On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 6:47 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:10 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> David Gerard wrote:
>>> On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen wrote:
> The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not o
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 14:55, Ting Chen wrote:
> Dear Wikimedia community,
>
> First, I want to thank the 24,000 editors who participated in the
> Wikimedia Foundation's referendum on the proposed personal image hiding
> feature. We are particularly grateful to the nearly seven thousand
> people w
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 6:13 AM, David Levy wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>
>> The Board is hoping there is a solution that will 1) enable readers to
>> easily hide images they don't want to see, as laid out in the Board's
>> resolution [1], while 2) being generally acceptable to editors. Maybe
>> t
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:10 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>> On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen wrote:
The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
to the feature. However, a significant minority
Sue Gardner wrote:
> The Board is hoping there is a solution that will 1) enable readers to
> easily hide images they don't want to see, as laid out in the Board's
> resolution [1], while 2) being generally acceptable to editors. Maybe
> this will not be possible, but it's the goal.
As I've noted
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 09:19:40AM -0700, Sue Gardner wrote:
>> The Board is hoping there is a solution that will 1) enable readers to
>> easily hide images they don't want to see, as laid out in the Board's
>> resolution [1], while 2) being ge
I'm all for it, too.
Bob
On 10/9/2011 6:31 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 09:19:40AM -0700, Sue Gardner wrote:
>> The Board is hoping there is a solution that will 1) enable readers to
>> easily hide images they don't want to see, as laid out in the Board's
>> resolution [1], wh
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 09:19:40AM -0700, Sue Gardner wrote:
> The Board is hoping there is a solution that will 1) enable readers to
> easily hide images they don't want to see, as laid out in the Board's
> resolution [1], while 2) being generally acceptable to editors. Maybe
> this will not be po
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Bob the Wikipedian
wrote:
> Since no one has explicitly come out and said exactly what the issue is
> here, I'll ask:
>
> *What exactly is harmful about an opt-in filter? *If it's opt-in, then
> you have the choice to not even enable it if you so choose. You don't
* Sue Gardner wrote:
>Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
>the community to develop a solution that meets the original
>requirements as laid out in its resolution. It is asking me to do
>something. But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
>been di
Hi Ting,
Thanks for explaining the position of the board in your own words. I
appreciate the board is listening. I am concerned that you state that
the board is acting from "belief", I recommend you consider how this
can move to proposing a strategy based on facts and non-controversial
analysis.
On 9 October 2011 22:03, Bob the Wikipedian wrote:
> The fact
> is that a majority of the community expressed it was either a good idea
> or something important to them (interpret that however you care to), and
> Wikimedia finds it important to please the majority of their users.
I think that r
On 9 October 2011 22:03, Bob the Wikipedian wrote:
> Calm down. No one is "forcing" or "pushing" anything, more like
> "offering". Everything I've read indicates it will be opt-in (though the
> manner for opting in will be easily accessible upon arrival at
> Wikipedia).
Tobias was talking about t
Calm down. No one is "forcing" or "pushing" anything, more like
"offering". Everything I've read indicates it will be opt-in (though the
manner for opting in will be easily accessible upon arrival at
Wikipedia). This will probably be something just as transparent to those
not using it as is the
That means it will be pushed in no matter if wanted/needed or in respect
to the local communities? I think that will push over the line of
acceptability.
I also want to remember you that the "referendum"/referendumm
1. asked the wrong question(s)
2. did not mention any of the possible issues be
Objection to the WMF implementing an image filter would in fact be
removed by such a project--if, like AdBlock, it were run outside and
independently of the WMF. If i believe in individual freedom, I must
believe in the ability of individuals to choose in what manner they
access information, ev
Well we can't have that... lol.
Bob
On 10/9/2011 2:19 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> You don't get to grind someone's nose into your shit. Fred
> ___ foundation-l mailing
> list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mai
> Since no one has explicitly come out and said exactly what the issue is
> here, I'll ask:
>
> *What exactly is harmful about an opt-in filter? *If it's opt-in, then
> you have the choice to not even enable it if you so choose. You don't
> have to use it; it'd just be an option in the preferences
Since no one has explicitly come out and said exactly what the issue is
here, I'll ask:
*What exactly is harmful about an opt-in filter? *If it's opt-in, then
you have the choice to not even enable it if you so choose. You don't
have to use it; it'd just be an option in the preferences page or
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Kim Bruning
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think the community really can avoid it, since it isn't a
>>> coherent body. An individual member of the community can't really
>>> achieve anything. The WMF has
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> I don't think the community really can avoid it, since it isn't a
>> coherent body. An individual member of the community can't really
>> achieve anything. The WMF has a hierar
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I didn't say it can't take coherent action. Writing an encyclopaedia
> is a coherent action, after all. I said it can't take deliberate
> action. By deliberate action, I mean deciding to do something and then
> doing it.
That's righ
On 10/09/2011 07:20 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> The community doesn't trust the WMF at the moment. A firm commitment
> not to go against an overwhelming community opinion would go a long
> way towards fixing that.
That's exactly the situation. Right now, we're in a deadlock:
WMF is waiting for the
On 9 October 2011 17:49, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> I don't think the community really can avoid it, since it isn't a
>> coherent body. An individual member of the community can't really
>> achieve anything. The WMF has a hierarchy and
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> I don't think the community really can avoid it, since it isn't a
> coherent body. An individual member of the community can't really
> achieve anything. The WMF has a hierarchy and structured decision
> making mechanisms, so it ca
On 9 October 2011 18:16, Lodewijk wrote:
> Discussing 'what if' scenarios in public rarely does any good if those same
> people have full power to avoid that scenario in the first place. Both the
> community and the board can avoid the sitation that we don't reach
> agreement. Therefore, discussin
On 9 October 2011 17:46, Sue Gardner wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 09:31, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 9 October 2011 17:19, Sue Gardner wrote:
>>> Nobody wants civil war.
