[Foundation-l] free software policies

[Joe Corneli]

Hi All:

I'm still riding the wave of enjoyment I caught at
Wikimania in Gdansk, thanks for that :).

One of the topics that came up in my conversations
there had to do with Wikimedia's policies surrounding
free software.

It is my view that a good portion of 'the sum of all
knowledge' is currently embodied in software and
programming practice.  At the same time, I know
that access to knowledge is often done 'by any
means necessary'.

Given the potential for confusion and even frustration
when rights and responsibilities aren't clear, I think it
would be great if the foundation had some clear policies
about how it will invest in software development.

I note that this year's GNU Hackers Meeting is taking place
very soon; http://www.gnu.org/ghm/2010/denhaag/ --
Personally I'd love it if future Wikimanias could be
co-located with or otherwise bridged with GNU meetings.

Joe

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Copy editors' tab

[Chris Lee]

Hey Everyone,
I posted an 
ideaI
had into meta, and was looking for some feedback! Thank you

Chris
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Mark Williamson]

"You" - again, this is not (or at least it should not) be about ME and
YOU. I did not upload any of those images, I did not vote for (or
against - I didn't know the vote was taking place) the deletion of the
Goatse image, I'm merely stating the reason it was deleted. We have
rules, some of our pages may break those rules, but all that means is
they should be fixed so the rules are applied more consistently.

-m

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 5:14 PM,   wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>> "Wiki-list", the huge glaring difference is that the goatse.cx image
>> is a pornographic image and we were unable to identify the subject of
>> it, which raises potential privacy concerns. Please don't accuse me of
>> hypocrisy as I am personally in favor of including that image in that
>> article.
>>
>
> And you have identified all the subjects here?
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vulva
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pubic_hair_%28male%29
>
> I think not.
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Mark Williamson]

Don't censor except when "you" do? That's one of the problems with
this thread, it seems everything's been made personal. I don't censor
anything. I was not involved in the debate about deleting the goatse
image, nor have I been much involved in the Muhammad debate, but I am
a firm believer in non-censorship on WP. It's not as if I saw the
goatse image and said "I need to find a reason for this to be
deleted"; I'd rather it be there than not.

-m



On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:36 PM,   wrote:
> Excirial wrote:
>> *Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of selected
>> images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking of
>> all images?*
>>
>> See the FAQ section on
>> Talk:Muhammad,
>> which contains an easy method to hide the images trough CSS, which is a
>> permanent setting that works for all browsers. Since we are discussing that
>> exact page, i thought you would have seen it on the talk page as it is quite
>> prominent. Apologies for not mentioning it earlier.
>>
>
> That only works for people with accounts that have already been
> offended, that speak English, that have managed to find the FAQ, and
> that are computer literate. IOW out of the billion or so target audience
> for offense, about zero.
>
>
>
>> *So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says that
>> its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a problem
>> in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are complaining about:*
>>
>> I already linked the relevant discussion above, and i have equally commented
>> on it. To quote myself: "See this
>> discussion,
>> though it may be easier to read the summary that is available on the article
>> talk page . In essence the
>> image was removed under WP:NFCC, with a sidenote that we could not reliably
>> determine who the person being displayed on the photo was, which caused
>> privacy concerns (As in displaying pornographic content of someone who
>> hasn't given clear endorsement for doing so)". In other words, the image
>> more or less suffers from a BLP issue - and you might also note that it
>> wasn't removed because it was deemed offensive.
>
>
> What a complete load of twaddle. NFCC has not stopped the use of Piss
> Christ, nor has it stopped the use of any of the controversial Mohammed
> images. In all those cases a textural description of the image would
> suffice. The person in the goatse image is unidentifiable, and the image
> has been on the web for 10 years. Where are the privacy concerns? So I'm
> still calling bullshit, as it looks that thin justification was simply
> found to remove that image.
>
>
>> *So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the issue
>> of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the
>> smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.*
>> If you believe that such statements will strengthen the argument you make,
>> please do go ahead think of me like that. Personally i would argue that such
>> comments aren't helpful at all because they only serve to create enmity
>> between other parties, and because they scream "AGF"
>
> And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are
> being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any
> one of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give
> the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored"
> feeling. Except that you do.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png
>
>> Besides this you
>> might actually want to read the deletion discussion on the Goatse.sx images,
>> so you can see the reason of the verdict for yourself - and you might
>> actually see a reason why i am not exactly being hypocritical.
>
>
> The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be
> applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons
> aren't applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.
>
>
>> Regardless of whether or not this convinces you, i would ask that you keep
>> it friendly. Comments such as the one you just made, along with the previous
>> one further up (*Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to
>> believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a
>> flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested
>> to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of
>> dignity.*) simply aren't productive. Besides, if we start labeling each
>> other it will simply result in less sensible discussion, and more "Digging
>> one's heels in the soil".
>>
>
> And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the
> muslim connection just explain to this Atheis

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Excirial]

 *And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are
being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any one
of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the
poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling. Except
that you do.*

Reposting serves historical value, as i already pointed out. Would you argue
that the adding the depictions of gods, prophets and other religious figures
throughout the centuries serves no encyclopedic purpose?  Why is the
external availability of those image's on 1000's of other sites a reason
against including them? Man could equally argue that their broad
availability means that another site containing them doesn't generate a
problem. Equally i would again point out that we are building an
encyclopedia, which is an unbiased compendium of knowledge. If we start
pre-filtering topics and content on a
WP:ITBOTHERSME
basis
we will soon have gaps everywhere because people tend to take offense from
many things. What offenses are valid enough to warrant removal? Where is the
borderline between "Acceptable" and "Non Acceptable"?

And again i politely ask that you cease with these personal attacks as they
serve no purpose whatsoever. What do you wish to achieve? Do you intend for
me to take you and your opinion serious while considering their
implications, or do you prefer that i cast them aside as personal attacks?
But if you are truly arguing that you deem the inclusion of these images
personal attacks without any value, then i think there is little we can
discuss - if you don't even believe that they might have historic value,
there is no way to compromise.

*The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be
applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons aren't
applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.*
Then what stops you from nominating these images under the same criteria? If
those images classify for the same reasons the same actions should be taken
- simple as that. My own views on censoring are identical for any topic - be
it goatse, Muhammed, Christians, Atheists, and so on and on. If i would
change alter them for certain topics it would be a clearly biased action
after all.
*
And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the muslim
connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to display the
"Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on cross in jar of
urine" describes exactly why the work was found offensive. Just explain why
the actual image is necessary and whilst you are about it explain why it is
so much larger than the normal use of an image to illustrate an article?*

My intention here is to have a friendly, sensible argument that may or may
not reach some form of agreement (Its a mailing list, so consensus cannot
really be formed here). It is natural that one defends his own stance, but
trough friendly conversation at least some compromise should be reachable.

As for the image on "Piss Christ": I would argue that if something sparks
controversy, we should be detailing what the controversy is about. The
inclusion of the image gives the reader an impression as to whether
something was deemed offensive. Also, keep in mind that we are not filtering
content simply because it is deemed offensive - after all, who defines what
is offensive? Offensiveness inherently relies upon a judgment, and judgments
are inherently PoV. As i said again and again - we should thread lightly
with such images, and make sure that they are *only* in article's where a
reader should expect such an illustration. If Muhammed would be on the Islam
page the image should be removed. If Piss-Christ would be on a christianity
article, it should be removed.

As for the image size - i didn't exactly decide it should be that large, but
i agree there is no reason at all to size it up. I believe that it might
origionally have been upsized for layout reasons, so that the "reception"
section would be entirely next to it. Since it is preferable to allow the
selection of thumbnail sizes trough "My preferences" i simply shrunk the
image to its preferred size. But tell me - why didn't you simply do this
yourself when you made that observation? Thumb's are certainly preferable,
so i don't think that changing it would count as controversial.

~Excirial

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 1:36 AM,  wrote:

> Excirial wrote:
> > *Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of
> selected
> > images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking
> of
> > all images?*
> >
> > See the FAQ section on
> > Talk:Muhammad,
> > which contains an easy method to hide the images trough CSS, which is a
> > permanent setting that works for all browsers. Since we are discussing
> that
> > exact page, i thought you would have seen it on the

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[wiki-list]

Mark Williamson wrote:
> "Wiki-list", the huge glaring difference is that the goatse.cx image
> is a pornographic image and we were unable to identify the subject of
> it, which raises potential privacy concerns. Please don't accuse me of
> hypocrisy as I am personally in favor of including that image in that
> article.
> 

And you have identified all the subjects here?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vulva
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pubic_hair_%28male%29

I think not.



