date:20110916

On 09/15/11 11:51 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net  wrote:
 This is an interesting point.  In some ways Wikipedia has so fetishised
 reliability that there isn't much room for oral histories and memoirs.
 We can contact and communicate with each other by electronic means far
 more efficiently than ever.  The victim has been that long informative
 letters and diaries have become a thing of the past.  When that happens
 who becomes custodian of those memories? When we begin to rely entirely
 on published sources we become so much more dependent on some kind of
 official record. When we reject the memories of those who were there as
 insufficiently substantiated where do those memories go? The old foot
 soldier who attended the big battle was never much about book learnin'.
 The experience may have been too painful to remember and talk about
 before, and finally in his 90s after much prompting from his
 great-grandson he gives his only narrative, which his grandson duly
 records on inferior equipment. I'm sure we should be able to find a
 better response than, Sorry, this is not a reliable source.

 The narrative may be flawed and biased.  Similar narratives by others
 who were there may be flawed and biased too, but each in its own way.
 There are no news reporters there when the men of a community decide to
 get together to build a playground or other needed community facility.
 Is their experience so unreliable? How do we describe the episteme of
 today's world without falling into gnosis?
 Even if we would allow such as a resource, doing so would hardly do justice
 to these reports. It would be possible to get one or two facts from such a
 report, and I think it should be possible to do so, but publishing the
 report either as a whole or in a complete summary would be problematic both
 from a No Original Research perspective and from a relevancy perspective.
 In the end, it is Wikipedia's task to make existing knowledge more widely
 available, not to create new knowledge.

 There should definitely be places where this material belongs, and in many
 cases there are (I think of local historical societies, for example). The
 question is, whether or not the WMF should aim to have such a place itself.
 I have my doubts about it, because it does not look like an area where our
 strongpoint (massive volunteer cooperation) has much additionial value, but
 if the answer is yes, I think it should be as a new project - including it
 in any of the existing projects would widen its scope so far that it would
 water it down.

I'm completely open to the notion that this could be on a completely 
different project from Wikinews.

Anything other than publishing as a whole would require some serious POV 
editing. Who would decide on what the important facts are? Nor is this a 
question of creating knowledge; the knowledge was there already in the 
mind of the person being interviewed.  The relevance can only be judged 
in the context of other similar memoirs about the same events.

Teaming up with local historical societies would be important.  I'm sure 
that many of them are already sitting on large collections of this 
material, and making it available is beyond their abilities. Massive 
volunteer cooperation is just as important to them as to us, but they 
have typically drawn from a different demographic.

If we can send people into communities to take pictures of every 
important building, it should be just as possible to send them there to 
collect stories.

For the U.S., given Obama's push on job creation, the W.P.A.'s cultural 
programs in the 1930s could be a great example.

Ray

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

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

On 09/14/11 5:01 PM, Heather Ford wrote:
 On Sep 14, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
 On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Sarahslimvir...@gmail.com  wrote:
 On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 14:28, Theo10011de10...@gmail.com  wrote:

 Adding video-taped interviews is the next step. Imagine articles about
 the Second World War containing video interviews by Wikipedians of
 people who lived through certain parts of it. There is no inherent POV
 issue there, so long as we observe NPOV, just as we do with text.
 Primary sources are already allowed, so long as used descriptively and
 not interpreted.
 I had no idea we were so liberal about original research/primary sources
 from the countless hours I spent in #wikipedia-en-help telling new users why
 their cited references were rejected. Well, now we can finally have those
 thousands of articles about cure-alls and diet-pills, and penis-enlargement
 exercises, since the manufacturer's own research would satisfy those
 standards.
 I'm not sure how this is related to the multimedia and images question? Will 
 having multimedia illustrating an article mean that we have more cure-alls 
 and diet-pills articles? Or is this a slippery-slope argument?

I suppose such articles have their place, as do the manufacturer's own 
research and accumulated testimonials. Stating where the information is 
from is also important.  If we can find no independent scientific 
research about the product we should state that too.  The public needs 
to know this.

Ray

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

[Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

Dear readers

Yesterday, on September 15th 2011, the German Wikipedia closed the poll 
(Meinungsbild) Einführung persönlicher Bildfilter. [1] It asked the 
question if the personal image filter can be introduced or if it should 
not be introduced.

A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image 
filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to 
introduce the feature.

The questions are:
* Will the board or the WMF proceed with the introduction of the 
personal image filter against the will of it's second largest community?
* If the WMF/board does not care about the first question. Will it 
affect the way the personal image filter will be implemented? For 
example: Not for all projects. A different implementation as suggested 
inside the image filter referendum.
* Will there be an attempt to follow this example and to question other 
communities the same question?

Greetings from
Tobias Oelgarte

[1] 
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter
[2] 
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter#Auswertung

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Peter Gervai

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:08, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
 A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
 filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
 introduce the feature.

I believe it is a fair assumption that we have voted for developing
the feature, so wikipedias who need it can activate and use it, while
those who do not want to use it will not request its activation, or
will request its deactivation. I see no technical reason not to do
that so I see no reason not to do it this way.

Peter

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Oliver Koslowski

Am 16.09.2011 10:40, schrieb Peter Gervai:
 I believe it is a fair assumption that we have voted for developing
 the feature, so wikipedias who need it can activate and use it, while
 those who do not want to use it will not request its activation, or
 will request its deactivation. I see no technical reason not to do
 that so I see no reason not to do it this way.



Where exactly has such a vote taken place?

Just a few bits about the Meinungsbild in the de-WP: Only active 
authors are allowed to vote since the results of a Meinungsbild are 
binding, unlike the results of ordinary polls (Umfage).

Of those 14% who did not oppose the filter, I did not really see much 
actual support for it either. The general tone of the people who did not 
vote against it was that they don't mind that such a tool should be 
introduced if there's really demand for it.

The 86% rejection rate means that the feature will not be activated in 
the de-WP and that the WMF would be in a heap of trouble if they tried 
to force the second largest project to adopt something that the people 
who actually shape the project simply do not want. I believe it is also 
safe to assume that those 86% are not likely to do the dirty work of 
tagging pictures with categories to support the filter.

Regards,
Oliver

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Fae

What a strange assumption from Peter. I don't believe for one minute
that WMF would commission a global referendum and then ignore the
results. If there has been an official statement along these lines I
would love to be pointed to it.

Cheers,
Fae

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread David Gerard

On 16 September 2011 09:40, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:08, Tobias Oelgarte
 tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:

 A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
 filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
 introduce the feature.

 I believe it is a fair assumption that we have voted for developing
 the feature,


Citation needed.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Peter Gervai

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 I believe it is a fair assumption that we have voted for developing
 the feature,

 Citation needed.

Well I am the universally official source for my own beliefs.

But then you state that WMF will make it compulsory for all projects
to activate the feature? (Citation is welcome, sure, but not
required.)

g

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread David Gerard

On 16 September 2011 10:27, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 I believe it is a fair assumption that we have voted for developing
 the feature,

 Citation needed.

 Well I am the universally official source for my own beliefs.


I mean the claim that we have voted for developing the feature,
obviously. If you have no evidence for this claim, say so.

I would also suggest, more generally, that a strategy of asserting
that consensus was reached wanting the feature, when this is strongly
not the case, is unlikely to convince people - particularly when the
discussion is about strong evidence of consensus *against*.

If you're so sure there's strong consensus in favour of it, I suggest
we run a series of polls, similar to the de:wp poll, which I'm sure
will show that lots of people want the feature.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Michel Vuijlsteke

On 16 September 2011 11:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 16 September 2011 09:40, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:08, Tobias Oelgarte
  tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:

  A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
  filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
  introduce the feature.

  I believe it is a fair assumption that we have voted for developing
  the feature,


 Citation needed.


Meanwhile, over on Bugzilla…
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208
Am I the only one who thinks this is getting somewhat out of hand?

Stuff like I'm getting tired of your aggressive comments and borderline
personal attacks (…) All you did at Wikimania was to publish a flyer full of
proven lies to reinforce your mantra (responding to things I wouldn't at
all consider aggressive) is perhaps a sign that tempers are more than a
little frayed.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

Am 16.09.2011 10:40, schrieb Peter Gervai:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:08, Tobias Oelgarte
 tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  wrote:
 A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
 filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
 introduce the feature.
 I believe it is a fair assumption that we have voted for developing
 the feature, so wikipedias who need it can activate and use it, while
 those who do not want to use it will not request its activation, or
 will request its deactivation. I see no technical reason not to do
 that so I see no reason not to do it this way.

 Peter

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

It weren't just a poll. It was also a discussion in search for 
arguments. One big issue is question on how we decide what is or might 
be objectionable. From the point of an encyclopedia nothing is 
objectionable, as long it is a fact and represented that way.

Another issue is the questioning in comparison to the referendum. The 
referendum showed that the global community is divided. But more then 2 
weeks after the referendum we still have no results per project. This 
makes it impossible compare both polls and come to a conclusion what the 
reasons for the different outcome is: Where it just the (manipulative) 
questions of the referendum or does the German play a very different 
role in global context. Something we can answer. I asked for this 
results multiple times. But still no reaction whatsoever. This sucks.

Tobias

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Peter Gervai

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:31, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 16 September 2011 10:27, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 I believe it is a fair assumption that we have voted for developing
 the feature,

 Citation needed.

 Well I am the universally official source for my own beliefs.

 I mean the claim that we have voted for developing the feature,
 obviously.

Please read what I wrote, you have quoted it. If I wanted to write we
have voted as then I would have written just that. I didn't.

 If you have no evidence for this claim, say so.

Well I do not have the original poll handy but as far as I remember it
it was about what we think would be good to have, what to would like
to see implemented. I do not remember any question about making it
compulsory. Do you?

 I would also suggest, more generally, that a strategy of asserting
 that consensus was reached wanting the feature, when this is strongly
 not the case, is unlikely to convince people - particularly when the
 discussion is about strong evidence of consensus *against*.

I am not sure what is the point debating this with _me_. (Apart from
my person I mean.)
I am not German. I am not active on DEWP. I voted for the feature, and
I believe it's good to have it. You try to teach a lesson to me about
your own troubles, but I really cannot help it.

The only thing I can offer my views are the global poll about the
feature, and yes, it wasn't a strong concensus. But even it it were I
do not think we should change the otherwise very well working method
of WMF *not* messing with local projects apart from the very basic
principles like the five pillars. This feature isn't *that* important
- this is my opinion, please save me from asking a citation.

 If you're so sure there's strong consensus in favour of it, I suggest
 we run a series of polls, similar to the de:wp poll, which I'm sure
 will show that lots of people want the feature.

Ironically this was what I was talking about, and what you were rejecting.

All I say is that if a local project vote not to use a feature then
they shouldn't have to. If you disagree with that one you can simply
say it, but do not try (and fail) to describe what I want to convince
people about, please.

g

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

Am 16.09.2011 11:59, schrieb Peter Gervai:

 I am not German. I am not active on DEWP. I voted for the feature, and
 I believe it's good to have it. You try to teach a lesson to me about
 your own troubles, but I really cannot help it.

 The only thing I can offer my views are the global poll about the
 feature, and yes, it wasn't a strong concensus. But even it it were I
 do not think we should change the otherwise very well working method
 of WMF *not* messing with local projects apart from the very basic
 principles like the five pillars. This feature isn't *that* important
 - this is my opinion, please save me from asking a citation.
You could never vote for the feature. The referendum did not ask the 
question if you want it or don't want it. It only if you see this 
feature as important. (important because you want it, or important 
because you don't want it?)

