Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Hiya Bishakha On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: I have said, it is a matter of perspective how you view them. But if we go by the assumption that editorial judgement is a separate thing, whose job is it to exercise it? WMF has long held the position that the project are independent and it has not editorial control over what the community decides- this would not be the case if we consider the filter an editorial judgement. Keeping in mind the reaction that has been shown by different communities, would it mean, WMF would be exercising that control? using an already existing structure of categories created earlier, possibly by editors who don't agree with the filter, to implement the said editorial control? What about editorial independence[1]? Good point - I don't think WMF is trying to take editorial control. WMF is trying to develop a software feature. Yes, editorial independence is part of editorial judgement and editing. (Am at Seoul airport, not slept all night, so pardon my fuzziness). No, it is only being hidden. Not being hidden for everyone - you hide if you want, I don't if I don't want. Based on an arbitrary system of categories that can be exploited. Agree that there has been a good discussion on categorization, and the issues related to this, both on this list and on meta - and useful models proposed. Best Bishakha [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_independence ___ 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] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: If you want to make a valid counterargument, say that you are worried that some censorious ISPs and countries might use our category definitions as a starting point for a bolt-on censorship system that restricts access to these images. However, be clear that then it would be *them* who would be hiding our content, not us. The worst you can accuse us of is that we made it easier for them. That does worry me though. We'd still be in good company, as all other major websites, including Google, YouTube and Flickr, use equivalent systems, systems that are widely accepted. I thought youtube had community guidelines where users could report images they found offensive and those were removed from the site - although from these guidelines it is not clear how many users need to complain before something is taken down. 1? 10? 100? 1000? I can't link the guidelines, they're coming in Korean at Seoul airport, where I am. So I thought we were actually proposing something quite different from youtube, for instance. Cheers Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Answer: How do German women feel about the image filter?
FW-ing from Gender Gap ML (with the author permission.) _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.* -- Forwarded message -- From: Anneke Wolf anneke.w...@gmx.de Date: 30 September 2011 20:12 Subject: [Gendergap] Answer: How do German women feel about the image filter? Hello everybody, let me introduce myself to you. I'm a female editor and long time volunteer in the german wikipedia. To answer your question: I voted against the image filter and I didn't have a problem with the vulva picture on the front page (Ok, I saw better pictures on the front page over the years, but I was not shocked and did not think this was such a big thing). As far as I can overlook the recent discussions on the german wikipedia, the german blogosphere, facebook and a lot of personal talks I had to other female editors in the last weeks most of them thinks exactly the same. Why that? I don't know. Maybe because filters aren't very popular in germany at all, maybe it's because we have state schools with a curriculum in sexual education and you can see those pictures in your school books. Maybe that wasn't the answer you expected but I had the feeling I had to answer to this. Kind regards Anneke (Kellerkind) P.S. And, no, I'm not to shy to post on foundation-l but I'm not interested in subscribing _to_much_ mailinglists, so I'm happy to read the web-archives (And I will do exactly the same with this list after this post). ___ Gendergap mailing list gender...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] (erratum) Re: We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 03:21:45AM +0200, Kim Bruning wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:47:43PM +0530, Bishakha Datta wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: ^- apologies for leaving this quote-line in. I was replying to a quote by Bishaka Datta. The MUA generated indent and In-Reply-To (threading) headers are correct, so many MUA's show me as replying to Bishaka. (including mine) so I didn't notice I'd missed a line. sincerely, Kim Bruning -- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
