Re: [Foundation-l] Another board member statement

stevertigo wrote: > Kat Walsh wrote: > >> "Commons should not be a host for media that has very >> little informational or educational value >> > This is too broad. Confine the scope toward dealing with what does not > belong, rather than trying to suggest that everything be purposed as >

Re: [Foundation-l] (fwd) Wikimedia Foundation will engage academic experts and students to improve public policy information on Wikipedia

2010/5/11 Amory Meltzer : > So if I could distill this announcement, it would be "$1.2M to liaison > with profs to essentially grade public policy articles so that our > unpaid volunteers can correct errors, add sources, and fix the > proverbial 'awk' in the margins" - is that correct? "Wikipedia

Re: [Foundation-l] Another board member statement

Kat Walsh wrote: > I can think of few better places to go than Wikipedia for complete and > informative coverage of topics that may be shocking or explicit. Most > other sites which are uncensored are also intended to have > entertainment or shock value, or to present a culturally or > politically

Re: [Foundation-l] Towards actual clean-up...

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > Any contemporary MediaWiki installation can use Commons as an external > repository. I am using Commons as an external repository whenever I > install MediaWiki. (Or I am missing some point?) There is no way for us to see if any external sour

Re: [Foundation-l] Towards actual clean-up...

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Guillaume Paumier wrote: > Le dimanche 9 mai 2010 17:33:42, David Goodman a écrit : >>  A secondary purpose of Commons in for material to be used >> elsewhere--have we any way for checking that?   I'd even say that the >> true success of Commons is when the materia

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2011 announcement

On 11 May 2010 11:50, phoebe ayers wrote: > The Wikimania jury has selected Haifa, Israel as the location for > Wikimania 2011. Congratulations to the Haifa team! I attended Wikimedia Israel's Wikipedia Academy last year; it was terrific, and I'm confident they'll do a great job with Wikimania.

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

Tim, thank you for this excellent post. A few comments: Tim Starling writes: > it's only the libertarians who value educational value above > moral hazard I don't really agree with this. Contributors from across your spectrum consider whether potentially-harmful information about a person is

Re: [Foundation-l] (fwd) Wikimedia Foundation will engage academic experts and students to improve public policy information on Wikipedia

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 20:05, Jay Walsh wrote: > Wikipedia is written by hundreds of thousands of volunteers from around the > world, and that won't change with this project. The Wikipedia Public Policy > Initiative will recruit Wikipedia volunteers to work with public policy > professors and

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:06 PM, David Gerard wrote: > By the way, there appears to be an assumption - on the part of board > members, the WMF and some contributors to this thread - that Commons > has been somehow indiscriminate in what it accepts. I don't read that. What I see is a debate abo

Re: [Foundation-l] (fwd) Wikimedia Foundation will engage academic experts and students to improve public policy information on Wikipedia

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:09 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > It would be nice if public policy documents were systematically > archived onto Commons and Wikisource as part of this initiative. Yes! Likewise for legal and policy documents in all geographies -- we should make every effort for this pro

Re: [Foundation-l] (fwd) Wikimedia Foundation will engage academic experts and students to improve public policy information on Wikipedia

It would be nice if public policy documents were systematically archived onto Commons and Wikisource as part of this initiative. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/m

[Foundation-l] (fwd) Wikimedia Foundation will engage academic experts and students to improve public policy information on Wikipedia

Hi all - sharing our second press release of the day, re: the public policy initiative. Also shared via the WikimediaAnnounce-l list! Thanks, jay walsh Wikimedia Foundation will engage academic experts and students to improve public policy information on Wikipedia $1.2 million grant from the S

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tim Starling wrote: > On 11/05/10 23:06, Anthony wrote: > > I assume here you're talking about choosing what images to allow on the > > websites. I wouldn't call that "making a decision on behalf of another", > > but I assume that's what you're referring to. If

