Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising is for men

[Till Mletzko]

Hi,

thanks for raising up the female donor issue. Based on the outcome of
our survey we think that getting more female donors is a critical point
for the success of Wikimedia fundraising in the future (of course this
means only if we can raise the ratio of female donors while not lowering
the male ratio).

WMDE has included in its test analysis the women ration
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011/Local_testing/DE). We
are currently preparing some female appeals in order to find out if a
"female story/banner" has any effect on the donation outcome/gender ratio.

For this fundraiser we already raised the ratio to nearly 25 % compared
to 16 % last year. That´s good but it should be more.

Till


Am 29.11.2011 23:59, schrieb rupert THURNER:
> fyi, in switzerland there are 2 mio readers and below 1 donors ... this
> means more than 99% are not giving money.
> On Nov 29, 2011 11:21 PM, "emijrp"  wrote:
> 
>> 2011/11/29 Thomas Dalton 
>>
>>> On 29 November 2011 21:51, emijrp  wrote:
 Dear all;

 We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you
>>> heard
 about gender and fundraising? Some data from a 2010 study[1] and a 2011
 German study[2] (question 20th of 22). People have said that Wikipedia
>>> is a
 sexist place which excludes women to edit. Looks like women neither are
 interested on editing nor funding free knowledge.

 Is WMF working to increase female donors just like female editors?
>>>
>>> I think the first step would be to try and figure out if women are
>>> visiting the site and not donating or just not visiting at all.
>>>
>>>
>> So, the first step would be to try and figure out if women are visiting the
>> site and not editing or just not visiting at all, before saying nonsense
>> about sexism and Wikipedia community.
>>
>>
>>> You would also want to make sure there really is a significant
>>> imbalance and that it's not just that men are more likely to fill out
>>> the survey form.
>>>
>>>
>> That affects to all surveys, again.
>>
>> Looks like people only care about surveys which say what they want to read.
>>
>>
>>> ___
>>> 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


-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Till Mletzko
Fundraiser
-
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Eisenacher Straße 2
10777 Berlin

Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0
www.wikimedia.de

Helfen Sie mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes digitales
Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird.
Unterzeichnen Sie die Online-Petition unter
https://wke.wikimedia.de/wke/Main_Page!

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch freien Zugang zu der
Gesamtheit des Wissens der Menschheit hat. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

Gemeinnützige Wikimedia Fördergesellschaft mbH.
Eingetragen beim Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer
130183 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/603/54814.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising is for men

[Erik Moeller]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Nathan  wrote:

Hey Nathan,

a bit OT from the thread title, but just clarifying a couple of points:

> * The WMF spends over $2 million on fundraising alone

In FY 2010-11, WMF raised $23M in contributions, not counting $
restricted to future time periods. In the same time period, $2.142M
expenses were allocated to fundraising, including $556K in credit card
processing fees. [1][2] That's altogether less than 10 cents on the
dollar, which by the standards of charity watchdog organizations, is
qualified as an excellent fundraising efficiency (cf. [3][4]). This
includes very different types of fundraising activity (grant-writing
and grant management, donor cultivation, usability testing of credit
card forms, etc.).

> * The travel budget is nearly $2m (that's right, two million dollars
> in travel costs)

The 2011-12 travel budget is $1.742M [5]. A little bit of detail as to
how this breaks out is included in the Audited Financials FAQ [1], but
in a nutshell:

* WMF is a global organization and is doing work on the ground in many
corners of the world, in partnership with chapters where they exist,
and WMF staff routinely have to travel internationally as a normal
part of their day-to-day work;
* WMF sponsors volunteer travel extensively, for Wikimania, for
hackathons, for WMF site visits and meetings, and for many other
purposes;
* Many contractors work for WMF from all over the world, and it's part
of the cost of doing business in this way that you bring people
together for face-to-face meetings on a regular basis.

Travel is regulated by the WMF travel policy which ensures that
individual travel expenses are not excessive or profligate. [6]

> * The budget includes a whopping $14 million on staffing costs (at the
> planned 117 number of staff, that is nearly $120k per staff member)

The 2010-11 staffing budget is $13.3M. [5] Staffing costs include
payroll taxes, recruiting costs, and benefits, and of course pay bands
for different roles vary significantly, but are consistent with
similar non-profit organizations, i.e. below the market rate paid at
for-profit companies.

More background about the guiding principles of Wikimedia's
compensation practices can be found in [7].

> * The last fundraiser sent over $6 million to chapters, with little
> insight or transparency into how that money is spent

Chapters processing donations in the 2010 fundraiser were required, as
part of their participation, to commit to various obligations. See [8]
for the Wikimedia UK agreement as an example. Specifically with regard
to transparency, WMF, community, and chapters have worked together to
ensure that key information about chapter activities and financial
information can be easily found. [9]

At its July 2011 Board meeting, the WMF Board of Trustees agreed to a
letter regarding fundraising accountability [10] which further
emphasized principles of accountability, transparency, and fairness,
and led to shifting chapters increasingly towards applying for grants
to fund program work. Program plans both for chapters receiving grants
and processing payments through the fundraiser are shared and reviewed
publicly. [11]

> * The number of staff is planned to more than double between 2009-10
> and 2011-12, with almost 70% of that increase attributed to non-tech
> staff

The planned staffing increase from FY 2009 to FY 2012 is from 50 to
117 (+67). [12] In the same time period, tech staffing specifically is
projected to grow from 22 to 50 (+28). That's 41.8% of the increase,
not 30%. The tech share is higher in the current fiscal year, where it
accounts for 56% of the planned staffing growth.

Simply put, the Global Development and Community Department did not
exist and were newly created; WMF has decided to tackle new areas of
work that never happened before, as exemplified e.g. by the Summer of
Research, the Global Education Program, etc.

> And, let's be honest - aside from the $3m or so spent on hosting,

The costs that you find labeled "Internet hosting" in the Annual Plan
should never be confused with the cost of hosting Wikipedia. Those are
two very different numbers (and we should make this clearer in the
next plan). The "hosting cost" only covers bandwidth and operating
expenses for running our sever farms.

There's a separate cost center called "capital expenditures" which
covers actual hardware purchases ($2.6M budgeted in 2011-12). To
arrive at a meaningful "cost of hosting Wikipedia" (without any
software improvements) one would have to back out of that experimental
projects like Wikimedia Labs, but further add essential engineering
staffing and contractors.

> But the 11-12 plan called for the Visual Editor and
> Wikimedia Labs to go into initial production mode in December 2011 -
> which is in two days, without any recent announcements or updates
> about either improvement. (Labs closed beta has 13 users in its active
> list, defined as more than 1 edit in the last 30 days. Only 2 h

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:


> That is more or less a search and time issue. If you search for a
> cucumber and a sexual related image ranks first instead of an actual
> cucumber then it would be time to improve the search function. If we
> have not enough people categorizing images the right way, we might start
> to recruit more helpers.

Equally it is mildly amusing to get a picture of an actual gherkin, if one
uses the search term "London Gherkin". The age old answer to this
problem is to scroll down the search results. We didn't like it when
google was prejudicially priviledging other results above ones from
wikipedia (a practise they no longer adhere to). I don't see much of
a difference here.




-- 
--
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] Internet Workers of the World

[Kim Bruning]

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 12:53:14AM +0100, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 23:35, Fred Bauder  wrote:
> > https://www.facebook.com/pages/Internet-Workers-of-the-World/224417737626665?sk=wall
> >
> > Our union
> 
> I was thinking about party, but union is better :)


Ar?

Kim "Pieces of Eight" Bruning

-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2011 videos - mission complete!

[Kim Bruning]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 01:05:32AM +0100, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> Am 30.11.2011 00:04, schrieb Kim Bruning:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:48:24PM +0200, Itzik Edri wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> *I happy to announce that all the videos from Wikimania 2011 in Haifa are
> >> now available on our channel in YouTube!: 
> >> http://www.youtube.com/WikimediaIL
> >> .*
> > * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emli8S2_trs
> > * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c2Vb7CqTdc
> > * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iDMLkC_pRg
> >
> >
> > O:-)
> >
> > sincerely,
> > Kim Bruning

I was thinking a long sequence of victories. 

> That actually gave me a headache. But never mind.
> 
> * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8bODUWy3Ks
> 
> :-P

Revenge for the headache, I assume? :-P

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2011 videos - mission complete!

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 30.11.2011 00:04, schrieb Kim Bruning:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:48:24PM +0200, Itzik Edri wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> *I happy to announce that all the videos from Wikimania 2011 in Haifa are
>> now available on our channel in YouTube!: http://www.youtube.com/WikimediaIL
>> .*
> * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emli8S2_trs
> * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c2Vb7CqTdc
> * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iDMLkC_pRg
>
>
> O:-)
>
> sincerely,
>   Kim Bruning
That actually gave me a headache. But never mind.

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8bODUWy3Ks

:-P

nya~

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Kim Bruning]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:51:04AM +0100, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> If we are careful enough we might be able to recycle the hammer to 
> construct two or more small screwdrivers an argument against the image 
> filter that is read as this: "Put more effort inside ideas how to 
> improve search functionality and to help categorizing. It will actually 
> help everyone and would get clear referendum results." ;P

That's going in the right direction. And perhaps we can easily do more,
within the given constraints.
If so, there's no reason not to. :-)

sincerely,
Kim Bruning


-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2011 videos - mission complete!

