> Marcus wrote:
>> Creating a technical solution like that is the task of the foundation.
>> The _real_ task of the foundation.
Cimon wrote:
> "Lot of momentum around the idea", is currently most
> persistently promoted by the same precise individual
> who began the "ethical breaching experiment"
I'll respond to a few related comments and questions at once:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> It's board members directly asserting control over content. Of
> course it's a major issue.
Perish the thought. The Board is not controlling content - I would
oppose any Board a
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 18:20, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the
> clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at
> Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not in
> use by any pro
Hello,
2010/5/9 Thomas Dalton :
> Stu,
>
> Thank you for telling us your views. You have admitted that the way
> this was dealt with was "messy". That such an approach would be messy
> should have been obvious to everyone involved, so do you think it
> would have been better to take a less messy a
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Noein wrote:
>
> I'm surprised it is apparently needed to be said, but I'm here too
> because I have faith in "universal values". In fact I've been attracted
> like a magnet since the day, one year and five months ago, that I wondered:
> "In this world rushing int
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> It is *NOT* *OUR* *ROLE* to decide what is and is not "appropriate"
> for children to view on our website. That role is to be discharged
> solely by parents and supervisors of those children.
>
> The *ONLY* rating and classification system t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/05/2010 00:05, Milos Rancic wrote:
> There are some political reasons of why I am here. And they are about
> our values: all human knowledge... not censored... consensus
> culture... building encyclopedia etc., not surrealistic comedy...
> [..]
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/05/2010 22:20, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
>> The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support is a
>> descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the content, and
>> allows h
The question is not about your honesty, Mike, but the WMF board. In
authorizing their statement, did they expect that Jimmy would take the
sort of action he did? In practice they are the only ones who have any
control over what actions he takes; I would expect that after an
hysterical over-reaction
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:29 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> By now, just two Board members explicitly stated what do they think
>> about Jimmy's action: Jan-Bart de Vreede and Ting Chen (who explained
>> his position in details).
>>
>> According to
> Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> --- On Sat, 8/5/10, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>>
>>> Then another idea is to keep on Commons only those pictures which are
>>> non-controversial and suggest local project to keep their controversial
>>> pictures local? For example en Wikipedia keeps fair use pictures local
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> --- On Sat, 8/5/10, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>
>> Then another idea is to keep on Commons only those pictures which are
>> non-controversial and suggest local project to keep their controversial
>> pictures local? For example en Wikipedia keeps fair use pictures locally
>>
On 9 May 2010 01:09, David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 01:04, Noein wrote:
>> On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote:
>
>>> (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography
>>> distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous
>>> hosting). (2) As a com
> So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm)" ?
> There is plenty of stuff to be delete then... not only penis and
> vagina pictures... For example delete all biographies of porn-stars,
> articles about addictive violent computer games, and there is tons of
> things to be d
Florence writes:
Besides the fact Mike is using a language far too convoluted for many
> speakers on this list,
Ouch! If I do say something too convolutedly here, please send me a note,
and I'll rephrase accordingly.
> I would argue that one of the implications of the
> abusive deletions is th
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:09 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 01:04, Noein wrote:
>> On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote:
>>> (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography
>>> distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous
>>> hosting). .
Anthony wrote:
> Jimbo shouldn't be blamed for the actions of CommonsDelinkerBot. For those
> particular deletions in which he exercised poor judgment, sure. For
> wheel-warring over some of those instances, absolutely. But ultimately, his
> actions (as opposed to the actions which were caused
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:22 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
> Hooray for letting American prurience and Larry Sanger's oddities shape the
> project.
Wikimedia's goal is to bring knowledge to everyone on Earth, not just
Europeans. Europe is at the extreme left on the global social scale,
along with a ha
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:14 PM, David Levy wrote:
> This assumes that...
>
> This is not always feasible...
>
> And the point is that some solutions weaken the Wikimedia Commons
> and/or the sister projects that rely upon it.
>
> Depending on the language, that isn't always an easy task. A
On 9 May 2010 02:26, Aphaia wrote:
> By the way, Gmail doesn't seem to have that burst command, sad.
