Hello,
2010/5/10 Mike Godwin :
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 PM, David Levy wrote:
>
>>
>> Instead, Jimbo has essentially announced to the world that Fox News
>> was correct. And until we purge our servers of every "graphic image,"
>> we knowingly retain our self-acknowledged state of indecency
the key distinction is that a method for getting a list of files in a
category is a good thing for many purposes, and is morally totally
neutral. The ethical questions depend on what other people do with the
list, and like all intellectual work, it can be used for ends any
person might think desi
thousands, yes. Even conservapedia has thousands. But millions?
I have no objection to working for a profit making enterprise. But
when I do, I want my share of the money.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Tim Starling wro
>From my favorite author (paraphrased):
Young admirers to Samuel Johnson: We congratulate you on not including
any indelicate words in your dictionary.
SJ to young admirers: what, my dears! Have you been searching for them?
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On 11/05/10 05:34, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to categorically
> block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article
> pages? Presumably, those Commons images that are found in articles are
> relevant and appropriately enc
Thank you, as ever, for being the one voice of sanity
on the board of trustees. I hope one day you will find
the time to be its chairperson.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http
First of all, this is entirely my own opinion, not that of the board,
and anyone who quotes it as a statement of the WMF will get promptly
crushed by a giant puzzle globe.
I absolutely sign on to the board statement[1]. Commons should not be
a host for media that has very little informational or e
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
>
> >
> > We were going to have nonsense articles in Fox whatever we do - that's
> > the way Fox is. Now we have an article on the BBC News website (a very
> > respected news outlet, unl
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> We were going to have nonsense articles in Fox whatever we do - that's
> the way Fox is. Now we have an article on the BBC News website (a very
> respected news outlet, unlike Fox) saying there is infighting in
> Wikipedia which we wouldn't
On 10 May 2010 22:57, Mike Godwin wrote:
>> Jimbo's actions were
>> ridiculously damaging for *no gain whatsoever*.
>>
>
> I understand that you believe this. But it depends on what you mean by
> "damage" and on what you mean by "no gain." The thesis has been advanced
> here that Jimmy's actions
On 05/10/2010 02:57 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> Jimbo's actions were
>> ridiculously damaging for *no gain whatsoever*.
>>
>>
> I understand that you believe this. But it depends on what you mean by
> "damage" and on what you mean b
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#An_initial_notice_to_reduce_surprises
>
> _
Rock on!
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lis
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#An_initial_notice_to_reduce_surprises
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/05/10 20:51, Delirium wrote:
> That isn't really true, though. He recruited volunteers with the promise
> of the free-content license for sure, and with a sort of implicit
> promise of a generally free-culture / volunteer-run encyclopedia. If he
> had *not* promised anything, he would have
I've read most of the replies in this thread, And i think I should
point out a few things out:
* The "omg tagging for any reason is censorship" mentality is a
needless, Yes we tag things presently *shock horror* look at the
currently category system.
* Omg adding this to Mediawiki will destroy Wi
> Fox News (or at least this reporter and her editors) have dedicated
> themselves to damaging Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects. This is a
> given, and it is evident from their behavior. *Any* followup story would
> have demonstrated what these days in the U.S. we are calling "epistemic
> clos
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> > I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to
> categorically
> > block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article
> > pages? Presumably, t
Let us assume for a minute that would not have taken any action whatsoever.
Seeing Fox's habit of stretching and turning the truth upside down i would
not be surprised if the next headline would have been "Wikipedia or
Pedopedia? - Online encyclopedia endorses child pornography". Eventually the
Fou
Mike Godwin wrote:
> Do you mean "the vast majority of persons" in "Earth's population"? I don't
> imagine much of "Earth's population" is even aware of the story, much less
> Jimmy's actions.
Of course not. I mean "the vast majority of persons encountering
Jimbo's statements."
David Levy
Sure Mike, we were going to get bad press from Fox News no matter what
we did. You're clearly right about that, and I don't think anyone
would disagree with you. I'm not seeing how you go from that position
to endorsing (or at least defending against criticism) the panicked
response from Jimmy and
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> > Did you draw that conclusion?
>
> Your equivocation on this point is wearisome.
>
I don't know what you mean by "equivocation" here. I'm not equivocating, so
far as I know. Perhaps I'm just not understanding what you mean by "this
point
Hi,
Le lundi 10 mai 2010 13:25:29, David Gerard a écrit :
>
> Any attempt to "filter" ourselves is not addressing the fact that the
> images exist at all on Commons.
>
> Any attempted appeasement of these vicious morons was and is
> counterproductive at best. Fox News is best aggressively ignore
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 10 May 2010 22:32, Mike Godwin wrote:
>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, David Levy wrote:
>
>>> > Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
>>> that
>>> > "Fox News was correct"?
>
>>> I'm referring to the c
Noein wrote:
> Is anyone here really concerned by Fox News actions? From the beginning
> it seemed to me that what they were barking about were of no impact:
> they would confirm the WMF's opponents in their opinions and obtain an
> indifferent or amused shrug from the rest of the world. Am I wron
This is excellent advice from David. I could not agree more regarding Fox
News; ignore them. They won't go away, but any reaction feeds their
nonsense.