[Kim Bruning]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:48:24PM +0200, Itzik Edri wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> *I happy to announce that all the videos from Wikimania 2011 in Haifa are
> now available on our channel in YouTube!: http://www.youtube.com/WikimediaIL
> .*

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emli8S2_trs
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c2Vb7CqTdc
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iDMLkC_pRg


O:-)

sincerely,
Kim Bruning
-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 29.11.2011 23:47, schrieb Kim Bruning:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 09:09:04AM +0100, M?ller, Carsten wrote:
>>> ... but -if we want to reach consensus[1]- what we really need to be
>>> discussing is: screwdrivers.
>>>
>>> sincerely,
>>> Kim Bruning
>>>
>> No, we need to harden the wall agaist all attacks by hammers, screwdrivers 
>> and drills.
>> We have consensus: Wikipedia should not be censored.
> Right, hammering ourselves on the thumb is a bad idea :-P
>
> However, there's nothing wrong with making sure that people
> don't get odd images when they don't expect it (something
> wikipedia is good at, but commons admittedly perhaps slightly
> less so). This is the screw.
That is more or less a search and time issue. If you search for a 
cucumber and a sexual related image ranks first instead of an actual 
cucumber then it would be time to improve the search function. If we 
have not enough people categorizing images the right way, we might start 
to recruit more helpers.

If we are careful enough we might be able to recycle the hammer to 
construct two or more small screwdrivers an argument against the image 
filter that is read as this: "Put more effort inside ideas how to 
improve search functionality and to help categorizing. It will actually 
help everyone and would get clear referendum results." ;P
> I don't think a filter (the hammer) will be very successful at
> doing so, because filters have simply never been very good at
> keeping away unexpected content, and can easily lead to
> censorship and other unwanted side effects (hitting ourselves
> on the thumb).  However, perhaps some other tool might be
> useful for fixing the screw. Some people have come up with some
> interesting proposals.
>
> But shouting at each other about filters is probably
> counter-productive at this point. ;-)
>
> sincerely,
>   Kim Bruning
>


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Kim Bruning]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:30:12PM +, Tom Morris wrote:
> I find it highly unconvincing and wrote an extended blog post on the
> topic a while back:
> http://blog.tommorris.org/post/11286767288/opt-in-image-filter-enabling-censorware

Yes, but that blog post attacks a straw man. The actual library argument is a 
bit different.
(Notably, you don't address the ALA's concepts of "prejudicial label" or 
"censorship tool")

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Kim Bruning]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 02:28:13PM +0100, Alasdair wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 13:42, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> 
> > With the tiny (actually big) problem that such lists are public and can be 
> > directly feed into the
> > filters of not so people loving or extremely caring ISP's.
> > 
> > 
> 
>  I think this is a point that I was missing about the objections to the 
> filter system.
> 
> So a big objection is that any "sets" of filters is not so much to the "weak" 
> filtering on wikipedia but
> that such "sets"  would enable other censors to more easily make a form of 
> "strong" censorship of
> wikipedia where some images were not available (at all) to readers - 
> regardless of whether or not they
> want to see them?

> I am not sure I agree with this concern as a practical matter but I can 
> understand it as a theoretical
> concern. 

This is an old objection, which diverse library organisations have been dealing 
with for at least half a century
in their practice. They call such sets of prejudicial labels "Censorship 
Tools", and are opposed to them.

eg.  
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=interpretations&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=8657

See elsewhere for further sources. (they get brought up regularly)

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising is for men

[Nathan]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:59 PM, rupert THURNER
 wrote:
> fyi, in switzerland there are 2 mio readers and below 1 donors ... this
> means more than 99% are not giving money.


Which is, in my opinion, fine. The Foundation receives a pretty large
amount of donated money, as non-profit organizations relying on
donations go. The ethos of the WMF implicitly accepts, even
encourages, the active use of WMF projects by people who could never
afford to donate. There are, additionally, some questions about the
way money is spent:

* The WMF spends over $2 million on fundraising alone
* The travel budget is nearly $2m (that's right, two million dollars
in travel costs)
* The budget includes a whopping $14 million on staffing costs (at the
planned 117 number of staff, that is nearly $120k per staff member)
* The last fundraiser sent over $6 million to chapters, with little
insight or transparency into how that money is spent
* The number of staff is planned to more than double between 2009-10
and 2011-12, with almost 70% of that increase attributed to non-tech
staff

And, let's be honest - aside from the $3m or so spent on hosting, it
can be difficult to make the argument to new donors that other
expenditures are bearing immediate fruit. Of course, many non-tech
programs can take a lot of time and money before they have a
measurable impact. But the 11-12 plan called for the Visual Editor and
Wikimedia Labs to go into initial production mode in December 2011 -
which is in two days, without any recent announcements or updates
about either improvement. (Labs closed beta has 13 users in its active
list, defined as more than 1 edit in the last 30 days. Only 2 have
more than 10 edits in that period.). All in all, that's a lot of money
for a set of results that have limited tangibility outside the WMF
itself.

So, the upshot is that the Foundation spends money like an
organization with a lot of money - and nowadays, that is exactly what
it is. That presents a less compelling story for new donors, and
suggests that there are other organizational priorities more pressing
than the diversity of donors.

~Nathan

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Kim Bruning]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 02:40:15PM +0100, Andre Engels wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
>  wrote:
> 
> > The problem starts at the point where the user does not choose the
> > image(s) for himself and uses a predefined set on what should no be
> > shown. Someone will have to create this sets and this will be
> > unavoidably a violation of NPOV in the first place.
> 
> No, why would it? What does it say if someone created such a set?
> "These are pictures of such-and-so, and there might be people who do
> not want to see pictures of such-and-so." I don't see the NPOV here.
> Nobody is saying "These pictures should not be seen". They are saying,
> "some people would not like to see these pictures". That's not POV.

I thought we were past this point in the discussion, and working towards common 
consensus.

Here's the key argument from a "fellow traveller"[1] kind of organisation, to 
help you catch up. :-)

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=interpretations&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=8657

sincerely,
Kim Bruning


[1] Am I using this term right?

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Kim Bruning]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 09:09:04AM +0100, M?ller, Carsten wrote:
> > 
> > ... but -if we want to reach consensus[1]- what we really need to be
> > discussing is: screwdrivers.
> > 
> > sincerely,
> > Kim Bruning
> > 
> 
> No, we need to harden the wall agaist all attacks by hammers, screwdrivers 
> and drills.
> We have consensus: Wikipedia should not be censored.

Right, hammering ourselves on the thumb is a bad idea :-P

However, there's nothing wrong with making sure that people
don't get odd images when they don't expect it (something
wikipedia is good at, but commons admittedly perhaps slightly
less so). This is the screw.

I don't think a filter (the hammer) will be very successful at
doing so, because filters have simply never been very good at
keeping away unexpected content, and can easily lead to
censorship and other unwanted side effects (hitting ourselves
on the thumb).  However, perhaps some other tool might be
useful for fixing the screw. Some people have come up with some
interesting proposals.

But shouting at each other about filters is probably
counter-productive at this point. ;-)

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising is for men

[rupert THURNER]

fyi, in switzerland there are 2 mio readers and below 1 donors ... this
means more than 99% are not giving money.
On Nov 29, 2011 11:21 PM, "emijrp"  wrote:

> 2011/11/29 Thomas Dalton 
>
> > On 29 November 2011 21:51, emijrp  wrote:
> > > Dear all;
> > >
> > > We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you
> > heard
> > > about gender and fundraising? Some data from a 2010 study[1] and a 2011
> > > German study[2] (question 20th of 22). People have said that Wikipedia
> > is a
> > > sexist place which excludes women to edit. Looks like women neither are
> > > interested on editing nor funding free knowledge.
> > >
> > > Is WMF working to increase female donors just like female editors?
> >
> > I think the first step would be to try and figure out if women are
> > visiting the site and not donating or just not visiting at all.
> >
> >
> So, the first step would be to try and figure out if women are visiting the
> site and not editing or just not visiting at all, before saying nonsense
> about sexism and Wikipedia community.
>
>
> > You would also want to make sure there really is a significant
> > imbalance and that it's not just that men are more likely to fill out
> > the survey form.
> >
> >
> That affects to all surveys, again.
>
> Looks like people only care about surveys which say what they want to read.
>
>
> > ___
> > 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] Fundraising is for men

[Thomas Dalton]

On 29 November 2011 22:19, emijrp  wrote:
> 2011/11/29 Thomas Dalton 
>
>> On 29 November 2011 21:51, emijrp  wrote:
>> > Dear all;
>> >
>> > We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you
>> heard
>> > about gender and fundraising? Some data from a 2010 study[1] and a 2011
>> > German study[2] (question 20th of 22). People have said that Wikipedia
>> is a
>> > sexist place which excludes women to edit. Looks like women neither are
>> > interested on editing nor funding free knowledge.
>> >
>> > Is WMF working to increase female donors just like female editors?
>>
>> I think the first step would be to try and figure out if women are
>> visiting the site and not donating or just not visiting at all.
>>
>>
> So, the first step would be to try and figure out if women are visiting the
> site and not editing or just not visiting at all, before saying nonsense
> about sexism and Wikipedia community.

Yes, that is equally true.

>> You would also want to make sure there really is a significant
>> imbalance and that it's not just that men are more likely to fill out
>> the survey form.
>>
>>
> That affects to all surveys, again.

There are ways to limit the effects of a self-selecting sample, but
they're not easy to do so it does affect a lot of surveys.

> Looks like people only care about surveys which say what they want to read.

That's statistics for you!

