Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Ray Saintonge 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. -- 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 09/15/11 11:51 PM, Andre Engels wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Ray Saintonge 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, Sarah wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 14:28, Theo10011 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
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:08, Tobias Oelgarte 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
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
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
On 16 September 2011 09:40, Peter Gervai wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:08, Tobias Oelgarte > 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
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:23, David Gerard 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
On 16 September 2011 10:27, Peter Gervai wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:23, David Gerard 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
On 16 September 2011 11:23, David Gerard wrote: > On 16 September 2011 09:40, Peter Gervai wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:08, Tobias Oelgarte > > 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 > 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
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:31, David Gerard wrote: > On 16 September 2011 10:27, Peter Gervai wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:23, David Gerard 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. ___ 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. > > 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 12:15, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > 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 ___ 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: > Even simple majority would be an awesome result.:-) True. But not even that can be assumed from the referendum because it never asked whether or not the feature should be introduced in the first place. 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
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_Knox&oldid=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 Oelgarte > 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
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 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_Knox&oldid=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 Oelgarte > >> 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
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
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
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, emijrp 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
2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgarte > 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
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_Knox&oldid=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 Oelgarte > >> 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
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
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 : > 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_Knox&oldid=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 Oelgarte >> >>> 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
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 Liesel: >> 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_Knox&oldid=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 Oelgarte >>> 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 Oelgarte > >> 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 wrote: > Am 16.09.2011 12:42, schrieb Milos Rancic: >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:39, emijrp 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
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 : >> 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_Knox&oldid=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 Oelgarte >>> 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
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 > 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 Liesel: > >> 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_Knox&oldid=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 Oelgarte > >>> > 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 > > Uns
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
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 : > 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 > >> 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 Liesel: >> >> 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_Knox&oldid=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 Oelgarte >> >>> >> 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 >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> _
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 Oelgarte > >> 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 Liesel: 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_Knox&oldid=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 Oelgarte > >> 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:
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
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 11:40 AM, Peter Gervai wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:08, Tobias Oelgarte > 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. > Not so, the resolution was to implement, not merely develope. -- -- 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
It means that the German Wikipedia has to respect DACH(German, Austria, Switzerland)-law as well as US-law. The first affects the authors directly. The second because the servers are hosted in US. If we don't comply with US-law the page might be taken down by US jurisdiction. It we don't comply with DACH-law we might be prosecuted by ourself. Thats why we have to respect both laws and thats also why Commons needs to comply to the law of any country that signed the previously linked treaties. Quite simple isn't it? But this has nothing to do with the original topic anymore. We talked about the fact, that a big majority of the German speaking contributers don't want that filter and how the WMF thinks to react onto this. Tobias Am 16.09.2011 13:28, schrieb 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: >> 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 >> >>> 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 Liesel: > 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_Knox&oldid=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 Oelgarte >> >>> 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 qu
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:22 PM, emijrp wrote: > By the way, not all German Wikipedians/readers are under German laws. Most are. And if German Wikipedia community believes that in order for de.wp to be more useful it should be made redistributable under the law of most German-speaking countries, that would be a reasonable choice for them. --vvv ___ 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 wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:50, Tobias Oelgarte > wrote: >> Am 16.09.2011 12:42, schrieb Milos Rancic: >>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:39, emijrp 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
2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgarte : > 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
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%AE&limit=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 foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
Am 16.09.2011 13:50, schrieb Strainu: > 2011/9/16 Tobias Oelgarte: >> 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 > I call this example "stupid", since it was constructed to make a point, even so it was lack of knowledge to propose it that way and it creates an awkward subtopic with no relation to the initial problem (see headline) whatsoever. This was the blatantly assumption/imputation that the image filter would be fine, since we already self censor ourself; which isn't true. We just respect the copyright law, to protect the readers/reusers. (Print a book with that image and publish it inside Germany. If noticed by the original author/photographer you might be in trouble). Tobias ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 16:46, Andrew Lih 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]] ___ 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
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:31 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 15 September 2011 23:22, Chris Keating wrote: > >> The judgement is a preliminary injunction prior to a hearing. Presumably the >> respondents will present a case at the hearing - do we know if they will >> present arguments that the CC-By-SA license is somehow unenforceable? >> However, the description of the injunction does suggest that the court would >> take some persuading that the plaintiff's rights have not been infringed > > > Note that Germany was the first country where the GPL was upheld in > court against an infringer. That combined with this suggests the court > system there is friendly to licenses meaning what they say. > Too bad Wikimedia TOS still labors under the misapprehension that the licence doesn't mean what it says. -- -- 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] CC by-sa upheld in Germany, over a Commons photo
OBJECTION! Not enough Phoenix Wright references! :p Indeed people often are discouraged from uploading images with a free license over fears of attribution. This is a nice step in the right direction. Congratulations! -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 22:18, David Gerard wrote: > http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/28644 > > FLAWLESS VICTORY! [*] > > > - d. > > > > [*] I expect Geni to be along in a moment picking holes in this statement. > > ___ > 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 13:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:50, Tobias Oelgarte >> wrote: >>> Am 16.09.2011 12:42, schrieb Milos Rancic: On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:39, emijrp 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
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 > 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%AE&limit=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'
Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 16:46, Andrew Lih 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:Contributions&offset=20010615133804&limit=500&target=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
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 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
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 15:07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 16:46, Andrew Lih 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... "not so, not so =" "You like Sanger" and "it should be forgot"? :P > 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. One thing is what he wanted, the other is what he did. He created the roots of Wikipedia, no matter if he preferred Nupedia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] "All human knowledge", by Jimmy Wales (?)