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Note from the Board Chair

[phoebe ayers]

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Ting Chen  wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> Today, here in Gdansk,  at the meeting of the Board of Trustees during the 
> sixth annual Wikimania Conference, the Board made some important changes. I'm 
> pleased to share this news with you.  The Foundation will be issuing a public 
> announcement shortly as well.
>
> Every year at Wikimania, the Wikimedia Board appoints its officers for the 
> coming year.  This year we have changes to each of the Officer roles. As of 
> today's meeting, I was fortunate to be appointed Chair of the Board - and I'm 
> grateful to have the support of the Board in this new role.. Stuart West was 
> appointed Vice-chair (and continues as Board Treasurer), and Samuel Klein 
> becomes Board Secretary.
>
> Also, the Wikimedia chapters have made their selections for the two 
> chapters-selected Board seats. Arne Klempert has been reappointed to his 
> seat, and Phoebe Ayers has also been appointed to join the Board.
>
> This means that Michael Snow will be leaving the Board: he has been invited 
> to join the Advisory Board, and the Board warmly thanks him for his service.
>
> Michael Snow has been a tireless and dedicated leader of this Board, and the 
> whole Wikimedia movement, over the past two years. I want to express my 
> sincere thanks to him on behalf of the Board and all of the Wikimedia 
> community.  I am also excited to congratulate and welcome Phoebe Ayers to the 
> Board, and also to congratulate Arne Klempert for his re-appoitment to the 
> Board in a Chapter-appointed seat.
>
> There are 10 seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and 
> according to the Foundation's bylaws, three members are elected by the 
> Wikimedia community, two members are selected by the Wikimedia chapters, a 
> Community Founder seat held by Jimmy Wales, and four members appointed by the 
> Board itself to provide additional, specific expertise. Currently all seats 
> on the Board of Trustees are filled.
>
> This is the first time that the official Chapters selection process has been 
> carried out. Members of Wikimedia's global chapters, made a call for 
> nominations for new members and voted to elect their two members. In this 
> year's election nine candidates from the Wikimedia community originally 
> stepped forward. Two of those candidates stepped out of the process, leaving 
> seven candidates for selection by the Chapters.
>
> All of the officer appointments are effective immediately, and we are pleased 
> to welcome Phoebe to the Board right away.
>
> I'd like to thank the Chapters for their thoughtful work in convening a 
> process and carrying out their voting process.  I would also like to thank 
> all of the candidates who stepped forward for with their nominations.
>
> I'm looking forward to an incredible year ahead. We have an ambitious plan 
> for the Foundation and the projects over the next year, and we have a 
> tremendous group to tackle a busy year ahead.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ting

Thanks Ting.

I am now back home after Wikimania, and can finally sit down to write
this note. I am honored and humbled to be selected as a Trustee; it's
a big responsibility, and I am looking forward to the challenge.

Thank you to the chapters for selecting me, and to Michael for his
great leadership over the past couple of years. This change has
happened rather quickly, in that we were all informed of the chapters'
decision the day before Wikimania began, while the Board was in the
middle of their annual meeting (meanwhile, I was busy running WikiSym
across town, which led to quite a hectic day for me!) But everyone has
been absolutely professional and welcoming during this transition, and
as a community member and now new board member I am very glad to see a
functional process in action for choosing new board members and
officers; congratulations to Ting on becoming chair.

One unfortunate side effect however of standing for a
chapters-selected seat, rather than running in the community
elections, is that community members don't generally have a chance to
ask questions of the candidate or engage in discussion with them. To
try and remedy this I did make my candidate statement and answers
public [1]; and I welcome further questions, thoughts, criticism and
discussion. I'm glad to chat any time, and I'm always especially glad
to meet Wikimedians I don't already know, so please feel free to
introduce yourself to me and share your thoughts about Wikimedia.

I do not promise, of course, to have ready swift or simple answers to
hard questions. This is a tremendously complex and exciting time for
Wikimedia, with a great deal of experimentation and new projects going
on, and there's a lot that I need to learn very quickly. But I do hope
to bring a strong community perspective to the Board's ongoing work of
strategic leadership. In all of my projects within Wikimedia to date,
from organizing Wikimania to doing outreach to writing documentation,
I have tried to fo

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[wiki-list]

Excirial wrote:
> *Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of selected
> images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking of
> all images?*
> 
> See the FAQ section on
> Talk:Muhammad,
> which contains an easy method to hide the images trough CSS, which is a
> permanent setting that works for all browsers. Since we are discussing that
> exact page, i thought you would have seen it on the talk page as it is quite
> prominent. Apologies for not mentioning it earlier.
> 

That only works for people with accounts that have already been
offended, that speak English, that have managed to find the FAQ, and
that are computer literate. IOW out of the billion or so target audience
for offense, about zero.



> *So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says that
> its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a problem
> in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are complaining about:*
> 
> I already linked the relevant discussion above, and i have equally commented
> on it. To quote myself: "See this
> discussion,
> though it may be easier to read the summary that is available on the article
> talk page . In essence the
> image was removed under WP:NFCC, with a sidenote that we could not reliably
> determine who the person being displayed on the photo was, which caused
> privacy concerns (As in displaying pornographic content of someone who
> hasn't given clear endorsement for doing so)". In other words, the image
> more or less suffers from a BLP issue - and you might also note that it
> wasn't removed because it was deemed offensive.


What a complete load of twaddle. NFCC has not stopped the use of Piss
Christ, nor has it stopped the use of any of the controversial Mohammed
images. In all those cases a textural description of the image would
suffice. The person in the goatse image is unidentifiable, and the image
has been on the web for 10 years. Where are the privacy concerns? So I'm
still calling bullshit, as it looks that thin justification was simply
found to remove that image.


> *So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the issue
> of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the
> smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.*
> If you believe that such statements will strengthen the argument you make,
> please do go ahead think of me like that. Personally i would argue that such
> comments aren't helpful at all because they only serve to create enmity
> between other parties, and because they scream "AGF"

And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are
being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any
one of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give
the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored"
feeling. Except that you do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png

> Besides this you
> might actually want to read the deletion discussion on the Goatse.sx images,
> so you can see the reason of the verdict for yourself - and you might
> actually see a reason why i am not exactly being hypocritical.


The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be
applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons
aren't applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.


> Regardless of whether or not this convinces you, i would ask that you keep
> it friendly. Comments such as the one you just made, along with the previous
> one further up (*Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to
> believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a
> flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested
> to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of
> dignity.*) simply aren't productive. Besides, if we start labeling each
> other it will simply result in less sensible discussion, and more "Digging
> one's heels in the soil".
> 

And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the
muslim connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to
display the "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on
cross in jar of urine" describes exactly why the work was found
offensive. Just explain why the actual image is necessary and whilst you
are about it explain why it is so much larger than the normal use of an
image to illustrate an article?




___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Mark Williamson]

"Wiki-list", the huge glaring difference is that the goatse.cx image
is a pornographic image and we were unable to identify the subject of
it, which raises potential privacy concerns. Please don't accuse me of
hypocrisy as I am personally in favor of including that image in that
article.




On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:01 AM,   wrote:
> Excirial wrote:
>> *There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it
>> is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a
>> mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?*
>>
>> 1) It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an
>> encyclopedia.
>
>
> By all means do so. But there is no reason to include the image. Others
> managed to convey the controversy without doing so. In addition being a
> web page you have the option to provide a link to the image rather than
> embedding it. Its not as if the wikipage actually needs the image at all.
>
>
>> 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If
>> we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on.
>> 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a
>> personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a
>> problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't
>> erase them from history.
>
>
> Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of
> selected images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global
> blocking of all images?
>
>
>> 4) The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who aren't
>> offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger group
>> outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not
>> forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on
>> specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be blocked.
>
>
> So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says
> that its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a
> problem in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are
> complaining about:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.jpg
>
> using those images has been declared fair-use. Even The Piss Christ
> images is similarly 'fair-used'
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg
>
> So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the
> issue of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of
> the smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

[Lodewijk]

I was mainly wondering what the stakeholder database would look like - what
information will be in there, how is it gathered, will information from
existing databases be merged? (for example, if I am an editor and I happen
to make a donation - will that information be put into one combined database
if you happen to know the real name behind me?)

I can hardly imagine that the Wikimedia Foundation woul go wild privacy
wise, but I am just asking to make sure we have a similar understanding.

I am sorry if I did not put my question clear enough.

best, Lodewijk

2010/7/17 Sue Gardner 

> Sorry -- is there a question outstanding?  I know Nathan posted some
> questions about the annual plan (which I think Veronique'll answer, and if
> she she doesn't I will).  If there was something else, I think it slipped
> right past me.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
> --Original Message--
> From: Thomas Dalton
> Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> ReplyTo: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data
> Sent: 17 Jul 2010 07:05
>
> On 17 July 2010 13:53, Lodewijk  wrote:
> > I'd rather not speculate about what happens or the intent before someone
> > from the WMF who is responsible for this clarifies the statement. I hope
> we
> > all can hold ourselves from guessing and seeking logic until that moment.
>
> This is foundation-l... your hope is misplaced!
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

[Oliver Keyes]

An additional question; is there going to be an explicit need to gain
permission, or is it simply going to be the implicit assumption that the
person does/does not want their information stored?

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> On 17 July 2010 18:29, Sue Gardner  wrote:
> > Sorry -- is there a question outstanding?  I know Nathan posted some
> questions about the annual plan (which I think Veronique'll answer, and if
> she she doesn't I will).  If there was something else, I think it slipped
> right past me.
>
> Lodewijk requested some clarification about the new stakeholder
> database. In particular, whether consent would be sought before
> storing information that was divulged without an intention for it to
> be put in a database. Also, whether the Foundation would voluntarily
> follow European standards for determining whether it is appropriate to
> store certain information and how to protect it rather than just
> following the much weaker US laws that it is legally obliged to
> follow.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

[Thomas Dalton]

On 17 July 2010 18:29, Sue Gardner  wrote:
> Sorry -- is there a question outstanding?  I know Nathan posted some 
> questions about the annual plan (which I think Veronique'll answer, and if 
> she she doesn't I will).  If there was something else, I think it slipped 
> right past me.

Lodewijk requested some clarification about the new stakeholder
database. In particular, whether consent would be sought before
storing information that was divulged without an intention for it to
be put in a database. Also, whether the Foundation would voluntarily
follow European standards for determining whether it is appropriate to
store certain information and how to protect it rather than just
following the much weaker US laws that it is legally obliged to
follow.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Oliver Keyes]

I don't think any community, even one from a majority Muslim nation, could
reasonably consider following the doctrine of a particular Islamic sect with
no other considerations "neutral". Anyone who things "neutral point of view"
means "consider the ONE ACCEPTABLE POINT OF VIEW TO US AS INDIVIDUALS" is
barking.