Claiming copyright for religious works in use works also defense for possible alteration the original publisher or editor may regard as heretical. The similar happens in academia too. I know a certain online text database based on a scanned PD works, but the publisher (a certain academic society) denied even to put online publicly, they claimed otherwise the data would be erroneously changed, we'll send a set of disks upon request for free, so everyone who needs can get the data. It's the best way for our interest to keep the criticized text in an appropriate level, avoid any corruption. There' a lot of this kind anecdotes, I guess? Be relaxed, you have not to be so hostile, Emijrp. While we don't agree with them in this point (firmly), we can still be polite and they wouldn't disagree we share an ultimate goal to let the world share the knowledge. As Liam suggested. On the other hand we should understand they have their own revenue system - their own ecosystem which has been built perhaps for centuries, so that we should have them understand we don't want them to survive by exploring free access and rather we would like them to cooperate and cohabit. It'll sure take a time, but I hope we go forward our mission without being unnecessarily aggressive. Cheers, On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:42 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel Museum. Congratulations. If the Dead Sea Scrolls were divinely inspired, like other Biblical texts, then there is an argument that the author is still alive ;-) (c) God, 2011 ;-) Are there any jurisdictions where a religious texts have been refused a copyright for reason of being divine? There are a few legal cases about copyright of religious texts where the copyright has been given to the 'medium' / 'channeler'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_on_religious_works And there is the crown hold copyright on KJV, in perpetuity. As commentary, I'd like to add they put the Book of Common Prayer under the crown hold copyright too, but also they haven't done so on drafts, so that ongoing drat of BCP has been freely circulated and could be discussed. -- John Vandenberg ___ 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] Dead Sea Scrolls
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva tolkiend...@gmail.com wrote: In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US. Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US. Well, for one thing, they could sue reusers. WMF using the work is one thing. WMF telling the rest of the world that the work is public domain and anyone can use it for any purpose without permission, is another. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
Andreas Kolbe wrote: We'd still be in good company, as all other major websites, including Google, YouTube and Flickr, use equivalent systems, systems that are widely accepted. I'm going to simply copy and paste one of my earlier replies (from a different thread): Websites like Flickr (an example commonly cited) are commercial endeavors whose decisions are based on profitability, not an obligation to maintain neutrality (a core element of most WMF projects). These services can cater to the revenue-driving majorities (with geographic segregation, if need be) and ignore minorities whose beliefs fall outside the mainstream for a given country. We mustn't do that. One of the main issues regarding the proposed system is the need to determine which image types to label potentially objectionable and place under the limited number of optional filters. Due to cultural bias, some people (including a segment of voters in the referendum, some of whom commented on its various talk pages) believe that this is as simple as creating a few categories along the lines of nudity, sex, violence and gore (defined and populated in accordance with arbitrary standards). For a website like Flickr, that probably works fairly well; a majority of users will be satisfied, with the rest too fragmented to be accommodated in a cost-effective manner. Revenues are maximized. Mission accomplished. The WMF projects' missions are dramatically different. For most, neutrality is a nonnegotiable principle. To provide an optional filter for image type x and not image type y is to formally validate the former objection and not the latter. That's unacceptable. An alternative implementation, endorsed by WMF trustee Samuel Klein, is discussed here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Categories#general_image_filter_vs._category_system or http://goo.gl/t6ly5 If I google for images of cream pies in my office in the lunch break, because I want to bake one, I'm quite happy not to have dozens of images of sperm-oozing rectums and vaginas pop up on my screen. Thanks, Google. Are you suggesting that a comparable situation is likely to arise at a WMF website? David Levy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls - if someone was to sue our reusers
If the Museum of Israel or indeed anyone else was to sue someone reusing data from a Wikimedia project, then obviously one would hope that the result would endorse the community's view as to the copyright status of that data. If a certain British art gallery told us they'd just discovered that one of their Rembrandts was a Keating; Or if God turns up in Court, proves that he or she is the author and insists on an incompatible copyright, (CC-by-nc-nd if my limited knowledge of western monotheistic religions is correct). Then I would hope we would treat the incident in the same way as any other Goodfaith copyvio, and it would certainly give wikinews a unique perspective if they were to cover the story primarily as a copyright issue. If a non US court or legislature decided to take a more restrictive stance than US law then I suppose we'd have to add another clause to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Art There are already ones in there for Mexico, Samoa, Côte d'Ivoire and a few others. WereSpielChequers -- Message: 9 Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:36:43 -0400 From: Anthony wikim...@inbox.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Board list for Wikimedia Israel wikimediail-bo...@lists.wikimedia.org,Shani * shani.e...@gmail.com, talmory...@gmail.com Message-ID: CAPreJLT7eV=UQvNU=nxmlrc8ecer4irv_n4lyr4mrz-kdjm...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva tolkiend...@gmail.com wrote: In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US. Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US. Well, for one thing, they could sue reusers. WMF using the work is one thing. WMF telling the rest of the world that the work is public domain and anyone can use it for any purpose without permission, is another. -- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter
