Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
On 09/30/11 11:15 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 19:59, Sue Gardnersgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: That's what I'm used to, as a Canadian -- it's normal for me to listen to minorities and find ways to incorporate their perspectives into mine. Most importantly, you are a manger :P The trough of civilization 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 10:59 AM, Sue Gardner wrote: On 30 September 2011 09:15, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Riskerrisker...@gmail.com wrote: Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from the US/not from the US. The implication of your post is if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid. I just want to point out quickly that I am not American, and my position on all these issues is actually a very Canadian one. Ray and Risker and other Canadians will recognize this. Canada doesn't really feel itself to have a fixed national identity. We makes jokes about the fact that that IS our identity -- that we are continually renegotiating and stretching the boundaries of what it means to be Canadian. We believe our culture is the aggregation and accumulation of all the views and experiences and attitudes of our citizenry. Each wave of immigration --the French and the British, the Chinese, the Italians, the Indians, the Jamaicans, and so forth-- has influenced what Canada is, and how it understands itself. That's what I'm used to, as a Canadian -- it's normal for me to listen to minorities and find ways to incorporate their perspectives into mine. The Canadian lack of identity is an important part of Canadian identity, and we have no difficulty laughing at it. The I am Canadian ad by Molsen's beer had a lot of Canadians saying, YES, that's it. William Shatner's description of Canadianism at the last Winter Olympics showed how much we can laugh at ourselves. An American talking that way about his country could risk a lynching. Many of us have embraced multiculturalism as essential element of building a mosaic; this is in great contrast to a melting pot that mixes scraps of paints of many colours into a single uniformally dull pallor. Listening to minorities is important. Incorporating their views avoids the Tyranny of which De Tocqueville so eloquently wrote. As Wikipedians we do not always do that well. If there is one mentality that must be abandoned on the road to enlightenment it is that of winners and losers. 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 Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:24, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The strongest argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project already somewhere. That argument is all too convenient. The WMF shouldn't do X because nobody else has successfully done X. And the only reason nobody else has done X successfully is because they don't *really* want it. (Not because they actually do want it but don't have the resources. Not because it is hard for an external body to do but might be easier for the WMF to do. No, those aren't possible at all.) A slight reductio ad absurdum of the argument: In 2001, Jimmy and Larry and Ben Kovitz are sitting around deciding whether to install wiki software. One of them remarks well, if someone really wanted a wiki-based encyclopedia, they would have done it already. Following this impeccable logic, they decide that it's probably not something anybody wants, and continue pressing on with Nupedia... -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
I was not aggresive, but sarcastic. But obviously, there are reasons for being furious. 2011/10/1 KIZU Naoko aph...@gmail.com 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 ___ 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 Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:24, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The strongest argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project already somewhere. That argument is all too convenient. The WMF shouldn't do X because nobody else has successfully done X. And the only reason nobody else has done X successfully is because they don't *really* want it. (Not because they actually do want it but don't have the resources. Not because it is hard for an external body to do but might be easier for the WMF to do. No, those aren't possible at all.) A slight reductio ad absurdum of the argument: In 2001, Jimmy and Larry and Ben Kovitz are sitting around deciding whether to install wiki software. One of them remarks well, if someone really wanted a wiki-based encyclopedia, they would have done it already. Following this impeccable logic, they decide that it's probably not something anybody wants, and continue pressing on with Nupedia... First, that is really not my argument. If anyone, I would attribute it to MzMcbride on an earlier post titled 'Personal image filter: leave it to third parties' [1]. I only subscribed to that outlook. There is also an argument to be had based on, Necessity being the mother of Invention. The fact is, a sanitized version of Wikipedia or in your analogy, X does exist [2], it is not successful or in high demand. You are trying to make his argument against innovation, I doubt that was the intention at all. I believe MzMcbride's point was along the lines that, Wikimedia should remain neutral in the matter. The content is available and could be filtered or forked by other parties/free market but Wikimedia itself should focus on gathering the sum of all human knowledge instead of the sum minus controversial content. In case we choose to call this filter 'editorial control' or 'editorial judgement' who should have the responsibility to enact and run it? WMF's long-standing position has been to only facilitate the community and not take any editorial control over the projects. If WMF enables the said-filter, the work done by the community before would be used to enact and run the filter through categories or some similar structure, a decision not agreed on by the community. Would it mean WMF will be taking an editorial or an authoritative position when it comes to content? Theo [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/068211.html [2]http://schools-wikipedia.org/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
Hoi, I am here in Los Angeles with Amir. We have discussed the dead sea scrolls extensively. We discussed transcription, fonts appropriate for such old texts. The use of the text. Do you believe that the suggestion for transcription was made by someone from the museum at Wikimania? That Amit is WMF Israel board ? That I am bored by the nonsence about all this ? If all the words written had an equivalent in the transcription, I would mind that it takes so few words to say sarcastic and furious.. can you not elaborate (and transcribe more) ? Thanks, GerardM 2011/10/2 emijrp emi...@gmail.com I was not aggresive, but sarcastic. But obviously, there are reasons for being furious. 2011/10/1 KIZU Naoko aph...@gmail.com 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 ___ 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
Tom Morris wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:24, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The strongest argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project already somewhere. That argument is all too convenient. The WMF shouldn't do X because nobody else has successfully done X. And the only reason nobody else has done X successfully is because they don't *really* want it. (Not because they actually do want it but don't have the resources. Not because it is hard for an external body to do but might be easier for the WMF to do. No, those aren't possible at all.) Can you explain how investing resources into an opt-in image filter is a good idea? What's the virtue of such a project? Does it serve Wikimedia's mission? Does diverting resources from other projects and activities in favor of this one do more harm than good? I think it makes more sense to focus on these questions, rather than inventing silly tales. MZMcBride ___ 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
+1 2011/9/21 Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com +1 _ *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.* On 21 September 2011 08:11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Fajro fai...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: Thoughts? I am against anything that validates the image filter. I still believe that the filter is against the mission of the foundation. -- Fajro +1 -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ 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