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:

> Oh well, if any community is completely free to define what is neutral...
> :(
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Prodego  wrote:
> > There are some constraints on what is written - it is supposed to be a
> > neutrally presented encyclopedia. But if a particular wiki's community
> comes
> > to a different conclusion than another on what is neutral than another,
> who
> > is to say which one is "right"?  'What is neutral?' is one of the
> > things collaborative editing is supposed to determine.
> >
> > Prodego
> >
> >
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Pavlo Shevelo]

Oh well, if any community is completely free to define what is neutral... :(



On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Prodego  wrote:
> There are some constraints on what is written - it is supposed to be a
> neutrally presented encyclopedia. But if a particular wiki's community comes
> to a different conclusion than another on what is neutral than another, who
> is to say which one is "right"?  'What is neutral?' is one of the
> things collaborative editing is supposed to determine.
>
> Prodego
>
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[teun spaans]

The community of each wiki can decide which illustrations are best for
a certain article, true.

Using foundation resources (banner, cpu, bandwidth) to campaign
against other foundation projects should be avoided.
Protest against decisions of WMF is one thing, lobbying against a
whole WMF project is something else.

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Prodego  wrote:
> Talking about the inclusion of different images is beside the point. Each
> project can, and does, decide what content is appropriate for it. You could
> call this selection "censorship", although it is very much an editorial
> decision that anyone writing anything must make. If a particular wiki
> decides not to show some particular image then so be it. There is no problem
> with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article
> wording, image inclusion, style guidelines... The only problem I see is that
> the main page of a WMF site being used to make a statement about another
> site (which happens to also be a WMF site). This I do not consider to be
> acceptable. It is outside the scope of  "the growth, development and
> distribution of free, multilingual content" that the WMF claims to be about.
> Regardless of if acewiki has a problem with another site, they should not be
> using the main page of Wikipedia to air their grievances.
>
> Prodego
>
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Prodego]

There are some constraints on what is written - it is supposed to be a
neutrally presented encyclopedia. But if a particular wiki's community comes
to a different conclusion than another on what is neutral than another, who
is to say which one is "right"?  'What is neutral?' is one of the
things collaborative editing is supposed to determine.

Prodego


On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:

> >  There is no problem
> > with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article
> > wording
>
> Is that really so?
>
> ... and please don't mix that with personal, by own choice made
> editorial decision(s)
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Prodego  wrote:
> > Talking about the inclusion of different images is beside the point. Each
> > project can, and does, decide what content is appropriate for it. You
> could
> > call this selection "censorship", although it is very much an editorial
> > decision that anyone writing anything must make. If a particular wiki
> > decides not to show some particular image then so be it. There is no
> problem
> > with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article
> > wording, image inclusion, style guidelines... The only problem I see is
> that
> > the main page of a WMF site being used to make a statement about another
> > site (which happens to also be a WMF site). This I do not consider to be
> > acceptable. It is outside the scope of  "the growth, development and
> > distribution of free, multilingual content" that the WMF claims to be
> about.
> > Regardless of if acewiki has a problem with another site, they should not
> be
> > using the main page of Wikipedia to air their grievances.
> >
> > Prodego
> >
> >
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Pavlo Shevelo]

>  There is no problem
> with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article
> wording

Is that really so?

... and please don't mix that with personal, by own choice made
editorial decision(s)


On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Prodego  wrote:
> Talking about the inclusion of different images is beside the point. Each
> project can, and does, decide what content is appropriate for it. You could
> call this selection "censorship", although it is very much an editorial
> decision that anyone writing anything must make. If a particular wiki
> decides not to show some particular image then so be it. There is no problem
> with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article
> wording, image inclusion, style guidelines... The only problem I see is that
> the main page of a WMF site being used to make a statement about another
> site (which happens to also be a WMF site). This I do not consider to be
> acceptable. It is outside the scope of  "the growth, development and
> distribution of free, multilingual content" that the WMF claims to be about.
> Regardless of if acewiki has a problem with another site, they should not be
> using the main page of Wikipedia to air their grievances.
>
> Prodego
>
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Excirial]

*Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of selected
images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking of
all images?*

See the FAQ section on
Talk:Muhammad,
which contains an easy method to hide the images trough CSS, which is a
permanent setting that works for all browsers. Since we are discussing that
exact page, i thought you would have seen it on the talk page as it is quite
prominent. Apologies for not mentioning it earlier.

*So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says that
its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a problem
in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are complaining about:*

I already linked the relevant discussion above, and i have equally commented
on it. To quote myself: "See this
discussion,
though it may be easier to read the summary that is available on the article
talk page . In essence the
image was removed under WP:NFCC, with a sidenote that we could not reliably
determine who the person being displayed on the photo was, which caused
privacy concerns (As in displaying pornographic content of someone who
hasn't given clear endorsement for doing so)". In other words, the image
more or less suffers from a BLP issue - and you might also note that it
wasn't removed because it was deemed offensive.

*So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the issue
of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the
smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.*
If you believe that such statements will strengthen the argument you make,
please do go ahead think of me like that. Personally i would argue that such
comments aren't helpful at all because they only serve to create enmity
between other parties, and because they scream "AGF"   Besides this you
might actually want to read the deletion discussion on the Goatse.sx images,
so you can see the reason of the verdict for yourself - and you might
actually see a reason why i am not exactly being hypocritical.

Regardless of whether or not this convinces you, i would ask that you keep
it friendly. Comments such as the one you just made, along with the previous
one further up (*Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to
believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a
flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested
to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of
dignity.*) simply aren't productive. Besides, if we start labeling each
other it will simply result in less sensible discussion, and more "Digging
one's heels in the soil".

~Excirial

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 8:01 PM,  wrote:

> Excirial wrote:
> > *There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact
> it
> > is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider
> it a
> > mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?*
> >
> > 1) It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an
> > encyclopedia.
>
>
> By all means do so. But there is no reason to include the image. Others
> managed to convey the controversy without doing so. In addition being a
> web page you have the option to provide a link to the image rather than
> embedding it. Its not as if the wikipage actually needs the image at all.
>
>
> > 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception.
> If
> > we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on.
> > 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a
> > personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a
> > problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't
> > erase them from history.
>
>
> Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of
> selected images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global
> blocking of all images?
>
>
> > 4) The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who
> aren't
> > offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger
> group
> > outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not
> > forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on
> > specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be
> blocked.
>
>
> So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says
> that its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a
> problem in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are
> complaining about:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.jpg
>
> using those ima

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Prodego]

Talking about the inclusion of different images is beside the point. Each
project can, and does, decide what content is appropriate for it. You could
call this selection "censorship", although it is very much an editorial
decision that anyone writing anything must make. If a particular wiki
decides not to show some particular image then so be it. There is no problem
with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article
wording, image inclusion, style guidelines... The only problem I see is that
the main page of a WMF site being used to make a statement about another
site (which happens to also be a WMF site). This I do not consider to be
acceptable. It is outside the scope of  "the growth, development and
distribution of free, multilingual content" that the WMF claims to be about.
Regardless of if acewiki has a problem with another site, they should not be
using the main page of Wikipedia to air their grievances.

Prodego


On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM,  wrote:

> Excirial wrote:
> > *There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact
> it
> > is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider
> it a
> > mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?*
> >
> > 1) It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an
> > encyclopedia.
>
>
> By all means do so. But there is no reason to include the image. Others
> managed to convey the controversy without doing so. In addition being a
> web page you have the option to provide a link to the image rather than
> embedding it. Its not as if the wikipage actually needs the image at all.
>
>
> > 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception.
> If
> > we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on.
> > 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a
> > personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a
> > problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't
> > erase them from history.
>
>
> Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of
> selected images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global
> blocking of all images?
>
>
> > 4) The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who
> aren't
> > offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger
> group
> > outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not
> > forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on
> > specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be
> blocked.
>
>
> So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says
> that its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a
> problem in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are
> complaining about:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.jpg
>
> using those images has been declared fair-use. Even The Piss Christ
> images is similarly 'fair-used'
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg
>
> So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the
> issue of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of
> the smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[wiki-list]

Excirial wrote:
> *There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it
> is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a
> mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?*
> 
> 1) It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an
> encyclopedia.


By all means do so. But there is no reason to include the image. Others
managed to convey the controversy without doing so. In addition being a
web page you have the option to provide a link to the image rather than
embedding it. Its not as if the wikipage actually needs the image at all.


> 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If
> we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on.
> 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a
> personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a
> problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't
> erase them from history.


Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of
selected images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global
blocking of all images?


> 4) The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who aren't
> offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger group
> outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not
> forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on
> specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be blocked.


So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says
that its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a
problem in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are
complaining about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.jpg

using those images has been declared fair-use. Even The Piss Christ 
images is similarly 'fair-used'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg

So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the 
issue of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of 
the smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.




___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

[Sue Gardner]

Sorry -- is there a question outstanding?  I know Nathan posted some questions 
about the annual plan (which I think Veronique'll answer, and if she she 
doesn't I will).  If there was something else, I think it slipped right past me.

Thanks,
Sue

--Original Message--
From: Thomas Dalton
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
ReplyTo: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data
Sent: 17 Jul 2010 07:05

On 17 July 2010 13:53, Lodewijk  wrote:
> I'd rather not speculate about what happens or the intent before someone
> from the WMF who is responsible for this clarifies the statement. I hope we
> all can hold ourselves from guessing and seeking logic until that moment.

This is foundation-l... your hope is misplaced!

