Maybe we the technical side of WMF could get a "communications
advisor", some trusted volunteer from among the regular Wikimedians,
like they've done at the Chapters Committee recently.
Thanks,
Pharoos
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Eugene Zelenko
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> There are
Hi!
There are many signs of miscommunications between technical side of
WMF operations and outside worlds (users, administrators, external
projects): periodical rattling on Planet Wikimedia, frustrations on
TranslateWiki, almost impermanently growing number of bug reports in
Bugzilla.
Typical exa
Forwarded with congratulations to the Dutch board:
http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Nederland_wint_kort_geding_Sijthoff/en
Ziko
--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.
Sorry I wrote my last mail in haste and I didn't explained it very good.
At first I am not very worried about images on commons, I believe there
are already some reexaminations done. I am more worried about images
that are in the local projects. Take the example of my home-project
zh-wp. We hav
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Oldak Quill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I disagree that we should have different standards for media
> containing nudity and sexuality. Sexuality is an important educational
> subject. One of the most important, as another poster pointed out. On
> Wikipedia alo
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LonelygirlUk.
> "Oh yes, Thats me— I consent to being naked on the internet"
>
> We're kind screwed with respect to your hypothetical, but we should
> still do due diligence.
>
Of course, the LonelygirlUK images were
2008/12/10 Huib Laurens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual
> content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the
> photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under.
>
> I have tryed to nominate images like th
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Robert Rohde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Considerations of personal privacy don't apply to pictures of fruit or
> airplanes. Images of identifiable people posing are intrinsically
> different and deserve to be treated with greater sceptism.
>
> If you don'
I think first what would be required was that it be convincingly
demonstrated that "inappropriate use" of sexual imagery on Commons was in
fact a problem before we start crafting deletion policies to deal with it.
FMF
On 12/10/08, Robert Rohde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 200
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:22 AM, David Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't
> currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more
> readily deletable. There are, I think it safe to say, TONS of images on
> Commons
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Andrew Whitworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, David Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't
>> currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more
>>
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Ting Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually I don't care if the image has sexual content or not. There are
> some points we should consider:
>
> At first I don't trust all the claims on flickr.
> Second there may be content that violate personality or other lega
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, David Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't
> currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more
> readily deletable. There are, I think it safe to say, TONS of images on
> Commons
Also, it's probably worth pointing out that most of the people here
ultimately seem to be urging a re-examination of Flickr-licensed images in
general, not so much specifically sexual ones.
FMF
On 12/10/08, David Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't think it's helpful or useful to clas
I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't
currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more
readily deletable. There are, I think it safe to say, TONS of images on
Commons that aren't being used anywhere. So what if we have male nudes far
in excess of
Hoi,
I forgot to indicate that the relative costs of mentoring a GSoC person are
not high. I would even argue that it would benefit the WMF and MediaWiki
when we pay this from within the regular budget.
Growing our community should in my opinion be a key goal.
Thanks,
GerardM
2008/12/10 Ger
Hoi,
When a Google Summer of Code project is about aspects of usability, then we
have on the one hand the cost of mentoring and on the other hand the benefit
of three months of work done by typically really dedicated people. We have
seen that people who started in a SoC program continued to be part
THURNER rupert wrote:
> hi,
>
> on http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Summer_of_Code_2008 there was a
> statement that such efforts are restricted by "mentoring-manpower".
>
> now that there are real people and a budget dedicated to improve
> usability, could it make sense to leverage that effort by bou
Actually I don't care if the image has sexual content or not. There are
some points we should consider:
At first I don't trust all the claims on flickr.
Second there may be content that violate personality or other legal issues.
Some of the images were uploaded years ago and at that time we had
I wouldn't mind a standard that said that identifiable, contemporary
nudes (i.e. images with faces showing which aren't decades old) would
be deleted if there aren't being used on any Wikimedia project. There
is a non-trivial risk of harm if we simply allow unlimited inclusion
of photos that under
Oh boy in comes the political correctness brigade .
> Hi,
>
> I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual
> content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the
> photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under.
>
> I have tryed to nominate i
Hi,
I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual
content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the
photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under.
I have tryed to nominate images like that for deletion. I can say all
image are kept. The main r
Hello Nathan,
also I don't consider myself as an active member of the commons
community, but surely as a heavy user of it :-), I agree with you that
we should reestimate these images.
As for other wikipedia language versions. As far as I know on my
home-version, the zh-wp there are no such ima
hi,
on http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Summer_of_Code_2008 there was a
statement that such efforts are restricted by "mentoring-manpower".
now that there are real people and a budget dedicated to improve
usability, could it make sense to leverage that effort by bounties
given in a way comparable to
2008/12/10 David Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Glad that's over with.
Till next time. Or until they come up with a less visible mechanism.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
25 matches
Mail list logo