I see no consensus in the referendum. The opinions are widely spread and 
divided. Additionally it wasn't the question if something else would be 
more important. Asking if something is important is very different 
matter as if to ask if something is more important as something else. 
Please remember that, before coming to conclusions.
 If you're so sure there's strong consensus in favour of it, I suggest
 we run a series of polls, similar to the de:wp poll, which I'm sure
 will show that lots of people want the feature.
 Ironically this was what I was talking about, and what you were rejecting.

 All I say is that if a local project vote not to use a feature then
 they shouldn't have to. If you disagree with that one you can simply
 say it, but do not try (and fail) to describe what I want to convince
 people about, please.

 g
Questioning other projects, if they want that filter or not, would be 
good thing to do. The referendum did not ask this question at all. 
Additionally it would be time to release per project voting data.

86% of the German contributers opposed the feature. Does the same 
pattern apply to the global poll, or was it just the difference in 
question? We don't know as long per project data isn't released. I 
repeatedly asked for this data for more then 2 weeks. So far, no 
additional data was released. It somehow starts to piss me off.

Tobias

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:39, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
 I think that we can do a nice move here. We can enable image filter in
 German Wikipedia for all those who don't want to see
 copyrighted-images-for-German-law, meanwhile allowing other people to see
 all Commons splendour. Using the image filter to improve the rights of
 readers of German Wikipedia. Very cool, right? ; )

Oh, you found the first useful purpose of the image filter!

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

Am 16.09.2011 12:22, schrieb Peter Gervai:
 I see no consensus in the referendum. The opinions are widely spread and
 divided.
 Well you have to see that such controversial features will never have
 huge consensus in such a large and diverse community. Even simple
 majority would be an awesome result. :-)

 g
In a poll that asks for importance and is divided more or less into two 
groups? Thats a very strange interpretation.

Tobias

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

That is an legal issue. We do that to comply with the law, since that
image isn't in public domain under German jurisdiction. This has nothing
to do with hiding perfectly legal content. Additionally an optional
filter would not help to make it legal. Filter or no filter wouldn't
change a thing.

Two different topics, one wrong assumption.

Tobias

Am 16.09.2011 12:39, schrieb emijrp:
Hi all;

There are more issues with images in German Wikipedia.

It is funny how German Wikipedia doesn't allow images[1] (image added by
me[2] in de:, and later removed by other[3]) because they follow the most
restrictive copyright law from Germany, Austria and Switzerland[note 1], but
they are now against giving people the choice to hide images.

I think that we can do a nice move here. We can enable image filter in
German Wikipedia for all those who don't want to see
copyrighted-images-for-German-law, meanwhile allowing other people to see
all Commons splendour. Using the image filter to improve the rights of
readers of German Wikipedia. Very cool, right? ; )

Regards,
emijrp

[1]
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Wikipedia_richtet_sich_nach_DACH-Recht
[2] http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Knoxoldid=81377280
[3] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Knox

[note 1] I heard there are German speaking users outside Europe, right? I
heard too that, from Germany, you can follow interwiki and see that images
in other Wikipedias, right? So, what is the sense of that policy? Are not
the servers in USA?

2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com

Dear readers

Yesterday, on September 15th 2011, the German Wikipedia closed the poll
(Meinungsbild) Einführung persönlicher Bildfilter. [1] It asked the
question if the personal image filter can be introduced or if it should
not be introduced.

A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
introduce the feature.

The questions are:
* Will the board or the WMF proceed with the introduction of the
personal image filter against the will of it's second largest community?
* If the WMF/board does not care about the first question. Will it
affect the way the personal image filter will be implemented? For
example: Not for all projects. A different implementation as suggested
inside the image filter referendum.
* Will there be an attempt to follow this example and to question other
communities the same question?

Greetings from
Tobias Oelgarte

[1]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter
[2]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter#Auswertung

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Oliver Koslowski

Am 16.09.2011 12:39, schrieb emijrp:
 There are more issues with images in German Wikipedia.

And on the other hand pictures are deleted from Commons because there is 
no FOP in the country where the pictures was taken.

Regards,
Oliver

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

[Foundation-l] Wikimania domain proposal

2011-09-16 Thread とある白い猫

Dear all,
Please see the following proposal at meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_project_domain

It is proposed that wikimania wikis be moved to the wikimania domain rather
than being hosted under wikimedia.org

-- 
  - とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

Am 16.09.2011 12:42, schrieb Milos Rancic:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:39, emijrpemi...@gmail.com  wrote:
 I think that we can do a nice move here. We can enable image filter in
 German Wikipedia for all those who don't want to see
 copyrighted-images-for-German-law, meanwhile allowing other people to see
 all Commons splendour. Using the image filter to improve the rights of
 readers of German Wikipedia. Very cool, right? ; )
 Oh, you found the first useful purpose of the image filter!
He did not. Optionally hiding of the image wouldn't make it legal. The 
filter has nothing to do with this case.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread emijrp

2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com

 That is an legal issue. We do that to comply with the law, since that
 image isn't in public domain under German jurisdiction.


Who is we? And, why does German jurisdiction matter here?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Liesel

Your stupid!

Am 16.09.2011 12:39, schrieb emijrp:
Hi all;

There are more issues with images in German Wikipedia.

Regards,
emijrp

2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com

Dear readers

A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
introduce the feature.

Greetings from
Tobias Oelgarte

[1]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter
[2]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter#Auswertung

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Strainu

Not really, no. What does german law have to do with reading or
editing some website in Tampa or Virginia from somewhere in Asia? I
can understand that german nationals cannot use that image, but
whatabout other germen speakers?

Strainu

2011/9/16 Liesel koehler-liese...@gmx.de:
Your stupid!

Am 16.09.2011 12:39, schrieb emijrp:
Hi all;

There are more issues with images in German Wikipedia.

Regards,
emijrp

2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com

Dear readers

A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
introduce the feature.

Greetings from
Tobias Oelgarte

[1]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter
[2]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter#Auswertung

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

Very simple: There is the Schutzlandprinzip. [1] To bad that EN has no 
article for it. But you can read the following articles to understand 
why this example was stupid, and that we bound to this laws, even if the 
servers are at nirvana:
* 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
* 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_Aspects_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights
* 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization_Copyright_Treaty
* 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Industrial_Property

[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzlandprinzip

Am 16.09.2011 13:01, schrieb Strainu:
 Not really, no. What does german law have to do with reading or
 editing some website in Tampa or Virginia from somewhere in Asia? I
 can understand that german nationals cannot use that image, but
 whatabout other germen speakers?

 Strainu

 2011/9/16 Lieselkoehler-liese...@gmx.de:
 Your stupid!

 Am 16.09.2011 12:39, schrieb emijrp:
 Hi all;

 There are more issues with images in German Wikipedia.

 It is funny how German Wikipedia doesn't allow images[1] (image added by
 me[2] in de:, and later removed by other[3]) because they follow the most
 restrictive copyright law from Germany, Austria and Switzerland[note 1], but
 they are now against giving people the choice to hide images.

 I think that we can do a nice move here. We can enable image filter in
 German Wikipedia for all those who don't want to see
 copyrighted-images-for-German-law, meanwhile allowing other people to see
 all Commons splendour. Using the image filter to improve the rights of
 readers of German Wikipedia. Very cool, right? ; )

 Regards,
 emijrp

 [1]
 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Wikipedia_richtet_sich_nach_DACH-Recht
 [2] http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Knoxoldid=81377280
 [3] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Knox

 [note 1] I heard there are German speaking users outside Europe, right? I
 heard too that, from Germany, you can follow interwiki and see that images
 in other Wikipedias, right? So, what is the sense of that policy? Are not
 the servers in USA?

 2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com

 Dear readers

 Yesterday, on September 15th 2011, the German Wikipedia closed the poll
 (Meinungsbild) Einführung persönlicher Bildfilter. [1] It asked the
 question if the personal image filter can be introduced or if it should
 not be introduced.

 A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
 filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
 introduce the feature.

 The questions are:
 * Will the board or the WMF proceed with the introduction of the
 personal image filter against the will of it's second largest community?
 * If the WMF/board does not care about the first question. Will it
 affect the way the personal image filter will be implemented? For
 example: Not for all projects. A different implementation as suggested
 inside the image filter referendum.
 * Will there be an attempt to follow this example and to question other
 communities the same question?

 Greetings from
 Tobias Oelgarte

 [1]

 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter
 [2]

 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter#Auswertung

 ___
 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

 ___
 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] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

Am 16.09.2011 12:57, schrieb emijrp:
 2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com

 That is an legal issue. We do that to comply with the law, since that
 image isn't in public domain under German jurisdiction.

 Who is we? And, why does German jurisdiction matter here?
It's called Schutzlandprinzip [1]. Sorry that there is no English 
article about this topic as a whole. But you might read

* 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
 

* 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_Aspects_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights
 

* 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization_Copyright_Treaty
 

* 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Industrial_Property
 


[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzlandprinzip

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:50, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Am 16.09.2011 12:42, schrieb Milos Rancic:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:39, emijrpemi...@gmail.com  wrote:
 I think that we can do a nice move here. We can enable image filter in
 German Wikipedia for all those who don't want to see
 copyrighted-images-for-German-law, meanwhile allowing other people to see
 all Commons splendour. Using the image filter to improve the rights of
 readers of German Wikipedia. Very cool, right? ; )
 Oh, you found the first useful purpose of the image filter!
 He did not. Optionally hiding of the image wouldn't make it legal. The
 filter has nothing to do with this case.

Then, make it opt-out :P

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Liesel

Warum werden Bilder die gemäß der Panoramafreiheit in DACH zulässig sind
auf Commons gelöscht. Warum werden Bilder die über 100 jahre alt sind
und bei denen der Autor unbekannt ist auf Commons gelöscht

Wir brauchen also einen Filter der solche Bilder für Länder wegzensiert,
die keine Panoramafreiheit kennen.

Liesel

Am 16.09.2011 13:01, schrieb Strainu:
Not really, no. What does german law have to do with reading or
editing some website in Tampa or Virginia from somewhere in Asia? I
can understand that german nationals cannot use that image, but
whatabout other germen speakers?

Strainu

2011/9/16 Liesel koehler-liese...@gmx.de:
Your stupid!

Am 16.09.2011 12:39, schrieb emijrp:
Hi all;

There are more issues with images in German Wikipedia.

Regards,
emijrp

2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com

Dear readers

A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
introduce the feature.

Greetings from
Tobias Oelgarte

[1]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter
[2]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter#Auswertung

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread emijrp

Again, who are we? And why do German laws matter with USA servers? Why
does only German Wikipedia exclude that images? Are English Wikipedia or
Commons blocked in Germany?

By the way, not all German Wikipedians/readers are under German laws.

And I don't remember any Wikipedia removing content to respect Chinese local
laws when Wikipedia was blocked there.

2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com

Very simple: There is the Schutzlandprinzip. [1] To bad that EN has no
article for it. But you can read the following articles to understand
why this example was stupid, and that we bound to this laws, even if the
servers are at nirvana:
*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_Aspects_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights
*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization_Copyright_Treaty
*

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

[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzlandprinzip

Strainu

2011/9/16 Lieselkoehler-liese...@gmx.de:
Your stupid!

Am 16.09.2011 12:39, schrieb emijrp:
Hi all;

There are more issues with images in German Wikipedia.

It is funny how German Wikipedia doesn't allow images[1] (image added
by
me[2] in de:, and later removed by other[3]) because they follow the
most
restrictive copyright law from Germany, Austria and Switzerland[note
1], but
they are now against giving people the choice to hide images.