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[wiki-list]

Nathan wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM,   wrote:
> 
>> When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the
>> specific articles that have piss taking images, or images of him
>> trampling on the 10 commandments, or being tortured in hell?
>>
>> Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that
>> *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a flag p[ole
>> and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested to see
>> just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of dignity.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> The first link goes to the "depictions of Muhammad" article, which
> includes all kinds of images and not just obviously offensive ones.
> The idea of banning images of Muhammad is not limited to just this
> template on Aceh Wikipedia - they didn't invent it, it's an article of
> Islamic faith that *all* images of Muhammad are prohibited. On the
> English Wikipedia there have been many, many debates (and protests,
> boycotts, online petitions, etc.) about whether and how the
> [[Muhammad]] article should be illustrated with images of its subject.
> 

They link to example pages that *contain insulting* images they do not
say that each and every image on those pages is insulting. Also they do
not link to the main article on Muhammad which does contain images but
not insulting ones. You'd think would have singled out the main article
if it was *every* image.


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Victor Vasiliev]

On 07/17/2010 06:57 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Piss Christ was an artistic-political controversy.

Oh, and Jyllands-Posten wasn't?

--vvv

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Oliver Keyes]

Seconded, particularly (2). The line I use with OTRS and other complainants
about muhammad images is simply that; that we cannot favour one particular
group, because we'd have to favour a second, and so on - the end result is
removing everything anyone could ever find offensive.

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Excirial  wrote:

> *There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it
> is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it
> a
> mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?*
>
> 1) It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an
> encyclopedia.
> 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If
> we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on.
> 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a
> personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a
> problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't
> erase them from history.
> 4) The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who
> aren't
> offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger
> group
> outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not
> forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on
> specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be blocked.
>
> As said before, we should be careful with content that could be deemed
> offensive, to prevent needless friction - For example we shouldn't be
> placing images of Muhammad on article's that have only a partial relation
> with him, such as "Prophets of Islam". In other words, the are in which
> they
> are posted should be contained, but not exterminated.
>
> ~Excirial
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Fred Bauder 
> wrote:
>
> > > Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different?
> >
> > There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it
> > is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider
> > it a mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?
> >
> > Piss Christ was an artistic-political controversy.
> >
> > Fred Bauder
> >
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Pavlo Shevelo]

> 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If
> we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on.

It's the very core of the whole this issue.
That's why it's so ...mission critical to stay very firm with WP:5P
with all due respect to all and every particular group.

Sincerely,

Pavlo


On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Excirial  wrote:
> *There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it
> is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a
> mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?*
>
> 1) It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an
> encyclopedia.
> 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If
> we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on.
> 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a
> personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a
> problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't
> erase them from history.
> 4) The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who aren't
> offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger group
> outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not
> forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on
> specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be blocked.
>
> As said before, we should be careful with content that could be deemed
> offensive, to prevent needless friction - For example we shouldn't be
> placing images of Muhammad on article's that have only a partial relation
> with him, such as "Prophets of Islam". In other words, the are in which they
> are posted should be contained, but not exterminated.
>
> ~Excirial
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Excirial]

*There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it
is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a
mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?*

1) It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an
encyclopedia.
2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If
we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on.
3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a
personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a
problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't
erase them from history.
4) The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who aren't
offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger group
outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not
forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on
specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be blocked.

As said before, we should be careful with content that could be deemed
offensive, to prevent needless friction - For example we shouldn't be
placing images of Muhammad on article's that have only a partial relation
with him, such as "Prophets of Islam". In other words, the are in which they
are posted should be contained, but not exterminated.

~Excirial

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> > Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different?
>
> There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it
> is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider
> it a mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?
>
> Piss Christ was an artistic-political controversy.
>
> Fred Bauder
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Fred Bauder]

> This turns out not to be the case. In practice, anything that is even
> *purported* to be an image of Mohammed is condemned.
>
> (And, as the article on the history of such images notes - this is a
> modern POV of one particularly noisy and violent group rather than a
> constant over the history of Islam.)
>
>
> - d.
>

Well, we should not bow before noise and violence. However, there is a
substantial body of Muslim public opinion that holds this view today.

Fred Bauder



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Fred Bauder]

> Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different?

There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it
is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider
it a mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?

Piss Christ was an artistic-political controversy.

Fred Bauder


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 Now Posted

[Samuel Klein]

Hello,

Under rare circumstances, the Board could choose not to appoint
someone who won a community election to a seat; however in that case
the candidate receiving the next most votes must be appointed instead.
 That may constitute an election process, despite the caveat.[1]

SJ

[1] From IV.3.C of the Bylaws:
"In the event that a candidate is selected who does not meet the
requirements of Subsection (A) or other requirements of these Bylaws,
or of applicable state or federal law, the Board will (i) not approve
the selected candidate, (ii) declare a vacancy on the Board, and (iii)
appoint the candidate receiving the next most votes to fill the
resulting vacancy"

Even physical governments often have part of the government that must
officially recognize the results of an election, and that can declare
a candidate unfit to hold office, or an election process invalid;
though they usually have much narrower guidelines than meeting the
requirements of IV.3.A.


On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
> On 17 July 2010 00:28, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:
>> I'm a bit late here, but I have three (little) questions:
>> 1) Page 7, part VI, section A, line 7a: "Does the organization have
>> members, stockholders, or other persons who may elect one or more
>> members of the governing body?" Why is the answer "no"? Because of the
>> definition of "elect" (perhaps they're not considered elected because a
>> board resolution is needed)?
>
> Legally speaking, all board members are appointed by the board. The
> community and chapters merely make recommendations, which have always
> been followed and always will be unless something particular
> extraordinary happens, such as the community or chapters recommending
> someone that isn't eligible to sit on the board due to bankruptcy or
> convictions for fraud, etc., but legally the board can choose not to
> follow the recommendations for pretty much any reason they like. The
> Bylaws say: "The Board must comprise members [...] that will best
> fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation." and the Board are
> allowed to not approve a recommendation of the community or chapters
> if they think it would violate that bylaw, which is an extremely broad
> power. (Of course, the board knows they need to support of the
> community if they are going fulfil the mission of the Foundation,
> which is why they will show great restraint in regards to that power.)
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Excirial]

*Does somebody know if there's some discussion ongoing with ace.wiki users
somewhere?*

I have tried to determine if this was the case, but so far i see no real
indication of this. I tried to check some recent contributions from the
involved parties, but none seem to be no internal dialog  (on-wiki that is).
This is something to be expected though, as ACE is a relatively small wiki.
The En.Wiki has many more editors, and even with so many people or
centralized discussion don't attract to much attention.

There are a few comments here and there, but if they are negotiations they
aren't going very well. See:
http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8h&diff=prev&oldid=19366<%20http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8h&diff=prev&oldid=19366>
http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marit%3A%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB&action=historysubmit&diff=19364&oldid=9304

I wonder what caused this though. On another talk page there is an older
discussion on the subject which seems more reasonable (In English).
http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Hercule#Wikipedia_and_Islam

~Excirial


On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen, 17/07/2010 12:01:
> > Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ?
>
> Yes: http://ace.wikipedia.org/?diff=19301
>
> http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8h#Don.27t_attack_other_Wikipedias.21
> Does somebody know if there's some discussion ongoing with ace.wiki
> users somewhere?
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Oliver Keyes]

Actually, to clarify; it's a particular Islamic sect which has a problem. A
lot of the smaller groups really don't care.

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM,   wrote:
>
> > When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the
> > specific articles that have piss taking images, or images of him
> > trampling on the 10 commandments, or being tortured in hell?
> >
> > Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that
> > *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a flag p[ole
> > and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested to see
> > just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of
> dignity.
> >
> >
>
>
> The first link goes to the "depictions of Muhammad" article, which
> includes all kinds of images and not just obviously offensive ones.
> The idea of banning images of Muhammad is not limited to just this
> template on Aceh Wikipedia - they didn't invent it, it's an article of
> Islamic faith that *all* images of Muhammad are prohibited. On the
> English Wikipedia there have been many, many debates (and protests,
> boycotts, online petitions, etc.) about whether and how the
> [[Muhammad]] article should be illustrated with images of its subject.
>
> Nathan
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Nathan]

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM,   wrote:

> When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the
> specific articles that have piss taking images, or images of him
> trampling on the 10 commandments, or being tortured in hell?
>
> Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that
> *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a flag p[ole
> and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested to see
> just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of dignity.
>
>


The first link goes to the "depictions of Muhammad" article, which
includes all kinds of images and not just obviously offensive ones.
The idea of banning images of Muhammad is not limited to just this
template on Aceh Wikipedia - they didn't invent it, it's an article of
Islamic faith that *all* images of Muhammad are prohibited. On the
English Wikipedia there have been many, many debates (and protests,
boycotts, online petitions, etc.) about whether and how the
[[Muhammad]] article should be illustrated with images of its subject.

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Gerard Meijssen, 17/07/2010 12:01:
> Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ?

Yes: http://ace.wikipedia.org/?diff=19301 
http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8h#Don.27t_attack_other_Wikipedias.21
Does somebody know if there's some discussion ongoing with ace.wiki 
users somewhere?

Nemo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[wiki-list]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 17 July 2010 12:40,   wrote:
>> John Vandenberg wrote:
>>> in the article about Jesus.
> 
>>> If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles
>>> relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much
>>> free time on their hands.  The images of Muhammad that we use are
>>> images of an object which is held in a university library or museum,
>>> _because_they_are_important_.
> 
>> Those don't appear to be the ones that are being complained about. Its
>> the Baby Jesus Butt Plug style ones that they have issue with.
> 
> 
> This turns out not to be the case. In practice, anything that is even
> *purported* to be an image of Mohammed is condemned.
> 

When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the 
specific articles that have piss taking images, or images of him 
trampling on the 10 commandments, or being tortured in hell?

Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that 
*you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a flag p[ole 
and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested to see 
just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of dignity.