On 09/21/2011 03:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: * Create en.safe.wikipedia.org […] Then governments/ISPs/institutions could block unsafe-Wikipedia via DNS blocks. This is, compared to DPI, quite easy. Using en.wikipedia.org/safe/ might resolve this issue. * Create safe.wikimedia.org. That would be the site for censoring/categorizing Commons images. It shouldn't be Commons itself, but its virtual fork. The fork would be consisted of hashes of image names with images themselves. Thus, image on Commons with the name Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg would be fd37dae713526ee2da82f5a6cf6431de.jpg on safe.wikimedia.org. The image preview located on upload.wikimedia.org with the name thumb/8/80/Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg/800px-Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg; it would be translated as thumb/a1f3216e3344ea115bcac778937947f1.jpg on safe.wikimedia.org. (Note: md5 is not likely to be the best hashing system; some other algorithm could be deployed.) You're counting on there being too many hashes to go through, which is correct. But there are far fewer images to go through. You'd only have to create a list of all hashes of all 11 million or so images on Commons and compare that list to the list of unsafe images on safe.wikimedia.org. Which is not easy (if you have to download all the files, i.e. if the files themselves are used for hashing, not only the file name), but arguably doable. So, in effect, I don't think your proposal properly achieves what it tries to accomplish. (Sorry if I misunderstood your proposal) -- Tobias signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
David, You say that these organisations do what they do to maximise their profits. I would counter that they maximise their profits by serving their customers as well as they can do. Serving customers well is something that we should aspire to as well, regardless of whether our customers are paying us or not. We are providing a service; it is a well-established adage of quality management that the quality of a service is defined by the customer, not the provider. Providers who insist that they know better than the customer population go out of business. You'll probably say now that no one surveyed the customer population, and I would agree with you -- as far as I am concerned, the referendum should have targeted readers. But going by what commercial companies do is not a bad method to gauge customer preferences. While we're not out of pocket if we fail to respond to customer wishes, these companies are, and they do and pay for research to prevent that. As for your question about the creampie example, some Wikipedians have said they might use the image filter at work, just so they don't have explicit images popping up on screen. Speaking for myself, my wife and son do sometimes give me a funny look when they walk past me and I'm on some page with in-your-face explicit media content, like the creampie article -- the point is I'm not on there to look at the juvenile and embarrassing picture on that page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act) ), but to sort out some issue with the text. Yet that is not apparent to someone walking past you. I might well use the image filter, just to stop freaking out my son when he comes out of the kitchen. Andreas --- On Sat, 1/10/11, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: From: David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, 1 October, 2011, 13:42 Andreas Kolbe wrote: We'd still be in good company, as all other major websites, including Google, YouTube and Flickr, use equivalent systems, systems that are widely accepted. I'm going to simply copy and paste one of my earlier replies (from a different thread): Websites like Flickr (an example commonly cited) are commercial endeavors whose decisions are based on profitability, not an obligation to maintain neutrality (a core element of most WMF projects). These services can cater to the revenue-driving majorities (with geographic segregation, if need be) and ignore minorities whose beliefs fall outside the mainstream for a given country. We mustn't do that. One of the main issues regarding the proposed system is the need to determine which image types to label potentially objectionable and place under the limited number of optional filters. Due to cultural bias, some people (including a segment of voters in the referendum, some of whom commented on its various talk pages) believe that this is as simple as creating a few categories along the lines of nudity, sex, violence and gore (defined and populated in accordance with arbitrary standards). For a website like Flickr, that probably works fairly well; a majority of users will be satisfied, with the rest too fragmented to be accommodated in a cost-effective manner. Revenues are maximized. Mission accomplished. The WMF projects' missions are dramatically different. For most, neutrality is a nonnegotiable principle. To provide an optional filter for image type x and not image type y is to formally validate the former objection and not the latter. That's unacceptable. An alternative implementation, endorsed by WMF trustee Samuel Klein, is discussed here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Categories#general_image_filter_vs._category_system or http://goo.gl/t6ly5 If I google for images of cream pies in my office in the lunch break, because I want to bake one, I'm quite happy not to have dozens of images of sperm-oozing rectums and vaginas pop up on my screen. Thanks, Google. Are you suggesting that a comparable situation is likely to arise at a WMF website? David Levy ___ 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] Experiment: Blurring all images on Wikipedia