I think that we can do a nice move here. We can enable image filter in
German Wikipedia for all those who don't want to see
copyrighted-images-for-German-law, meanwhile allowing other people to
see
all Commons splendour. Using the image filter to improve the rights of
readers of German Wikipedia. Very cool, right? ; )

Regards,
emijrp

[1]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Wikipedia_richtet_sich_nach_DACH-Recht
[2]
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Knoxoldid=81377280
[3] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Knox

[note 1] I heard there are German speaking users outside Europe, right?
I
heard too that, from Germany, you can follow interwiki and see that
images
in other Wikipedias, right? So, what is the sense of that policy? Are
not
the servers in USA?

2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com

Dear readers

Yesterday, on September 15th 2011, the German Wikipedia closed the
poll
(Meinungsbild) Einführung persönlicher Bildfilter. [1] It asked the
question if the personal image filter can be introduced or if it
should
not be introduced.

A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
introduce the feature.

The questions are:
* Will the board or the WMF proceed with the introduction of the
personal image filter against the will of it's second largest
community?
* If the WMF/board does not care about the first question. Will it
affect the way the personal image filter will be implemented? For
example: Not for all projects. A different implementation as suggested
inside the image filter referendum.
* Will there be an attempt to follow this example and to question
other
communities the same question?

Greetings from
Tobias Oelgarte

[1]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter
[2]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter#Auswertung

___
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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Strainu

German laws matter for german citizend. It's still not clear what that
means for the rest of us (except that de.wp took a decision)

2011/9/16 emijrp emi...@gmail.com:
Again, who are we? And why do German laws matter with USA servers? Why
does only German Wikipedia exclude that images? Are English Wikipedia or
Commons blocked in Germany?

By the way, not all German Wikipedians/readers are under German laws.

And I don't remember any Wikipedia removing content to respect Chinese local
laws when Wikipedia was blocked there.

2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_Aspects_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights
*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization_Copyright_Treaty
*

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

[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzlandprinzip

Strainu

2011/9/16 Lieselkoehler-liese...@gmx.de:
Your stupid!

Am 16.09.2011 12:39, schrieb emijrp:
Hi all;

There are more issues with images in German Wikipedia.

It is funny how German Wikipedia doesn't allow images[1] (image added
by
me[2] in de:, and later removed by other[3]) because they follow the
most
restrictive copyright law from Germany, Austria and Switzerland[note
1], but
they are now against giving people the choice to hide images.

I think that we can do a nice move here. We can enable image filter in
German Wikipedia for all those who don't want to see
copyrighted-images-for-German-law, meanwhile allowing other people to
see
all Commons splendour. Using the image filter to improve the rights of
readers of German Wikipedia. Very cool, right? ; )

Regards,
emijrp

[1]

[note 1] I heard there are German speaking users outside Europe, right?
I
heard too that, from Germany, you can follow interwiki and see that
images
in other Wikipedias, right? So, what is the sense of that policy? Are
not
the servers in USA?

2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com

Dear readers

Yesterday, on September 15th 2011, the German Wikipedia closed the
poll
(Meinungsbild) Einführung persönlicher Bildfilter. [1] It asked the
question if the personal image filter can be introduced or if it
should
not be introduced.

A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
introduce the feature.

The questions are:
* Will the board or the WMF proceed with the introduction of the
personal image filter against the will of it's second largest
community?
* If the WMF/board does not care about the first question. Will it
affect the way the personal image filter will be implemented? For
example: Not for all projects. A different implementation as suggested
inside the image filter referendum.
* Will there be an attempt to follow this example and to question
other
communities the same question?

Greetings from
Tobias Oelgarte

[1]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter
[2]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter#Auswertung

___
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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

Direct this question at Commons. Why are images deleted that are
perfectly legal after US-law but not after DACH-(German, Austria,
Switzerland)-law _and_ the other way around? Ask them, and you will get
your answer.

I mention this, because it is common practice, that you might not heard
about. You really should try to understand the matter of copyright and
that it has nothing to do with _self_ censoring or the image filter.

We (the German authors) are bound to German law, since the page is
directed at an major German readership (Schutzlandprinzip). But we also
have to take care of US-law, since the servers are hosted inside the US.
The later applies for the content the WMF hosts, not for us German
contributers. But to be nice, we consider US-law as well.

Tobias

Am 16.09.2011 13:22, schrieb emijrp:
Again, who are we? And why do German laws matter with USA servers? Why
does only German Wikipedia exclude that images? Are English Wikipedia or
Commons blocked in Germany?

By the way, not all German Wikipedians/readers are under German laws.

And I don't remember any Wikipedia removing content to respect Chinese local
laws when Wikipedia was blocked there.

2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_Aspects_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights
*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization_Copyright_Treaty
*

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

[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzlandprinzip

Strainu

2011/9/16 Lieselkoehler-liese...@gmx.de:
Your stupid!

Am 16.09.2011 12:39, schrieb emijrp:
Hi all;

There are more issues with images in German Wikipedia.

It is funny how German Wikipedia doesn't allow images[1] (image added
by
me[2] in de:, and later removed by other[3]) because they follow the
most
restrictive copyright law from Germany, Austria and Switzerland[note
1], but
they are now against giving people the choice to hide images.

I think that we can do a nice move here. We can enable image filter in
German Wikipedia for all those who don't want to see
copyrighted-images-for-German-law, meanwhile allowing other people to
see
all Commons splendour. Using the image filter to improve the rights of
readers of German Wikipedia. Very cool, right? ; )

Regards,
emijrp

[1]

[note 1] I heard there are German speaking users outside Europe, right?
I
heard too that, from Germany, you can follow interwiki and see that
images
in other Wikipedias, right? So, what is the sense of that policy? Are
not
the servers in USA?

2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com

Dear readers

Yesterday, on September 15th 2011, the German Wikipedia closed the
poll
(Meinungsbild) Einführung persönlicher Bildfilter. [1] It asked the
question if the personal image filter can be introduced or if it
should
not be introduced.

A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
introduce the feature.

The questions are:
* Will the board or the WMF proceed with the introduction of the
personal image filter against the will of it's second largest
community?
* If the WMF/board does not care about the first question. Will it
affect the way the personal image filter will be implemented? For
example: Not for all projects. A different implementation as suggested
inside the image filter referendum.
* Will there be an attempt to follow this example and to question
other
communities the same question?

Greetings from
Tobias Oelgarte

[1]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter
[2]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter#Auswertung
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___
foundation-l mailing list

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Oliver Koslowski

Am 16.09.2011 13:22, schrieb emijrp:
 Again, who are we? And why do German laws matter with USA servers? Why
 does only German Wikipedia exclude that images? Are English Wikipedia or
 Commons blocked in Germany?
It's not like the picture is used in every Wikipedia either.

How about we just agree that the German Wikipedia project decided to 
apply the German/Austrian/Swiss laws when it comes to images?

And again, on Commons you will always find deletions based on local law 
rather than applying U.S. laws. And vice-versa.

Regards,
Oliver

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:50, Tobias Oelgarte
 tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Am 16.09.2011 12:42, schrieb Milos Rancic:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:39, emijrpemi...@gmail.com  wrote:
 I think that we can do a nice move here. We can enable image filter in
 German Wikipedia for all those who don't want to see
 copyrighted-images-for-German-law, meanwhile allowing other people to see
 all Commons splendour. Using the image filter to improve the rights of
 readers of German Wikipedia. Very cool, right? ; )
 Oh, you found the first useful purpose of the image filter!
 He did not. Optionally hiding of the image wouldn't make it legal. The
 filter has nothing to do with this case.

 Then, make it opt-out :P

¨
And what if the English Wikipedia chooses to opt out?

 '




-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Strainu

2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com:
 We (the German authors) are bound to German law, since the page is
 directed at an major German readership (Schutzlandprinzip). But we also
 have to take care of US-law, since the servers are hosted inside the US.
 The later applies for the content the WMF hosts, not for us German
 contributers. But to be nice, we consider US-law as well.


Tobias, that I can understand. What I don't understand is why one
should call emijrp stupid instead of explaining that this is a German
Wikipedia rule ment to protect the majority of users users from
inadvertently breaking the law of their country.

And I still don't understand why you called that example stupid.

Strainu

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

[Foundation-l] Rename proposal of Kurdish wikipedia

2011-09-16 Thread とある白い猫

Hi all,

It is proposed that Kurdish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language)
wikipedia (ku.wikipedia) be renamed to Kurmanji wikipedia (kmr.wikipedia) as
currently ku.wikipedia predominantly hosts a single dialect which is
Kurmanji dialect of Kurdish. Local community oppose the proposal so far.

I'd like to explain some background behind the proposal. Kurdish wikipedia
had been hosting multiple dialects since its creation. The three main
dialects (in terms of article count) have been Zazaki (1.5–2.5 million
speakers), Sorani (5 million speakers) and Kurmanji (9 million speakers).
Zazaki is only mentioned here because it was hosted by Kurdish wikipedia at
some point. Zazaki's language family is controversial as some sources put it
as a dialect of Kurdish while others disagree with this. While details
surrounding the linguistic properties are irrelevant for this proposal,
the controversy itself is relevant.

Kurdish as a language has no standard from and the ISO considers ku (kur) to
be a language code for a macro-language for multiple dialects. Furthermore
said dialects are mutually unintelligible (per first Google hit:
http://www.thefellowship.info/Missions/Global-Missions/People-Groups/Kurds)
with multiple different types of scripts such as Sorani using rtl Arabic
script and Kurmanji using ltr latin script and are different in both grammar
and vocabulary. In addition Sorani is the only dialect used officially in
north of Iraq by the Kurdistan Regional Government and is not the most
common dialect of Kurdish (according to Wikipedia anyways).

   - Zazaki dialect separated from Kurdish Wikipedia on 5 January 2007 with
   http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Zazaki
and
   had been steadily having an increase in article count and will seemingly
   overtake ku.wikipedia soon enough.
   - Sorani dialect has seperated from Kurdish wikipedia on 14 November
   2010 with
   
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Kurdish_(Sorani)
and
   has steady contribution despite being a very recently created wiki.
   - Minor dialects (in terms of article count) hosted by Kurdish wikipedia
   already have their relevant incubator pages with Southern Kurdish created
   on 29 October 2009 (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/sdh)
   and Kirmanjki created on 30 July 2008 (
   http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kiu).

Currently ku.wikipedia has very few tagged articles in non-Kurmanji
dialects:

   -
   http://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taybet:WhatLinksHere/%C5%9Eablon:Soran%C3%AE6
Sorani uses - There is a Sorani wikipedia
   -
   
http://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taybet:WhatLinksHere/%C5%9Eablon:Bi_kurdiya_ba%C5%9F%C3%BBr14
Southern Kurdish uses - There is an incubator entry for Southern
Kurdish
   -
   
http://ku.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taybet:WhatLinksHere/%C5%9Eablon:Zazak%C3%AElimit=6565
Zazaki uses - There is a Zazaki wikipedia

By keeping ku.wikipedia with its ku language code we are:

   - Implying Kurmanji as the official dialect of Kurdish with the Kurdish
   macro-language code
   - Implying Sorani as the lesser dialect when in fact it is the only
   official one.
   - Implying Zazaki to be a Kurdish dialect which Zazaki community
   opposes fiercely as evident in closed language proposal of Zazaki of 2007.
   - Confusing the reader whom visits ku.wikipedia only to find Kurdish
   articles they cannot read unless they use Kurmanji dialect (only half of
   Kurdish speakers know Kurmanji if you add up the numbers for all other
   dialects).
   - I'd like to highlight one remark from Sorani wiki proposal page: Even
   though both Kurmanj and Sorani are subgroups (accent) of Kurdish
   language, they can cause of misunderstanding and misinterpretation for
   people who speak the language with these accents to each other. This can
   happen in different situations. For instance during regular conversations,
   or reading/understanding complex and professional contents.In general,
   Kurmanj and Sorani are not useful to each other since misinterpretation
   is so high while they are used in different places. --Marmzok 11 April 2009
   - This is the problem the reader deals on an article by article basis unless
   they know the existence of Sorani wikipedia.