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

[Thomas Dalton]

On 17 July 2010 13:53, Lodewijk  wrote:
> I'd rather not speculate about what happens or the intent before someone
> from the WMF who is responsible for this clarifies the statement. I hope we
> all can hold ourselves from guessing and seeking logic until that moment.

This is foundation-l... your hope is misplaced!

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[David Gerard]

On 17 July 2010 14:13, Mark Williamson  wrote:

> I'm not sure what's so unreasonable about including an image of an art
> work in the article about it. I would not be against the use of the
> goatse.cx image in that article, although we'd have to make sure to
> not allow it to be used outside of that page (to prevent vandalism).


Indeed. The main reason it's not there (on the restricted list for the
reason you describe) is its unknown copyright status. (It's widely
used by people, but Wikimedia demands rather more.) We could arguably
make it fair use, as the most famous shock image, but for some reason
no-one can really be bothered to push it through ...


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Excirial]

 *The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to
display an image that is known to offend. I note that none of the references
in that article actually display the image and are far more informative of
the actual controversy surrounding the image. The wikipedia article also
does not address the image in any way which would necessitate displaying it.
There is no discussion on the lighting, or anything else about the
photograph.*

The image in question, or rather the "piece of art" it depicts is the reason
that sparked the entire controversy around it. Ergo: Without that piece of
art there would have been no controversy, and thus no need at all for an
article so it would say it is quite relevant at least. That doesn't mean
that i am a fan of this image; Frankly, i believe that calling a glass of
pee with a plastic crucifix "art" is an insult to all the historical works
that have been considered art - it certainly doesn't belong into the
category of masterpieces classical painters made.
*
One is left wondering why it is that the article [[Goatse.cx]] article does
not actually show the goatse image.*
See this 
discussion,
though it may be easier to read the summary that is available on the article
talk page . In essence the
image was removed under WP:NFCC, with a sidenote that we could not reliably
determine who the person being displayed on the photo was, which caused
privacy concerns (As in displaying pornographic content of someone who
hasn't given clear endorsement for doing so)

*The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to
display an image that is known to offend*
The purpose of an encyclopedia is to record history, which means that
significant subjects are included. We are not here to cast a judgment on
subjects that are recorded, nor are we here to write or rewrite history
itself. Some aspects of this recording duty will be deemed unpleasant by
some people, such as this piece of art, the depictions of Muhammad, the
monkey-darwin in the evolution article and so on. However, keep the
historical perspective in mind; if everything does correctly Wikipedia will
still be here in 50, 100 years (And perhaps even much longer). After all
that time we will likely still have documentation that covers the outrage
Muhammed's cartoon page sparked; However, around that time no one would have
seen the original images without the images themselves the contextual
significance could be lost.

As said before, we should merely document relevant data, without casting a
personal judgment onto them. Not liking image or page XYZ is not a reason to
remove them, provided there is historical significance attached to them. As
said before - it we delete everything that could insult someone we would
have little content left. The better course of action is to handle such
content responsibly.

~Excirial

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:54 PM,  wrote:

> The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to
> display an image that is known to offend. I note that none of the
> references in that article actually display the image and are far more
> informative of the actual controversy surrounding the image. The
> wikipedia article also does not address the image in any way which would
> necessitate displaying it. There is no discussion on the lighting, or
> anything else about the photograph.
>
> One is left wondering why it is that the article [[Goatse.cx]] article
> does not actually show the goatse image.
>
>
>
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different?
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:40 AM,   wrote:
> >> John Vandenberg wrote:
> >>> in the article about Jesus.
> >>>
> >>> If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles
> >>> relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much
> >>> free time on their hands.  The images of Muhammad that we use are
> >>> images of an object which is held in a university library or museum,
> >>> _because_they_are_important_.
> >>>
> >> Those don't appear to be the ones that are being complained about. Its
> >> the Baby Jesus Butt Plug style ones that they have issue with.
> >>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 Now Posted

[Thomas Dalton]

On 17 July 2010 00:28, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:
> I'm a bit late here, but I have three (little) questions:
> 1) Page 7, part VI, section A, line 7a: "Does the organization have
> members, stockholders, or other persons who may elect one or more
> members of the governing body?" Why is the answer "no"? Because of the
> definition of "elect" (perhaps they're not considered elected because a
> board resolution is needed)?

Legally speaking, all board members are appointed by the board. The
community and chapters merely make recommendations, which have always
been followed and always will be unless something particular
extraordinary happens, such as the community or chapters recommending
someone that isn't eligible to sit on the board due to bankruptcy or
convictions for fraud, etc., but legally the board can choose not to
follow the recommendations for pretty much any reason they like. The
Bylaws say: "The Board must comprise members [...] that will best
fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation." and the Board are
allowed to not approve a recommendation of the community or chapters
if they think it would violate that bylaw, which is an extremely broad
power. (Of course, the board knows they need to support of the
community if they are going fulfil the mission of the Foundation,
which is why they will show great restraint in regards to that power.)

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Mark Williamson]

I'm not sure what's so unreasonable about including an image of an art
work in the article about it. I would not be against the use of the
goatse.cx image in that article, although we'd have to make sure to
not allow it to be used outside of that page (to prevent vandalism).



On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 5:54 AM,   wrote:
> The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to
> display an image that is known to offend. I note that none of the
> references in that article actually display the image and are far more
> informative of the actual controversy surrounding the image. The
> wikipedia article also does not address the image in any way which would
> necessitate displaying it. There is no discussion on the lighting, or
> anything else about the photograph.
>
> One is left wondering why it is that the article [[Goatse.cx]] article
> does not actually show the goatse image.
>
>
>
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>> Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different?
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:40 AM,   wrote:
>>> John Vandenberg wrote:
 in the article about Jesus.

 If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles
 relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much
 free time on their hands.  The images of Muhammad that we use are
 images of an object which is held in a university library or museum,
 _because_they_are_important_.

>>> Those don't appear to be the ones that are being complained about. Its
>>> the Baby Jesus Butt Plug style ones that they have issue with.
>>>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[David Gerard]

On 17 July 2010 12:40,   wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>> in the article about Jesus.

>> If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles
>> relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much
>> free time on their hands.  The images of Muhammad that we use are
>> images of an object which is held in a university library or museum,
>> _because_they_are_important_.

> Those don't appear to be the ones that are being complained about. Its
> the Baby Jesus Butt Plug style ones that they have issue with.


This turns out not to be the case. In practice, anything that is even
*purported* to be an image of Mohammed is condemned.

(And, as the article on the history of such images notes - this is a
modern POV of one particularly noisy and violent group rather than a
constant over the history of Islam.)


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

[Lodewijk]

I'd rather not speculate about what happens or the intent before someone
from the WMF who is responsible for this clarifies the statement. I hope we
all can hold ourselves from guessing and seeking logic until that moment.

Lodewijk

2010/7/17 Oliver Keyes 

> So the logic seems to be thus - if I tell employee X something about my
> life, interests, experience, C.V. that could possibly be of use or interest
> to the Foundation, it's fine to store it on a central database where all
> and
> sundry within the Foundation can get at it, despite the fact that this was
> never my intent.
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:01 AM, K. Peachey 
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Lodewijk 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I am assuming that people will be warned and asked for permission in
> > advance
> > > to combine these databases? I for one would definitely have strong
> > > objections against merging donation and edit data. Donations are real
> > life,
> > > edits are wikipedia-universe. Although I do realize that it is much
> more
> > > convenient for staff to have this data combined, I find this
> > objectionable
> > > from the privacy point of view. (putting this in a new thread to
> seperate
> > > discussions a bit) I am not sure of legal requirements in this field in
> > the
> > > US - but I hope Wikipedia will always adhere to also for example
> European
> > > principles in this regard whether it is maybe or maybe not legally
> > obliged
> > > to.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Lodewijk
> > What I believe this is referring to, is that the Customer Relation
> > Manager (CRM) [CiviCRM iirc] to be setup to allow for some details
> > about the people to be stored such as their usernames/interests/etc
> > compared to it just being a word of mouth system where staff members
> > need to track down which staff know who.
> >
> > So for example a staff member can look up a person and go "oh Jimmy
> > Bloggs is interested in political photograph, X might interest him"
> > compared to say "Jimmy Bloggs was entered by Sally Doors, I need to go
> > talk to her," who redirects to someone else that knows more about the
> > subject.
> >
> > -Peachey
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[wiki-list]

The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to
display an image that is known to offend. I note that none of the
references in that article actually display the image and are far more
informative of the actual controversy surrounding the image. The
wikipedia article also does not address the image in any way which would
necessitate displaying it. There is no discussion on the lighting, or
anything else about the photograph.

One is left wondering why it is that the article [[Goatse.cx]] article
does not actually show the goatse image.



Mark Williamson wrote:
> Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different?
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:40 AM,   wrote:
>> John Vandenberg wrote:
>>> in the article about Jesus.
>>>
>>> If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles
>>> relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much
>>> free time on their hands.  The images of Muhammad that we use are
>>> images of an object which is held in a university library or museum,
>>> _because_they_are_important_.
>>>
>> Those don't appear to be the ones that are being complained about. Its
>> the Baby Jesus Butt Plug style ones that they have issue with.
>>


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

[Excirial]

*So the logic seems to be thus - if I tell employee X something about my
life, interests, experience, C.V. that could possibly be of use or interest
to the Foundation, it's fine to store it on a central database where all and
sundry within the Foundation can get at it, despite the fact that this was
never my intent.*

I don't think the system is intended to work this way. The system seems to
be akin to a CRM system, and i presume only relevant information will be
tracked. For example, you might contact the foundation wishing to set up
another local chapter, asking for an internship or merely to request
information on policies, this previous request is logged. If you call again
it is likely you will get someone else on the phone, which means you would
have to explain the whole situation again. In the current situation the
"buddy system" seems to take care of this, as people are likely to share
such information over coffee so everyone knows what person XyZ called for.
Due to the predicted explosive growth such a buddy system would overextend
itself, thus necessitating some form of central storage.