- Original Message -
From: "David Gerard"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:25 PM
Subject: [Found
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is anyone here really concerned by Fox News actions? From the beginning
it seemed to me that what they were barking about were of no impact:
they would confirm the WMF's opponents in their opinions and obtain an
indifferent or amused shrug from the res
Mike Godwin wrote:
> > > Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
> > > that "Fox News was correct"?
> > I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw
> > upon encountering Jimbo's remarks first-hand, with or without reading
> > Fox's subsequ
On 10 May 2010 22:32, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, David Levy wrote:
>> > Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
>> that
>> > "Fox News was correct"?
>> I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw
>> upon encoun
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>
> Can you point me to major media entities
>
> --Mike
>
>
well for a slightly more entertaining news version you could see :
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/05/child-pornography-at-the-center-of-intra-wikipedia-warfare.html
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, David Levy wrote:
> > Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
> that
> > "Fox News was correct"?
>
> I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw
> upon encountering Jimbo's remarks first-hand, with or witho
> Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion that
> "Fox News was correct"?
I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw
upon encountering Jimbo's remarks first-hand, with or without reading
Fox's subsequent reports on the matter.
David Levy
The Fox article helpfully describes how to find those cartoon illustrations
"depicting child sex acts"
Would anyone be interested in seeing how many times those pictures were viewed
prior to Fox's article, and after the article came out? "Dirty hands" is an
effective legal counter-claim is it
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 PM, David Levy wrote:
>
> Instead, Jimbo has essentially announced to the world that Fox News
> was correct. And until we purge our servers of every "graphic image,"
> we knowingly retain our self-acknowledged state of indecency.
>
Can you point me to major media en
Mike Godwin wrote:
> The hidden assumption here -- an incorrect assumption, in my view -- is that
> there is some universe of possibilities in which Fox News would not have
> cited Jimbo's *inaction* as validation that it was correct. I infer from
> this comment that you imagine that if Jimbo had
David Levy writes:
>
> Agreed. As some predicted, Fox News has cited Jimbo's actions as
> validation that its earlier claims were correct. And because any
> "graphic images" remain, this means that we're aware of an egregious
> problem and have made only a token effort to address it.
>
> Essenti
On 05/11/2010 12:25 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Any attempt to "filter" ourselves is not addressing the fact that the
> images exist at all on Commons.
+1.
I suggest to ignore them. Or perhaps someone should write more nice
things in the article about FOX news (maintaining NPOV, of course).
--vvv
The moral here is that a panicked, poorly thought out and haphazardly
executed response to critical news coverage is exactly the wrong
response. It's failed here in every possible respect, tarnishing the
Foundation, its founder, its staff and the community. A few borderline
images have been deleted
David Gerard wrote:
> Despite Content Purge, Pornographic Images Remain on Wikimedia
> By Jana Winter
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-remains/
>
>
> Any attempt to "filter" ourselves is not addressing the fact that the
> images exist at all on Commons.
>
> Hello,
>
> I think it would be good to have an open meeting (or a few) to discuss
> the wider Wikimedia community, project governance, and recent issues
> on Commons and Meta. Przykuta suggested an IRC meeting soon.
>
> For those who are available, please join us in #wikimedia on
> Wednesday,
Despite Content Purge, Pornographic Images Remain on Wikimedia
By Jana Winter
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-remains/
Any attempt to "filter" ourselves is not addressing the fact that the
images exist at all on Commons.
Any attempted appeasement of these
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> > Obviously, this notion is too cute to actually be helpful, but I thought
> I'd
> > share it.
>
> It has an enormously cute strawman answer: If you don't want to see
> images which aren't used inline in another wiki, don't look at comm
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to categorically
> block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article
> pages? Presumably, those Commons images that are found in articles are
> relevant and ap
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
> And what about choosing "Would you like to see uncategorized images?"
>
> And the same for "cultural censorship": Is your culture brave enough
> to gamble would you be horrified by seeing a penis or Muhammad or not?
>
I'm not sure I under
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to categorically
> block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article
> pages? Presumably, those Commons images that are found in articles are
> relevant and ap
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> For those who are available, please join us in #wikimedia on
> Wednesday, at 1900 UTC. (for those who dislike IRC, there's a link
* on the page below to a webclient you can use to connect.)
> For everyone, please add topics for discussion
David Goodman writes:
I have been taking an extreme anticensorship position, but I would
> consider this acceptable. People certainly do have the right as
> individuals to select what they want to see. It is not censorship,
> just a display option Such display options could be expanded--I
> wo
Hello,
I think it would be good to have an open meeting (or a few) to discuss
the wider Wikimedia community, project governance, and recent issues
on Commons and Meta. Przykuta suggested an IRC meeting soon.
For those who are available, please join us in #wikimedia on
Wednesday, at 1900 UTC. (f
Most browsers have the ability to not automatically download images,
but display only the ones that one clicks on--a very useful option for
slow connections and those using screen readers. For some sites with
distracting advertising, I enable it myself before I go there.