Relevant meta discussion is here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Kurdish_2_Wikipedia

Might I remind that The committee does not consider political differences,
since the Wikimedia Foundation's goal is to give every single person free,
unbiased access to the sum of all human knowledge, rather than information
from the viewpoint of individual political communities. (
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy#Requisites).
Therefore political arguments including the ones in the meta discussion are
irrelevant.

  - とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
___
foundation-l mailing list

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 13:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:50, Tobias Oelgarte
 tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Am 16.09.2011 12:42, schrieb Milos Rancic:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:39, emijrpemi...@gmail.com  wrote:
 I think that we can do a nice move here. We can enable image filter in
 German Wikipedia for all those who don't want to see
 copyrighted-images-for-German-law, meanwhile allowing other people to see
 all Commons splendour. Using the image filter to improve the rights of
 readers of German Wikipedia. Very cool, right? ; )
 Oh, you found the first useful purpose of the image filter!
 He did not. Optionally hiding of the image wouldn't make it legal. The
 filter has nothing to do with this case.

 Then, make it opt-out :P

 ¨
 And what if the English Wikipedia chooses to opt out?

It's about implementing image filter on images which have copyright
problems in Germany (but not in US), not about nudity.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Rename proposal of Kurdish wikipedia

2011-09-16 Thread Gerard Meijssen

Hoi,
The argument for or against using ku.wikipedia.org are interesting but at
this time rather irrelevant.There is a long list of pending name changes
waiting to happen. Also we are quite happy to keep codes that are in fact
representing macro languages  like ar or Arabic.
Thanks,
 GerardM

2011/9/16 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com

 Hi all,

 It is proposed that Kurdish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language
 )
 wikipedia (ku.wikipedia) be renamed to Kurmanji wikipedia (kmr.wikipedia)
 as
 currently ku.wikipedia predominantly hosts a single dialect which is
 Kurmanji dialect of Kurdish. Local community oppose the proposal so far.

 I'd like to explain some background behind the proposal. Kurdish wikipedia
 had been hosting multiple dialects since its creation. The three main
 dialects (in terms of article count) have been Zazaki (1.5–2.5 million
 speakers), Sorani (5 million speakers) and Kurmanji (9 million speakers).
 Zazaki is only mentioned here because it was hosted by Kurdish wikipedia at
 some point. Zazaki's language family is controversial as some sources put
 it
 as a dialect of Kurdish while others disagree with this. While details
 surrounding the linguistic properties are irrelevant for this proposal,
 the controversy itself is relevant.

 Kurdish as a language has no standard from and the ISO considers ku (kur)
 to
 be a language code for a macro-language for multiple dialects. Furthermore
 said dialects are mutually unintelligible (per first Google hit:
 http://www.thefellowship.info/Missions/Global-Missions/People-Groups/Kurds
 )
 with multiple different types of scripts such as Sorani using rtl Arabic
 script and Kurmanji using ltr latin script and are different in both
 grammar
 and vocabulary. In addition Sorani is the only dialect used officially in
 north of Iraq by the Kurdistan Regional Government and is not the most
 common dialect of Kurdish (according to Wikipedia anyways).

   - Zazaki dialect separated from Kurdish Wikipedia on 5 January 2007 with

 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Zazaki
 and
   had been steadily having an increase in article count and will seemingly
   overtake ku.wikipedia soon enough.
   - Sorani dialect has seperated from Kurdish wikipedia on 14 November
   2010 with

 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Kurdish_(Sorani)
 and
   has steady contribution despite being a very recently created wiki.
   - Minor dialects (in terms of article count) hosted by Kurdish wikipedia
   already have their relevant incubator pages with Southern Kurdish created
   on 29 October 2009 (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/sdh)
   and Kirmanjki created on 30 July 2008 (
   http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kiu).

 Currently ku.wikipedia has very few tagged articles in non-Kurmanji
 dialects:

   -

 http://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taybet:WhatLinksHere/%C5%9Eablon:Soran%C3%AE6
 Sorani uses - There is a Sorani wikipedia
   -

 http://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taybet:WhatLinksHere/%C5%9Eablon:Bi_kurdiya_ba%C5%9F%C3%BBr14
 Southern Kurdish uses - There is an incubator entry for Southern
 Kurdish
   -

 http://ku.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taybet:WhatLinksHere/%C5%9Eablon:Zazak%C3%AElimit=6565
 Zazaki uses - There is a Zazaki wikipedia

 By keeping ku.wikipedia with its ku language code we are:

   - Implying Kurmanji as the official dialect of Kurdish with the Kurdish
   macro-language code
   - Implying Sorani as the lesser dialect when in fact it is the only
   official one.
   - Implying Zazaki to be a Kurdish dialect which Zazaki community
   opposes fiercely as evident in closed language proposal of Zazaki of
 2007.
   - Confusing the reader whom visits ku.wikipedia only to find Kurdish
   articles they cannot read unless they use Kurmanji dialect (only half of
   Kurdish speakers know Kurmanji if you add up the numbers for all other
   dialects).
   - I'd like to highlight one remark from Sorani wiki proposal page: Even
   though both Kurmanj and Sorani are subgroups (accent) of Kurdish
   language, they can cause of misunderstanding and misinterpretation for
   people who speak the language with these accents to each other. This can
   happen in different situations. For instance during regular
 conversations,
   or reading/understanding complex and professional contents.In general,
   Kurmanj and Sorani are not useful to each other since
 misinterpretation
   is so high while they are used in different places. --Marmzok 11 April
 2009
   - This is the problem the reader deals on an article by article basis
 unless
   they know the existence of Sorani wikipedia.

 Relevant meta discussion is here:

 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Kurdish_2_Wikipedia

 Might I remind that The committee does not consider political differences,
 since the Wikimedia Foundation's goal is to give every single person free,
 unbiased access to the sum of all human

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

2011-09-16 Thread Fred Bauder

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 16:46, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

In my book I described Nupedia, and how that system of having a paid
head
didn't work out (namely, Larry Sanger as editor in chief).

While I don't like Sanger, it shouldn't be forgot that he was
responsible for building the initial system on Wikipedia itself.
Wikinews, unlike Wikipedia, requires larger care; not just setting up
very initial rules.¨

Not so, and not so. I don't square with either of your interpretation´of
the history...

The fact that Larry Sanger did not pan out as an editor in chief had
nothing to do with the fact that he was paid for his work. He could
have worked for peanuts or completely gratis, and what we would
have had would have been a premature Citizendium.

As for building the initial system of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger fought
the building of it tooth and nail to the last, until Jimbo realized he
was
doing more harm than good.

--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

Were you editing back then? My memory is quite different. He says on his
user page, I named it, crafted much of the policy that now guides the
project, and led the project for its first year. which accords with my
memory.

If you look at his early edits I think an accurate picture could be
reconstructed, although the mailing lists played a much more significant
role back then.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributionsoffset=20010615133804limit=500target=Larry+Sanger

Fred

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

Re: [Foundation-l] CC by-sa upheld in Germany, over a Commons photo

2011-09-16 Thread Andrew Garrett

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
 Too bad Wikimedia TOS still labors under the misapprehension that the
 licence doesn't mean what it says.

Can you be specific, to make this into actionable feedback?

-- 
Andrew Garrett
Wikimedia Foundation
agarr...@wikimedia.org

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

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

2011-09-16 Thread Kudu

I agree with Theo, at least to an extent. It seems to me that there is
an *eternal* competition even between professional offerings to offer
not only the latest news, but the best news. On the other hand, I do
agree that I'm reluctant to use even the English Wikinews for
informational purposes as the articles aren't old compared to the time
when they became effective, but simply out of date. Sometimes, I don't
find any technology articles from the past month.

~K

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:34 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:37 PM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:

 I agree with this analysis.

 2011/9/13 m...@marcusbuck.org

  English Wikinews is in a market with many, many professional
  competitors. Competitors with a paid staff that steadily create
  reliable news output quick and in most cases _for free_. While good
  encyclopedias were still sold for thousands of dollars in 2001, news
  were already available for free back then. So there's no big advantage
  for the reader in using Wikinews instead of some other news resource.
 
  A further point is steadiness. A Wikipedia doesn't loose much value if
  you leave it unedited for some days because of contributor shortage.
  On Wikinews on the other hand most readers will leave forever if there
  are no current news since days. It's very hard to build a userbase if
  you cannot guarantee a continuous flow of new news.
 
  And it's hard to gain authors if you have no readers because the texts
  will only be of interest for a few days. If you write a news article
  and noone reads it you have wasted your time. On Wikipedia however, if
  you write an article you can rest assured that people will read your
  text. If not today then in a year.
 
  Other than a Wikipedia where even a single person can build an
  increasingly useful resource over time, Wikinews has a critical mass.
  If it doesn't reach the criticial mass of steady contributions, the
  project will never lift off.
 
 
  It's my opinion, that Wikimedia should try to support a Wikinews by
  paying a editor in chief and a core team of reporters to secure that
  the project always stays above the critical mass.
 
  Ideally that isn't done in the oversaturated market for English
  language news but in a language that doesn't have any native language
  news outlets. Pick the language with the biggest number of speakers (I
  guess that'll be in rural Africa or Asia) that has no own media and
  hire an editorial team. Send them out to make contacts into the
  diaspora of the language and into the countryside to find volunteer
  reporters and correspondents. Let them do a mix of world news and
  original local news reporting. Go into print. A few newspapers per
  village will probably suffice if you distribute it to the right places
  and propagate sharing.
 
  Provide free and open news to people who haven't had access to native
  content before.
 
  That of course means spending some money. Perhaps it won't work. But I
  think it is worth actually exploring it further and trying it out. At
  least that would be a form of Wikinews that could actually _make a
  difference_. The current model of give them a wiki and don't do much
  else until six years later the project crumbles to dust does not lead
  to anything making a difference.
 
  Marcus Buck
  User:Slomox
 
 
  ___
  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



 I don't quiet agree with that analysis. You comparison with professional
 competitors might have held true in the last age of publishing, the playing
 field has been much more leveled. Even the New York Times has a hard time
 being competitive in this age, when they can't compete with individual
 bloggers posting and copying stories from everywhere. Amateurs already won
 that race.

 The same point applies to Encyclopedias- Wikipedia is proof that just about
 anyone can contribute to an encyclopedia, not just a published versions  by
 white, old, Academicians and instead refine it, continuously to compete with
 any other Encyclopedia. Now, the difference of concept between an
 Encyclopedia and a News source are undeniable, you can not refine a news
 article and you have to be correct and quick at the same time. The
 difference is, Wikipedia already does this, breaking stories do link back
 Wikipedia article from Google News. The difference between the two projects
 is the number of contributors.

 The concept of this movement is based mainly on volunteers. it has proven
 that random volunteers from around the world can accomplish anything, if we
 pay people to contribute, it goes against the ethos of all the projects.

 The biggest strength

Re: [Foundation-l] CC by-sa upheld in Germany, over a Commons photo

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
 cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
 Too bad Wikimedia TOS still labors under the misapprehension that the
 licence doesn't mean what it says.