Keep in mind that "Stakeholders" is a very wide term. Wikipedians are but
one group - The foundation will also receive calls from companies asking why
their page was removed, From universities to ask if they can integrate
Wikipedia editing in their curriculum, from other institutions that give
Wikipedia grants for development, from journalists, politicians... The
possibilities are endless, as a stakeholder is merely someone interested in
the foundation.

~Excirial

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:

> So the logic seems to be thus - if I tell employee X something about my
> life, interests, experience, C.V. that could possibly be of use or interest
> to the Foundation, it's fine to store it on a central database where all
> and
> sundry within the Foundation can get at it, despite the fact that this was
> never my intent.
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:01 AM, K. Peachey 
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Lodewijk 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I am assuming that people will be warned and asked for permission in
> > advance
> > > to combine these databases? I for one would definitely have strong
> > > objections against merging donation and edit data. Donations are real
> > life,
> > > edits are wikipedia-universe. Although I do realize that it is much
> more
> > > convenient for staff to have this data combined, I find this
> > objectionable
> > > from the privacy point of view. (putting this in a new thread to
> seperate
> > > discussions a bit) I am not sure of legal requirements in this field in
> > the
> > > US - but I hope Wikipedia will always adhere to also for example
> European
> > > principles in this regard whether it is maybe or maybe not legally
> > obliged
> > > to.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Lodewijk
> > What I believe this is referring to, is that the Customer Relation
> > Manager (CRM) [CiviCRM iirc] to be setup to allow for some details
> > about the people to be stored such as their usernames/interests/etc
> > compared to it just being a word of mouth system where staff members
> > need to track down which staff know who.
> >
> > So for example a staff member can look up a person and go "oh Jimmy
> > Bloggs is interested in political photograph, X might interest him"
> > compared to say "Jimmy Bloggs was entered by Sally Doors, I need to go
> > talk to her," who redirects to someone else that knows more about the
> > subject.
> >
> > -Peachey
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

[Oliver Keyes]

So the logic seems to be thus - if I tell employee X something about my
life, interests, experience, C.V. that could possibly be of use or interest
to the Foundation, it's fine to store it on a central database where all and
sundry within the Foundation can get at it, despite the fact that this was
never my intent.

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:01 AM, K. Peachey  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
> >
> > I am assuming that people will be warned and asked for permission in
> advance
> > to combine these databases? I for one would definitely have strong
> > objections against merging donation and edit data. Donations are real
> life,
> > edits are wikipedia-universe. Although I do realize that it is much more
> > convenient for staff to have this data combined, I find this
> objectionable
> > from the privacy point of view. (putting this in a new thread to seperate
> > discussions a bit) I am not sure of legal requirements in this field in
> the
> > US - but I hope Wikipedia will always adhere to also for example European
> > principles in this regard whether it is maybe or maybe not legally
> obliged
> > to.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Lodewijk
> What I believe this is referring to, is that the Customer Relation
> Manager (CRM) [CiviCRM iirc] to be setup to allow for some details
> about the people to be stored such as their usernames/interests/etc
> compared to it just being a word of mouth system where staff members
> need to track down which staff know who.
>
> So for example a staff member can look up a person and go "oh Jimmy
> Bloggs is interested in political photograph, X might interest him"
> compared to say "Jimmy Bloggs was entered by Sally Doors, I need to go
> talk to her," who redirects to someone else that knows more about the
> subject.
>
> -Peachey
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Mark Williamson]

Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different?


On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:40 AM,   wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>> in the article about Jesus.
>>
>> If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles
>> relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much
>> free time on their hands.  The images of Muhammad that we use are
>> images of an object which is held in a university library or museum,
>> _because_they_are_important_.
>>
>
> Those don't appear to be the ones that are being complained about. Its
> the Baby Jesus Butt Plug style ones that they have issue with.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Mark Williamson]

I was raised areligious and I see a clear difference there. On the one
hand, you're talking about portraying a religious figure on a sex toy;
on the other hand you're just talking about portraying a religious
figure. Just on the grounds of being offensive, I don't think either
should be excluded from WP (we have a page about and an image of Piss
Christ and I'd not be against things far more offensive than that, so
long as they serve an illustrative purpose and their inclusion can be
justified). However, while I think it's perfectly reasonable to
include later depictions (many, though not all, of them from _within_
that particular religious tradition itself in the case of Muhammad) in
the main article on the religious figure, I don't think it's
reasonable to include the buttplugs. I'd have no problem with them
going in the article [[Baby Jesus Buttplugs]], but I can't see how
they can be considered to be more notable than the hundreds of far
more famous depictions of that particular individual. Similarly, I
wouldn't support the inclusion of many of the more recent images of
Muhammad - such as some of the more controversial ones from
Jyllands-Posten - because rather than simply depicting the individual,
they go far beyond that. Many people around the world are offended
(including for religious reasons) by sexual immodesty, yet we have
lots of images of nude people and images demonstrating sexual acts.
Images of certain animals are offensive to certain cultures. Wikipedia
is not censored; to me, that means we use any non-illegal images that
serve to illustrate an article. Despite my lack of reverence for
Jesus, however, I don't think those two cases are analogous.

-m
skype: node.ue



On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:15 AM, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>> Excirial wrote:
>>> *First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.*
>>> As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic
>>> images
>>> which display any god or prophet?
>>>
>>
>> Do they not have traditional images that go back millennia? If you
>> depicted images of Shiva as Yoda you'd get a whole load of grief from
>> Hindus, and the Christians were none too pleased about the image of
>> christ being fucked by a Roman Centurian (see Whitehouse v Lemon).
>>
>> Oh and I'll just mention in passing that wikimedia doesn't have nearly
>> enough photos of 'Baby Jesus Butt Plugs', nor are there anywhere near
>> enough drawings of Western politicians engaging in bestiality. I'm sure
>> that there are oodles of those out there, I know an artist friend of
>> mine draw a number of Ronald Reagun sucking a horses dick and shitting
>> nuclear missiles. Perhaps I'll take some scans and add them to:
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
>
> Yes, indeed.
>
> What is wrong with using photographs of Baby Jesus Butt Plugs to
> illustrate the article on Jesus? Answer that question and you'll know why
> offensive images of Muhammad are not a good idea. The thing is, we're
> saying, "Hey, come off of it, no real harm is done is there are images of
> Muhammad" Why doesn't the same reasoning apply to the butt plugs? No real
> harm would be done. Or would there?
>
> Fred Bauder
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[wiki-list]

John Vandenberg wrote:
> in the article about Jesus.
> 
> If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles
> relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much
> free time on their hands.  The images of Muhammad that we use are
> images of an object which is held in a university library or museum,
> _because_they_are_important_.
> 

Those don't appear to be the ones that are being complained about. Its 
the Baby Jesus Butt Plug style ones that they have issue with.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[John Vandenberg]

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:06 PM,   wrote:
> > ... I know an artist friend of
> > mine draw a number of Ronald Reagun sucking a horses dick and shitting
> > nuclear missiles. Perhaps I'll take some scans and add them to:
> >
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
>
> Yes, indeed.
>
> What is wrong with using photographs of Baby Jesus Butt Plugs to
> illustrate the article on Jesus? Answer that question and you'll know why
> offensive images of Muhammad are not a good idea. The thing is, we're
> saying, "Hey, come off of it, no real harm is done is there are images of
> Muhammad" Why doesn't the same reasoning apply to the butt plugs? No real
> harm would be done. Or would there?

Fred, how about you write an article about Baby Jesus Butt Plugs, and
then you can try to justify the importance of including images of them
in the article about Jesus.

If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles
relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much
free time on their hands.  The images of Muhammad that we use are
images of an object which is held in a university library or museum,
_because_they_are_important_.

--
John Vandenberg

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Fred Bauder]

> Excirial wrote:
>> *First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.*
>> As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic
>> images
>> which display any god or prophet?
>>
>
> Do they not have traditional images that go back millennia? If you
> depicted images of Shiva as Yoda you'd get a whole load of grief from
> Hindus, and the Christians were none too pleased about the image of
> christ being fucked by a Roman Centurian (see Whitehouse v Lemon).
>
> Oh and I'll just mention in passing that wikimedia doesn't have nearly
> enough photos of 'Baby Jesus Butt Plugs', nor are there anywhere near
> enough drawings of Western politicians engaging in bestiality. I'm sure
> that there are oodles of those out there, I know an artist friend of
> mine draw a number of Ronald Reagun sucking a horses dick and shitting
> nuclear missiles. Perhaps I'll take some scans and add them to:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

Yes, indeed.

What is wrong with using photographs of Baby Jesus Butt Plugs to
illustrate the article on Jesus? Answer that question and you'll know why
offensive images of Muhammad are not a good idea. The thing is, we're
saying, "Hey, come off of it, no real harm is done is there are images of
Muhammad" Why doesn't the same reasoning apply to the butt plugs? No real
harm would be done. Or would there?

Fred Bauder



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[wiki-list]

Excirial wrote:
> *First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.*
> As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic images
> which display any god or prophet?
> 

Do they not have traditional images that go back millennia? If you 
depicted images of Shiva as Yoda you'd get a whole load of grief from 
Hindus, and the Christians were none too pleased about the image of 
christ being fucked by a Roman Centurian (see Whitehouse v Lemon).