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising is for men

[emijrp]

2011/11/29 Thomas Dalton 

> On 29 November 2011 21:51, emijrp  wrote:
> > Dear all;
> >
> > We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you
> heard
> > about gender and fundraising? Some data from a 2010 study[1] and a 2011
> > German study[2] (question 20th of 22). People have said that Wikipedia
> is a
> > sexist place which excludes women to edit. Looks like women neither are
> > interested on editing nor funding free knowledge.
> >
> > Is WMF working to increase female donors just like female editors?
>
> I think the first step would be to try and figure out if women are
> visiting the site and not donating or just not visiting at all.
>
>
So, the first step would be to try and figure out if women are visiting the
site and not editing or just not visiting at all, before saying nonsense
about sexism and Wikipedia community.


> You would also want to make sure there really is a significant
> imbalance and that it's not just that men are more likely to fill out
> the survey form.
>
>
That affects to all surveys, again.

Looks like people only care about surveys which say what they want to read.


> ___
> 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] Fundraising is for men

[Thomas Dalton]

On 29 November 2011 21:51, emijrp  wrote:
> Dear all;
>
> We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you heard
> about gender and fundraising? Some data from a 2010 study[1] and a 2011
> German study[2] (question 20th of 22). People have said that Wikipedia is a
> sexist place which excludes women to edit. Looks like women neither are
> interested on editing nor funding free knowledge.
>
> Is WMF working to increase female donors just like female editors?

I think the first step would be to try and figure out if women are
visiting the site and not donating or just not visiting at all.

You would also want to make sure there really is a significant
imbalance and that it's not just that men are more likely to fill out
the survey form.

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

[Foundation-l] Fundraising is for men

[emijrp]

Dear all;

We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you heard
about gender and fundraising? Some data from a 2010 study[1] and a 2011
German study[2] (question 20th of 22). People have said that Wikipedia is a
sexist place which excludes women to edit. Looks like women neither are
interested on editing nor funding free knowledge.

Is WMF working to increase female donors just like female editors?

Regards,
emijrp

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2010FR_Donor_survey_report.pdf
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Detailed_results.pdf
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 2nd December, 19:00 UTC

[Oliver Keyes]

That's certainly an idea.

I don't think "post-its" are on the table right now - that's probably a bit
outside the project's scope.

On 29 November 2011 20:06, rupert THURNER  wrote:

> one usage could be to support photo competitions as wiki loves monuments,
> where a jury had to select good photos out of 16 submitted.
> On Nov 29, 2011 8:51 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:
>
> > It'd be good! I'm not sure what the usefulness would be, though. So, the
> > two aims behind the AFT:
> >
> >
> >   - To prompt greater feedback from readers on the quality of content;
> >   - To try (through the calls to action, which have actually been pretty
> >   successful) to prompt readers to edit.
> >
> > I'm not sure how applicable these would be to Commons. I mean, how many
> > "readers" per se does the project get? The interface doesn't really lend
> > itself to browsing. It'd also be awkward trying to work out what they
> could
> > actually do, or what the feedback would be useful for; with traditional
> > wikis, if people go "this article sucks" we can fix it. If people go
> "this
> > image sucks" we can't necessarily take a new one, or tweak the old one to
> > make it better.
> >
> > Still, it's an interesting idea. I do like the possibility of maybe
> having
> > a rating box that prompts readers "do you have an image of this? If so,
> why
> > not upload it?" or whatever if they provide a sucky rating for a photo.
> > I'll drop the devs a note and see what their plans are in this field :).
> >
> > On 29 November 2011 19:36, rupert THURNER 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > that looks really nice, as well the intention behind it! for pictures,
> or
> > > commons in general, a rating model like the one already implements
> would
> > be
> > > more appropriate, what you think?
> > > On Nov 29, 2011 8:20 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, if you've seen AFT5 (you may not have, so -
> > > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5
> > )
> > > > we're moving away from "rating" articles.
> > > >
> > > > On 29 November 2011 19:13, rupert THURNER 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > would it be possible to have a rating for pictures as well?
> > > > > On Nov 29, 2011 6:17 PM, "Oliver Keyes" 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey guys!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another AFT session - this one will be in #wikimedia-office on 2
> > > > > December,
> > > > > > at 19:00 UTC. If you're vaguely interested in playing around with
> > > > > > prototypes, you should attend - we'll have a lot of cool stuff to
> > > poke
> > > > at
> > > > > > (and then complain about when something breaks and it goes all
> > > melty).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Oliver Keyes
> > > > > > Community Liason, Product Development
> > > > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Oliver Keyes
> > > > Community Liason, Product Development
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > ___
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Keyes
> > Community Liason, Product Development
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Dirk Franke]

> > I think this sounds pretty good. Is there any indication how German
> > Wikipedians generally view an implementation like this? I can't imagine
> > English Wikipedians caring about an additional sidebar link/opt-in
> feature
> > like this.
>
>
>
Actually I think, they do not like it too much. I'll try to explain:

(1) Almost everybody on the German Wikipedia thinks, that the original
problem the filter tries to solve, does not exist. So there is no positive
reason to introduce an image filter.

(2) A strong majority thinks, the principle itself is evil.

So for (1) to accept an filter you would either need a community that
doesn't care (way too late for that one..), or a lot of goodwill by the
community for the foundation. I am afraid as long as the board doesn't
move, there may be more or less infuriated opposition against the filter,
but only a small minority who positively supports it. And I am afraid the
board would have to move publicly enough that even a "I dont care about
meta, I want to write articles about 18th century village
churches"-Wikipedia will notice that move.

For (2) decrease evilness. There are two main reasons why the filter is
considered evil. For one: it may allow third parties to influence the
Wikipedia-experience of readers The personal filter solution deals imho
pretty well with this problem, but still, interference is possible. And
secondly it judges on different values than purely encyclopedic ones. I for
myself think "I don't like it" is a perfectly valid judgement, but that
seems to be a minority position on de.wp.

I think the personal image filter is a step in the right direction, as it
adresses at least one of the three main objections. But still a long way to
go for general acceptance.

regards,

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 2nd December, 19:00 UTC

[rupert THURNER]

one usage could be to support photo competitions as wiki loves monuments,
where a jury had to select good photos out of 16 submitted.
On Nov 29, 2011 8:51 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:

> It'd be good! I'm not sure what the usefulness would be, though. So, the
> two aims behind the AFT:
>
>
>   - To prompt greater feedback from readers on the quality of content;
>   - To try (through the calls to action, which have actually been pretty
>   successful) to prompt readers to edit.
>
> I'm not sure how applicable these would be to Commons. I mean, how many
> "readers" per se does the project get? The interface doesn't really lend
> itself to browsing. It'd also be awkward trying to work out what they could
> actually do, or what the feedback would be useful for; with traditional
> wikis, if people go "this article sucks" we can fix it. If people go "this
> image sucks" we can't necessarily take a new one, or tweak the old one to
> make it better.
>
> Still, it's an interesting idea. I do like the possibility of maybe having
> a rating box that prompts readers "do you have an image of this? If so, why
> not upload it?" or whatever if they provide a sucky rating for a photo.
> I'll drop the devs a note and see what their plans are in this field :).
>
> On 29 November 2011 19:36, rupert THURNER 
> wrote:
>
> > that looks really nice, as well the intention behind it! for pictures, or
> > commons in general, a rating model like the one already implements would
> be
> > more appropriate, what you think?
> > On Nov 29, 2011 8:20 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:
> >
> > > Well, if you've seen AFT5 (you may not have, so -
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5
> )
> > > we're moving away from "rating" articles.
> > >
> > > On 29 November 2011 19:13, rupert THURNER 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > would it be possible to have a rating for pictures as well?
> > > > On Nov 29, 2011 6:17 PM, "Oliver Keyes" 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey guys!
> > > > >
> > > > > Another AFT session - this one will be in #wikimedia-office on 2
> > > > December,
> > > > > at 19:00 UTC. If you're vaguely interested in playing around with
> > > > > prototypes, you should attend - we'll have a lot of cool stuff to
> > poke
> > > at
> > > > > (and then complain about when something breaks and it goes all
> > melty).
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Oliver Keyes
> > > > > Community Liason, Product Development
> > > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > > ___
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Oliver Keyes
> > > Community Liason, Product Development
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > ___
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Community Liason, Product Development
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> 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] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 2nd December, 19:00 UTC

[rupert THURNER]

the longer I think about it, the more I like the direction it takes. as you
allow texts now, would it be thinkable to generalise this in future
versions to make it having post-it functionality?

this means in three directions:
first, can be placed anywhere onto the article even covering things.
second, can have/be a tag/category.
third, allows different level of visibility, like personal, public, friends.

depending on the implementation, they would be able to extend, replace or
provide e.g.: page watch, classical note glued onto or over text or images,
categories, tags, bookmarks, share the post-its to me, groups or public,
editing templates (a la "this article needs help"), quality categorisation
to select contents for offline.
 On Nov 29, 2011 8:20 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:

> Well, if you've seen AFT5 (you may not have, so -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5)
> we're moving away from "rating" articles.
>
> On 29 November 2011 19:13, rupert THURNER 
> wrote:
>
> > would it be possible to have a rating for pictures as well?
> > On Nov 29, 2011 6:17 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:
> >
> > > Hey guys!
> > >
> > > Another AFT session - this one will be in #wikimedia-office on 2
> > December,
> > > at 19:00 UTC. If you're vaguely interested in playing around with
> > > prototypes, you should attend - we'll have a lot of cool stuff to poke
> at
> > > (and then complain about when something breaks and it goes all melty).
> > >
> > > --
> > > Oliver Keyes
> > > Community Liason, Product Development
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > ___
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Community Liason, Product Development
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> 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] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 2nd December, 19:00 UTC

[Oliver Keyes]

It'd be good! I'm not sure what the usefulness would be, though. So, the
two aims behind the AFT:


   - To prompt greater feedback from readers on the quality of content;
   - To try (through the calls to action, which have actually been pretty
   successful) to prompt readers to edit.