 Can you be specific, to make this into actionable feedback?


Well, since you insist.

Though it doesn't really matter if it is true that the letter of the
licence can be
upheld. The Wikimedia TOS would lose quite clearly.

There is a metric ton of discussion about this very subject on the mailing list,
around the time we migrated from GFDL to a CC licence. I don't expect your
memory to reach that far, and definitely don't expect you to go
digging into that
pile of *expletive*. I sure wouldn't. The skinny is that despite a
good few people
arguing that the TOS can not exact more onerous terms of attribution than the
licence itself stated in text, the TOS as it currently stands, does
require onerous
attribution to Wikimedia of a type which Wikimedia does not itself
adhere to upstream.

It is a bit technical. Really rather not go over that again. But it is a fact.


-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 16:27, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
 What is your obsession with nudity about? The filter isn't
 about nudity.

Ah, you are right! I completely missed the point of the image filter
because my obsession... It's about scared places of indigenous peoples
of Australia and similar.

Back to the initial point: Make it opt-out was about users of
German Wikipedia, not about the projects. Whatever the point of the
filter is. If it's illegal to see apples in Germany, then they could
impose the filter for all of the users and allow them to opt-out from
not seeing apples.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 16:27, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
 cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
 What is your obsession with nudity about? The filter isn't
 about nudity.

 Ah, you are right! I completely missed the point of the image filter
 because my obsession... It's about scared places of indigenous peoples
 of Australia and similar.

 Back to the initial point: Make it opt-out was about users of
 German Wikipedia, not about the projects. Whatever the point of the
 filter is. If it's illegal to see apples in Germany, then they could
 impose the filter for all of the users and allow them to opt-out from
 not seeing apples.

Let me quote you the initial point:

A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
introduce the feature.


-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 16:46, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

In my book I described Nupedia, and how that system of having a paid
head
didn't work out (namely, Larry Sanger as editor in chief).

Not so, and not so. I don't square with either of your interpretation´of
the history...

As for building the initial system of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger fought
the building of it tooth and nail to the last, until Jimbo realized he
was
doing more harm than good.

--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

If you look at his early edits I think an accurate picture could be
reconstructed, although the mailing lists played a much more significant
roll back then.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributionsoffset=20010615133804limit=500target=Larry+Sanger

Haha, no, I wasn't editing tnen, but since quite a few years after that time,
and definitely up to the time when I started, you couldn't delete revision by
revision, a person curious like myself was able to get a reasonably
non-distorted
view of the history. Arguably The Cunctator has a much larger claim to having
shaped the ethos of Wikipedia in those early days than Sanger. Certainly The
Cunctators vision reigned supreme until these latter disturbing times when
it seems Sangers vision is re-asserting itself over Wikinews and sad to say
over Wikipedia too. Do you recall Sangers obsession about how wikipedia
should be family friendly?

--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Rename proposal of Kurdish wikipedia

2011-09-16 Thread M. Williamson

It's not irrelevant because if approved, it could be added to list of
pending name changes.

As far as codes representing macrolanguages, ku: is clearly a different
situation than ar.wp. Arabic is a group of languages with a single unifying
macro standard, which speakers of all Arabic languages learn in school.
Every speaker of any Arabic language - Iraqi, Egyptian, Lebanese, Moroccan,
etc. - will readily agree that Modern Standard Arabic is part of their
cultural and linguistic tradition. For this reason, the situation makes
sense.

This is decidedly not the case with ku. Unlike with ar.wp, there are 5
different languages with more or less equal status. There is no Modern
Standard Kurdish. Imagine if Modern Standard Arabic didn't exist, and
Moroccan Arabic Wikipedia was housed at http://ar.wikipedia.org/ domain.
This would be unfair to other Arabic languages, would it not? Well, this is
the situation with Kurdish languages at the moment.

http://ku.wikipedia.org/ : interface and mainpage and almost all content in
Kurmanji language
http://ckb.wikipedia.org/ : interface and mainpage and all content in Sorani
language
http://diq.wikipedia.org/ : interface and mainpage and all content in Zazaki
language (which may or may not be a Kurdish language)
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/sdh : Southern Kurdish
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kiu : Kirmanjki

Now, as White Cat already mentioned, it is simply not neutral for us to
imply, by housing the Kurmanji Wikipedia at the language code for Kurdish,
that Kurmanji is the 'default' Kurdish, when this is not the case. In fact,
Sorani is the only variety of Kurdish that has official status in any
country, being the co-official language of Iraq. Also, in comparison with
your case (re:Arabic), Modern Standard Arabic (used at ar.wp) *is* the
'default' Arabic. So this is not a parallel situation and should not be
treated as such, and a technical backlog is no reason to ignore it.



2011/9/16 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com

 Hoi,
 The argument for or against using ku.wikipedia.org are interesting but at
 this time rather irrelevant.There is a long list of pending name changes
 waiting to happen. Also we are quite happy to keep codes that are in fact
 representing macro languages  like ar or Arabic.
 Thanks,
 GerardM

 2011/9/16 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com

  Hi all,
 
  It is proposed that Kurdish (
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language
  )
  wikipedia (ku.wikipedia) be renamed to Kurmanji wikipedia (kmr.wikipedia)
  as
  currently ku.wikipedia predominantly hosts a single dialect which is
  Kurmanji dialect of Kurdish. Local community oppose the proposal so far.
 
  I'd like to explain some background behind the proposal. Kurdish
 wikipedia
  had been hosting multiple dialects since its creation. The three main
  dialects (in terms of article count) have been Zazaki (1.5-2.5 million
  speakers), Sorani (5 million speakers) and Kurmanji (9 million speakers).
  Zazaki is only mentioned here because it was hosted by Kurdish wikipedia
 at
  some point. Zazaki's language family is controversial as some sources put
  it
  as a dialect of Kurdish while others disagree with this. While details
  surrounding the linguistic properties are irrelevant for this proposal,
  the controversy itself is relevant.
 
  Kurdish as a language has no standard from and the ISO considers ku (kur)
  to
  be a language code for a macro-language for multiple dialects.
 Furthermore
  said dialects are mutually unintelligible (per first Google hit:
 
 http://www.thefellowship.info/Missions/Global-Missions/People-Groups/Kurds
  )
  with multiple different types of scripts such as Sorani using rtl Arabic
  script and Kurmanji using ltr latin script and are different in both
  grammar
  and vocabulary. In addition Sorani is the only dialect used officially in
  north of Iraq by the Kurdistan Regional Government and is not the most
  common dialect of Kurdish (according to Wikipedia anyways).
 
- Zazaki dialect separated from Kurdish Wikipedia on 5 January 2007
 with
 
 
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Zazaki
  and
had been steadily having an increase in article count and will
 seemingly
overtake ku.wikipedia soon enough.
- Sorani dialect has seperated from Kurdish wikipedia on 14 November
2010 with
 
 
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Kurdish_(Sorani)
  and
has steady contribution despite being a very recently created wiki.
- Minor dialects (in terms of article count) hosted by Kurdish
 wikipedia
already have their relevant incubator pages with Southern Kurdish
 created
on 29 October 2009 (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/sdh)
and Kirmanjki created on 30 July 2008 (
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kiu).
 
  Currently ku.wikipedia has very few tagged articles in non-Kurmanji
  dialects:
 
-

Re: [Foundation-l] All human knowledge, by Jimmy Wales (?)

2011-09-16 Thread KIZU Naoko

I'm afraid it sounds a bit OT, but I'm serious, really.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello,

Today I read on a WMDE driven website:

»Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der das gesamte Wissen der
Menschheit jedem frei zugänglich ist. Das ist unser Ziel.«
Jimmy Wales

(Imagine a world in which the entire knowledge of mankind is freely
accessible to everyone. That is our goal.)

I never read that in English. Jimmy Wales actually said: ... the sum
of all human knowledge.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales

And I think that there is a huge difference between the sum of
all... and all By the way, the traditional encyclopedias
described themselves by the sum of all...

But a number of Wikimedia national organizations seem to have
difficulties with Jimmy's phrase. They 'translate' it to all... I
did not succeed, for example, in explaining to my own national
organization why it is wrong what we have on our business cards.

Gibt uns hier Problem? Welche Art?

Fast zwanzig Jahren war es mir Raetzel, ob Verschendung gibt zwischen
das gesammte Werk (oder die gesaemmte Werken) und die Sammelung
Werkes und die saemmtliches Werken. Keine Woerterbueche haben mich
geholfen. Auf Japanisch liegt hier nur ein Wort so dass wir es
benutzen, aber wenn Du so nett waere, bitte mal mir Erklaerungen,
koenntest Du wirklich floh machen.

MhG,

Am I the only one seeing a problem here?

Kind regards
Ziko

--
Ziko van Dijk
The Netherlands
http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/

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

--
KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子
member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Am 16.09.2011 16:27, schrieb Jussi-Ville Heiskanen:
 So?
 What is your obsession with nudity about? The filter isn't
 about nudity.

 You may not noticed it. It _is_ about nudity _and_ many more
 controversial topics as well. Saying that it _is not_ about nudity would
 be a blatant lie.


Take a deep breath and read up the chain. You started this thread, and I am
doing my level best to try to stop it being derailed from the subject of the
German vote and its repercussions

-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 18:52, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Am 16.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Milos Rancic:
 It's about implementing image filter on images which have copyright
 problems in Germany (but not in US), not about nudity.

 And it got awesomely off-topic. Now we discuss about an opt-in filter to
 allow copyrighted images on the German Wikipedia? Please put to the topic.

Not opt-in, but opt-out :P

Sorry for hijacking the thread with a joke :)

I think that everything is so obvious that it's become tiresome to discuss it:
* There is significant disproportion in position between editors with
a couple of edits and the core of the community.
* It's not likely that it would be ~85% against, but similar pool on
English Wikipedia would likely finish with ~60% against. Hypothetical
referendums on projects in many European languages would finish
similarly to the referendum on German Wikipedia, as in this case
macho-patriarchal culture, dominant in large parts of Europe,
corresponds with libertarian positions, dominant among the core
editors.
* It's likely that staff and Board already know that correlation
between the results of German Wikipedia referendum and global survey
could be drawn to support previous two conclusions. Thus, they don't
want to publish that part of data.
* There is still significant minority of core editors who want the
filter at any cost.
* Board is divided and doesn't know what to decide.

I would repeat the best possible solution to end this: Implement it on
English Wikipedia -- you (those who want that filter) have some
numbers which would support that action -- and leave the rest of the
projects alone.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Rename proposal of Kurdish wikipedia

2011-09-16 Thread M. Williamson

I think there is a misunderstanding with regards to the scope of the
request. Both Kurmanji and Sorani Wikipedias actually currently are labelled
in interwiki links and bills itself sometimes as Kurdish Wikipedia. These
are both local issues and this request is not asking them to stop that. The
only thing this request is for, is to change the language code of ku.wp. It
is improper to use a macrolanguage code for a Wikipedia that is not written
in a unifying variety (= fa.wp is written in official Farsi, ar.wp is
written in Modern Standard Arabic, zh.wp is written in standard written
Chinese, but there is no Standard Kurdish and ku.wp is just written in a
regular Kurdish variety which should be treated as equal to all other
Kurdish varieties). I am not talking about how the Wikipedia presents
itself, I am talking about how we present it, by housing it at the URI
http://ku.wikipedia.org/

In this case, I do not think anything local changed by langcom, the
foundation, or anybody else unless it creates legal problems. The only thing
this request covers is the code itself, which is currently wrong since ku
is a macrolanguage code but ku.wp is not truly a macrolanguage wiki.