Oh and I'll just mention in passing that wikimedia doesn't have nearly 
enough photos of 'Baby Jesus Butt Plugs', nor are there anywhere near 
enough drawings of Western politicians engaging in bestiality. I'm sure 
that there are oodles of those out there, I know an artist friend of 
mine draw a number of Ronald Reagun sucking a horses dick and shitting 
nuclear missiles. Perhaps I'll take some scans and add them to:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Excirial]

*Yes, there are alternatives to religious beliefs. In this case the
alternative is the view that offensive bogus images should be displayed.
Saying that is fine; doing it another.*  *Wikipedia:Reliable sources
IS policy. There are no authentic images of Muhammad. Including one outside
the realm of art is a violation of the policy.* *Yes, there are even
depictions of God as an angry grey-haired old man. And we do illustrate our
article about God with it.* *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Conceptions_of_God It's no different from
an image of Paris that includes the Chrysler  Building.*

You are making one crucial mistake in your reasoning here. The core of
"Depictions of Muhammed", as well as "God The Father in Western Art" is that
they display depictions or artist impressions of a certain concept, in this
case gods and prophets. We never claim that these are actual, accurate
images of religious people - we claim that this is the way artists have
portrayed them over the centuries. The images themselves are not bogus, as
we can clearly verify their orgins. For example, the text accompanying  (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maome.jpg) says this: "*The Prophet
Muhammad , 17th century Ottoman
copy of an early 14th century (Ilkhanate period) manuscript of Northwestern
Iran or northern Iraq (the "Edinburgh codex"). Illustration of Abū Rayhān
al-Bīrūnī's
**al-Âthâr 
al-bâqiyah(
الآثار الباقيةة ; "The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries")
*"

All we claim is that in the fourteenth century someone depicted Muhammed
like this, while equally adding a warning that this depiction is a copy made
at a later date (Which means that colors and so can vary, due to using
different dyes and techniques). We do, in no way, claim that these are
images of gods and prophets - we claim that this is the way humans depicted
them throughout history. That is the crucial difference between bogus and
fact; Has we claimed this is the way Muhammed looked we would be spreading a
blatant lie as there is no way of knowing this; Instead we show what humans
think he looked like.

*Bottom line: Made up stuff is being included.*
Exactly; We include data that has historic relevance, whether or not it is
accurate. We actually have an entire list of hoaxes
which are all topics made up by
humans. However, have a look at WP:Hoax => Hoaxes v. Article's about
hoaxes.
The difference between a hoax and an article about a hoax is the way it is
worded. The same applies to the ages old depictions of muhammed debate,
though this isn't exactly a hoax article. We show images that depict
Muhammad, and we clearly indicate that these are historical artist
impressions, rather then factual representations.

~Excirial


On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:

> > *First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.*
> > As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic
> > images
> > which display any god or prophet?
>
> Yes, there are photographs of Joseph Smith, Jr. and of Bahá'u'lláh a
> prophet of the Bahá'í Faith.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h#Photograph
>
> Of gods, no, unless you count Hindu deities.
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haidakhandefwary.JPG
>
> > *Second: You know millions of Muslims find images of Mohammad extremely
> > offensive. *
> > Christians (And then i am mostly talking about fundamental Christians)
> > are
> > offended by our page on evolution which they deem absolute nonsense and
> > heresy. Hardline atheists are offended by any religions, arguing that
> > people
> > who follow them are deluded. And did i already mention that some people
> > are
> > extremely offended by our images placed on sexual topics?  And so we can
> > go
> > on and on, as there are many groups of people who deem something
> > offensive
> > or gross.
> >
> > One course of action would be abiding to each groups whims, and removing
> > all
> > content that they deem offensive. We would end up with something entirely
> > child friendly, which would also be entirely useless as it is severely
> > lacking in multiple area's. We could also take an impartial stance and
> > add
> > as much content as we can, so long as it serves some educational value.
> > If
> > someone doesn't want to see or read a subject they can block the images,
> > or
> > they can evade it altogether. This way people who DO wish to know more
> > about
> > a subject can learn about it, without having to worry that another group
> > has
> > been censoring it. Of course we should apply the exact same rules to
> > every
> > group, and walk with care when deciding on these kind of issues to
> > prevent
> > needless insulting.
>

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Fred Bauder]

> I think I would accept that some language wikis decide, by consensus,
>> that they will not show illustrations of Mohammed under any
>> circumstances.
>>
>> They should not ask for a boycott of another language, though. They
>> could have a protest page with a list of users who want to sign up to
>> it. Sticking a banner on the main page - and worse; as the only
>> content - I disagree with.
>>
>>
> I totally agree with the above. I don't know why the discussion evolved
> into
> the rights of individual wikis to not show the images. I thought that was
> never in question. On the Arabic wp for example, we do not display the
> images by consensus, we try to describe in detail what's in them in
> articles
> pertaining to the subject, this seems to be a compromise accepted by
> most.
>
> What irritated me originally was the call for boycott on the main page
> and
> the fact that the template is worded to be understood as the opinion of
> the
> Acehnese wikipedia not a group of editors/admins.
>
> What bothers me also is the mention by someone above that there was a
> note
> that Acehnese wikipedia follows islamic law and anything that contradicts
> with it is not allowed. If this is true, I think this is recipe for
> disaster. 'Islamic law' is not really a solid law but a large spectrum of
> interpretation of the holy books and precedence and differs by faction, I
> strongly doubt that everyone using that wikipedia will have the same
> views
> of what constitutes a violation even within the same ethnic group thus
> it's
> very hard to call that a 'consensus' that we should respect and not
> impose
> 'western values' on. There is an argument on the discussion going on that
> wiki that all Acehnese are muslim, I can't see how they can verify the
> validity of such claim,  religion is by choice. If someone is an
> Acehnese-born muslim but not a close practitioner or an atheist or
> convert
> to another religion, would his contributions be not welcome if they
> violate
> 'islamic law' (they can be as simple as writing articles about alcoholic
> drinks) ?
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Muhammad Yahia

Yes, the notion that Sharia controls is troublesome, as is the request
for a fatwa. A fatwa that explicitly addresses images of Muhammad in
Wikipedia either way would be kind of ridiculous and would not meet with
general acceptance. My point is that we don't need to needlessly offend
by posting images we know are not authentic.

Fred Bauder


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Fred Bauder]

> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Fred Bauder 
> wrote:
>>...
>>
>> That's the issue. Displaying offensive religious images is a big
>> problem,
>> not a tiny little problem that can be brushed under the rug. You're
>> doing
>> something that outrages millions of people and saying, "Hey, tough".
>> And
>> you don't possess, and will never possess, an authentic image of
>> Muhammad.
>
> Are our images of Muhammad any less authentic than our images of St.
> Paul, Jesus or Krishna?
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>

No, they all had two eyes and a nose, but that's about all we know about
any of them. Well, no, we don't know if Krishna even had those, let alone
being colored blue.

Fred Bauder



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Fred Bauder]

> On 07/17/2010 04:39 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.
>
> There are no authentic images of most characters from the Bible. Yet I
> believe at least 1 % of works of art on Commons contain them.
>
> --vvv
>

There is a difference between using an image of Charlton Heston to
illustrate The Ten Commandments (1956 film)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ten_Commandments_%281956_film%29

and Moses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses

You say it all when you say "works of art"

Additionally, no one riots in the streets when you illustrate the article
on Moses with all sorts of made up images.

Fred Bauder



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Excirial]

*Hoi, Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ?*

I have no idea to be honest, as i only just noticed it myself. The steward
in question (Laaknor) is also subscribed to this mailing list and present in
this specific thread, so i think we can await his answer on this. Based upon
his contributions i would say there has been no  real on-wiki contact as
there was only a reversal on the main page, and a general message to another
user detailing the usage of the blocklist to filter such images (It doesn't
mention the removal of the template at all though).

~Excirial

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ?
>
> The notion that what somebody does who holds a title like steward is not
> that firm in our community. The recent fracas about problematic images at
> Commons is a clear indication of that.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 17 July 2010 11:56, Excirial  wrote:
>
> > And a reply to no one in specific: It seems that Si Gam
> > Acèh >has
> > reverted the steward removal of the template from the ACE mainpage,
> > causing it to be displayed again.
> >
> > ~Excirial
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Fred Bauder]

> *First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.*
> As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic
> images
> which display any god or prophet?

Yes, there are photographs of Joseph Smith, Jr. and of Bahá'u'lláh a
prophet of the Bahá'í Faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h#Photograph

Of gods, no, unless you count Hindu deities.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haidakhandefwary.JPG

> *Second: You know millions of Muslims find images of Mohammad extremely
> offensive. *
> Christians (And then i am mostly talking about fundamental Christians)
> are
> offended by our page on evolution which they deem absolute nonsense and
> heresy. Hardline atheists are offended by any religions, arguing that
> people
> who follow them are deluded. And did i already mention that some people
> are
> extremely offended by our images placed on sexual topics?  And so we can
> go
> on and on, as there are many groups of people who deem something
> offensive
> or gross.
>
> One course of action would be abiding to each groups whims, and removing
> all
> content that they deem offensive. We would end up with something entirely
> child friendly, which would also be entirely useless as it is severely
> lacking in multiple area's. We could also take an impartial stance and
> add
> as much content as we can, so long as it serves some educational value.
> If
> someone doesn't want to see or read a subject they can block the images,
> or
> they can evade it altogether. This way people who DO wish to know more
> about
> a subject can learn about it, without having to worry that another group
> has
> been censoring it. Of course we should apply the exact same rules to
> every
> group, and walk with care when deciding on these kind of issues to
> prevent
> needless insulting.

Yes, there are alternatives to religious beliefs. In this case the
alternative is the view that offensive bogus images should be displayed.
Saying that is fine; doing it another.