But David Gerard's sug
I have been taking an extreme anticensorship position, but I would
consider this acceptable. People certainly do have the right as
individuals to select what they want to see. It is not censorship,
just a display option Such display options could be expanded--I
would suggest an option to initia
On 10 May 2010 19:18, David Gerard wrote:
> Create a tool (e.g. a JavaScript gadget) that allows a logged-in user
> to block images from Commons or local categories they don't want to
> see images from. Then it's each individual's discretion as to what
> they want not to see, and uses the existing
On 10 May 2010 19:14, Noein wrote:
> I don't understand exactly your thoughts. What happens to someone who
> wants to navigate Wikipedia or use Commons but doesn't want to reach
> offending (according to his/her personal sensibility) pages? If this
> person wants a protecting tool, what is your a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/05/2010 07:56, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
> 2010/5/10 Marcus Buck :
>> J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven:
>>> I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
>>> country, why should Wikimedia decide t
2010/5/10 Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva :
> I sincerely don't personally care much about Muhammad pictures, for
> example. If people decided to delete them, I would simply think they
> are too afraid of offending, but I wouldn't care that much. (I know
> that being very notable and encyclopedic, t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/05/2010 05:51, Andre Engels wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
>>> Being educational should be just another word for being in scope, and
>>> in scope are,
If we follow sexual taboos, which ones do we follow? Some Moslem and
non-Moslem groups object to the depiction of any part of the anatomy,
some to depiction or exposure of certain parts only. Some extend it to
males. Some object to the portray of certain objects in an irreverent
manner--there have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/05/2010 22:10, Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Aphaia wrote:
>
>> Is there any option to tell them commons has its own mailing list
>> instead of adding it to the foundation-l?
>>
>
> I think Austin touched upon this as
Presumably you mean nude female breast, and then you are involved with
exactly the "nudity" definition dilemma you allude to. If you mean
nude or clothed, Every full or half length picture of a woman seen
from the front or side contains a depiction of the female breast.
As another consideration, If
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 6:27 PM, teun spaans wrote:
> Dear Derk-jan,
>
> As for 1), I think youtube can be compared in populairity and size with
> wikipedia, and in videos surpasses commons.
> Youtube enables its visitors to tag videos as adult.
I think there is a difference between using tags/ca
Dear Derk-jan,
As for 1), I think youtube can be compared in populairity and size with
wikipedia, and in videos surpasses commons.
Youtube enables its visitors to tag videos as adult.
see for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA22WSVlCZ4
kind regards,
Teun Spaans
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I put my impressions of the moment on this discussion page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Censorship#Some_reflexions_following_the_censorship_polemic_of_May_2010
On 09/05/2010 20:04, Sue Gardner wrote:
> Yeah, Pryzkuta, I know there are lots o
Dear all,
It is with great pleasure that we announce the third in a series of events
exploring academic research perspectives on Free Culture. After Sapporo and
Boston, the event moves this year to Berlin and expands to a 2-day
conference! Please see below for the details and click on the links fo
2010/5/10 Samuel Klein :
> Hello Elias,
>
> Welcome to the mailing list.
Hi! ^^
>> Are you a member of the Board of Trustees or something?
>> Could you inform me if the whole board has this kind of position?
>
> No, the whole Board does not have this position. (not to speak for
> others -- I am
2010/5/10 Marcus Buck :
> J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven:
>> I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
>> country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures
>> but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France
2010/5/10 Milos Rancic
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:17 AM, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov
> wrote:
> > I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a
> Muslim
> > country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad
> pictures
> > but that it is perfectly OK to sh
On 05/10/2010 03:11 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> On 10/05/10 15:25, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
>
>> BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
>> of Trustees?
>>
> Jimmy Wales determined the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation when
> he created it. He a
Tim Starling hett schreven:
> On 10/05/10 15:25, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
>
>> BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
>> of Trustees?
>>
>
> Jimmy Wales determined the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation when
> he created it. He and Bomis donate
J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven:
> I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
> country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures
> but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France
> wherever. I think the worl
On 10/05/10 15:25, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
> BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
> of Trustees?
Jimmy Wales determined the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation when
he created it. He and Bomis donated the relevant assets, such as the
domain names, t
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:17 AM, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov
wrote:
> I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
> country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures
> but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France
>
2010/5/10 Milos Rancic
>
> 3) We should allow voluntary/default censorship on cultural basis, as
> the most of our readers are not registered. (Based on IP address of
> reader. Thus, pictures of Muhammad should be shown by default for
> someone from Germany, but shouldn't be shown by default to
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
>> Being educational should be just another word for being in scope, and
>> in scope are, in my opinion, in the first place those files that are
>> usable for the projects. That is t
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> Let me know if I'm missing anything important.
Actually, yes. In spite of multicultural nature of Wikimedia, this
process shouldn't be formulated as purely related to sexual content,
but as related to cultural taboos or to "offensive imagery"
72 matches
Mail list logo