2011/9/16 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com

 2011/9/16 M. Williamson node...@gmail.com:
  It's not irrelevant because if approved, it could be added to list of
  pending name changes.

 The problem with the request is that it's not in the scope of Language
 committee. Renaming zh-min-nan into nan is in the scope, as it
 deals with simple code change. Renaming als into whatever is
 also inside of the LangCom scope, as als is not proper code. At the
 other side, stability requires that fa stays as fa, as fa is
 implicitly Farsi (besides being macrolanguage Persian).

 However, requiring that one project doesn't include texts written in
 other language and/or requiring that one project doesn't promote
 itself as the home project for other languages which have their
 Wikimedia projects -- that's the task for community and/or WMF; likely
 for GRC. If we want to solve the problem properly. LangCom should be
 consulted in this case, but it's not LangCom's which should deal with
 dispute resolution among couple of communities.

 ___
 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] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread David Gerard

On 16 September 2011 18:13, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:

 * It's likely that staff and Board already know that correlation
 between the results of German Wikipedia referendum and global survey
 could be drawn to support previous two conclusions. Thus, they don't
 want to publish that part of data.


That's a terrible thing to think of them. Of course, it would be
immediately alleviated by publishing the data.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Rename proposal of Kurdish wikipedia

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 19:35, M. Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote:
 In this case, I do not think anything local changed by langcom, the
 foundation, or anybody else unless it creates legal problems. The only thing
 this request covers is the code itself, which is currently wrong since ku
 is a macrolanguage code but ku.wp is not truly a macrolanguage wiki.

That's likely outcome and it's likely that it would be LangCom's
suggestion (but, cf. Gerard's comment about priorities), but LangCom
doesn't have legitimacy to decide against the will of 100% of one
community if it's not about pure technical or linguistic issues. The
issue is clearly of political nature and LangCom is not the body which
solves such problems.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Fae

 That's a terrible thing to think of them. Of course, it would be
 immediately alleviated by publishing the data.

Hang on, I thought that http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Values
(which underpin the Mission) means that WMF is obliged by their own
published bylaws to openly publish the data in question?

Cheers,
Fae

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

Am 16.09.2011 19:13, schrieb Milos Rancic:

 * There is significant disproportion in position between editors with
 a couple of edits and the core of the community.
That still has to be proven. I asked for localized (project based) data 
from the poll to inspect if there are huge cultural differences or if 
there is a general bias towards the filter. This was more then two weeks 
ago and i reminded Philippe repeatedly to release this data. So far 
nothing was released and one excuse followed the other. Thats why i 
can't support or oppose your statement. But assuming that it would be 
true would be as false as to say that it is false.

So i repeat my request again: Philippe, can you hear me? Release the 
data as soon as possible, we need it.

 * It's not likely that it would be ~85% against, but similar pool on
 English Wikipedia would likely finish with ~60% against. Hypothetical
 referendums on projects in many European languages would finish
 similarly to the referendum on German Wikipedia, as in this case
 macho-patriarchal culture, dominant in large parts of Europe,
 corresponds with libertarian positions, dominant among the core
 editors.
You would have to proof that your facts are indeed true. But if you 
accept it as a huge difference between cultures, how can you impose a 
filter for a culture that doesn't need it or wants it?

How would you expect to find a good compromise in decisions on what to 
filter and what not? Do you intend to put an extremist conservative Arab 
and and the most liberal German inside the same room, close the door, go 
away, come back after two weeks and look if they could find a compromise 
about Yes or No? How should this work?

The referendum showed that cultural neutrality is important for the 
voters. But how do you think to find a compromise between hell and 
heaven, without having hell and heaven inside the discussions at commons 
at earth?

 * It's likely that staff and Board already know that correlation
 between the results of German Wikipedia referendum and global survey
 could be drawn to support previous two conclusions. Thus, they don't
 want to publish that part of data.
I doubt that. But if they do, I will call them assholes for betrayal. 
Just to make it clear. It would also not suite the story onto who has 
access to the data and who has not.

 * There is still significant minority of core editors who want the
 filter at any cost.
A significant minority is a curios choice of words.

A significant minority tries to abolish the constitution by any cost. 
Now ask yourself if you would follow their wishes. Thats the same 
sentence, you said, with different actors. Still happy with it?

 * Board is divided and doesn't know what to decide.
We don't know what the board thinks. It does not communicate with us 
(the authors), it did not react to the discussions at Meta, it did not 
answer serious questions and in general is somewhere between a legend 
and a forgotten ghost that no one can see, even if present.

 I would repeat the best possible solution to end this: Implement it on
 English Wikipedia -- you (those who want that filter) have some
 numbers which would support that action -- and leave the rest of the
 projects alone.
That would imply not to implement it on commons. Otherwise the the 
categorization/labeling/... could be misused by local providers inside 
regions that didn't intended to use this feature.

Tobias

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Ryan Kaldari

Since when is the German Wikipedia under the domain of German
jurisdiction? The German Wikipedia is an international project hosted in
the United States. Am I missing something here?

Ryan Kaldari

On 9/16/11 3:48 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
That is an legal issue. We do that to comply with the law, since that
image isn't in public domain under German jurisdiction. This has nothing
to do with hiding perfectly legal content. Additionally an optional
filter would not help to make it legal. Filter or no filter wouldn't
change a thing.

Two different topics, one wrong assumption.

Tobias

Am 16.09.2011 12:39, schrieb emijrp:
Hi all;

There are more issues with images in German Wikipedia.

Regards,
emijrp

2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com

Dear readers

A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
introduce the feature.

Greetings from
Tobias Oelgarte

[1]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter
[2]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter#Auswertung

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Rename proposal of Kurdish wikipedia

2011-09-16 Thread とある白い猫

  While opposition comments of the local community may be full of irrelevant
political and controversial references, the arguments in support of the
rename aren't anything of the sort. It may be difficult to follow the meta
page as there is so much irrelevant posts by the ku.wiki community and that
is drowning arguments in support of the move. It is a lame attempt
to filibuster IMHO. LangCom shouldn't give in to filibuster attempts. I
would like to point out that it is most definitely a political decision to
leave everything as is. LangCom unintentionally created this problem by
allowing the creation of Zazaki and Sorani wikipedias. By not changing it
the language committee and/or the foundation is essentially declaring
Kurmanji as the default Kurdish. In that sense, renaming it is the only
politically correct decision.

  Of course politics is irrelevant when it comes to LangCom's
operation. Linguistically it makes no sense to leave ku.wiki on its
macrolanguage code when the content is just one dialect (regardless of the
claims of the local community). Why did LangCom allow the creation of Zazaki
and Sorani wikipedias? Because these dialects are distinct enough from
Kurmanji dialect that they are seperate language editions of wikipedia. In
terms of linguistic and technical reasons, the local community so far
provided nothing tangible for LangCom's consideration. The opposition by
ku.wiki community is entirely political without any linguistic or  technical
reason.

  While LangCom lacks procedures for rename requests, this shouldn't be an
excuse to ignore rename requests. Also, no one expects the rename to
happen tomorrow, the only expectation is that if approved the request is
added to the backlog.

  -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)


On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 19:50, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 19:35, M. Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote:
  In this case, I do not think anything local changed by langcom, the
  foundation, or anybody else unless it creates legal problems. The only
 thing
  this request covers is the code itself, which is currently wrong since
 ku
  is a macrolanguage code but ku.wp is not truly a macrolanguage wiki.

 That's likely outcome and it's likely that it would be LangCom's
 suggestion (but, cf. Gerard's comment about priorities), but LangCom
 doesn't have legitimacy to decide against the will of 100% of one
 community if it's not about pure technical or linguistic issues. The
 issue is clearly of political nature and LangCom is not the body which
 solves such problems.

 ___
 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] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Tobias Oelgarte 
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:


 You would have to proof that your facts are indeed true. But if you
 accept it as a huge difference between cultures, how can you impose a
 filter for a culture that doesn't need it or wants it?


Just like a normal addition to Mediawiki: Those who don't want to use it,
don't have to.


 How would you expect to find a good compromise in decisions on what to
 filter and what not? Do you intend to put an extremist conservative Arab
 and and the most liberal German inside the same room, close the door, go
 away, come back after two weeks and look if they could find a compromise
 about Yes or No? How should this work?


Quite simple: add one filter for each, and describe for each what they
filter, then let every user for themself decide whether to filter the one,
the other, neither or both.


 The referendum showed that cultural neutrality is important for the
 voters. But how do you think to find a compromise between hell and
 heaven, without having hell and heaven inside the discussions at commons
 at earth?


See above - if your filters are not almost the same, don't use the same
filter, but create two different ones.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

On 09/14/11 1:44 PM, Sarah wrote:
 On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 14:28, Theo10011de10...@gmail.com  wrote:
 I doubt that would be enough to satisfy the no original research
 requirement. The idea linking back to a Wikimedia project as a source is not
 a new one, it has been tried many times and doesn't work.
 The no original research policy was never intended to keep out
 material like this. Its purpose is to stop editors adding their own
 opinions to the text of articles. But we have always had original
 research in the form of images; indeed, we encourage it. We just have
 to be careful that images on a contentious article don't unfairly push
 the reader in a certain direction, but we normally take a very liberal
 view of what that means.

NOR began as a way of dealing with physics cranks, but by trying to 
define such policies mare accurately we too easily pervert its 
intention. A fashionable criticism is that someone introducing a 
different perspective is engaging in original research.  That can lead 
to acrimonious and futile debates about the nature of original research 
and opinion. Yes, we want original photos as a way of avoiding copyright 
problems, but at the same time people complain about primary textual 
sources.
 Adding video-taped interviews is the next step. Imagine articles about
 the Second World War containing video interviews by Wikipedians of
 people who lived through certain parts of it. There is no inherent POV
 issue there, so long as we observe NPOV, just as we do with text.
 Primary sources are already allowed, so long as used descriptively and
 not interpreted.

Any inherent POV is in the selection process.  The choice needs to be 
short enough to avoid overwhelming the article, but if it's too short we 
risk the complaint of being out of context.  The full interview needs to 
be readily available somewhere to enable verification not only of 
accuracy but also of context.

Ray

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

Re: [Foundation-l] All human knowledge, by Jimmy Wales (?)

2011-09-16 Thread David Richfield

 And I think that there is a huge difference between the sum of
 all... and all By the way, the traditional encyclopedias
 described themselves by the sum of all...

Can you explain this perceived difference?  Is the whole more than the
sum of its parts, so that the German claim is too ambitious for you,
or is it less than the sum of its parts, making the German claim too
modest?

-- 
David Richfield
e^(πi)+1=0

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Thomas Dalton

On Sep 16, 2011 7:39 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
 tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
  86% of the German contributers opposed the feature. Does the same
  pattern apply to the global poll, or was it just the difference in
  question? We don't know as long per project data isn't released. I
  repeatedly asked for this data for more then 2 weeks. So far, no
  additional data was released. It somehow starts to piss me off.
 
  Tobias

 Tobias -- we all want to see the by-language correlations. It hasn't
 been done yet, as far as I know (I haven't seen anything further
 myself, nor has the rest of the board). This information isn't being
 kept from you or hidden, the analysis just doesn't exist yet.
 Patience!