Hi Björn, excellent! We need experiements and creative ideas. On 10/01/2011 02:46 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: This only works in recent desktop versions of Opera and Firefox and only on devices where you can easily hover. How good are chances it can be implemented in a feasible way for other browsers? Regards, Tobias ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
David Gerard wrote: On 30 September 2011 13:40, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: First attempt at labeling content was made by Uwe Kils, and his class of students collectively logging as Vikings or something of the sort tagged content not suitable for teenst. Jimbo banned them, but an accomodation was made wherein they promised to not continue tagging articles. Then we had Toby . Again, by acclamation, that was squashed. It was too ridiculous for words. Dates for all of these will be useful for the timeline. I'm not thrilled with the current page title, but it's a start: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content_timeline. I'd forgotten all about Toby. That was largely a joke, wasn't it? MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
MZMcBride wrote: I'd forgotten all about Toby. That was largely a joke, wasn't it? Do not try to define Toby. Toby might be a joke or he might be serious. Toby might be watching over us right now or he might be a bowl of porridge. Toby might be windmills or he might be giants. Don't fight about Toby. Let Toby be there. Toby loves us. Toby hates us. Toby always wins. David Levy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
David Levy wrote: MZMcBride wrote: I'd forgotten all about Toby. That was largely a joke, wasn't it? Do not try to define Toby. Toby might be a joke or he might be serious. Toby might be watching over us right now or he might be a bowl of porridge. Toby might be windmills or he might be giants. Don't fight about Toby. Let Toby be there. Toby loves us. Toby hates us. Toby always wins. David Levy Toby or not Toby? Is that the question? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 17:18, church.of.emacs.ml church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com wrote: On 09/21/2011 03:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: * Create en.safe.wikipedia.org […] Then governments/ISPs/institutions could block unsafe-Wikipedia via DNS blocks. This is, compared to DPI, quite easy. Using en.wikipedia.org/safe/ might resolve this issue. Governments about which we are talking have methods to filter particular images, not just domain names. But, I am fine with .../safe/ as an option. The other issue is that those who want to censor actually want to block non-censored access. If so, let's them give that, but not on the main site, so they could actually block en.wikipedia.org if they are so insane. Bottom line is to protect more permissive cultures. If some group really wants to have Wikipedia censored and it's so powerful to push WMF Board to do something beyond reasonable involvement in content issues, sexual education of their children is around the bottom of my concerns. You're counting on there being too many hashes to go through, which is correct. But there are far fewer images to go through. You'd only have to create a list of all hashes of all 11 million or so images on Commons and compare that list to the list of unsafe images on safe.wikimedia.org. Which is not easy (if you have to download all the files, i.e. if the files themselves are used for hashing, not only the file name), but arguably doable. So, in effect, I don't think your proposal properly achieves what it tries to accomplish. (Sorry if I misunderstood your proposal) I am not sure what do you object at the end. If you have better technical idea or have an idea for better design, I am fine with it as long as it doesn't affect the main site. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Experiment: Blurring all images on Wikipedia
* church.of.emacs.ml wrote: On 10/01/2011 02:46 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: This only works in recent desktop versions of Opera and Firefox and only on devices where you can easily hover. How good are chances it can be implemented in a feasible way for other browsers? Webkit-derived browsers support the blurring but do not seem to support removing the filter via :hover so that would need some mouseover script to compensate which is easy, for Internet Explorer the proprietary CSS filter extensions would have to be used probably in combination with the mouseover scripting needed for Webkit, so for the mainstream browsers on the desktop I'd say give it two hours. The minimum you need to blur on the client side is scripting, access to image data (likely via canvas) and a way to render in-memory image data (likely via data:image/png,), below that you would some fallback, like showing a single-color image as temporary replacement instead of the blurred images. So, quite good. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)