>>
>> I'm sure they don't actively want one, but it seems the board do
>> consider one an acceptable cost.
>
> It may seem that w
mid-2013.
Last ones were in June.
Tom
On 9 October 2011 17:18, Nathan wrote:
> I could probably look this up and find out, but can anyone tell me
> when the next Board election will be?
>
> Nathan
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@li
Discussing 'what if' scenarios in public rarely does any good if those same
people have full power to avoid that scenario in the first place. Both the
community and the board can avoid the sitation that we don't reach
agreement. Therefore, discussing 'what if we don't, what will you do' will
most l
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Risker wrote:
>
>
> Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has certain
> rights to refuse the selected candidates. Chapter-selected candidates will
> be appointed in 2012.
>
> The WMF-wide community holds an election in odd-numbered years t
On 9 October 2011 12:48, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Risker, 09/10/2011 18:40:
> > Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has
> certain
> > rights to refuse the selected candidates. Chapter-selected candidates
> will
> > be appointed in 2012.
> >
> > The WMF-wide commun
Risker, 09/10/2011 18:40:
> Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has certain
> rights to refuse the selected candidates. Chapter-selected candidates will
> be appointed in 2012.
>
> The WMF-wide community holds an election in odd-numbered years to nominate
> three candida
On 9 October 2011 09:31, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 17:19, Sue Gardner wrote:
>> Nobody wants civil war.
>
> I'm sure they don't actively want one, but it seems the board do
> consider one an acceptable cost.
It may seem that way, but it's not actually true. The Board's
conversatio
On 9 October 2011 12:18, Nathan wrote:
> I could probably look this up and find out, but can anyone tell me
> when the next Board election will be?
>
> Nathan
>
>
Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has certain
rights to refuse the selected candidates. Chapter-selecte
On 9 October 2011 17:19, Sue Gardner wrote:
> Nobody wants civil war.
I'm sure they don't actively want one, but it seems the board do
consider one an acceptable cost.
> Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
> the community to develop a solution that meets the or
On 9 October 2011 08:50, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 16:31, church.of.emacs.ml
> wrote:
>> On 10/09/2011 04:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>> If the WMF picks a fight with the community on something the
>>> community feel very strongly about (which this certainly seems to
>>> be), the
I could probably look this up and find out, but can anyone tell me
when the next Board election will be?
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 09.10.2011 17:00, Julius Redzinski wrote:
> That can just mean an italian solution. The Board is ignorant against the
> community needs and wishes, while the Foundation was just some month ago, so
> caring about the editors and to keep them happy and contributing to the
> projects. If the fil
David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen wrote:
>>> The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
>>> to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed.
>>
>> How do you know? The "referendum" did
On 9 October 2011 16:31, church.of.emacs.ml
wrote:
> On 10/09/2011 04:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> If the WMF picks a fight with the community on something the
>> community feel very strongly about (which this certainly seems to
>> be), the WMF will lose horribly and the fall-out for the whole
>
On 10/09/2011 04:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> If the WMF picks a fight with the community on something the
> community feel very strongly about (which this certainly seems to
> be), the WMF will lose horribly and the fall-out for the whole
> movement will be very bad indeed.
+1.
(And I say that,
That can just mean an italian solution. The Board is ignorant against the
community needs and wishes, while the Foundation was just some month ago, so
caring about the editors and to keep them happy and contributing to the
projects. If the filter should get forced on a project that voted agains
On 9 October 2011 15:12, Ting Chen wrote:
> the text of the May resolution to this question is "... and that the
> feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
> logged-in and logged-out readers", and on the current board meeting we
> decided to not ammend the original r
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Ting Chen wrote:
> Hello Tobias,
>
> the text of the May resolution to this question is "... and that the
> feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
> logged-in and logged-out readers", and on the current board meeting we
> decided to
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewalt
Anneke
Am 09.10.2011 um 16:12 schrieb Ting Chen:
> Hello Tobias,
>
> the text of the May resolution to this question is "... and that the
> feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for
> both
> logged-in and logged-out readers", and on
Hello Tobias,
the text of the May resolution to this question is "... and that the
feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
logged-in and logged-out readers", and on the current board meeting we
decided to not ammend the original resolution.
Greetings
Ting
Am 09
I was thinking about that too. So what? --Ebe123
On 11-10-09 10:43 AM, "church.of.emacs.ml"
wrote:
> Hi Ting,
>
> one simple question: Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to enable the
> image filter on _all_ projects, disregarding consensus by local
> communities of rejecting the image filter
Hi Ting,
one simple question: Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to enable the
image filter on _all_ projects, disregarding consensus by local
communities of rejecting the image filter? (E.g. German Wikipedia)
We are currently in a very unpleasant situation of uncertainty. Tensions
in the communit
On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen wrote:
>> The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
>> to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed.
> How do you know? The "referendum" didn't ask whether people were
On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen wrote:
> The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
> to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed.
How do you know? The "referendum" didn't ask whether people were opposed or not.
> We are not going to revisit the res
Dear Wikimedia community,
First, I want to thank the 24,000 editors who participated in the
Wikimedia Foundation's referendum on the proposed personal image hiding
feature. We are particularly grateful to the nearly seven thousand
people who took the time to write in detailed and thoughtful com
51 matches
Mail list logo