He didn't ask for information. He asked for data. That obviously exists.
Last I heard, it still needed anonymising. Perhaps that should be
prioritised.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

On 09/14/11 9:12 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
 On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 20:03, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
 I think Wikinews needs to find its own identity first. There is no way it
 can compete with large news sites you are thinking of, but there are plenty
 of other ways it can have its own identity. In the age of news aggregators,
 micro-blogging and smartphones, getting constant feed of information is not
 hard if you know how to tap into it.
 Wikinews can compete with large sites. And not just that! Wikinews is
 the only Wikimedia project which could have 100k+ new articles per day
 (there are ~7M of inhabitants of Serbia, where at least 100 news per
 day could be generated; there are ~7B of humans), if properly
 organized. Thus, Wikinews is Wikimedia movement ticket for the future
 more than any other project.


I don't think that the Serbian situation scales very well.  100 news 
articles per day is even a lot for readers to handle.  Serbian project 
success depends a lot on the language/country correlation.  It also does 
not take long to get from Belgrade to the furthest part of the country. 
A New Zealand wikinews buried in a larger English language project won't 
attract a lot of attention outside New Zealand.

Wikinews needs to redefine its role. Scooping the big news stories of 
the day isn't it ... not as long as Wikipedia can begin developing a 
major article on something like the recent Virginia earthquake within 
minutes of the event.  That article and many corrections went on line 
immediately without waiting for the availability of a reviewer.

Ray

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Kim Bruning

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 08:19:05PM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Tobias Oelgarte 
 tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
 
 
  You would have to proof that your facts are indeed true. But if you
  accept it as a huge difference between cultures, how can you impose a
  filter for a culture that doesn't need it or wants it?
 
 
 Just like a normal addition to Mediawiki: Those who don't want to use it,
 don't have to.

In this case there's this Evil Cat system we may need to set up.
I don't want anyone to use that. Especially not evil people.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

-- 
Blofeld would have a field day!

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

2011-09-16 Thread Kim Bruning

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:01:04PM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
 It's not so hard to guess if you followed them for some time:
 * Ting: ambivalent; would be much more happy without the whole drama
 * Jan-Bart: not his business, will support whatever others support
 * Phoebe: in favor
 * Stu: not his business, will support whatever others support
 * Bishakha: slightly in favor tactically, but very hesitant to do
 anything against community will
 * Matt: doesn't know what's going on as he doesn't read Board's
 emails; will support whatever others support, but after phone call
 * Sj: would close one's eye to image filter, but against imposing it
 against community's will
 * Arne: would close one's eye to image filter if it doesn't affect
 German Wikipedia (as German Wikipedia rejected it)
 * Jimmy: in favor
 * Kat: would close one's eye to image filter, but against imposing it
 against community's will

You're better than I am! I only got Phoebe, Sj, Kat, and Jimmy.
How'd you get the rest?

sincerely,
Kim Bruning


-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

Am 16.09.2011 20:19, schrieb Andre Engels:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
 tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  wrote:


 You would have to proof that your facts are indeed true. But if you
 accept it as a huge difference between cultures, how can you impose a
 filter for a culture that doesn't need it or wants it?

 Just like a normal addition to Mediawiki: Those who don't want to use it,
 don't have to.

I would not have any problems if we would not play in the hands of 
censors (local ISPs, a simple proxy, regimes, institutions, ...) by 
actually labeling content as objectionable. Which gives away the control 
over the content by the user itself, while no one would invest the money 
if he would need to label the content itself.
 How would you expect to find a good compromise in decisions on what to
 filter and what not? Do you intend to put an extremist conservative Arab
 and and the most liberal German inside the same room, close the door, go
 away, come back after two weeks and look if they could find a compromise
 about Yes or No? How should this work?

 Quite simple: add one filter for each, and describe for each what they
 filter, then let every user for themself decide whether to filter the one,
 the other, neither or both.
You should know that there are hundreds of phobias, cultural conflicts 
and other categories of possibly objectionable content. Do you expect us 
to manage all this categories of filtering, or would you say that it 
will be narrowed down to be user friendly and manageable, while leaving 
out some categories and ignore the complies of some minorities?

 The referendum showed that cultural neutrality is important for the
 voters. But how do you think to find a compromise between hell and
 heaven, without having hell and heaven inside the discussions at commons
 at earth?

 See above - if your filters are not almost the same, don't use the same
 filter, but create two different ones.


See above at my comment. Maybe we should put this questioning together 
as one fact.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

2011-09-16 Thread Anthony

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote:
 I think Wikinews could work well on some topics, news that don't last
 a single day, but instead
 needs a history and a timetable. On those topics, Wikinews could fill
 an informative gap,
 because even newspapers archives are just aggregating different
 articles on the same subjects,
 but none of them write a (neutral) narrative integrating all of them.
 This could be an interesting direction.

A wiki for news that doesn't last a single day, but instead needs a
history and a timetable is already done.  It's called Wikipedia.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] All human knowledge, by Jimmy Wales (?)

2011-09-16 Thread Robert Rohde

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:01 PM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
 I think that the phrase meaning refered to Wikipedia is the sum of all
 human knowledge which is notable and encyclopedic.

 Not ALL, ALL, ALL human knowledge. MySpace discarded.

When you look back to when that quote was issued (at least 2004), I
think I tend to see it as broader and more aspirational.  Wikipedia
was already the biggest project, but we still imagined ourselves
making a statement with Wikinews and Wiktionary and everything else.
Back in the day, I can certainly imagine Wikimedia wanting to
encompass all forms of human knowledge, including projects going far
beyond the confines of what we now see as notable and encyclopedic.
We have retreated from that quite a lot.  Even within Wikipedia our
notions of what was acceptable and what was not were far more fluid.

The projects have accomplished an incredible amount, and we should all
be very proud and amazed at what we have done.  However, I do think we
have lost some of that early dream.  Back in the day, it was easy to
imagine that we would eventually encompass all human knowledge, and
now we tend to draw our goals more narrowly.  In part, I think our
perceptions of that famous quote have been evolving alongside our
perceptions of what Wikimedia and Wikipedia have become.

-Robert Rohde

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

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

On 09/15/11 8:50 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
 On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 16:43, Andrew Lihandrew@gmail.com  wrote:
 That's a erroneous comparison -- those same WMF employees keep the 
 servers running for all of Wikimedia. It's not specific to 
 Wikipedia's community fundamentals for encyclopedia writing. 
 running for all of Wikimedia ~ running for Wikipedia; I've never
 heard for any relevant campaign out of Wikipedia and initiated by WMF
 (in relation to content projects, of course).

This just brings us back to the function of the WMF.  At one it was just 
a matter of keeping the servers running, and ensuring that the content 
remains available forever. To the discomfort of some that role has expanded.

 Wikisource, for example, needs money to scan books. Wiktionary needs
 also. Even Wikipedia benefits from the projects in which money has
 given for writing articles (last example: WM Canada program for
 writing articles in medicine). But, it's easier to accept those
 things, than to accept that Wikinews needs at least one person to care
 about things when no one else is able to care.

I don't know about that.  Wikisource already has more scanned books 
available than it can handle, even if we just limit ourselves to those 
where the public domain status is absolutely indisputable.  A relatively 
small numbers should still be scanned for the sake of 
comprehensiveness.  The big challenge is in how to make this useful to a 
larger audience.

I don't see a big money issue for Wiktionary either.

The WM-CA medicine project still comes down to one dedicated person 
funding the scholarship. For now it's experimental, but its future 
depends on an analysis of the current experiment.

The fact remains that none of your examples involves hiring someone. 
What's the point of hiring someone for Wikinews before we even know 
where it's heading.  The volunteer community would still need to define 
that person's job.
 Features are the natural fit for Wikinews going forward, and it would be
 great to see more moves into that area.
 Nobody reads news source just because it has one article per day and
 one feature per month. Thus, it's not possible to create critical mass
 around it.
Collectively I'm sure we can do better than one feature per month.  If 
Serbian Wikinews can do something different that's fine too.

Ray

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

[Foundation-l] Wikizine Opinion - Year: 2011 Week: 38 Number: 128 BIS

2011-09-16 Thread EN Wikizine

**
Wikizine.org's
___ _ _
   /___\ _ __  (_) _ __  (_)  ___   _ __
  //  //| '_ \ | || '_ \ | | / _ \ | '_ \
/ \_// | |_) || || | | || || (_) || | | |
\___/  | .__/ |_||_| |_||_| \___/ |_| |_|
|_|

Year: 2011  Week: 38  Number: 128 BIS

**

An independent internal news bulletin
for the members of the Wikimedia community

//

=== Wikizine needs YOU! ===

Wikipedia has already changed the world. Wikimedia movement is at the  
beginning of that task. To push the movement into that direction,  
Wikizine needs your '''bold''' ideas and personal perspectives! Send  
your ideas to us or simply add them into the appropriate section. What  
YOU think can change the world!

[Name] - Working title of this edition is Wikizine Talk Edition  
because we didn't have better idea. Send us suggestions for the name!

=== Contents ===

Editorial
Personal perspective
In the news
 From Wikipedia

=== Editorial by Milos ===

As you could read in Wikizine 127 [1], I took initiative and began a  
Wikizine revival. You may notice some changes and I can say that there  
will be more changes, as such changes keep all of us alive.

Editorial is one of those changes and it will have two main parts: (1)  
presentation of one of the Wikizine feature and (2) analysis of the  
most important event from the previous week or two. Opinion or Talk  
Edition of Wikizine will be published on Friday and ?previous week?  
means approximately Friday-Thursday time frame.

Last week had begun with such intensity, I thought I could close this  
edition by Monday.

[1] http://en.wikizine.org/2011/09/year-2011-week-36-number-126.html

 (Un)acceptible Foundation influence on chapters 

On August 27th, almost 20 days before the conclusion of this edition,  
CasteloBranco, a member of the initiative for Wikimedia Brazil, sent  
an email to foundation-l [1] with the description of agreement inside  
of Brazilian Wikimedian community about chapter creation. That was the  
main obstacle toward formalizing the chapter, as Brazilian Wikimedians  
didn?t feel comfortable with the idea of having a formal organization.

That day five more Wikimedians discussed the outlines of this  
agreement on foundation-l, including a note from Ray Saintonge that  
it?s not the best idea to have a Wikimedia Foundation appointee in  
chapter?s Board (as suggested by WM Brazil?s agreement).

For five days discussion was dead, when Jimmy Wales said that having a  
WMF appointee is, actually, a good idea. That sparked long discussions  
on both foundation-l and internal-l (the latter one is a non-public  
list of the core of Wikimedia movement). A number of chapters  
representatives felt offended by the idea of having a WMF appointee on  
their boards.

[1] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/246958

 Image filter retrospective (from spring 2008 to early 2011) 

For those who have forgotten what?s behind the image filter  
?referendum?, here is a retrospective.

The initial point of the drama started on 7 May 2008 [4]. Because of  
religion, of course. US-based ?social conservative? site WorldNetDaily  
reported Wikipedia [5] because of the cover art for the Scorpions?  
album Virgin Killer [6]. According to Concerned Women of America,  
another ?social conservative? group, ?Wikipedia is helping to further  
facilitate perversion and pedophilia.?

On 5 December 2008, in the moment of madness, worthy of the best of  
surreal poetry, Internet Watch Foundaiton (IWF) [7], the association  
of UK internet providers, listed Wikipedia as a child pornography site  
[8] because of the same album cover [6]. It seems that IWF needed just  
four days to find someone who knows what Wikipedia is. IWF reversed  
their blacklisting on 9 December.

In a moment of desperate need for self-promotion, Larry Sanger [9],  
known because he didn?t believe that his project (Wikipedia, for which  
has sometimes been described as a co-founder), would succeed and not  
so known because of a number of failed projects, reported Wikipedia to  
the FBI [10] on 10 April 2010 because, of course, ?child pornography?.