Probably because there is no need for one. Create a filter to give a
certain label to all emails to the mailing list and to skip the inbox
for them and you get much better functionality than you d
On 9 May 2010 01:04, Noein wrote:
> On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote:
>> (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography
>> distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous
>> hosting). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated the issu
Um, I thought it would be better to talk privately but surprised it is
forgotten at all so do it:
Users can burst digest format messages into separate mails locally. It
means, you can scan the digest and burst them into messages only if
you want to reply. Most of ancient mail user clients have thi
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support is a
> descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the content, and
> allows humans or computers to filter it accordingly. The
> infrastructure would be technically simpl
Stu wrote: '"Due to the failure of the community process, something
extraordinary had to be done"
There's been many statements claiming that Commons cannot police
itself, however, the deletions have been counted: a mere 400 files
were deleted, after which Jimbo said the cleanup was done. A lot o
Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the
clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at
Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not in use
by any project*.
The result so far: 14 Opposes, 1 Support.
You get th
Anthony wrote:
> > > OMG. Red links would indicate to a human that there was a problem which
> > > needed to be solved. Then that human could go about solving the problem
> > > (which very well may involve more than just delinking the image).
> > What, other than delinking or uploading the miss
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm)" ?
>> There is plenty of stuff to be delete then... not only penis and
>> vagina pictures... For example delete all biographies of porn-stars,
>> articles about addictive vi
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Mark Ryan wrote:
> I have to agree with you, Anthere. It's starting to look like over
> time the role of the board has evolved from broad guidance and
> administration to some sort of twisted version of enwp's Arbitration
> Committee. When the board was first create
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Excirial wrote:
> Educational and inappropriate are not static terms, as the definition can
> vary between groups of people.
I disagree with this.
> Ergo, take the group "pre-puberty kids".
> Plenty of parents would find it objectionable if their children would
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Stuart West wrote:
> A few of you have asked for more perspectives from Board members on the
> goings-on at Commons. I'm happy to share some of my personal views on the
> events of the past few days.
>
> First off, let me thank everyone who has participated in the
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
> To be fair, I am *extremely* disturbed by the above statement.
>
> Since when is the board DEFINING the scope and basic rules of the
> projects ?
>
> As a reminder, the WMF was created two years after Wikipedia. The scope,
> the basic rule
*You agreed yourself that there were certain images that were "inappropriate
for children", but would be educational and/or informative for certain niche
professionals. That sounds to me like a choice needs to be made. It's just
like the choices that are made in every encyclopedia article on Wiki
Hi,
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Stuart West wrote:
>
> - Due to the failure of the community process, something extraordinary had to
> be done. A small step was our Board statement we hoped would focus attention.
> A bigger step was the work by Jimmy and other individuals on Commons who too
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Larry Pieniazek
wrote:
>
> The problem is that the community isn't "in charge" of anything. Time and
> again we've seen that without precipitious action, the consensus process
> stalls out.
I've seen Jimbo make this argument as well. Say, in essence, "The
commun
Between Wikiversity blocking and Commons ones, there is another
example of Jimmy's rushes and communal nonsupport, I think.
That is, on a "global ban" of a certain editor.
While I personally don't care if that guy is banned or not, I care the
Jimmy's claim he has a right to declare global ban in
Anthere said:
> However, the lost perception that the community is in charge of its own
future
> (eg, the way it operates, the power structure), is not a detail.
> It will impact our entire future.
The problem is that the community isn't "in charge" of anything. Time and
again we've seen that wi
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, David Levy wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > OMG. Red links would indicate to a human that there was a problem which
> > needed to be solved. Then that human could go about solving the problem
> > (which very well may involve more than just delinking the image).
>
> Wh
--- On Sat, 8/5/10, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> Then another idea is to keep on Commons only those pictures which are
> non-controversial and suggest local project to keep their controversial
> pictures local? For example en Wikipedia keeps fair use pictures locally
> and it is OK. If for example nud
Hi,
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Tomek writes:
>
>> So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm)" ?
>
> For what it's worth, I personally don't see the issue as one of making
> Commons (or Wikipedia or any other project) "family-friendly."
I believe
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Has it occurred to you that we could simply _age-rate_ articles, rather
> than delete them? An article on a pornographic novel could be 18-rated,
> just like the novel itself. Same with porn star bios, which aren't likely
> to be of interest t
Svip wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 01:40, Anthony wrote:
>
>
>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Or shut off the Commons. That would be the ultimate solution :-)
>>>
>> Huh? What would that solve?