I'm not sure how applicable these would be to Commons. I mean, how many
"readers" per se does the project get? The interface doesn't really lend
itself to browsing. It'd also be awkward trying to work out what they could
actually do, or what the feedback would be useful for; with traditional
wikis, if people go "this article sucks" we can fix it. If people go "this
image sucks" we can't necessarily take a new one, or tweak the old one to
make it better.

Still, it's an interesting idea. I do like the possibility of maybe having
a rating box that prompts readers "do you have an image of this? If so, why
not upload it?" or whatever if they provide a sucky rating for a photo.
I'll drop the devs a note and see what their plans are in this field :).

On 29 November 2011 19:36, rupert THURNER  wrote:

> that looks really nice, as well the intention behind it! for pictures, or
> commons in general, a rating model like the one already implements would be
> more appropriate, what you think?
> On Nov 29, 2011 8:20 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:
>
> > Well, if you've seen AFT5 (you may not have, so -
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5)
> > we're moving away from "rating" articles.
> >
> > On 29 November 2011 19:13, rupert THURNER 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > would it be possible to have a rating for pictures as well?
> > > On Nov 29, 2011 6:17 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey guys!
> > > >
> > > > Another AFT session - this one will be in #wikimedia-office on 2
> > > December,
> > > > at 19:00 UTC. If you're vaguely interested in playing around with
> > > > prototypes, you should attend - we'll have a lot of cool stuff to
> poke
> > at
> > > > (and then complain about when something breaks and it goes all
> melty).
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Oliver Keyes
> > > > Community Liason, Product Development
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > ___
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Keyes
> > Community Liason, Product Development
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Error message

[Przykuta]

> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> 
> > 2011/11/28 Dirk Franke :
> > > Seriously: Could we please create something like the Twitter Fail Whale?
> > > Maybe a Sad Jimbo? Could help fundraising as well..
> >
> > Scattered pieces of the puzzle globe.
> 
> 
> We've talked this exact idea at length in the office .. I'd love to see it
> happen.
> 
> --tomasz

a new idea... the top of this image

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Couverture-wikimedia.jpg

przykuta

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 2nd December, 19:00 UTC

[rupert THURNER]

that looks really nice, as well the intention behind it! for pictures, or
commons in general, a rating model like the one already implements would be
more appropriate, what you think?
On Nov 29, 2011 8:20 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:

> Well, if you've seen AFT5 (you may not have, so -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5)
> we're moving away from "rating" articles.
>
> On 29 November 2011 19:13, rupert THURNER 
> wrote:
>
> > would it be possible to have a rating for pictures as well?
> > On Nov 29, 2011 6:17 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:
> >
> > > Hey guys!
> > >
> > > Another AFT session - this one will be in #wikimedia-office on 2
> > December,
> > > at 19:00 UTC. If you're vaguely interested in playing around with
> > > prototypes, you should attend - we'll have a lot of cool stuff to poke
> at
> > > (and then complain about when something breaks and it goes all melty).
> > >
> > > --
> > > Oliver Keyes
> > > Community Liason, Product Development
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > ___
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Community Liason, Product Development
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> 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] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 2nd December, 19:00 UTC

[Oliver Keyes]

Well, if you've seen AFT5 (you may not have, so -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5)
we're moving away from "rating" articles.

On 29 November 2011 19:13, rupert THURNER  wrote:

> would it be possible to have a rating for pictures as well?
> On Nov 29, 2011 6:17 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:
>
> > Hey guys!
> >
> > Another AFT session - this one will be in #wikimedia-office on 2
> December,
> > at 19:00 UTC. If you're vaguely interested in playing around with
> > prototypes, you should attend - we'll have a lot of cool stuff to poke at
> > (and then complain about when something breaks and it goes all melty).
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Keyes
> > Community Liason, Product Development
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 2nd December, 19:00 UTC

[rupert THURNER]

would it be possible to have a rating for pictures as well?
On Nov 29, 2011 6:17 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:

> Hey guys!
>
> Another AFT session - this one will be in #wikimedia-office on 2 December,
> at 19:00 UTC. If you're vaguely interested in playing around with
> prototypes, you should attend - we'll have a lot of cool stuff to poke at
> (and then complain about when something breaks and it goes all melty).
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Community Liason, Product Development
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> 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] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 2nd December, 19:00 UTC

[Oliver Keyes]

Indeed; an hour beforehand :). We'll be jumping in right as he ends.

On 29 November 2011 17:23, Theo10011  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
>
> > Hey guys!
> >
> > Another AFT session - this one will be in #wikimedia-office on 2
> December,
> > at 19:00 UTC. If you're vaguely interested in playing around with
> > prototypes, you should attend - we'll have a lot of cool stuff to poke at
> > (and then complain about when something breaks and it goes all melty).
> >
> >
> Isn't there Geoff's IRC session on the same day? around the same time as
> that.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours  (Also, link!)
>
>
> Regards
> Theo
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 2nd December, 19:00 UTC

[Theo10011]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> Hey guys!
>
> Another AFT session - this one will be in #wikimedia-office on 2 December,
> at 19:00 UTC. If you're vaguely interested in playing around with
> prototypes, you should attend - we'll have a lot of cool stuff to poke at
> (and then complain about when something breaks and it goes all melty).
>
>
Isn't there Geoff's IRC session on the same day? around the same time as
that.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours  (Also, link!)


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

[Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 2nd December, 19:00 UTC

[Oliver Keyes]

Hey guys!

Another AFT session - this one will be in #wikimedia-office on 2 December,
at 19:00 UTC. If you're vaguely interested in playing around with
prototypes, you should attend - we'll have a lot of cool stuff to poke at
(and then complain about when something breaks and it goes all melty).

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Tom Morris  wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:09, Möller, Carsten  wrote:
>> No, we need to harden the wall agaist all attacks by hammers, screwdrivers 
>> and drills.
>> We have consensus: Wikipedia should not be censored.
>>
>
> You hold strong on that principle. Wikipedia should not be censored!
>
> Even if that censorship is something the user initiates, desires, and
> can turn off at any time, like AdBlock.
>
> Glad to see that Sue Gardner's warnings earlier in the debate that
> people don't get entrenched and fundamentalist but try to honestly and
> charitably see other people's points of view has been so well heeded.
>

The nub of the matter is that such an approach should be a two-way
street. There is no evidence that the filter-pushing lobby is making
even the most rudimentary good-faith effort at listening what the
other side is telling them. Just doing a lot of hand-waving and
misdirection. Case in point, ditching the idea of a "category
based filtering scheme" as if that particular bit was what
people were opposing. Not even close. There is still an
echo chamber aspect to the people who are driving filters.


-- 
--
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] Wikimania 2011 videos - mission complete!

[Mateus Nobre]

hahaha, this last one is the only I appeared at all :P
The guy in pink with a white hat.

Btw, congratulations! Loved the videos and the soundtracks, very good editions! 
And waiting for the next Wikimania to have videos as good as these ;p

_
MateusNobre
Wikimedia Brasil - MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
  30440865


> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 07:08:28 -0800
> From: phoebe.w...@gmail.com
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2011 videos - mission complete!
> 
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Itzik Edri  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > *I happy to announce that all the videos from Wikimania 2011 in Haifa are
> > now available on our channel in YouTube!: http://www.youtube.com/WikimediaIL
> > .*
> > Next week I will send a HDD with all the footage and the edited videos to
> > the WMF so they will have a copy for archive and so they can upload it to
> > commons also.
> >
> > *Don't forget also to check our Flickr stream!:
> > http://www.flickr.com/WikimediaIL*
> >
> > On the schedule you will find links to the videos:
> > http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schedule
> 
> Dear Itzik and the rest of the Wikimania 2011 team -- congratulations!
> This is a huge achievement. You continue to set the bar high for
> Wikimania. And thank you for continuing to work on the conference long
> after it finished to get this done -- I know how hard that can be :)
> 
> thank you,
> 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

foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:00 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> All,
> Minutes for the October 7-8 meeting of the WMF Board are now posted:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2011-10-07
>
> Sorry about the long delay on getting these up.
>
> best,


"Sue presented a proposal: that the Board send a letter to the
community acknowledging opposition to the filter idea; that the idea
of a category-based system be dropped, as it is problematic and highly
controversial, but that staff continue discussions with the community
about how to build a system that would meet the Board's objective
[...]"

Pathetic, bordering on barking insane. If that is how people over
there read the situation, the are in for a rude
awakening. Again the corporate "we hear you" language, but not hearing
a bloody thing. Category shmategory.
It isn't the method the community is against, it is the whole frigging
priniple of the thing. Wake up and smell the
coffee.



-- 
--
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] Wikimania 2011 videos - mission complete!