Just a short 17 days later, Fox News discovered the hot news and  
published it [11] in a well known form of spreading FUD to everything  
which doesn?t fit to their retarded worldview.

The action of the IWF prompted discussions on Wikimedia Commons in  
2008. However, just after the Commons community declined to change  
well defined policy toward images, which are handled based on their  
quality, not the biased opinion on content, on May 6th, 2010 Jimmy  
Wales started to delete not just poor quality Second Life animated  
pornography, but artworks, as well. That sparked a huge revolt among  
editors [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. At the other side, the  
action was praised by Fox News, of course [21].

Between May

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 20:17, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:01:04PM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
 It's not so hard to guess if you followed them for some time:
 * Ting: ambivalent; would be much more happy without the whole drama
 * Jan-Bart: not his business, will support whatever others support
 * Phoebe: in favor
 * Stu: not his business, will support whatever others support
 * Bishakha: slightly in favor tactically, but very hesitant to do
 anything against community will
 * Matt: doesn't know what's going on as he doesn't read Board's
 emails; will support whatever others support, but after phone call
 * Sj: would close one's eye to image filter, but against imposing it
 against community's will
 * Arne: would close one's eye to image filter if it doesn't affect
 German Wikipedia (as German Wikipedia rejected it)
 * Jimmy: in favor
 * Kat: would close one's eye to image filter, but against imposing it
 against community's will

 You're better than I am! I only got Phoebe, Sj, Kat, and Jimmy.
 How'd you get the rest?

I am telepath and distance is not a problem for me :)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Tobias Oelgarte 
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:

 I would not have any problems if we would not play in the hands of
 censors (local ISPs, a simple proxy, regimes, institutions, ...) by
 actually labeling content as objectionable. Which gives away the control
 over the content by the user itself, while no one would invest the money
 if he would need to label the content itself.


So how do you expect those censors to use this?


  How would you expect to find a good compromise in decisions on what to
  filter and what not? Do you intend to put an extremist conservative Arab
  and and the most liberal German inside the same room, close the door, go
  away, come back after two weeks and look if they could find a compromise
  about Yes or No? How should this work?
 
  Quite simple: add one filter for each, and describe for each what they
  filter, then let every user for themself decide whether to filter the
 one,
  the other, neither or both.
 You should know that there are hundreds of phobias, cultural conflicts
 and other categories of possibly objectionable content. Do you expect us
 to manage all this categories of filtering, or would you say that it
 will be narrowed down to be user friendly and manageable, while leaving
 out some categories and ignore the complies of some minorities?
 
  The referendum showed that cultural neutrality is important for the
  voters. But how do you think to find a compromise between hell and
  heaven, without having hell and heaven inside the discussions at commons
  at earth?
 
  See above - if your filters are not almost the same, don't use the same
  filter, but create two different ones.
 

 See above at my comment. Maybe we should put this questioning together
 as one fact.

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




-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

Am 16.09.2011 21:01, schrieb Milos Rancic:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 19:56, Tobias Oelgarte
 tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  wrote:
 Am 16.09.2011 19:13, schrieb Milos Rancic:
 You would have to proof that your facts are indeed true. But if you
 accept it as a huge difference between cultures, how can you impose a
 filter for a culture that doesn't need it or wants it?
 Differences between cultures are not so relevant if we are talking
 about Wiki[pm]edians. Similar results could be expected everywhere. I
 mean, you won't find that one large enough project shows strong
 cultural differences in comparison to another. Wikipedian/Wikimedian
 culture doesn't necessarily connect people (although it does), but it
 creates common set of values. While communities could differ, the
 reasons behind the difference are the same, but from different POV.

This would imply that the referendum indeed asked the wrong questions. 
If all would have equal values, then i must wonder about the strong 
difference in result. We have a referendum which points out that many 
are in favor of this feature (important) and we have a Meinungsbild at 
the German Wikipedia closed with 86% against the filter. This is a huge 
difference. If it is not based on the fact that cultures are so 
different, what would be the reason? The questions and the interpretation?

One of the aspects why I'm so interested in per project raw data and 
overall participation (number of votes per project).
 How would you expect to find a good compromise in decisions on what to
 filter and what not? Do you intend to put an extremist conservative Arab
 and and the most liberal German inside the same room, close the door, go
 away, come back after two weeks and look if they could find a compromise
 about Yes or No? How should this work?
 Extremist conservative Arab is not likely a Wikipedian. Pan-Arabist
 yes, but extremist conservative not. Besides that, there is no
 difference between extremist conservative German and extremist
 conservative Arab, although the first is more likely Wikipedian than
 the second. The main reason for the filter are extremist conservative
 Americans, although majority of Americans share libertarian ideas.

 But I agree with you in the sense that more permissive cultures
 shouldn't suffer because of less permissive cultures. But, again, the
 problem is that the Wikimedian culture is dominantly permissive, which
 is the main problem with the referendum.

It was just an example (a literal allegation). The current proposal (as 
represented in side the referendum) did not assume any cultural 
difference. My thoughts on this is, how we want to create filter 
categories which are cultural neutral. One common (easy to describe) 
example is nudity. What will be considered nude by an catholic priest 
and an common atheist, both from Germany. Will they come to the same 
conclusion if they look an swimsuits? I guess we can assume that they 
would have different opinions and a need for discussion.

Would we need this discussion until now and for all images?  No we did 
not. We discussed about the articles and would be a good illustration 
for the subject. But now we don't talk about if something is good 
illustration. We talk about if it is objectionable by someone else. We 
judge for others what they would see as objectionable. That is 
inherently against the rule of NPOV. That isn't our job as an 
encyclopedia. We present the facts in neutral attitude toward the topic. 
We state the arguments of both or multiple sides. A filter only knows a 
yes or no to this question. We make a final decision what people don't 
want to see. That is not our job!
 * It's likely that staff and Board already know that correlation
 between the results of German Wikipedia referendum and global survey
 could be drawn to support previous two conclusions. Thus, they don't
 want to publish that part of data.
 I doubt that. But if they do, I will call them assholes for betrayal.
 Just to make it clear. It would also not suite the story onto who has
 access to the data and who has not.
 That's not betrayal, but fear. By now, they simply don't know what to
 do because they think that all options are bad. But, that's their
 problem. I would lie if I'd say that I don't enjoy it.
I would also need to lie, but some progress would be nice. We already 
represented different alternative models to Ting at Nürnberg WikiCon 
2011. So far his reaction described exactly what you think. They don't 
know what to do in the current situation. What we could do (i might not 
speak for all German users, but for many) is to implement a very 
simplified approach. A simple button to hide all images or no image.  If 
you think you might read about a topic that could be controversial, you 
could enable this function and display images which you are sure about 
to be not offended. You could represent articles to your children, 
without the fear that some image might slip through the filter.

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

Sorry, I dropped some hot food on me as I wrote this, and then apparently
accidentily hit sent.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Tobias Oelgarte 
 tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:

 I would not have any problems if we would not play in the hands of
 censors (local ISPs, a simple proxy, regimes, institutions, ...) by
 actually labeling content as objectionable. Which gives away the control
 over the content by the user itself, while no one would invest the money
 if he would need to label the content itself.


 So how do you expect those censors to use this?


 You should know that there are hundreds of phobias, cultural conflicts
 and other categories of possibly objectionable content. Do you expect us
 to manage all this categories of filtering, or would you say that it
 will be narrowed down to be user friendly and manageable, while leaving
 out some categories and ignore the complies of some minorities?


I'd say, drop the idea that the filter is supposed to be perfect. A filter
that is little-used can get a rough content first time around, preferably
specified by the person asking for the filter, then people using the filter
can suggest adding or removing images. Volunteers can go and work on the
filters if they want, but if they don't, the filter will just be changed by
such suggestions.

Then again, there is the alternative of only including filters with at least
a certain amount of expected usage. I see no problem with not having a
filter for everyone who asks for it. I don't think that doing things
perfectly and not doing them at all are the only options.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

Am 16.09.2011 21:57, schrieb Andre Engels:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
 tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  wrote:

 I would not have any problems if we would not play in the hands of
 censors (local ISPs, a simple proxy, regimes, institutions, ...) by
 actually labeling content as objectionable. Which gives away the control
 over the content by the user itself, while no one would invest the money
 if he would need to label the content itself.

 So how do you expect those censors to use this?
Just ask yourself what our Wikipedia interface would do. The server 
provide the images (HTML-Documents with img tag) along with labels. 
Depending on the settings of the user some kind of Javascript will hide 
the images. This passed along labels could simply be used to exclude 
the image as the whole, making the show image button disappear. Since 
Wikipedia serves more or less static pages, due to seriously needed 
caching, the labels will need to be passed that way.

Now you should think about topic and try to understand why this opens 
for a new kind of censorship. Blocking Wikipedia as a whole is a problem 
for most providers. This will cause users to change the provider or to 
insist to have access to it. This is a pressure put onto the access 
provider. The provider itself isn't able to filter the image or the 
content, since this is a lot of working time and time costs money. But 
if we choose to label the content for no fee, we open a new field for 
partial censorship. The users could still access it, but they won't see 
anything. In the result there would be some complaints. But way less 
complaints as if Wikipedia wasn't present at all.

A good compromise for a censor.
 How would you expect to find a good compromise in decisions on what to
 filter and what not? Do you intend to put an extremist conservative Arab
 and and the most liberal German inside the same room, close the door, go
 away, come back after two weeks and look if they could find a compromise
 about Yes or No? How should this work?

 Quite simple: add one filter for each, and describe for each what they
 filter, then let every user for themself decide whether to filter the
 one,
 the other, neither or both.
 You should know that there are hundreds of phobias, cultural conflicts
 and other categories of possibly objectionable content. Do you expect us
 to manage all this categories of filtering, or would you say that it
 will be narrowed down to be user friendly and manageable, while leaving
 out some categories and ignore the complies of some minorities?
 The referendum showed that cultural neutrality is important for the
 voters. But how do you think to find a compromise between hell and
 heaven, without having hell and heaven inside the discussions at commons
 at earth?

 See above - if your filters are not almost the same, don't use the same
 filter, but create two different ones.

 See above at my comment. Maybe we should put this questioning together
 as one fact.

 ___
 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] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter


 I'd say, drop the idea that the filter is supposed to be perfect. A filter
 that is little-used can get a rough content first time around, preferably
 specified by the person asking for the filter, then people using the filter
 can suggest adding or removing images. Volunteers can go and work on the
 filters if they want, but if they don't, the filter will just be changed by
 such suggestions.

 Then again, there is the alternative of only including filters with at least
 a certain amount of expected usage. I see no problem with not having a
 filter for everyone who asks for it. I don't think that doing things
 perfectly and not doing them at all are the only options.

I don't except it to work perfectly. Nothing is perfect by default. But 
even if it would perfectly we provide a simple tool (the filter 
labels/categories) to censors, to improve their doing, while we, the 
volunteers, would indirectly support them in doing so.

For example: The head of a group (state, religions group, ...) of people 
is trying to censor Wikipedia, because it might damage it's position. 
What would be easier to comply at the mailing list that a filter for xyz 
is seriously needed. Now he can start to add images to this filter, 
calling for volunteers that have to obey to do so. At the end we 
represent the opinion from the head of the group (not the individuals, 
that fear the head), publish it as consent and help them to justify 
their position.

What would someone living inside such a group think if the content is 
already labeled that way, that he should not look at it. Isn't it social 
pressure put on the free mind, especially if other members of the group 
are around?

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter