Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
Am 29.10.2011 21:57, schrieb Mateus Nobre: This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, there's no reason to disagree improvements. Huh,I knew I shoulda taken that left turn at/Albuquerque/. How exactly is it a global improvement? Quite frankly I couldn't think of anything less useful than the WikiLove extension. o.O Best regards, Oliver ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The image filter: Thoughts on the German/English question
Hi, I believe that most points are valid, but I disagree with item no. 11. The first part has already been mentioned in the thread following Ting Chen's letter with a statement that the board intends to make this a visible feature in all Wikimedia projects, and when people probed about it, I didn't see Sue (or anyone else) indicating that the Board wants to make an exception for projects who reject the idea of filters in their projects. And the second part: there's a truckload of other issues I'd rather see tackled vigorously instead of spending community time and money on something like a filter mechanism that is of highly dubious value. In fact, I don't believe it helps our mission at all. Am 14.10.2011 05:43, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: 11. My suggestion to the Board would be to abandon the idea of the personal image filter for the German Wikipedia – I don't believe it is really needed, and the German community does not want it – but to pursue it vigorously for other projects, including in particular the English Wikipedia and Commons, and taking note of any regional variation in the referendum results. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
Am 05.10.2011 06:25, schrieb Aaron Adrignola: Should I expect that de.wikipedia would be allowed to stage a similar blackout should the image filter be implemented against their wishes, with the goal of protesting perceived or potential censorship? You can pretty much count on that. And what'cha gonna do then? De-sysop people who carry out the will of the very community that elected them to be sysops in the first place? Risk a fork of the third-largest Wikimedia project and a relatively large (and wealthy) WMF chapter? Like it or not, while the WMF may own the infrastructure and have a vaguely defined ownership when it comes to the projects, all that counts for nothing if you don't have the community to fill this with life. So try to keep calm and don't come up with an 'emergency' heavy-handed response that you're going to regret. Regards, Oliver ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
Am 30.09.2011 16:24, schrieb Risker: The implication of your post is if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such posts in the future. Weird. I've only seen a post where Milos has been crunching some numbers. Don't you think you're assuming a bit too much to make such implications? Regards, Oliver ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
Am 30.09.2011 16:46, schrieb Risker: My question to you is why anyone would want to participate in a discussion where their opinions are going to be classified by their sex or their geographic location rather than their input. There's absolutely no harm in coming to a finding that, say, 80% of the US-American female contributors prefer the filter while only 30% of the non-US-American female contributors do. Just like there is no harm in stating that 86% of the core contributors to de-WP do not want to see the filter in their project. It really depends on what you do with these numbers. If you use them and try to understand why the two groups feel in such a drastically different way and how you wan to deal with that, then there can't be anything wrong with that, can there? You claim that Milos implied that if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid, and I have not seen anything like that. It strikes me as funny that you would complain about his post being aggressive and alienating when your post could be construed as exactly that. Regards, Oliver ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter
Am 23.09.2011 14:03, schrieb m...@marcusbuck.org: I think the same is happening here. The majority of people probably think that an optional opt-in filter is a thing that does no harm to non-users and has advantages for those who choose to use it. (Ask your gramma whether You can hide pictures if you don't want to see them sounds like a threatening thing to her.) But the scepticists voice their opinions loudly and point out every single imaginable problem. It's hard to know what the silent majority of people is thinking. But it's become fairly obvious what 86% of de-WP's active users are thinking. And you cannot simply brush their concerns aside. Andf even those 14% who did not object didn't appear to really support it at least as far as I've read their comments. Usually it's a simple 'Meh, as long as it's purely opt-in'. But let's not repeat the arguments here because they have already been exchanged. It really boils down to the notion that people who reject the filter idea as it's been decided by the WMF /will/ mean a lot of work and even more controversy to realize a feature that doesn't really promise much benefit. So yeah, I am going to receive fewer tickets from people who demand we remove pictures of Mohammed, but what's the actual benefit there? Are we really likely to get more readers, more donations and - much more importantly - more authors? Regards, Oliver ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
Am 18.09.2011 13:56, schrieb Andre Engels: On itself the one who tags the image, but we happen to have a system for that in Wikimedia. It is called discussion and trying to reach consent. Who decides whether a page is in a category? Who decides whether a page has an image? Who decides whether something is decribed on a page? All the same. Our typical system of categories is designed to make it easier to /find/ (related) articles or media. Good luck trying that with a system that is designed to /hide/ things. And this doesn't seem like an awful waste of precious time to you? For a feature that is not all that likely to be popular on a global scale? Regards, Oliver ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
Am 18.09.2011 15:58, schrieb Fred Bauder: I do support censorship. There is absolutely no excuse for hosting an image of Mohammad as a dog, but this is a Rube Goldburg boondoggle. Nothing wrong with hosting that picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muh-hund-original-rondellliten.JPG ). It's really about where it's used. Should it be used in the article on Muhammad? Heck no. But in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Vilks_Muhammad_drawings_controversy ) describing the controversy that arised around that very picture? Sure enough, because it serves an encyclopedic purpose there. Regards, Oliver ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
Am 16.09.2011 10:40, schrieb Peter Gervai: I believe it is a fair assumption that we have voted for developing the feature, so wikipedias who need it can activate and use it, while those who do not want to use it will not request its activation, or will request its deactivation. I see no technical reason not to do that so I see no reason not to do it this way. Where exactly has such a vote taken place? Just a few bits about the Meinungsbild in the de-WP: Only active authors are allowed to vote since the results of a Meinungsbild are binding, unlike the results of ordinary polls (Umfage). Of those 14% who did not oppose the filter, I did not really see much actual support for it either. The general tone of the people who did not vote against it was that they don't mind that such a tool should be introduced if there's really demand for it. The 86% rejection rate means that the feature will not be activated in the de-WP and that the WMF would be in a heap of trouble if they tried to force the second largest project to adopt something that the people who actually shape the project simply do not want. I believe it is also safe to assume that those 86% are not likely to do the dirty work of tagging pictures with categories to support the filter. Regards, Oliver ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
Am 16.09.2011 12:39, schrieb emijrp: There are more issues with images in German Wikipedia. And on the other hand pictures are deleted from Commons because there is no FOP in the country where the pictures was taken. Regards, Oliver ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
Am 16.09.2011 13:22, schrieb emijrp: Again, who are we? And why do German laws matter with USA servers? Why does only German Wikipedia exclude that images? Are English Wikipedia or Commons blocked in Germany? It's not like the picture is used in every Wikipedia either. How about we just agree that the German Wikipedia project decided to apply the German/Austrian/Swiss laws when it comes to images? And again, on Commons you will always find deletions based on local law rather than applying U.S. laws. And vice-versa. Regards, Oliver ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