[phoebe ayers]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Itzik Edri  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> *I happy to announce that all the videos from Wikimania 2011 in Haifa are
> now available on our channel in YouTube!: http://www.youtube.com/WikimediaIL
> .*
> Next week I will send a HDD with all the footage and the edited videos to
> the WMF so they will have a copy for archive and so they can upload it to
> commons also.
>
> *Don't forget also to check our Flickr stream!:
> http://www.flickr.com/WikimediaIL*
>
> On the schedule you will find links to the videos:
> http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schedule

Dear Itzik and the rest of the Wikimania 2011 team -- congratulations!
This is a huge achievement. You continue to set the bar high for
Wikimania. And thank you for continuing to work on the conference long
after it finished to get this done -- I know how hard that can be :)

thank you,
phoebe

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Marc Riddell]

on 11/29/11 8:01 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 29 November 2011 12:56, Tobias Oelgarte
>  wrote:
> 
>> ... And I still want to see the "good reason for doing so". So far i
>> could not find one single reason that was worthy to implement such a
>> filter considering all the drawbacks it causes. That doesn't mean that
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The Board voted unanimously *twice* for the filter. They need to
> individually reveal their reasoning and what convinced them so
> strongly - the second time in the face of the threat of the
> second-largest project forking.
> 
> Really. You just haven't told us what you each personally find so
> compelling about the idea, and we can't see it. So people presume
> there's financial influence or some other reason going on.
> 
> Board, if you want this problem to go away, you need to explain
> yourselves, in a way that actually answers detractors. Your reasoning
> is really not obvious.
> 
> 
> - d.

I agree with you completely, David. Wikipedia is supposed to be a
collaborative effort. And the board should not be the law enforcement part
of that collaboration. This parental, "We know what's best for you, and
don't have to explain our decisions to you" makes a farce (or worse) of any
claim of such collaboration. And the more silent they remain about the
reasoning behind their decisions, the louder the suspicions become about
that silence - and the motives behind it.

Marc Riddell


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Andre Engels]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:

> Do you remember your last mail in which you said that my viewpoints are
> extreme? I was writing that considering anything controversial or not
> are the only neutral positions to take. You opposed it strongly. Now you
> start your claim with the preposition that we will eventually find
> categories in a way that anything could be seen as controversial? Thats
> a 180° turn from one mail to the other. Just to find new arguments?

I don't say we _will_, I say we _might_. But if you like to have the
180 degree turn, then I will happily agree that any image might be
controversial. That still does not convince me that the only 'neutral'
ways of blocking are blocking nothing or blocking everything. Perhaps
any image is objected to by someone. That does not mean that anyone
who objects to some image should have every image taken away from
them.

-- 
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] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Andre Engels]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:
> Am 29.11.2011 14:40, schrieb Andre Engels:
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
>>   wrote:
>>
>>> The problem starts at the point where the user does not choose the
>>> image(s) for himself and uses a predefined set on what should no be
>>> shown. Someone will have to create this sets and this will be
>>> unavoidably a violation of NPOV in the first place.
>> No, why would it? What does it say if someone created such a set?
>> "These are pictures of such-and-so, and there might be people who do
>> not want to see pictures of such-and-so." I don't see the NPOV here.
>> Nobody is saying "These pictures should not be seen". They are saying,
>> "some people would not like to see these pictures". That's not POV.
>>
> You missed the previous question: "Why would some people not like to see
> these pictures?" The answer to this question is the motivation to create
> such a list and to spread it. But this answer is any case non NPOV.

Sure, it's not NPOV, it's not POV either, it has nothing to do with POV or NPOV.

Let's go to another parallel: There are lists of 'good articles',
'featured articles', 'featured images' andsoforth on various projects.
POV too? And if I make a list of "interesting articles", am I allowed
to put that on Wikipedia? What about a tool that lets you make such a
list and share it with others? Would that also get you as mightily
angry?


-- 
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] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 29.11.2011 14:48, schrieb Andre Engels:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
>   wrote:
>
>> I neither agree. We decide what belongs to which preset (or who will do
>> it?), and it is meant to filter out controversial content. Therefore we
>> define what controversial content is, - or at least we tell the people,
>> what we think, that might be controversial, while we also tell them
>> (exclusion method) that other things aren't controversial.
> No, we don't tell that other things aren't controversial. I consider
> that a ridiculous conclusion to draw. It's just that we have not yet
> found that it is under one of the categories we specified as
> blockable. There are other categories that might be specified, but
> alas, we don't have them yet.
Do you remember your last mail in which you said that my viewpoints are 
extreme? I was writing that considering anything controversial or not 
are the only neutral positions to take. You opposed it strongly. Now you 
start your claim with the preposition that we will eventually find 
categories in a way that anything could be seen as controversial? Thats 
a 180° turn from one mail to the other. Just to find new arguments?

I will read the rest of your answers later on. For now i have some work 
to do. Maybe you want to enlighten me how that is possible.

nya~

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Andre Engels]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Alasdair  wrote:

> So a big objection is that any "sets" of filters is not so much to the "weak" 
> filtering on wikipedia but that such "sets"  would enable other censors to 
> more easily make a form of "strong" censorship of wikipedia where some images 
> were not available (at all) to readers - regardless of whether or not they 
> want to see them?
>
> I am not sure I agree with this concern as a practical matter but I can 
> understand it as a theoretical concern. Has the board or WMF talked about / 
> addressed this issue anywhere in regards to "set" based filter systems?

I don't know if they have, but it should be solvable in this system -
something with creating a hash of the image name, and using the
original name at some places and the hash at others. The list of
images in a filter will have one, the html created when a page is
looked at the other. I don't have the details all fleshed out, but it
doesn't look too hard to do once one has decided that it's necessary.

-- 
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] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 29.11.2011 14:40, schrieb Andre Engels:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
>   wrote:
>
>> The problem starts at the point where the user does not choose the
>> image(s) for himself and uses a predefined set on what should no be
>> shown. Someone will have to create this sets and this will be
>> unavoidably a violation of NPOV in the first place.
> No, why would it? What does it say if someone created such a set?
> "These are pictures of such-and-so, and there might be people who do
> not want to see pictures of such-and-so." I don't see the NPOV here.
> Nobody is saying "These pictures should not be seen". They are saying,
> "some people would not like to see these pictures". That's not POV.
>
You missed the previous question: "Why would some people not like to see 
these pictures?" The answer to this question is the motivation to create 
such a list and to spread it. But this answer is any case non NPOV.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Error message

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

>>> Scattered pieces of the puzzle globe.
>>
>>
>> +1
> 
> I like it; a good image says a thousands words in every language.

To me it looks like the Earth after a nuclear attack. I assume this is not
the idea.

Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Andre Engels]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:

> I neither agree. We decide what belongs to which preset (or who will do
> it?), and it is meant to filter out controversial content. Therefore we
> define what controversial content is, - or at least we tell the people,
> what we think, that might be controversial, while we also tell them
> (exclusion method) that other things aren't controversial.

No, we don't tell that other things aren't controversial. I consider
that a ridiculous conclusion to draw. It's just that we have not yet
found that it is under one of the categories we specified as
blockable. There are other categories that might be specified, but
alas, we don't have them yet.

>> Even more importantly, your options are not neutral at all, in my
>> opinion. "Either everything is controversial or nothing is". That's
>> not a neutral statement. "It's controversial to you if you consider it
>> controversial to you" - that's much closer to being NPOV, and that's
>> what the proposal is trying to do.
> No. This options are meant to say that "you have to define for yourself
> what is controversial". They take the extreme stances of equal judgment.
> Either anything is guilty or nothing is guilty and both stances provide
> no information at all. Both give no definition. It is not the answer to
> the question: "What is controversial?" under the assumption that not
> anything or not everything is controversial. If you agree that not
> anything or not everything is controversial than this simple rule has to
> apply, since both extremes are untrue. That is very simple logic and
> forces you to define it for yourself.

Yet you are against any means that make this choice easier. If I say
"I don't want to see pictures of XXX", why not give me the possibility
to download a list of pictures of XXX and use that? Why do I have to
specify in person each and every picture I do or do not want to see?

> Back to the statement: "It's controversial to you if you consider it
> controversial to you". Thats right. But it's not related to the initial
> problem. In this case you will only find a "you" and a "you". There is
> no "we", "them" or anything like that. You could have written: "If my
> leg hurts, then my leg hurts". Always true, but useless to be applied to
> something that involves anything not done not by you in the first part
> of the sentence.

No, not useless. If I say that I don't want to see pictures of XXX,
why not let someone else make a list of pictures of XXX? Say, I
believe that every time a chainsaw touches my leg, it is going to
hurt. Wouldn't it be good to have a rule then that anyone will have my
permission before they touch my leg with a chainsaw? What you are
saying is "only you can decide when your leg is hurting, so you have
to choose: either we let everything touch your leg unless you forbid
it, or we let nothing touch your leg unless you allow it."

>>   NPOV is not about treating every
>> _subject_ as equal, but about treating every _opinion_ as equal.
> This is a nice sentence. I hope that you will it. I also hope that you
> remember that images are subjects and not opinions.
>
>>   If I
>> have a set of images I consider controversial, and you have a
>> different, perhaps non-intersecting set that you consider
>> controversial, the NPOV method is to consider both distinctions as
>> valid, not to say that it means that everything is controversial, or
>> nothing is.
> A filter with presets considers only one opinion as valid. It shows an
> image or it does hide it. Stating different opinions inside an article
> is a very different thing. You represent both opinions but you don't
> apply them. On top of that it are the opinions of people that don't
> write the article.

But one can choose the filter oneself, or no filter at all.

>>   And -surprise- that seems to be exactly what this proposal
>> is trying to achieve. It is probably not ideal, there might even be
>> reasons to drop it completely, but NPOV is much better served by this
>> proposal than it is by yours.
>>
> Actually you misused or misunderstood the core of NPOV in combination
> with this two stances. Thats why i can't agree or follow your conclusion.
>
> NPOV is meant in the way that we don't say what is right or is wrong. We
> represent the opinions and we let the user decide what to do with them.
> Additionally NPOV implies that we don't write down our own opinions.
> Instead we cite them.

And what does this have to do with image filters at all?