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. 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
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 13:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:50, Tobias Oelgarte >>> wrote: 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. So? What is your obsession with nudity about? The filter isn't about nudity. -- -- 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
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 wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:37 PM, emijrp wrote: > >> I agree with this analysis. >> >> 2011/9/13 >> >> > 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 r
Re: [Foundation-l] CC by-sa upheld in Germany, over a Commons photo
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > 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 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 wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 16:27, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > 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 wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 16:46, Andrew Lih 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 > roll back then. > > https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20010615133804&limit=500&target=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
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 > 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 > > > 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 artic
Re: [Foundation-l] "All human knowledge", by Jimmy Wales (?)
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 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
Am 16.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Milos Rancic: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 13:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:50, Tobias Oelgarte >>> wrote: Am 16.09.2011 12:42, schrieb Milos Rancic: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:39, emijrpwrote: >> 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. > 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. ___ 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
2011/9/16 M. Williamson : > 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 "" 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
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
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. ___ 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 16:47, schrieb Milos Rancic: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 16:27, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > 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. > You make really crucial mistakes in your argumentation. We have no legal problem to view the images. We have a legal problem to provide them. If you implement it as opt-out then you would rip off the rights of the readers. A complete fail. But again: We talk about the opt-in image filter feature and that the core of the second largest project isn't willed to accept it. ___ 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 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 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
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 > 2011/9/16 M. Williamson : > > 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 "" 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
On 16 September 2011 18:13, Milos Rancic 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 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
> 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
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. >> >> 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_Knox&oldid=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 Oelgarte >> >>> 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
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
Am 16.09.2011 19:54, schrieb 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 It's an secret poll, and as far only the summary of the questions (?-10) and a snapshot from the comments (not the comments itself) was released. Overall very unsufficient data. Thats why i requested the results by project and the overall distribution of participation. It is a database-querry that takes seconds/minutes (if your bad some hours) and still could ensure anonymity, as i explained at Phillipes discussion at Meta. [1] I made the same request at the discussion page of the "referendum" more then two weaks ago, to which Phillipe replied.[2] So after more then two weeks we still do not see any further results. Something that could make your nervous and very angry, if you consider the current situation. [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/Results/en#Results_by_project.3F ___ 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
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 wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 19:35, M. Williamson 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, Theo10011 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 (?)
> 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
You miss the point that German contributers are bound to German law. They have to play along the German- or DACH (German, Austria, Switzerland) law, if they don't want to be in personal trouble. Since we don't want the provider, the WMF, to be in trouble we also comply to US-law as well. Thats why we are bound to comply to both sets laws. For instance we can't rely on fair use, since there is no fair use in Germany. We have exceptions for press (we aren't) and for educational purpose (we might be, but not always). Additionally the project decided to enforce free content over content with very tight rational. Am 16.09.2011 20:04, schrieb 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. >>> >>> 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_Knox&oldid=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 Oelgarte >>> 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
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Tobias Oelgarte 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! -- phoebe ___ 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
Yes, and as was mentioned previously this should be a very easy query to run. People are wondering why the data isn't already available. 2011/9/16 phoebe ayers > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Tobias Oelgarte > 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! > > -- phoebe > > ___ > 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 16 September 2011 02:14, Fae wrote: > 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. Yikes, this is a very fast-moving thread. I haven't read it all yet, but I wanted to jump in and say that yes, there has not yet been an official statement responding to the referendum results. There will be, but there isn't yet. Currently, the referendum team is still doing some analysis of the results -- there are some questions we are hoping to get answered around language breakdown. And I am currently reading lots and lots of write-in comments. If I had to guess, I would image there will be a statement within about two weeks. But that's not a commitment, just an estimate. Thanks, Sue -- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation 415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ 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 Sep 16, 2011 7:39 PM, "phoebe ayers" wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Tobias Oelgarte > 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 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
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 19:56, Tobias Oelgarte 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. > 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'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. >> * 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? Image filter -- as designed for users -- is not a big deal. Thus, I don't have strong opinion toward the filter itself. Let them have it if they want that so much! But, not on the projects which don't want 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. 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 >> 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. True. But, they would be able to use it even it'd been implemented just on English Wikipedia, as it would point to the images at upload.wikimedia.org. Interesting... Anyway, that's to hard for me to think. Fortunately, I finished fourth on last election, so I don't have to think about it. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [Foundation-l] "All human knowledge", by Jimmy Wales (?)