>>
>
> Considering this to be an ill conceived joke, not
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
> pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
> difficuilt to revert. On any other project if you delete something it
> is just a local issue. But deleting a picture on Commons whi
> For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
> effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
> direction. Both Jimmy as well as me believe that the best way for the
> board to do things is to give guidance to the communities. But, this
> topic is
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Stuart West wrote:
> ...snip...
> - We were hosting material that was unambiguously not
> relevant to our educational mission and it needed to go. Its presence on
> our projects/servers alienated people (users, potential new volunteers,
> educators, others) who we n
Stu,
Thank you for telling us your views. You have admitted that the way
this was dealt with was "messy". That such an approach would be messy
should have been obvious to everyone involved, so do you think it
would have been better to take a less messy approach? Perhaps the
Board could have issued
On 5/9/10 1:42 AM, Svip wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 01:01, Florence Devouard wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/10 7:31 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not defending such a criterion, and I do not believe that such a
>>> criterion informed Jimmy's actions. Jimmy can speak better than I can on
>>> what he was thinkin
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2010/5/8 Anthony :
>
> > I dunno, when framed that way it seems the answer is to be
> family-friendly,
> > and to let the specialists get their information in specialist resources.
>
> So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote:
> (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography
> distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous
> hosting). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated th
A few of you have asked for more perspectives from Board members on the
goings-on at Commons. I'm happy to share some of my personal views on the
events of the past few days.
First off, let me thank everyone who has participated in the debate. I've kept
up with many of the email threads, talk p
On 9 May 2010 01:40, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>
>> Or shut off the Commons. That would be the ultimate solution :-)
>
> Huh? What would that solve?
Considering this to be an ill conceived joke, not because it could
appear 'controversial', but becaus
On 9 May 2010 01:01, Florence Devouard wrote:
> On 5/8/10 7:31 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>> I'm not defending such a criterion, and I do not believe that such a
>> criterion informed Jimmy's actions. Jimmy can speak better than I can on
>> what he was thinking,
>
> Then let him speak by himself
I
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2010/5/8 Anthony :
> > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Tomasz Ganicz
> wrote:
> >
> >> Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
> >> pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
> >> diffi
On 9 May 2010 01:31, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Even that solution sometimes creates new threads, for reasons unbeknownst to
> me.
This is usually related to an error in your mail client or the mailman
server. It is usually a mail header (if you are using gmail, try
clicking near a mail (the arrow
On May 8, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
>> If someone will tell me how to get messages to thread if you're in
>> digest mode - I've been making honest efforts to try and get threading
>> - I will happily use whatever technique is sugge
On 5/8/10 12:15 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
> What I can say to your questions is that Jimmy informed the board about
> his intention and asked the board for support. Don't speaking for other
> board members, just speak for myself. I answered his mail with that I
> fully support his engagement.
>
> Person
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> There's also no urgent legal issue driving any changes to Commons -- we
> don't have reason to believe any category of content we knowingly carry on
> Commons is definitionally illegal under U.S. law. (Obviously, when if people
> upload content
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
> If someone will tell me how to get messages to thread if you're in
> digest mode - I've been making honest efforts to try and get threading
> - I will happily use whatever technique is suggested. Until then, I
> apologise for killing threads.
>
On 5/8/10 7:31 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
>
>>
>> Defending means lessening the chance of the opponent to succeed. If
>> you throw all the riches that are demanded and then some over the city
>> wall, that's not defending, that's capitulating.
>>
Tomek writes:
So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm)" ?
> There is plenty of stuff to be delete then... not only penis and
> vagina pictures... For example delete all biographies of porn-stars,
> articles about addictive violent computer games, and there is tons of
> t
Why do you believe that there is a need to make a "choice" between groups of
people? We can easily supply all the data - it is up to the user to decide
if they want to access it. Anyone active on the internet has the potential
to unearth vast amounts of data. There are pro-choice and pro-life sites
> 2010/5/8 Anthony :
>
>> I dunno, when framed that way it seems the answer is to be
>> family-friendly,
>> and to let the specialists get their information in specialist
>> resources.
>
> So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm)" ?