-- 
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] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 29.11.2011 14:28, schrieb Alasdair:
> On Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 13:42, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>
>> With the tiny (actually big) problem that such lists are public and can
>> be directly feed into the filters of not so people loving or extremely
>> caring ISP's.
>>
>>
>   I think this is a point that I was missing about the objections to the 
> filter system.
>
> So a big objection is that any "sets" of filters is not so much to the "weak" 
> filtering on wikipedia but that such "sets"  would enable other censors to 
> more easily make a form of "strong" censorship of wikipedia where some images 
> were not available (at all) to readers - regardless of whether or not they 
> want to see them?
>
> I am not sure I agree with this concern as a practical matter but I can 
> understand it as a theoretical concern. Has the board or WMF talked about / 
> addressed this issue anywhere in regards to "set" based filter systems?
>
> --
> Alasdair (User:Ajbpearce)
>
So far this thought got widely ignored. I can't remember a board member, 
aside from Arne Klempert talking about it. Instead i heard the 
argumentation that some censors would unbanning Wikipedia if we 
implemented such a feature as preemptive obedience. But who is really 
such naive to believe it? Censors aren't happy with a opt-in solution. 
They prefer the unable to opt-out solutions and are also interested in 
textual content as well.

nya~

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Theo10011]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Tom Morris  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:09, Möller, Carsten  wrote:
> > No, we need to harden the wall agaist all attacks by hammers,
> screwdrivers and drills.
> > We have consensus: Wikipedia should not be censored.
> >
>
> You hold strong on that principle. Wikipedia should not be censored!
>
> Even if that censorship is something the user initiates, desires, and
> can turn off at any time, like AdBlock.
>
> Glad to see that Sue Gardner's warnings earlier in the debate that
> people don't get entrenched and fundamentalist but try to honestly and
> charitably see other people's points of view has been so well heeded.


My question is, Is this really something that WMF should be spending its
time and resources on?

In case of AdBlock, it's a third party extension for browsers. They were
designed to fill a need, a need most people here can't seem to find, that
compelled the board to enact this. Why has there been no third-party
solution or anything close to this filter developed independently?

Why should we spend donor money to develop tools to censor our own content?
I thought the goal was gathering the sum of all human knowledge not all
knowledge minus controversial content.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Andre Engels]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:

> The problem starts at the point where the user does not choose the
> image(s) for himself and uses a predefined set on what should no be
> shown. Someone will have to create this sets and this will be
> unavoidably a violation of NPOV in the first place.

No, why would it? What does it say if someone created such a set?
"These are pictures of such-and-so, and there might be people who do
not want to see pictures of such-and-so." I don't see the NPOV here.
Nobody is saying "These pictures should not be seen". They are saying,
"some people would not like to see these pictures". That's not POV.

-- 
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] Wikimania 2011 videos - mission complete!

[Tomasz Kozłowski]

Itzik,
this is a phenomenal piece of news!

I've been recently responsible for uploading videos from a much smaller 
conference (the 10th birthday of Polish Wikipedia) to YouTube and 
Wikimedia Commons and I imagine how much work you had to put to make 
this happen!

Thanks to your videos, this years' Wikimania has become a truly open 
conference in which everybody can now participate (e.g. by watching the 
videos & contacting appropriate people). You've set the standards really 
high for the D.C. people and we can only hope they will be able to reach 
them! :-)

Again, thanks for a wonderful job done, it's appreciated!

-- 
Tomasz Kozłowski | [[user:odder]]


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Tom Morris]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 13:28, Alasdair  wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 13:42, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>
>> With the tiny (actually big) problem that such lists are public and can
>> be directly feed into the filters of not so people loving or extremely
>> caring ISP's.
>>
>>
>
>  I think this is a point that I was missing about the objections to the 
> filter system.
>
> So a big objection is that any "sets" of filters is not so much to the "weak" 
> filtering on wikipedia but that such "sets"  would enable other censors to 
> more easily make a form of "strong" censorship of wikipedia where some images 
> were not available (at all) to readers - regardless of whether or not they 
> want to see them?
>
> I am not sure I agree with this concern as a practical matter but I can 
> understand it as a theoretical concern. Has the board or WMF talked about / 
> addressed this issue anywhere in regards to "set" based filter systems?
>

I find it highly unconvincing and wrote an extended blog post on the
topic a while back:
http://blog.tommorris.org/post/11286767288/opt-in-image-filter-enabling-censorware

-- 
Tom Morris


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Alasdair]

On Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 13:42, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:

> With the tiny (actually big) problem that such lists are public and can
> be directly feed into the filters of not so people loving or extremely 
> caring ISP's.
> 
> 

 I think this is a point that I was missing about the objections to the filter 
system.

So a big objection is that any "sets" of filters is not so much to the "weak" 
filtering on wikipedia but that such "sets"  would enable other censors to more 
easily make a form of "strong" censorship of wikipedia where some images were 
not available (at all) to readers - regardless of whether or not they want to 
see them?

I am not sure I agree with this concern as a practical matter but I can 
understand it as a theoretical concern. Has the board or WMF talked about / 
addressed this issue anywhere in regards to "set" based filter systems? 

--
Alasdair (User:Ajbpearce)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[David Gerard]

On 29 November 2011 12:56, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:

> ... And I still want to see the "good reason for doing so". So far i
> could not find one single reason that was worthy to implement such a
> filter considering all the drawbacks it causes. That doesn't mean that


Yes.

The Board voted unanimously *twice* for the filter. They need to
individually reveal their reasoning and what convinced them so
strongly - the second time in the face of the threat of the
second-largest project forking.

Really. You just haven't told us what you each personally find so
compelling about the idea, and we can't see it. So people presume
there's financial influence or some other reason going on.

Board, if you want this problem to go away, you need to explain
yourselves, in a way that actually answers detractors. Your reasoning
is really not obvious.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 29.11.2011 13:45, schrieb David Gerard:
> On 29 November 2011 12:03, Tobias Oelgarte
>   wrote:
>
>> What i found to be the best solution so far was the "blurred images
>> filter". You can 'opt-in' to enable it and all images will be blurred as
>> the default. Since they are only blurred you will get a rough impression
>> on what to expect (something the what a hidden image can't do) and an
>> blurred image can be viewed by just hovering the mouse cursor over it.
>> While you browse, not a single click is needed. On top of that it is
>> awfully easy to implement, we already have a running version of it (see
>> brainstorming page), it doesn't feed any information to actual censors
>> and it is in no way a violation with NPOV. So far i didn't hear any
>> constructive critic why this wouldn't be a very good solution.
>
> I gave one before:
>
> > From the far side of the office, a blurred penis on your screen looks
> like a blurred penis on your screen.
>
> For this reason, I suggest a blank grey square instead.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Just use another imageprocessingfilter and it will not look like a 
blurred penis, but maybe like a distorted penis or an arm.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 29.11.2011 13:03, schrieb MZMcBride:
> Alasdair wrote:
>> If the feeling is that such a "weak" filter would (regardless of how the
>> pre-populated "filter lists" are created) still attract significant
>> opposition on many projects then I personally don't see how there can be
>> any filter created that is likely to gain consensus support and still be
>> useful - except for one that gives users the option to hide "all" images by
>> default and then click on the greyed out images to load them if they want
>> to see them.
> You're confusing the opinions of a few extremists on foundation-l with
> general consensus. It's unclear what percent of users actually want this
> feature, particularly as the feature's implementation hasn't been fully
> developed. A few people on this list have been trying very hard to make it
> seem as though they're capable of accepting some magical invisible pink
> unicorn-equivalent media filter, but the truth is that they're realistically
> and pragmatically opposed to any media filter, full stop. This is an
> extremist opinion (it's not as though extremist opinions are particularly
> uncommon around here).
>
> Personally, I want to believe that if the Wikimedia Board is making such a
> strong push for this feature to be implemented, there are very good reasons
> for doing so. Whether or not that's the case, I wouldn't look (closely or
> broadly) at the comments on this mailing list and try to divine
> community-wide views.
>
> MZMcBride
>
... And I still want to see the "good reason for doing so". So far i 
could not find one single reason that was worthy to implement such a 
filter considering all the drawbacks it causes. That doesn't mean that 
I'm opposed to any kind of filter. It just that we currently have three 
models:

* The very simple clean solutions (all/nothing/blured/...), which aren't 
found intuitive by the filter lovers.
* The category/labeling based solutions, which require an immense effort 
(constantly) and provide data for censors.
* The user based solutions, which are most likely unusable, since they 
require a lot of work by the user himself.

What I'm missing is option four. But as long option four isn't present 
I'm strongly in favor of options 0 and 1. 0 would be: do nothing.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[David Gerard]

On 29 November 2011 12:03, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:

> What i found to be the best solution so far was the "blurred images
> filter". You can 'opt-in' to enable it and all images will be blurred as
> the default. Since they are only blurred you will get a rough impression
> on what to expect (something the what a hidden image can't do) and an
> blurred image can be viewed by just hovering the mouse cursor over it.
> While you browse, not a single click is needed. On top of that it is
> awfully easy to implement, we already have a running version of it (see
> brainstorming page), it doesn't feed any information to actual censors
> and it is in no way a violation with NPOV. So far i didn't hear any
> constructive critic why this wouldn't be a very good solution.


I gave one before:

>From the far side of the office, a blurred penis on your screen looks
like a blurred penis on your screen.

