-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thank you for this deep analysis. While claiming that we should not
compromise any of the principles, you didn't address directly the
possibility that we won't reach everybody if we don't compromise.
Reaching every human is a (currently and
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for this deep analysis. While claiming that we should not
compromise any of the principles, you didn't address directly the
possibility that we won't reach everybody if we don't compromise.
Reaching every human is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/05/2010 13:01, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I don't know that reaching everybody was ever a stated goal. Being
theoretically available to everybody is a different matter...
Ah, that's the part that is not clear to me. If you talk about the
intrinsic
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
This post by David does prove that it is possible to argue, with intellectual
integrity, that there are more important things at stake than getting Commons
into schools.
Yes. All of our core principles are designed to
I continue to be inspired by the quality of discourse in this debate.
Noein, I appreciate all of the points you make below, but want to call
out one in particular:
My current vision is that there are several main obstacles to a free
interaction, for example:
- - illiteracy
- - no internet
Milos Rancic wrote:
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
Even more than what Ray says:
if we do not offer comprehensive free uncensored but reliable
information, who will? Other sites may feel they have to censor;
other uncensored sites may and mostly do have little standards of
reliability. Some uncensored reliable sites are likely to require some
On 12 May 2010 21:50, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Even more than what Ray says:
+1 to this entire email.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
This post by David does prove that it is possible to argue, with intellectual
integrity, that there are more important things at stake than getting Commons
into schools.
Andreas
--- On Wed, 12/5/10, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
Subject:
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 4:53 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 May 2010 21:50, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Even more than what Ray says:
+1 to this entire email.
Ditto.
Another principle to state related to this (that I've been trying to
think about how to
Kat Walsh wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 4:53 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 May 2010 21:50, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Even more than what Ray says:
+1 to this entire email.
Ditto.
Another principle to state related to this (that
2010/5/12 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
(...)
Which brings to mind a question. Is there useful
content on Citizendium that might be ported over
to Wikipedia?
their best stuff is supposed to be here,
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Approved_Articles
--
Elias Gabriel
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
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
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
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
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
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 as related to cultural taboos or
2010/5/10 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
snip
3) We should allow voluntary/default censorship on cultural basis, as
the most of our readers are not registered. (Based on IP address of
reader. Thus, pictures of Muhammad should be shown by default for
someone from Germany, but shouldn't be
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:17 AM, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov
alexandrdmitriroma...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures
but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a
J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven:
I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures
but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France
wherever. I think the world
2010/5/10 Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org:
J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven:
I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures
but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I put my impressions of the moment on this discussion page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Censorship#Some_reflexions_following_the_censorship_polemic_of_May_2010
On 09/05/2010 20:04, Sue Gardner wrote:
Yeah, Pryzkuta, I know there are lots
If we follow sexual taboos, which ones do we follow? Some Moslem and
non-Moslem groups object to the depiction of any part of the anatomy,
some to depiction or exposure of certain parts only. Some extend it to
males. Some object to the portray of certain objects in an irreverent
manner--there have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/05/2010 07:56, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
2010/5/10 Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org:
J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven:
I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
country, why should
On 10 May 2010 19:14, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand exactly your thoughts. What happens to someone who
wants to navigate Wikipedia or use Commons but doesn't want to reach
offending (according to his/her personal sensibility) pages? If this
person wants a protecting tool,
On 10 May 2010 19:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Create a tool (e.g. a JavaScript gadget) that allows a logged-in user
to block images from Commons or local categories they don't want to
see images from. Then it's each individual's discretion as to what
they want not to see, and
I have been taking an extreme anticensorship position, but I would
consider this acceptable. People certainly do have the right as
individuals to select what they want to see. It is not censorship,
just a display option Such display options could be expanded--I
would suggest an option to
Most browsers have the ability to not automatically download images,
but display only the ones that one clicks on--a very useful option for
slow connections and those using screen readers. For some sites with
distracting advertising, I enable it myself before I go there.
But David Gerard's
David Goodman writes:
I have been taking an extreme anticensorship position, but I would
consider this acceptable. People certainly do have the right as
individuals to select what they want to see. It is not censorship,
just a display option Such display options could be expanded--I
would
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to categorically
block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article
pages? Presumably, those Commons images that are found in articles are
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
And what about choosing Would you like to see uncategorized images?
And the same for cultural censorship: Is your culture brave enough
to gamble would you be horrified by seeing a penis or Muhammad or not?
I'm not sure
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to categorically
block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article
pages? Presumably, those Commons images that are found in articles are
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote:
Obviously, this notion is too cute to actually be helpful, but I thought
I'd
share it.
It has an enormously cute strawman answer: If you don't want to see
images which aren't used inline in another wiki, don't
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to
categorically
block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's
Hi folks,
I'm aiming to stay on top of this whole conversation -- which is not
easy: there is an awful lot of text being generated :-)
So for myself and others --including new board members who may not be
super-fluent in terms of following where and how we discuss things--,
I'm going to recap
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 students of Iran as a
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
[Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia. AFAIK it's not
taking place on-wiki anywhere.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/195663
After Greg's, David Gerard's and Mike's arguments, I think
Yeah, Pryzkuta, I know there are lots of debates happening everywhere; that's a
good thing --- obviously talking about all this stuff is good, and people
should use whatever mechanisms work for them. All the discussions are good, and
everybody is bringing useful stuff to the table.
Re Jimmy,
On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner susanpgard...@gmail.com wrote:
My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the scope of
Jimmy's authority question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the
importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about
what's
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.
--Original Message--
From: David Gerard
To: Sue Gardner GMail
To:
Wouldn't regulating content mean abdicating the role of webhost, which would
call Section 230 into question?
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: susanpgard...@gmail.com; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sun, May
Geoffrey Plourde writes:
Wouldn't regulating content mean abdicating the role of webhost, which would
call Section 230 into question?
Mere removal of content posted by others does not create a Section 230
problem or a problem under equivalent provisions elsewhere in the law. A
guideline or
43 matches
Mail list logo
