From my favorite author (paraphrased):
Young admirers to Samuel Johnson: We congratulate you on not including
any indelicate words in your dictionary.
SJ to young admirers: what, my dears! Have you been searching for them?
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
thousands, yes. Even conservapedia has thousands. But millions?
I have no objection to working for a profit making enterprise. But
when I do, I want my share of the money.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Tim Starling
the key distinction is that a method for getting a list of files in a
category is a good thing for many purposes, and is morally totally
neutral. The ethical questions depend on what other people do with the
list, and like all intellectual work, it can be used for ends any
person might think
Hello,
2010/5/10 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Instead, Jimbo has essentially announced to the world that Fox News
was correct. And until we purge our servers of every graphic image,
we knowingly retain our
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
What I am missing is that Iran has blocked the whole Wikimedia domain as
Commons is included in that domain. I understand that the reason is there
being too much sexual explicit content. As a consequence this important
free resource is no longer available to the
On 11 May 2010 04:15, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
BBC got the story from Fox. There would have been a Fox story regardless,
and I wouldn't assume that BBC would not have picked up the more
sensationalistic story that Fox was hoping to run.
The BBC heard about the story from Fox. They
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/05/2010 05:51, Andre Engels wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
Libertarians want all information to be available to everyone. Some
say all adults, some say children too should be included. Their
principles allow for individuals to choose for themselves to avoid
seeing that which offends them, which leaves the problem of how the
2010/5/10 Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com:
On 05/11/2010 12:25 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Any attempt to filter ourselves is not addressing the fact that the
images exist at all on Commons.
+1.
I suggest to ignore them. Or perhaps someone should write more nice
things in the article about
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy's actions over the
past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving.
That's mostly happened here and on meta.
What made that one easier to resolve is that the problem
That about sums it up.
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
I try to understand what happened, but I'm not sure whether the pieces
that I found so far add up.
* Larry Sanger is mad about Wikimedia. [apparent]
* Larry Sanger notifies the FBI and tells them
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, as ever, for being the one voice of sanity
on the board of trustees. I hope one day you will find
the time to be its chairperson.
+1
___
foundation-l
Tim Starling writes:
It's a proposal which only really makes sense when analysed from the
libertarian end of this debate. It's not a compromise with the rest of
the spectrum.
That's correct. That was intentional. A libertarian proposal that attempts
to adhere to NPOV and reduces general noise
On 11/05/10 23:06, Anthony wrote:
I assume here you're talking about choosing what images to allow on the
websites. I wouldn't call that making a decision on behalf of another,
but I assume that's what you're referring to. If I'm wrong, please correct
me.
I'm including:
Solution 1:
Yann Forget writes:
2010/5/10 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com:
Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
that
Fox News was correct?
This statement strikes me as identifying a theoretical hazard rather than
an
actual outcome.
--Mike
Reading this
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-remains/
Just throwing this out there, but would it not be productive to first
copy Ms. Winter's articles to Meta, and have everyone annote all the
errors?
-Stevertigo
Kat Walsh k...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Commons should not be a host for media that has very
little informational or educational value
This is too broad. Confine the scope toward dealing with what does not
belong, rather than trying to suggest that everything be purposed as
stated above. Prurient
On 11/05/10 23:56, Mike Godwin wrote:
That's a feature, not a bug. If there is a compromise that pleases some
factions but not others, it's not exactly a compromise, is it?
The trick is to find a compromise which pleases both factions, or at
least upsets both equally.
In particular, I think
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:05 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Kat Walsh k...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Commons should not be a host for media that has very
little informational or educational value
This is too broad. Confine the scope toward dealing with what does not
belong, rather than
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
[snip]
But more generally, yes I suppose I may be overstating. Studying
religious views on sex and pornography is interesting, because those
views align closely with the laws and norms of wider society. Unlike
wider
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:31 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
thousands, yes. Even conservapedia has thousands. But millions?
I have no objection to working for a profit making enterprise. But
when I do, I want my share of the money.