For this reason, I suggest a blank grey square instead.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 29.11.2011 12:09, schrieb Andre Engels:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
>   wrote:
>
>> If the filter is predefined then it might meet the personal preference
>> and can be easy to use. But it will be an violation of NPOV, since
>> someone else (a group of reader/users) would have to define it. That
>> isn't user initiated censorship anymore.
> It is still the user who chooses whether or not to remove images, and
> if so, which list, although of course their choice is restricted. I
> guess that's not user initiated, but it is still user chosen.
With the tiny (actually big) problem that such lists are public and can 
be directly feed into the filters of not so people loving or extremely 
caring ISP's. This removes the freedom of choice from the users. Not 
from those that want this feature, but from those that don't want or 
that don't want it every time. In this case you trade a convenience for 
some of our readers against the ability to access all the knowledge that 
we could provide.
>> The comparison with AdBlock sucks, because you didn't looked at the goal
>> of both tools. AdBlock and it's predefined lists are trying to hide
>> _any_ advertisement, while the filter is meant to _only_ hide
>> controversial content. This comes down to the two extrema noted above,
>> that are the only two neutral options.
> I don't agree. We are not deciding which content is controversial and
> which not, we are giving users the option to decide not to see
> such-and-such content if they don't want to. That's not necessarily
> labeling them as controversial; it is even less labeling other content
> as non-controversial.
I neither agree. We decide what belongs to which preset (or who will do 
it?), and it is meant to filter out controversial content. Therefore we 
define what controversial content is, - or at least we tell the people, 
what we think, that might be controversial, while we also tell them 
(exclusion method) that other things aren't controversial.
> Even more importantly, your options are not neutral at all, in my
> opinion. "Either everything is controversial or nothing is". That's
> not a neutral statement. "It's controversial to you if you consider it
> controversial to you" - that's much closer to being NPOV, and that's
> what the proposal is trying to do.
No. This options are meant to say that "you have to define for yourself 
what is controversial". They take the extreme stances of equal judgment. 
Either anything is guilty or nothing is guilty and both stances provide 
no information at all. Both give no definition. It is not the answer to 
the question: "What is controversial?" under the assumption that not 
anything or not everything is controversial. If you agree that not 
anything or not everything is controversial than this simple rule has to 
apply, since both extremes are untrue. That is very simple logic and 
forces you to define it for yourself.

Back to the statement: "It's controversial to you if you consider it 
controversial to you". Thats right. But it's not related to the initial 
problem. In this case you will only find a "you" and a "you". There is 
no "we", "them" or anything like that. You could have written: "If my 
leg hurts, then my leg hurts". Always true, but useless to be applied to 
something that involves anything not done not by you in the first part 
of the sentence.

>   NPOV is not about treating every
> _subject_ as equal, but about treating every _opinion_ as equal.
This is a nice sentence. I hope that you will it. I also hope that you 
remember that images are subjects and not opinions.

>   If I
> have a set of images I consider controversial, and you have a
> different, perhaps non-intersecting set that you consider
> controversial, the NPOV method is to consider both distinctions as
> valid, not to say that it means that everything is controversial, or
> nothing is.
A filter with presets considers only one opinion as valid. It shows an 
image or it does hide it. Stating different opinions inside an article 
is a very different thing. You represent both opinions but you don't 
apply them. On top of that it are the opinions of people that don't 
write the article.

>   And -surprise- that seems to be exactly what this proposal
> is trying to achieve. It is probably not ideal, there might even be
> reasons to drop it completely, but NPOV is much better served by this
> proposal than it is by yours.
>
Actually you misused or misunderstood the core of NPOV in combination 
with this two stances. Thats why i can't agree or follow your conclusion.

NPOV is meant in the way that we don't say what is right or is wrong. We 
represent the opinions and we let the user decide what to do with them. 
Additionally NPOV implies that we don't write down our own opinions. 
Instead we cite them.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2011 videos - mission complete!

[Ting Chen]

Thank you very much Itzik and the Haifa-Team

Greetings
Ting

On 29.11.2011 12:48, wrote Itzik Edri:
> Hi,
>
> *I happy to announce that all the videos from Wikimania 2011 in Haifa are
> now available on our channel in YouTube!: http://www.youtube.com/WikimediaIL
> .*
> Next week I will send a HDD with all the footage and the edited videos to
> the WMF so they will have a copy for archive and so they can upload it to
> commons also.
>
> *Don't forget also to check our Flickr stream!:
> http://www.flickr.com/WikimediaIL*
>
> On the schedule you will find links to the videos:
> http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schedule
>
> Also, on each submissions page there is a links to the video, slides and
> Etherpad (if available). *For the presenter who didn't upload their slides
> yet, please do so and update your submissions page.*
>
> *** Bonus! - a video clip that we made after Wikimania to summarize the
> (amazing!) beach party: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1-MzHGA6fc ***
>
> It was harder than we thought - to record 3 days, in 5 simulation
> High-Definition cameras, and than edit, upload and tag them - really not an
> easy thing. What we thought will take us few weeks, took about 2 months -
> but I'm happy that we finish with that finally :)
>
> I think now we've made this step, we finished our commitment to the
> community and to the conference participants. I Hope everyone will enjoy
> and will found our (hard) work useful. I personally going to find time to
> watch some of lectures... (a tip for Wikimania organizers - don't plan to
> attend session during the conference, you will fail :).
>
> And some statistics:
> We have about 2TB of footages, 135GB of edit videos, all of them are in HD.
> During the confrtence we produce 3 summaries video clips (and one more
> after that)
> Until now the videos on our YouTube channel had been watched more than
> 16,000 times and our Flickr stream, who have 1,425 photos been seen more
> than 83,000 times!
>
>
> Thanks everyone for the great opportunity to have this conference in Haifa,
> and good luck to the great guys in D.C next year!
>
>
> Itzik
> Wikimania 2011 local team
> (probably the last time i'm going to use this title...)
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


-- 
Ting

Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/


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

[Foundation-l] Wikimania 2011 videos - mission complete!

[Itzik Edri]

Hi,

*I happy to announce that all the videos from Wikimania 2011 in Haifa are
now available on our channel in YouTube!: http://www.youtube.com/WikimediaIL
.*
Next week I will send a HDD with all the footage and the edited videos to
the WMF so they will have a copy for archive and so they can upload it to
commons also.

*Don't forget also to check our Flickr stream!:
http://www.flickr.com/WikimediaIL*

On the schedule you will find links to the videos:
http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schedule

Also, on each submissions page there is a links to the video, slides and
Etherpad (if available). *For the presenter who didn't upload their slides
yet, please do so and update your submissions page.*

*** Bonus! - a video clip that we made after Wikimania to summarize the
(amazing!) beach party: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1-MzHGA6fc ***

It was harder than we thought - to record 3 days, in 5 simulation
High-Definition cameras, and than edit, upload and tag them - really not an
easy thing. What we thought will take us few weeks, took about 2 months -
but I'm happy that we finish with that finally :)

I think now we've made this step, we finished our commitment to the
community and to the conference participants. I Hope everyone will enjoy
and will found our (hard) work useful. I personally going to find time to
watch some of lectures... (a tip for Wikimania organizers - don't plan to
attend session during the conference, you will fail :).

And some statistics:
We have about 2TB of footages, 135GB of edit videos, all of them are in HD.
During the confrtence we produce 3 summaries video clips (and one more
after that)
Until now the videos on our YouTube channel had been watched more than
16,000 times and our Flickr stream, who have 1,425 photos been seen more
than 83,000 times!


Thanks everyone for the great opportunity to have this conference in Haifa,
and good luck to the great guys in D.C next year!


Itzik
Wikimania 2011 local team
(probably the last time i'm going to use this title...)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Tobias Oelgarte]

The problem starts at the point where the user does not choose the 
image(s) for himself and uses a predefined set on what should no be 
shown. Someone will have to create this sets and this will be 
unavoidably a violation of NPOV in the first place. If the user would 
choose for himself the images that shouldn't be shown or even (existing) 
categories of images that he wants to hide, then it would be his 
personal preference. But do we want to exchange this lists or make them 
public? I guess not. Since this lists will be a predefined sets itself.

What i found to be the best solution so far was the "blurred images 
filter". You can 'opt-in' to enable it and all images will be blurred as 
the default. Since they are only blurred you will get a rough impression 
on what to expect (something the what a hidden image can't do) and an 
blurred image can be viewed by just hovering the mouse cursor over it. 
While you browse, not a single click is needed. On top of that it is 
awfully easy to implement, we already have a running version of it (see 
brainstorming page), it doesn't feed any information to actual censors 
and it is in no way a violation with NPOV. So far i didn't hear any 
constructive critic why this wouldn't be a very good solution.

nya~

Am 29.11.2011 12:08, schrieb Alasdair:
> I agree that the main obstacle at the moment is that any form of "filter 
> list" proposal is very controversial as many editors feel that this would be 
> a way of "enabling"  POV censorship that users may not want.
>
> One thing I would like to know, which has not been clear to me in discussions 
> is whether there is such a strong objection to any form of  filter which 
> includes in its core design the requirement that it can be trivially 
> overridden on a particular image by asynchronous loading (i.e Images are not 
> shown according to a predefined criterion - but the image is blocked and 
> where the image is a grey square with the image description and a "show this 
> image button"). So that a user who thinks that they might want to see an 
> image that has been blocked by their filter can do so very easily.
>
> If the feeling is that such a "weak" filter would (regardless of how the 
> pre-populated "filter lists" are created) still attract significant 
> opposition on many projects then I personally don't see how there can be any 
> filter created that is likely to gain consensus support and still be useful - 
> except for one that gives users the option to hide "all" images by default 
> and then click on the greyed out images to load them if they want to see them.
>
>
> --
> Alasdair (User:ajbpearce)
>
>
> On Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 11:37, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>
>> Am 29.11.2011 10:32, schrieb Tom Morris:
>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:09, Möller, Carsten>> (mailto:c.moel...@wmco.de)>  wrote:
 No, we need to harden the wall agaist all attacks by hammers, screwdrivers 
 and drills.
 We have consensus: Wikipedia should not be censored.