> There is plenty of stuff to be delete
2010/5/8 Anthony :
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>
>> Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
>> pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
>> difficuilt to revert.
>
>
> So fix commons-delinker. Or shut it off altog
2010/5/8 Anthony :
> I dunno, when framed that way it seems the answer is to be family-friendly,
> and to let the specialists get their information in specialist resources.
So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm)" ?
There is plenty of stuff to be delete then... not onl
>
> So which group is more important? Which is the better answer, to tell
> families to go elsewhere, or to tell the specialists to go elsewhere?
>
> I dunno, when framed that way it seems the answer is to be
> family-friendly,
> and to let the specialists get their information in specialist reso
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
> pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
> difficuilt to revert.
So fix commons-delinker. Or shut it off altogether.
__
If you intend to build a house, you build some foundations first, or at the
very least you create a plan to follow. Quick solutions are not necessarily
a bad thing, but there is a difference between a solution and actions that
only cause damage. Personally i doubt that this would have generated the
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Excirial wrote:
> Sexual and medical images might be entirely inappropriate for children, but
> they provide valuable information for other groups of people - for example,
> a gynecologist or a medical student might have a completely non sexual
> reason to look at
2010/5/8 David Levy :
> Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> I don't think this is a technical issue at all. Considering how
>> flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
>> appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited
>> technical power' on the projects -- just as you and a
If someone will tell me how to get messages to thread if you're in
digest mode - I've been making honest efforts to try and get threading
- I will happily use whatever technique is suggested. Until then, I
apologise for killing threads.
-Adam.
___
found
Adam,
could you please continue existing discussions instead of creating new ones
again and again?
kind regards
teun spaans
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
> (Sorry, ignore the last two sentences - they're left over from a previous
> draft)
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:18
On 08.05.2010 23:02, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
>> Think future, not past. Think project, not Jimmy.
>>
> We do think future: if Jimmy had already carelessly intervened twice
> and caused controversies both time, how can we except the story will
> not repeat.
>
Probably this is happened twic
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
>> Think future, not past. Think project, not Jimmy.
>
> We do think future: if Jimmy had already carelessly intervened twice
> and caused controversies both time, how can we except the story will
> not repeat.
> We do think project: if we alr
(Sorry, ignore the last two sentences - they're left over from a previous draft)
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
> Mr. Godwin, are you aware that, before Jimbo acted unilaterally, that
> a discussion of policy had been opened by him, and was proceeding
> towards something tha
Mr. Godwin, are you aware that, before Jimbo acted unilaterally, that
a discussion of policy had been opened by him, and was proceeding
towards something that had reasonable support, based on the legal
issues that he implied were the source of his hurry to do something.
That was derailed by his a
Is it really our task to worry about the impact certain content might have
in a certain culture? There will always be people who are offended by a
certain image, phrase or comment, and we cannot possibly accommodate
everyone. I would argue that we *should not *consider ourselves educators
who's goa
On 08.05.2010 17:48, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I think it's also worth remembering that when an individual like Jimmy is
> given extraordinary cross-project powers to use in extraordinary
> circumstances, this more or less guarantees that any use of those powers
> will be controversial. (If they were un
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Fred Bauder
> wrote:
>> It comes down to the size of the tent. If you want students in Saudi
>> Arabia to be able to use Wikipedia it has to be structured one way. If
>> you want to please gay college students you structure it another way.
> [snip]
>
> The deletio
> Think future, not past. Think project, not Jimmy.
We do think future: if Jimmy had already carelessly intervened twice
and caused controversies both time, how can we except the story will
not repeat.
We do think project: if we already had careless interventions with
desysopping, users retiring a
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> While there is much to be said about Jimbo's role from everyone, that's not
> Mike's point. His is, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, "Sit down and work
> out the issue of the images, which is the most important, and then revisit
> social
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
> I've always loved that quote. Me, I want neither to create disorder nor to
> preserve disorder. It's not the nature of disorder to need creating or
> preserving.
>
> Creating and preserving order is a much harder challenge. Obviously,
> creati
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Mayor of Chicago, Richard J. Daley:
>
> "The policeman isn't there to create disorder;
> the policeman is there to preserve disorder."
>
>
> Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-D
>
I've always loved that quote. Me, I want neither to create d
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> It comes down to the size of the tent. If you want students in Saudi
> Arabia to be able to use Wikipedia it has to be structured one way. If
> you want to please gay college students you structure it another way.