>
> *So we are talking about whether it is OK to exclude offensive nonsenses,
> not about excluding valid information. And yeh, God said not to display
> false images. In what way does that commandment differ from
> Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Is it wrong because God said it? You would be
> all over them if they had articles that said New York City was in Finland
> but you seem to have no problem with images of a man whose appearance is
> unknown, and unknowable.*
>
> Are you arguing that the images don't contain valid information? We have
> an
> entire article describing the "Depictions of Muhammed" trough the ages,
> and
> i think it is an entirely valid topic to include in an encyclopedia. The
> rest of the analogy you are making is simply besides the point. We can
> easily verify that New York is in the USA, so it would be a clear error
> that
> is easy to correct. The images of Muhammad are as they are described,
> mere
> depictions of a person / prophet made in later centuries. We don't know
> his
> appearance any better then we know the appearance of
> Zeus,
> Loki or
> Wodan.
> Still, the depiction of Gods, Prophets and other religious figures is a
> valid enough topic to include in an encyclopedia. Would you argue that we
> should remove all images from religion related article's because there is
> no
> certainty what someone or something looked like? We might as well extend
> it
> to area's outside religion then, as many images are artist impressions
> made
> in later ages.

Yes, there are even depictions of God as an angry grey-haired old man.
And we do illustrate our article about God with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Conceptions_of_God

It's no different from an image of Paris that includes the Chrysler
Building.

>
> *In what way does that commandment differ from Wikipedia:Reliable
> sources?
> Is it wrong because God said it*?
> The difference is that WP:RS is a Wikipedia policy that has to be
> followed
> by everyone editing the encyclopedia, while the commandment is a rule
> that
> applies to a limited group of people outside the encyclopedia. As i said,
> we
> shouldn't be following every groups whims simply because they don't like
> something. To put it like this: If the pastafarians (Worshipers of the
> flying spaghetti monster) suddenly decide that each page concerning their
> god should contain a plate of spaghetti, would be abide to them? In other
> words, our role is to be impartial and provide encyclopedic information
> in
> the broadest sense of the word, with no influence from politics, religion
> or
> personal bias.

Wikipeia:Reliable sources IS policy. There are no authentic images of
Muhammad. Including one outside the realm of art is a violation of the
policy.

>
> *They should have common sense and not put images up in a reference work
> which are both offensive and false.*
> If you 

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Victor Vasiliev]

On 07/17/2010 04:39 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.

There are no authentic images of most characters from the Bible. Yet I 
believe at least 1 % of works of art on Commons contain them.

--vvv

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ?

The notion that what somebody does who holds a title like steward is not
that firm in our community. The recent fracas about problematic images at
Commons is a clear indication of that.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 17 July 2010 11:56, Excirial  wrote:

> And a reply to no one in specific: It seems that Si Gam
> Acèhhas
> reverted the steward removal of the template from the ACE mainpage,
> causing it to be displayed again.
>
> ~Excirial
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Excirial]

And a reply to no one in specific: It seems that Si Gam
Acèhhas
reverted the steward removal of the template from the ACE mainpage,
causing it to be displayed again.

~Excirial
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Excirial]

*First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.*
As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic images
which display any god or prophet?

*Second: You know millions of Muslims find images of Mohammad extremely
offensive. *
Christians (And then i am mostly talking about fundamental Christians) are
offended by our page on evolution which they deem absolute nonsense and
heresy. Hardline atheists are offended by any religions, arguing that people
who follow them are deluded. And did i already mention that some people are
extremely offended by our images placed on sexual topics?  And so we can go
on and on, as there are many groups of people who deem something offensive
or gross.

One course of action would be abiding to each groups whims, and removing all
content that they deem offensive. We would end up with something entirely
child friendly, which would also be entirely useless as it is severely
lacking in multiple area's. We could also take an impartial stance and add
as much content as we can, so long as it serves some educational value. If
someone doesn't want to see or read a subject they can block the images, or
they can evade it altogether. This way people who DO wish to know more about
a subject can learn about it, without having to worry that another group has
been censoring it. Of course we should apply the exact same rules to every
group, and walk with care when deciding on these kind of issues to prevent
needless insulting.

*So we are talking about whether it is OK to exclude offensive nonsenses,
not about excluding valid information. And yeh, God said not to display
false images. In what way does that commandment differ from
Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Is it wrong because God said it? You would be
all over them if they had articles that said New York City was in Finland
but you seem to have no problem with images of a man whose appearance is
unknown, and unknowable.*

Are you arguing that the images don't contain valid information? We have an
entire article describing the "Depictions of Muhammed" trough the ages, and
i think it is an entirely valid topic to include in an encyclopedia. The
rest of the analogy you are making is simply besides the point. We can
easily verify that New York is in the USA, so it would be a clear error that
is easy to correct. The images of Muhammad are as they are described, mere
depictions of a person / prophet made in later centuries. We don't know his
appearance any better then we know the appearance of
Zeus,
Loki or
Wodan.
Still, the depiction of Gods, Prophets and other religious figures is a
valid enough topic to include in an encyclopedia. Would you argue that we
should remove all images from religion related article's because there is no
certainty what someone or something looked like? We might as well extend it
to area's outside religion then, as many images are artist impressions made
in later ages.

*In what way does that commandment differ from Wikipedia:Reliable sources?
Is it wrong because God said it*?
The difference is that WP:RS is a Wikipedia policy that has to be followed
by everyone editing the encyclopedia, while the commandment is a rule that
applies to a limited group of people outside the encyclopedia. As i said, we
shouldn't be following every groups whims simply because they don't like
something. To put it like this: If the pastafarians (Worshipers of the
flying spaghetti monster) suddenly decide that each page concerning their
god should contain a plate of spaghetti, would be abide to them? In other
words, our role is to be impartial and provide encyclopedic information in
the broadest sense of the word, with no influence from politics, religion or
personal bias.

*They should have common sense and not put images up in a reference work
which are both offensive and false.*
If you care to check the article title it says "Depictions" which are, i
cite out article on "depiction": *Pictures may be factual or fictional,
literal or metaphorical, realistic or idealised and in various combination.*
* *There is a many topics which rely on artist impressions drawn in later
ages - the images aren't false, they are just impressions with historical
significance. I can repeat myself over and over, but the path of common
sense is allowing people to choose whether or not they wish to view certain
content.

But to get back to the ACE topic: I agree they may decide that they do not
wish to include these depictions; Not including it isn't a NPOV problem in
my eyes so they are free to decide what they wish on that regard. But that
does not give them the right to demand the same for other Wiki's who had
extensive talks on this subject. And equally placing "Boycot" notices on the
mainpage with biased content is against everything Wikipedia stands for.

~Excirial

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

>
> >
> > So

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Aphaia]

I don't know Krishna case, nor Western Church, but according to the
Tradition (or the Holy Tradition as the church says), thus not
accoding to secular people,

- St. Paul, his portrait is described by Eusebius, who records a 2nd
century account in "The History of the Church", and at least Eastern
Orthodox Icon strongly has follow.
- Jesus left an authentic his image as "Mandylion"  ([[w:Image of
Edessa]]), The-image-not-to-be-made-with-human hands, and that was
main reason the Church accepted icons in the 2nd Council of
Constantinople. The original was lost but authorized copies are left
elsewhere.

Summarized, icons are a part of the Tradition, authorized of Our Lord
Savior, and the Church has preserved or has made her best effort to
preserve authentic images of the saints and Lord Himself, hence not
only acceptable but worth to venerate. Shortly it's something more
than okay - it is something strongly the Church has advocated for
centuries.

Of course, it is point of view of Eastern Orthodox, so other people
both secular and of other denominations may disagree in some of all
points, and I don't want to push my POV, I'd just explain it doesn't
matter.

Cheers,


On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Vandenberg  wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>>...
>>
>> That's the issue. Displaying offensive religious images is a big problem,
>> not a tiny little problem that can be brushed under the rug. You're doing
>> something that outrages millions of people and saying, "Hey, tough". And
>> you don't possess, and will never possess, an authentic image of
>> Muhammad.
>
> Are our images of Muhammad any less authentic than our images of St.
> Paul, Jesus or Krishna?
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

[Muhammad Yahia]

I think I would accept that some language wikis decide, by consensus,
> that they will not show illustrations of Mohammed under any
> circumstances.
>
> They should not ask for a boycott of another language, though. They
> could have a protest page with a list of users who want to sign up to
> it. Sticking a banner on the main page - and worse; as the only
> content - I disagree with.
>
>
I totally agree with the above. I don't know why the discussion evolved into
the rights of individual wikis to not show the images. I thought that was
never in question. On the Arabic wp for example, we do not display the
images by consensus, we try to describe in detail what's in them in articles
pertaining to the subject, this seems to be a compromise accepted by most.

What irritated me originally was the call for boycott on the main page and
the fact that the template is worded to be understood as the opinion of the
Acehnese wikipedia not a group of editors/admins.

What bothers me also is the mention by someone above that there was a note
that Acehnese wikipedia follows islamic law and anything that contradicts
with it is not allowed. If this is true, I think this is recipe for
disaster. 'Islamic law' is not really a solid law but a large spectrum of
interpretation of the holy books and precedence and differs by faction, I
strongly doubt that everyone using that wikipedia will have the same views
of what constitutes a violation even within the same ethnic group thus it's
very hard to call that a 'consensus' that we should respect and not impose
'western values' on. There is an argument on the discussion going on that
wiki that all Acehnese are muslim, I can't see how they can verify the
validity of such claim,  religion is by choice. If someone is an
Acehnese-born muslim but not a close practitioner or an atheist or convert
to another religion, would his contributions be not welcome if they violate
'islamic law' (they can be as simple as writing articles about alcoholic
drinks) ?

--
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l