>>>
>>> You hold strong on that principle. Wikipedia should not be censored!
>>>
>>> Even if that censorship is something the user initiates, desires, and
>>> can turn off at any time, like AdBlock.
>>>
>>> Glad to see that Sue Gardner's warnings earlier in the debate that
>>> people don't get entrenched and fundamentalist but try to honestly and
>>> charitably see other people's points of view has been so well heeded.
>>>
>>
>> There is a simple thing to know, to see, that this wording is actually
>> correct. There is not a single filter that can meet the personal
>> preferences, is easy to use and not in violation with NPOV, besides two
>> extrema. The all and nothing options. We already discussed that in
>> detail at the discussion page of the referendum.
>>
>> If the filter is user initiated then it will meet the personal
>> preference is not in violation with NPOV. But it isn't easy to use. He
>> will have to do all the work himself. That is good, but practically
>> impossible.
>>
>> If the filter is predefined then it might meet the personal preference
>> and can be easy to use. But it will be an violation of NPOV, since
>> someone else (a group of reader/users) would have to define it. That
>> isn't user initiated censorship anymore.
>>
>> The comparison with AdBlock sucks, because you didn't looked at the goal
>> of both tools. AdBlock and it's predefined lists are trying to hide
>> _any_ advertisement, while the filter is meant to _only_ hide
>> controversial content. This comes down to the two extrema noted above,
>> that are the only two neutral options.
>>
>> nya~
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: ht

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[MZMcBride]

Alasdair wrote:
> If the feeling is that such a "weak" filter would (regardless of how the
> pre-populated "filter lists" are created) still attract significant
> opposition on many projects then I personally don't see how there can be
> any filter created that is likely to gain consensus support and still be
> useful - except for one that gives users the option to hide "all" images by
> default and then click on the greyed out images to load them if they want
> to see them.

You're confusing the opinions of a few extremists on foundation-l with
general consensus. It's unclear what percent of users actually want this
feature, particularly as the feature's implementation hasn't been fully
developed. A few people on this list have been trying very hard to make it
seem as though they're capable of accepting some magical invisible pink
unicorn-equivalent media filter, but the truth is that they're realistically
and pragmatically opposed to any media filter, full stop. This is an
extremist opinion (it's not as though extremist opinions are particularly
uncommon around here).

Personally, I want to believe that if the Wikimedia Board is making such a
strong push for this feature to be implemented, there are very good reasons
for doing so. Whether or not that's the case, I wouldn't look (closely or
broadly) at the comments on this mailing list and try to divine
community-wide views.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Andre Engels]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:

> If the filter is predefined then it might meet the personal preference
> and can be easy to use. But it will be an violation of NPOV, since
> someone else (a group of reader/users) would have to define it. That
> isn't user initiated censorship anymore.

It is still the user who chooses whether or not to remove images, and
if so, which list, although of course their choice is restricted. I
guess that's not user initiated, but it is still user chosen.

> The comparison with AdBlock sucks, because you didn't looked at the goal
> of both tools. AdBlock and it's predefined lists are trying to hide
> _any_ advertisement, while the filter is meant to _only_ hide
> controversial content. This comes down to the two extrema noted above,
> that are the only two neutral options.

I don't agree. We are not deciding which content is controversial and
which not, we are giving users the option to decide not to see
such-and-such content if they don't want to. That's not necessarily
labeling them as controversial; it is even less labeling other content
as non-controversial.

Even more importantly, your options are not neutral at all, in my
opinion. "Either everything is controversial or nothing is". That's
not a neutral statement. "It's controversial to you if you consider it
controversial to you" - that's much closer to being NPOV, and that's
what the proposal is trying to do. NPOV is not about treating every
_subject_ as equal, but about treating every _opinion_ as equal. If I
have a set of images I consider controversial, and you have a
different, perhaps non-intersecting set that you consider
controversial, the NPOV method is to consider both distinctions as
valid, not to say that it means that everything is controversial, or
nothing is. And -surprise- that seems to be exactly what this proposal
is trying to achieve. It is probably not ideal, there might even be
reasons to drop it completely, but NPOV is much better served by this
proposal than it is by yours.

-- 
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] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Alasdair]

I agree that the main obstacle at the moment is that any form of "filter list" 
proposal is very controversial as many editors feel that this would be a way of 
"enabling"  POV censorship that users may not want.

One thing I would like to know, which has not been clear to me in discussions 
is whether there is such a strong objection to any form of  filter which 
includes in its core design the requirement that it can be trivially overridden 
on a particular image by asynchronous loading (i.e Images are not shown 
according to a predefined criterion - but the image is blocked and where the 
image is a grey square with the image description and a "show this image 
button"). So that a user who thinks that they might want to see an image that 
has been blocked by their filter can do so very easily.  

If the feeling is that such a "weak" filter would (regardless of how the 
pre-populated "filter lists" are created) still attract significant opposition 
on many projects then I personally don't see how there can be any filter 
created that is likely to gain consensus support and still be useful - except 
for one that gives users the option to hide "all" images by default and then 
click on the greyed out images to load them if they want to see them.  


--  
Alasdair (User:ajbpearce)


On Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 11:37, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:

> Am 29.11.2011 10:32, schrieb Tom Morris:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:09, Möller, Carsten > (mailto:c.moel...@wmco.de)> wrote:
> > > No, we need to harden the wall agaist all attacks by hammers, 
> > > screwdrivers and drills.
> > > We have consensus: Wikipedia should not be censored.
> > >  
> >  
> > You hold strong on that principle. Wikipedia should not be censored!
> >  
> > Even if that censorship is something the user initiates, desires, and
> > can turn off at any time, like AdBlock.
> >  
> > Glad to see that Sue Gardner's warnings earlier in the debate that
> > people don't get entrenched and fundamentalist but try to honestly and
> > charitably see other people's points of view has been so well heeded.
> >  
>  
> There is a simple thing to know, to see, that this wording is actually  
> correct. There is not a single filter that can meet the personal  
> preferences, is easy to use and not in violation with NPOV, besides two  
> extrema. The all and nothing options. We already discussed that in  
> detail at the discussion page of the referendum.
>  
> If the filter is user initiated then it will meet the personal  
> preference is not in violation with NPOV. But it isn't easy to use. He  
> will have to do all the work himself. That is good, but practically  
> impossible.
>  
> If the filter is predefined then it might meet the personal preference  
> and can be easy to use. But it will be an violation of NPOV, since  
> someone else (a group of reader/users) would have to define it. That  
> isn't user initiated censorship anymore.
>  
> The comparison with AdBlock sucks, because you didn't looked at the goal  
> of both tools. AdBlock and it's predefined lists are trying to hide  
> _any_ advertisement, while the filter is meant to _only_ hide  
> controversial content. This comes down to the two extrema noted above,  
> that are the only two neutral options.
>  
> nya~
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto: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] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 29.11.2011 10:32, schrieb Tom Morris:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:09, Möller, Carsten  wrote:
>> No, we need to harden the wall agaist all attacks by hammers, screwdrivers 
>> and drills.
>> We have consensus: Wikipedia should not be censored.
>>
> You hold strong on that principle. Wikipedia should not be censored!
>
> Even if that censorship is something the user initiates, desires, and
> can turn off at any time, like AdBlock.
>
> Glad to see that Sue Gardner's warnings earlier in the debate that
> people don't get entrenched and fundamentalist but try to honestly and
> charitably see other people's points of view has been so well heeded.
>
There is a simple thing to know, to see, that this wording is actually 
correct. There is not a single filter that can meet the personal 
preferences, is easy to use and not in violation with NPOV, besides two 
extrema. The all and nothing options. We already discussed that in 
detail at the discussion page of the referendum.

If the filter is user initiated then it will meet the personal 
preference is not in violation with NPOV. But it isn't easy to use. He 
will have to do all the work himself. That is good, but practically 
impossible.

If the filter is predefined then it might meet the personal preference 
and can be easy to use. But it will be an violation of NPOV, since 
someone else (a group of reader/users) would have to define it. That 
isn't user initiated censorship anymore.

The comparison with AdBlock sucks, because you didn't looked at the goal 
of both tools. AdBlock and it's predefined lists are trying to hide 
_any_ advertisement, while the filter is meant to _only_ hide 
controversial content. This comes down to the two extrema noted above, 
that are the only two neutral options.

nya~





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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Tom Morris]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:09, Möller, Carsten  wrote:
> No, we need to harden the wall agaist all attacks by hammers, screwdrivers 
> and drills.
> We have consensus: Wikipedia should not be censored.
>

You hold strong on that principle. Wikipedia should not be censored!

Even if that censorship is something the user initiates, desires, and
can turn off at any time, like AdBlock.

Glad to see that Sue Gardner's warnings earlier in the debate that
people don't get entrenched and fundamentalist but try to honestly and
charitably see other people's points of view has been so well heeded.

-- 
Tom Morris


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

[Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Möller , Carsten]

> 
> ... but -if we want to reach consensus[1]- what we really need to be
> discussing is: screwdrivers.
> 
> sincerely,
>   Kim Bruning
> 

No, we need to harden the wall agaist all attacks by hammers, screwdrivers and 
drills.
We have consensus: Wikipedia should not be censored.


> Scattered pieces of the puzzle globe.
The WMF is still trying to scatter it in favour of ???


--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 4955 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message


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