On 09/30/11 3:34 AM, Lodewijk wrote: One final remark: I couldn't help but laugh a little when I read somewhere that we are the experts, and we are making decisions for our readers - and that these readers should have to take that whole complete story, because what else is the use of having these experts sit together. (probably I interpreted this with my own thoughts) And I was always thinking that Wikipedia was about masses participating in their own way - why do we trust people to 'ruin' an article for others, but not just for themselves? It's always dangerous to believe one is an expert, and worse to proclaim that view. It's even a bit arrogant. How did we get there? Mass participation and crowd sourcing are not about becoming or being experts. The content stands for itself. This is not to say that these processes are without fault, nor that at times they can't go terribly wrong. In the larger context the contents are still pretty good, and in some areas more comprehensive than what can be found elsewhere. Wikipedia's sense of inferiority with its passion to be broadly accepted by the educational community, to be more legal than God and to be so protective of brand and reputation projects the image of a neurotic character better than Woody Allen could ever portray. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
On 09/30/11 9:41 AM, Theo10011 wrote: I have never said, *ever*, led on I don't think girls should not be educated about sexuality. I also grew up in a time when I had to find sexual content by way of a pile of Playboys in my cousins bathroom, watching MTV, and stealing my sisters copy of Madonna's SEX. Knowing how I was as a child (and I had a computer when I was 11, in my bedroom), I wouldn't be looking on Wikipedia to learn about sex. I'd be looking for some juicy image and videos and frankly you can't find that on Wikipedia (because we all know that Commons porn is really bad quality). Now, please inform me, if you would want the kids today or a younger version of yourself to learn about sexual content from Playboys or Madonna's SEX (both are pretty antiquated today) or an Encyclopedia? you know where you and half the people here edit. It might have a couple of graphic images of body parts we all have but it has a other things to like important information, text, statistics, some even consider that educational. Now I don't know how playboy or Madonna's SEX are looked at by feminists, but I would always prefer an encyclopedia over it (even with an in your face picture of a human anatomical part). So I agree, Madonna may be a little antiquated. Lady Gaga represents a more contemporary picture. Playboy has given way to far more explicit material on porn sites. Dead tree media like Playboy and Britannica are facing similar challenges in their respective audiences. Encyclopedic sex seems a little nerdy, and if you depend entirely on that your sex life must be damned boring. Adolescents will look at these words for a giggle, the same reason that they look in a dictionary to see if fuck is in there. They don't look in the dictionary to find its meaning; they already know that. The sexual revolution is not just about feminism. That movement has helped to propel it forward, but sometimes I think that it has also contributed to obscuring the bigger picture... particularly when it incorporates winning, a feature of the masculine world, into its policies. Few of us, male or female, do well when it comes to living with paradox. The LGBT movement has helped. It has helped to dispel the absolute polarity that has excluded the middle from the gender gap. There's a lot of variety in that gap. Editorial judgement is about sensitivities. There is a role for penis pictures, but once you see too many of them they all become pricks. I'm not wise enough to know when that line is crossed. Are any of us? Sorry, but I have been warned twice that a glass of wine has been poured for me. I'll nee to come back to my literary flight at a later time. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: (not responding to anyone in particular) I'm one of the people who tried to participate in the discussion without taking a strong standpoint (intentionally - because I'm quite nuanced on the issue, and open for good arguments of either side) and I have to fully agree with Ryan. I have yet been unable to participate in this discussion without either being ignored fully (nothing new to that, I agree) or being put in the opposite camp. I basically gave up. Yeah, tell me about it. I've commented a couple times in public and in private to no avail, since I don't want to talk about what they want to focus on. Post a link to a blog, and the thread has 95 replies. Go figure. So I do have to say that I agree with the sentiment that the discussion is not very inviting, and is actually discouraging people who want to find a solution in the middle to participate... ...Hoping for a constructive discussion and more data on what our 'readers' actually want and/or need... Lodewijk I agree. No dia 30 de Setembro de 2011 11:40, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com escreveu: *Now, it's completely fair to say that the filter issue remains the elephant in the room until it's resolved what will actually be implemented and how. * You forgot the *IF*: IF the elephant will be or not implemented. Wrong thread, but there is no if. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