[snip]
The deletions performed
It comes down to the size of the tent. If you want students in Saudi
Arabia to be able to use Wikipedia it has to be structured one way. If
you want to please gay college students you structure it another way.
Really there is no right or wrong; it's a matter of who the resource is
going to be avai
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>> You're misunderstanding what I wrote here. The words "not individually" were
>> chosen for a reason.
>>
>> Let me put it this way -- sometimes a police officer has to use physical
>> force to stop further violence from having. If you inferred
H...
> The vast majority of that material is entirely uncontroversial, but the
> projects do contain material that may be inappropriate or offensive to
> some audiences, such as children or people with religious or cultural
> sensitivities.
Time to delete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Imagine a world where every single media and government on the planet
is given free censorship on the sum of all human knowledge. That's what
we're king of."
I agree with Mike Godwin that this crisis is an constructive
opportunity, not just a destruc
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Fred Bauder
> wrote:
> > Note however, "We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting
> > hardcore pornography with zero educational value and doing nothing about
> > it."
> >
> > Fred Bauder
>
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:39 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> And w
> Marc Riddell writes:
>
>
>> Mike, please stop and listen. The Community, which is the heart and soul of
>> this very Project, is ventilating, and making some extremely important
>> points. Please stop trying to control, and re-direct, this dialogue in a
>> more Foundation-comfortable direction
I'm generally in favor of Jimmy's leadership, or the idea of project
leadership in general. See my March 27 post opposing the poll to
remove his Founder flag, on meta. I'm also strongly in favor of reform
in the area of sexually explicit imagery on Commons and other
projects, see the many threads I
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:15 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>
>
> However, as someone who doesn't have a financial stake, as a non-Wikimedia
> Foundation employee, as an Internet libertarian, I don't see where you get
> off doing anything _but_ admonishing Jimmy's actions. His actions appear to
> be comple
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 02:06:09PM -0400, David Levy wrote:
> Mike Godwin wrote:
>
> > All metaphors are at least somewhat misleading, and some metaphors are
> > deeply misleading.
>
> At least no one is comparing Jimbo with Nazis or Hitler yet.
>
Idiot!
That's his
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/
Mike Godwin wrote:
> Similarly, I don't favor "attacks on free speech" -- but like Nat Hentoff and
> other free-speech theorists, I recognize that free speech depends on active
> intervention and rule-making sometimes. I know you are trying to be
> provocative, but what you write here suggests tha
Mike Godwin wrote:
> All metaphors are at least somewhat misleading, and some metaphors are
> deeply misleading.
At least no one is comparing Jimbo with Nazis or Hitler yet.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Uns
Marc Riddell writes:
> Mike, please stop and listen. The Community, which is the heart and soul of
> this very Project, is ventilating, and making some extremely important
> points. Please stop trying to control, and re-direct, this dialogue in a
> more Foundation-comfortable direction. Listen an
On 8 May 2010 18:35, Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
>> Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource has by themselves no educational
>> value. They gain their educational value in the way that they provide
>> repositories for the other WMF projects.
> Hold on, now.
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> > Wow. Even worse metaphor! "All the riches that are demanded"!
>
> Perhaps, but yours is no better. When you attack a village it is
> because you want something they have (riches, land, women) or you just
> want revenge for something. FOX
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>
> Ah... I'm actually sort of good at this kind of thing, having mentioned
> aspects of it in oft-quoted "essay"s (such as [[:en:WP:BRD]].
> If people want, I could do a talk or workshop on that topic at
> Wikimania? This might reduce wikidrama
On 8 May 2010 18:31, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
>
>>
>> Defending means lessening the chance of the opponent to succeed. If
>> you throw all the riches that are demanded and then some over the city
>> wall, that's not defending, that's capitulating.
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 08:48:29AM -0700, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Jimmy's decision to intervene changed the narrative they were
> attempting to create. So even if you disagree with some or all
> of the particulars of Jimmy's actions, you may still be able to
> see how Jimmy's actions, taken as a
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
> Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource has by themselves no educational
> value. They gain their educational value in the way that they provide
> repositories for the other WMF projects.
Hold on, now. These are all awesome educational projects in th
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