[Foundation-l] Upcoming Changes to the User Interface

Everyone, As many of you already know, the Wikimedia Foundation's User Experience team has been running a beta program focused on improving the user interface for over six months now. More details may be found here [a], but o

Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective

I think we will only make progress when we accept the apologies of the people involved. I can understand that they want to at least formally defend the original board statement, but I think they--and we all- -recognize that the discussion has moved in a somewhat more permissive direction now than

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > Milos Rancic wrote: >> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2011 announcement

Congratulations to the Haifa team! And congratulations as well to the New York, Montreal, and Toronto bid teams -- it takes tremendous effort to put together a compelling bid. I hope that you can all take advantage of the interest you have built over the course of the bids to organize other commu

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

Tim's post is excellent. However there is a viewpoint on this issue that is important to me personally that I feel is not well represented by his spectrum. To the extent that Tim's spectrum does represent me, I am probably moderate. I recognize that some people (e.g. the conservatives) find cert

Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Stuart West wrote: > ...snip... > Jimmy acknowledged this wasn't right and I respect his apology. > ...snip... > - stu You mean his little smug little reply that it was a press stunt?[1][2] and saying that it was a urgent matter[3] (yes! because starting a huge del

Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective

On 11 May 2010 22:48, Stuart West wrote: > A lot has happened since my email so here's a quick follow-up. I hear the > concerns many of you have raised on this list and elsewhere. I feel awful > about them. As Kat said so well, I think there is a big difference between > the principles the Board

Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective

On 11 May 2010 22:54, Milos Rancic wrote: > Thank you, Stu! Indeed, thank you, Stu! The first round of statements we got from individual board members were very disappointing, but I'm glad to see board members admitting their mistakes and acknowledging things that were done wrong. __

Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Stuart West wrote: > A lot has happened since my email so here's a quick follow-up. I hear the > concerns many of you have raised on this list and elsewhere. I feel awful > about them. As Kat said so well, I think there is a big difference between > the principles

Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective

A lot has happened since my email so here's a quick follow-up. I hear the concerns many of you have raised on this list and elsewhere. I feel awful about them. As Kat said so well, I think there is a big difference between the principles the Board agreed to in our statement and the actions taken by

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

On 05/11/2010 11:58 AM, Noein wrote: > And there is a general consensus here about those libertarian views? > I'm impressed. Sorry to repetitively check the ethical temperature of > the community, but I come from social horizons where it's not only not > natural, but generates hatred. I never could

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

On 5/11/10 7:40 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > Sue Gardner wrote: >> Yeah. I don't remember exactly what Ting said, and even if I did, I wouldn't >> comment on it. But FWIW to your point, Ting's not in a chapters-selected >> seat; Ting was elected by the Wikimedia community. >> >> > His seat doesn't

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

On 11 May 2010 21:42, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block >> images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're >> the target market, after all. > I'd be happy to do any

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone will fill that void. That someone does not need to be us. Google does this job with their image browser already without the need for any providers to actively "tag" any images. How do they do that? I have no idea, but they

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard wrote: > You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block > images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're > the target market, after all. I'd be happy to do any software development if that were helpful. I've be

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikisource-l] Strategic Planning Office Hours

Hi Everyone - Apologies for the late notice on this. Our next strategic planning office hours will be: 04:00-05:00 UTC, Wednesday, 12 May. Local timezones can be checked at http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2010&month=5&day=12&hour=04&min=0&sec=0&p1=0 As always, you can a

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

Hi, 2010/5/11 Noein : > > On 11/05/2010 12:44, Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> I would propose that the reason we are subject to such a _small_ >> amount of complaint about our content is that much of the world >> understands that what Wikipedia does is —in a sense— deeply subversive >> and not at all c

[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Appoints Jing Wang and Mimi Ito to its Advisory Board