I imagine Wikia has millions of articles, all
On 11 May 2010 16:44, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
There are other resources which address these subject areas in a
manner which religious conservatives may find more acceptable, such as
conservapedia.
Actually, Conservapedia has almost no readers or editors. (Its
activity rate
Amusing, perhaps, but it would really serve no purpose other than to
be vindictive and pointed (everyone know Wikimedia is smarter than
Fox). Besides, it'd be a copyvio.
~A
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 19:39, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
*The trick is to find a compromise which pleases both factions, or at
least upsets both equally.
*
If we generalize the situation we could state the following:
The *Libertarians *point of view could be worded as: Allow everyone to view
all content
The *Conservative *point of view could be worded
stevertigo wrote:
Kat Walsh k...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Commons should not be a host for media that has very
little informational or educational value
This is too broad. Confine the scope toward dealing with what does not
belong, rather than trying to suggest that everything be
On 11 May 2010 17:45, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, and that's inevitable. You aren't going to please people who
have ideological problems with Wikipedia's entire premise. But
leaving aside people who think nudity is morally wrong on principle,
we are still left
Sue Gardner wrote:
Yeah. I don't remember exactly what Ting said, and even if I did, I wouldn't
comment on it. But FWIW to your point, Ting's not in a chapters-selected
seat; Ting was elected by the Wikimedia community.
His seat doesn't come up for re-election until next year, but I'm
On 5/11/10 8:26 AM, David Goodman wrote:
From my favorite author (paraphrased):
Young admirers to Samuel Johnson: We congratulate you on not including
any indelicate words in your dictionary.
SJ to young admirers: what, my dears! Have you been searching for them?
David Goodman, Ph.D,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Kat, I'm not used to the level of finesse of your thoughts and
this time I chose to think aloud to help me. The result is this long
mail that other may find useful. Maybe. Please let me know if they're
not, or if I misunderstood you. As for the
I agree with David Gerard's suggestion above: this is a solution that
will meet a variety of needs, and is therefore value-neutral. It can
be applied to more than categories--someone with a moderately slow
connection might wish to disable images in articles above a certain
size, or articles
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Let me know if I'm missing anything important.
Actually, yes. In spite of multicultural nature of Wikimedia, this
process shouldn't be formulated as purely related to sexual content,
but
Dear all,
(I am really happy to send a message on a completely new topic :) )
The Wikimania jury has selected Haifa, Israel as the location for
Wikimania 2011. The Haifa team presented a compelling, detailed bid[1]
that the Wikimania jurors were very impressed by. As usual, all of
the Wikimania
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/05/2010 12:44, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I would propose that the reason we are subject to such a _small_
amount of complaint about our content is that much of the world
understands that what Wikipedia does is —in a sense— deeply subversive
and
Hi folks, sharing this announcement we sent out as a press release this
morning. We'll be sending out another announcement shortly to our press list
about the public policy project, which Frank discussed on our announcement list
a few days ago.
Best,
jay walsh
Begin forwarded message:
Hi,
2010/5/11 Noein prono...@gmail.com:
On 11/05/2010 12:44, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I would propose that the reason we are subject to such a _small_
amount of complaint about our content is that much of the world
understands that what Wikipedia does is —in a sense— deeply subversive
and not
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block
images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're
the target market, after all.
I'd be happy to do any software development if that were
If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone will fill
that void. That someone does not need to be us. Google does this job with
their image browser already without the need for any providers to actively
tag any images. How do they do that? I have no idea, but they
On 11 May 2010 21:42, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block
images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're
the target
On 05/11/2010 11:58 AM, Noein wrote:
And there is a general consensus here about those libertarian views?
I'm impressed. Sorry to repetitively check the ethical temperature of
the community, but I come from social horizons where it's not only not
natural, but generates hatred. I never could
A lot has happened since my email so here's a quick follow-up. I hear the
concerns many of you have raised on this list and elsewhere. I feel awful
about them. As Kat said so well, I think there is a big difference between
the principles the Board agreed to in our statement and the actions taken
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote:
A lot has happened since my email so here's a quick follow-up. I hear the
concerns many of you have raised on this list and elsewhere. I feel awful
about them. As Kat said so well, I think there is a big difference between
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote:
...snip...
