booklets from John Broughton

If you get the chance to read them and have any comments, tell him. Enigma ^message 00:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Great to meet people today....

I'd love to leave personal messages but I didn't catch everyone's screen names. It was nice to put faces with names and have good discussions and good eats. Looking forward to the next. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Last time Pharos posted a record of the attendees (according to the sign-in sheet) on the Meetup page. Hopefully he'll do all that work which we appreciate so much! (posting record of attendees, the agenda, etc.) Enigma ^message 03:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, messedrocker, becksguy, Pharos, ScienceApologist, Andrevan, Daniel Case, Enigmaman, Travellingcari, MBisanz, DGG, volt4ire, and RadicalHarmony. Enigma ^message 03:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was there, too. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed meeting everyone, and am sorry I couldn't make the restaurant afterward. I thought it was well worth the drive from CT. Many thanks to Pharos for putting things together. Peace. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 16:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

H.O.P.E. Conference panel

I'm wondering if anyone is interested in spearheading a panel/speech about Wikipedia at the Hackers (as in technology enthusiast, not petty thief) On Planet Earth conference. One speech will be about the NYC meetup (or maybe just meetups in general, using NYC's as an example), and the other will be a pro-inclusionist speech/panel. Thanks! volt4ire 20:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why pro-inclusionist? Would it not be better to be NPOV? Andre (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I probably don't want to have the inclsuionist vs. deletionist panel be NPOV, but I'm open to housing it as a balanced debate, if I can get enough people tp help. Anyway, if not the conference would be more than willing to have a separate, pro-deletionist (or even NPOV) panel, but I'm personally interested in doing one that's pro-inclusionist or a debate. volt4ire 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

How is that at all on topic for H.O.P.E.? :-/ Sounds like an attempted call to meatpuppetry. I'll probably be at HOPE but I wouldn't want to have anything to do with that. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think volt4ire's original idea, as he mentioned to me at the meetup, was for some sort of inclusionist vs. deletionist "debate", that would not take one side or the other.--Pharos (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lame. Inclusiodeletionism is tired. ;) --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, tired for who? I think the idea has some merit. Of all the inside baseball at Wikipedia, the notability issue does seem to attract the most outside interest (several articles in Slate, for example).--Pharos (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I myself have a restricted view of notability on some topics. But I dont want to do it on the basis of the technical rules, but as a discussion of what should be in the encyclopedia.
I could certainly explain the reasons why it should be restrictive to some extent. Do speakers/panelists get free admission?DGG (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

will be around that weekend. Is anything still planned DGG (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My plans at not yet fixed, is the date of the next meeting set? Not that it will ensure my attendance; difficult to make me spend summer afternoons indoors. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the next scheduled meeting will be the picnic, outdoors. DGG (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Would be nice if we could get this announce a little more. The conference this year will be pretty big, see as how the hotel rates are soaring on that weekend. Maybe, can we get this official so we can have the watchlist banner? — Dispenser 01:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well its the second day of the conference and I haven't seen any mention of how to meet each other here. Its much bigger than in years past so I hope to get in contact with atleast one of you here. My RFID badge number is 4124. — Dispenser 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

seems to have been a lapse in planning over the week before. Not seeing anything here, I didnt attend. DGG (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I was at the conference, there was an interesting Wikipedia-related talk by Virgil Griffith. I guess volt4ire's idea fizzled, I wasn't sure how it would have worked in the technical atmosphere anyway. I would have met up with you, Dispenser, but I didn't have my laptop at the con (a bit of a mistake apparently) so only just saw your messages here. Andre (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)