Hi folks, sharing this announcement we sent out as a press release this morning. We'll be sending out another announcement shortly to our press list about the public policy project, which Frank discussed on our announcement list a few days ago. Best, jay walsh Begin forwarded message: > From

Re: [Foundation-l] Another board member statement

On 11.05.2010 06:43, Kat Walsh wrote: > What I do support are tools and procedures that make it simpler for > users to choose what they see: I don't think anyone should have to > avoid Wikimedia projects because they fear that they (or their > children) will inadvertently see something they didn't

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/05/2010 12:44, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > I would propose that the reason we are subject to such a _small_ > amount of complaint about our content is that much of the world > understands that what Wikipedia does is —in a sense— deeply subversive >

[Foundation-l] Wikimania 2011 announcement

Dear all, (I am really happy to send a message on a completely new topic :) ) The Wikimania jury has selected Haifa, Israel as the location for Wikimania 2011. The Haifa team presented a compelling, detailed bid[1] that the Wikimania jurors were very impressed by. As usual, all of the Wikimania

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Milos Rancic wrote: > 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 c

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

I agree with David Gerard's suggestion above: this is a solution that will meet a variety of needs, and is therefore value-neutral. It can be applied to more than categories--someone with a moderately slow connection might wish to disable images in articles above a certain size, or articles contai

Re: [Foundation-l] Another board member statement

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Kat, I'm not used to the level of finesse of your thoughts and this time I chose to think aloud to help me. The result is this long mail that other may find useful. Maybe. Please let me know if they're not, or if I misunderstood you. As for the v

Re: [Foundation-l] Commons: An initial notice to reduce surprises

Samuel Johnson[1] was an English lexicographer who published a Dictionary of the English Language[2] and this is what they said about him and his dictionary, according to Wikiquote:[3] Mrs. Digby told me that when she lived in London with her sister, Mrs. > Brooke, they were every now and then hon

Re: [Foundation-l] Commons: An initial notice to reduce surprises

On 5/11/10 8:26 AM, David Goodman wrote: > 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.

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Sue Gardner wrote: > Yeah. I don't remember exactly what Ting said, and even if I did, I wouldn't > comment on it. But FWIW to your point, Ting's not in a chapters-selected > seat; Ting was elected by the Wikimedia community. > > His seat doesn't come up for re-election until next year, but I

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

On 11 May 2010 17:45, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > Sure, and that's inevitable.  You aren't going to please people who > have ideological problems with Wikipedia's entire premise.  But > leaving aside people who think nudity is morally wrong on principle, > we are still left with a very large number of

Re: [Foundation-l] Another board member statement

stevertigo wrote: > Kat Walsh wrote: > >> "Commons should not be a host for media that has very >> little informational or educational value >> > > This is too broad. Confine the scope toward dealing with what does not > belong, rather than trying to suggest that everything be purposed as

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

*"The trick is to find a compromise which pleases both factions, or at least upsets both equally." * If we generalize the situation we could state the following: The *Libertarians *point of view could be worded as: "Allow everyone to view all content" The *Conservative *point of view could be worde

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

Amusing, perhaps, but it would really serve no purpose other than to be vindictive and pointed (everyone know Wikimedia is smarter than Fox). Besides, it'd be a copyvio. ~A On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 19:39, stevertigo wrote: > David Gerard wrote: >> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/por

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Tim Starling wrote: > On foundation-l we are divided between moderates and libertarians. The > libertarians are more strident in their views, so the debate can seem > one-sided at times, but there is a substantial moderate contingent, > and I count myself among the

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

On 11 May 2010 16:44, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > There are other resources which address these subject areas in a > manner which religious conservatives may find more acceptable, such as > conservapedia. Actually, Conservapedia has almost no readers or editors. (Its activity rate is marginally hi

Re: [Foundation-l] What Wikipedia owes to Jimbo (was Re: Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions)

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:31 AM, David Goodman wrote: > 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. I imagine Wikia has millions of articles, all told. Gaia Onlin