Jimmy acknowledged this wasn't right and I respect his apology.
...snip...
- stu
You mean his little smug little reply that it was a press stunt?[1][2]
and saying that it was a urgent matter[3] (yes! because
Tim's post is excellent. However there is a viewpoint on this issue
that is important to me personally that I feel is not well represented
by his spectrum.
To the extent that Tim's spectrum does represent me, I am probably
moderate. I recognize that some people (e.g. the conservatives) find
Congratulations to the Haifa team! And congratulations as well to the
New York, Montreal, and Toronto bid teams -- it takes tremendous
effort to put together a compelling bid.
I hope that you can all take advantage of the interest you have built
over the course of the bids to organize other
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Let me know if I'm missing anything important.
Actually, yes. In spite of multicultural nature of Wikimedia, this
process
I think we will only make progress when we accept the apologies of the
people involved. I can understand that they want to at least formally
defend the original board statement, but I think they--and we all-
-recognize that the discussion has moved in a somewhat more permissive
direction now than
Everyone,
As many of you already know, the Wikimedia Foundation's User Experience
team has been running a beta program focused on improving the user
interface for over six months now. More details may be found here
http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Usability_Initiative
[a], but
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 11/05/10 23:06, Anthony wrote:
I assume here you're talking about choosing what images to allow on the
websites. I wouldn't call that making a decision on behalf of another,
but I assume that's what you're
Hi all - sharing our second press release of the day, re: the public policy
initiative. Also shared via the WikimediaAnnounce-l list!
Thanks,
jay walsh
Wikimedia Foundation will engage academic experts and students to improve
public policy information on Wikipedia
$1.2 million grant from the
It would be nice if public policy documents were systematically
archived onto Commons and Wikisource as part of this initiative.
--
John Vandenberg
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:09 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be nice if public policy documents were systematically
archived onto Commons and Wikisource as part of this initiative.
Yes! Likewise for legal and policy documents in all geographies -- we
should make every
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:06 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, there appears to be an assumption - on the part of board
members, the WMF and some contributors to this thread - that Commons
has been somehow indiscriminate in what it accepts.
I don't read that. What I see
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 20:05, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Wikipedia is written by hundreds of thousands of volunteers from around the
world, and that won't change with this project. The Wikipedia Public Policy
Initiative will recruit Wikipedia volunteers to work with public policy
Tim, thank you for this excellent post. A few comments:
Tim Starling writes:
it's only the libertarians who value educational value above
moral hazard
I don't really agree with this. Contributors from across your
spectrum consider whether potentially-harmful information about a
person is
On 11 May 2010 11:50, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
The Wikimania jury has selected Haifa, Israel as the location for
Wikimania 2011.
Congratulations to the Haifa team! I attended Wikimedia Israel's
Wikipedia Academy last year; it was terrific, and I'm confident
they'll do a great
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Guillaume Paumier
gpaum...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Le dimanche 9 mai 2010 17:33:42, David Goodman a écrit :
A secondary purpose of Commons in for material to be used
elsewhere--have we any way for checking that? I'd even say that the
true success of Commons is
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
Any contemporary MediaWiki installation can use Commons as an external
repository. I am using Commons as an external repository whenever I
install MediaWiki. (Or I am missing some point?)
There is no way for us to see if
Kat Walsh wrote:
I can think of few better places to go than Wikipedia for complete and
informative coverage of topics that may be shocking or explicit. Most
other sites which are uncensored are also intended to have
entertainment or shock value, or to present a culturally or
politically
2010/5/11 Amory Meltzer amorymelt...@gmail.com:
So if I could distill this announcement, it would be $1.2M to liaison
with profs to essentially grade public policy articles so that our
unpaid volunteers can correct errors, add sources, and fix the
proverbial 'awk' in the margins - is that
59 matches
Mail list logo