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. 2011/9/16 Ziko van Dijk > 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. > > 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 > ___ 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 07:13:26PM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote: > 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. Thanks for throwing us en.wikipedians under the bus dude! ;-) Might be nice to wait with enwiki implementation too until we have something that we know will not have Evil Repercussions. Else we end up forking enwiki, if my spidey^Wwiki senses don't betray me. O:-) sincerly, Kim Bruning -- I won't shove Evil Images down your throat, if you don't shove Evil Cats down mine. :-) ___ 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 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
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] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
Am 16.09.2011 20:38, schrieb phoebe ayers: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Tobias Oelgarte > 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! > > -- phoebe > It took you three days to get out the first results, with most time spend in reading comments. Now i simply asked for a table from the database and it takes more then two weeks, while it could calm down the controversy about the poll and provide good arguments. The longer it takes the worser it gets. So you should hurry up on this simple matter. Just the raw data, a simple table Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Project (> 20 voters or "other") | date (no time) with random order of rows would satisfy. We can make the analysis alone based on this data, provide the plots and so on. What we don't want, is a final conclusion without the anonymous raw data. Tobias ___ 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 (?)
Don't worry emijrp, I guess no German may hit your idea - MySpace things may be unproblematic omitted in convention: For knowing mere facts, they don't use this word - it's Kennen or Kenntnis. Not Wissen. I'd like to add, while German is not my mother tongue, in the German language "Wissen" is not totally equal to English "knowledge". In German terminology this word has more systematic, scientific and metaphysical nuances. Much nearer to science in English - in German science is Wissenschaft, a derivation of "Wissen". Wissen has been historically a very rigid notion in German so that once it was argued soulless object (i.e. human) or a sum of certain facts could be included into "Wissen". For another example, Hegel even argued anatomy didn't worth to be called science (Wissenschaft) since it was a mere sum of empirical fact in Vorrede of Phaenomenologie des Geistes. MySpace things may be rejected by all German speakers with their version, I expect. On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 4:01 AM, emijrp 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. > > 2011/9/16 Ziko van Dijk > >> 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. >> >> 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 >> > ___ > 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] On Wikinews
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Andrea Zanni 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 (?)
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:01 PM, emijrp 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 Lih 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
** 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 Ma
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 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 > 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 m
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 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 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
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Tobias Oelgarte < tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 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? > There might be a difference because of the differences in voting requirements - those were very low for the 'referendum', so there would be a possibly large percentage of people who aren't hardcore Wikimedians, but people who are mostly readers and at most occasionally edit. On the other hand, this would also increase the chance of having sockpuppeting. Another reason could indeed be the questioning: Opponents of the plan could have not voted on the referendum because the whole issue seemed like it had been decided anyway. Then again, proponents might be less likely to vote in the German poll because it is non-anonymous in an environment which seemed opposed to their point of view. 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. > As said before, just get different categories, and let people choose among them. The priest could then choose to block "full nudity", "female toplessness", "people in underwear" and "people in swimwear", but not "images containing naked bellies" or "unveiled women", whereas the atheist could for example choose to only block "photographs of sexual organs" and watch the rest. > 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! > I find it strange that you consider this an objection to a filter. Surely, giving someone an imperfect choice of what they consider objectionable is _less_ making a decision for them than judging in advance that nothing is objectionable? > I don't know where you got this information. But I would not wonder if > it is as it is presented by you. At least in case of Ting and Jimbo you > should have right. I learned with the time about Jimbo, his attitude > towards topics and it's understanding. So i have no doubt that he would > trade intellectual freedom against some more donations. > How are we giving away intellectual freedom with this? > That is my personal main issue with the whole filter thing based on > arbitrary non-neutral labeling of content and POV as the measure for > judgment. > What is POV about labelling something as being an image containing a nude human or an illustration supposed to represent a religious figure? -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