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tim Starling wrote: [snip] > But more generally, yes I suppose I may be overstating. Studying > religious views on sex and pornography is interesting, because those > views align closely with the laws and norms of wider society. Unlike > wider society, religious c

Re: [Foundation-l] Another board member statement

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:05 PM, stevertigo wrote: > Kat Walsh wrote: >> "Commons should not be a host for media that has very >> little informational or educational value > > This is too broad. Confine the scope toward dealing with what does not > belong, rather than trying to suggest that every

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

On 11/05/10 23:56, Mike Godwin wrote: > That's a feature, not a bug. If there is a compromise that "pleases" some > factions but not others, it's not exactly a compromise, is it? The trick is to find a compromise which pleases both factions, or at least upsets both equally. In particular, I think

Re: [Foundation-l] Another board member statement

Kat Walsh wrote: > "Commons should not be a host for media that has very > little informational or educational value This is too broad. Confine the scope toward dealing with what does not belong, rather than trying to suggest that everything be purposed as stated above. "Prurient" and "exhibition

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

David Gerard wrote: > http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-remains/ Just throwing this out there, but would it not be productive to first copy Ms. Winter's articles to Meta, and have everyone annote all the errors? -Stevertigo

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

Yann Forget writes: 2010/5/10 Mike Godwin : > > > Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion > that > > "Fox News was correct"? > > > > This statement strikes me as identifying a theoretical hazard rather than > an > > actual outcome. > > > > --Mike > > Reading this >

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

On 11/05/10 23:06, Anthony wrote: > I assume here you're talking about choosing what images to allow on the > websites. I wouldn't call that "making a decision on behalf of another", > but I assume that's what you're referring to. If I'm wrong, please correct > me. I'm including: Solution 1: Ex

[Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

Tim Starling writes: It's a proposal which only really makes sense when analysed from the > libertarian end of this debate. It's not a compromise with the rest of > the spectrum. > That's correct. That was intentional. A libertarian proposal that attempts to adhere to NPOV and reduces general noi

Re: [Foundation-l] Another board member statement

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > 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. +1 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

That about sums it up. On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Marcus Buck wrote: > I try to understand what happened, but I'm not sure whether the pieces > that I found so far add up. > > * Larry Sanger is mad about Wikimedia. [apparent] > * Larry Sanger notifies the FBI and tells them Wikimedia hosts

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Tim Starling wrote: > The debate on this issue has been organised along predictable lines, > dividing neatly into libertarians, moderates and conservatives. > [...] > Libertarians want all information to be available to everyone. Some > say all adults, some say

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Ray Saintonge wrote: > Sue Gardner wrote: > >> 1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy's actions over the >> past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving. >> That's mostly happened here and on meta. >> >> >> > What made that one easier to resolve is tha

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

2010/5/10 Victor Vasiliev : > 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 new

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

Tim Starling wrote: > > Libertarians want all information to be available to everyone. Some > say all adults, some say children too should be included. Their > principles allow for individuals to choose for themselves to avoid > seeing that which offends them, which leaves the problem of how the >

Re: [Foundation-l] Commons:Sexual content

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Noein wrote: > -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 ju

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

On 11 May 2010 04:15, Mike Godwin wrote: > BBC got the story from Fox. There would have been a Fox story regardless, > and I wouldn't assume that BBC would not have picked up the more > sensationalistic story that Fox was hoping to run. The BBC heard about the story from Fox. They then went and d

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > What I am missing is that Iran has blocked the whole Wikimedia domain as > Commons is included in that domain. I understand that the reason is there > being too much sexual explicit content. As a consequence this important > free resource is no longer available to t

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Sue Gardner wrote: > 1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy's actions over the > past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving. > That's mostly happened here and on meta. > > What made that one easier to resolve is that the problem could be easily defined, and

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

David Gerard wrote: > On 9 May 2010 02:20, 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