Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > But if we use a *different* style, it should still be traceable to an > > > educational or scholarly standard, rather than one we have made up, or > > > inherited from 4chan. Would you agree? > > Yes, and I dispute the premise that the English Wikipedia has failed > > i

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Tobias Oelgarte < tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I ask Sue and Philippe again: WHERE ARE THE PROMISED RESULTS - BY PROJECT?! > > First, there's a bit of a framing difference here. We did not initially promise results by project. Even now, I've never pro

[Foundation-l] Canadia Supreme Court Finds in Favour of Hyperlinker

Today, the Canadian Supreme Court found that an online writer who used external hyperlinks could not be held liable for the contents of the hyperlinked materials: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1072362--supreme-court-ruling-big-victory-for-internet-freedom?bn=1 Justice Rosalie Abella

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On 19/10/2011 20:04, Béria Lima wrote: > /me does. > > And here is why: 70% of the problem with a image stands in WHO IS SEEING IT. > I'm from Brazil and in my country we even have 1 week festival - worldwide > > famous - for have several (like hundreds to thousands) of semi naked girls > > and boy

Re: [Foundation-l] IRC Office Hour with India Education Program team

Correction, that should read Friday, October 21 -- the time listed on the Meta page is correct. Thanks to those of you who pointed out my mistake. :) LiAnna On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:14 AM, LiAnna Davis wrote: > (apologies for the cross posting) > > This is just a quick note to alert you that

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

* Andreas K. wrote: >I see our vision and mission as entirely service-focused. We are not doing >this for our own amusement: You are talking about the Wikimedia Foundation while I was talking about Wikipedians. I certainly "do this" for my own amusement, not to satisfy. >That's a fascinating piec

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

I might be from one of the most restrictive cultures, ethnicity and background than most people on this list. I assumed, it was people from my part of the world, that the board and WMF was trying to be considerate of. In all of this, I can't help but wonder where would it stop, there are probably

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

/me does. And here is why: 70% of the problem with a image stands in WHO IS SEEING IT. I'm from Brazil and in my country we even have 1 week festival - worldwide famous - for have several (like hundreds to thousands) of semi naked girls and boys dancing Samba. And here is the catch. You know what

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On 19/10/2011 18:52, Fae wrote: >> Did I miss anything? > > Yes, could you clarify who were you trying to launch a personal attack > on, or were you trying to offend everyone from a certain culture by > showing how much you disrespect them? > Disrespect? That is odd in odd word to use in a discus

[Foundation-l] IRC Office Hour with India Education Program team

(apologies for the cross posting) This is just a quick note to alert you that we'll be having an IRC Office Hours on Friday, October 22 at 02:00 UTC to discuss the India Education Program [1]. The team working on the India Education Program will be present to answer any questions about the progra

Re: [Foundation-l] Global Fundraiser Test

> > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011 and don't forget to check > the discussion page for more places to discuss the fundraiser. As for a > time-line, the fundraiser is scheduled to start within the first two weeks > of November. I will see about adding some sort of time-line to the

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:11 AM, David Levy wrote: > Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > But if we use a *different* style, it should still be traceable to an > > educational or scholarly standard, rather than one we have made up, or > > inherited from 4chan. Would you agree? > > Yes, and I dispute the pr

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

> Did I miss anything? Yes, could you clarify who were you trying to launch a personal attack on, or were you trying to offend everyone from a certain culture by showing how much you disrespect them? Thanks, Fae ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On 19/10/2011 18:17, Nathan wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, ??? wrote: >> On 19/10/2011 15:24, Béria Lima wrote: >>> problematic to who? >> >> Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity >> that would shame a tree stump. >> >> >> _

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Andreas K. wrote: > >Satisfying most users is a laudable aim for any service provider, whether > >revenue is involved or not. Why should we not aim to satisfy most our > users, > >or appeal to as many potential users as possible? > > Ma

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

> Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity > that would shame a tree stump. The word empathy was the one Sue Gardner chose to use too. I would rather see something like "respect" instead. Any of us might lack empathy with someone from a very different cultural backgroun

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, ??? wrote: > On 19/10/2011 15:24, Béria Lima wrote: >> problematic to who? > > Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity > that would shame a tree stump. > > > ___ You've been making several c

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: > > > > That there is a pornography project would be empirical evidence to the > > contrary. That a random page load can load pages with CBT images, genital > > piercings, or ejaculate leaking from or flowing over various body parts > is > > a

Re: [Foundation-l] Global Fundraiser Test

The offical 2011 Fundraiser page is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011 and don't forget to check the discussion page for more places to discuss the fundraiser. As for a time-line, the fundraiser is scheduled to start within the first two weeks of November. I will see about adding some

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On 19/10/2011 15:24, Béria Lima wrote: > problematic to who? Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity that would shame a tree stump. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.

[Foundation-l] Fwd: Scholarships to attend WikiConference India 2011 in Mumbai, India

Forwarding on behalf of the Organizers. Theo --- Hiya, We are please to announce that

[Foundation-l] Reminder: Office hours with Chief Community Officer Zack Exley, Weds. Oct. 19th

Just a reminder this is happening now in #wikimedia-office. -- Forwarded message -- From: Steven Walling Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:16 AM Subject: Office hours with Chief Community Officer Zack Exley, Weds. Oct. 19th To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Hi all, Just a remind

[Foundation-l] Image filter - what are the current plans?

> -- > > Message: 9 > Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:16:47 +0100 > From: David Gerard > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On 19

Re: [Foundation-l] IMDb sued for revealing actresses age

"unless the birth year is referenced to IMDB and as a result of the case it will be hidden" No, that situation is already covered by policy and this legal case makes no difference. IMBD should never be the single source for biographical information. See

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

> > That there is a pornography project would be empirical evidence to the > contrary. That a random page load can load pages with CBT images, genital > piercings, or ejaculate leaking from or flowing over various body parts is > also problematic. > > Well, strictly speaking that isn't pornography

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

problematic to who? _ *Béria Lima* (351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer .* On 1

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

en.wp.s...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:37 AM, ??? wrote: > > So how many times is the button pressed each day? If it gets pressed 4 > > million times a day, and there is only one porn page, then at least one > > person will have recieved porn. If there are 100 porn pages then 100

Re: [Foundation-l] IMDb sued for revealing actresses age

Why is it that after reading such a message, I only get more curious who this actress is ;) No dia 19 de Outubro de 2011 14:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter escreveu: > On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:40:18 +0100, Thomas Dalton > > wrote: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15360864 > > > > I'm not sure

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:37 AM, ??? wrote: > So how many times is the button pressed each day? If it gets pressed 4 > million times a day, and there is only one porn page, then at least one > person will have recieved porn. If there are 100 porn pages then 100 > people will receive porn each day.

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

> > I'm more worried about lack of user requirements gathering, vague > problem definition, and over-engineering coupled with an expectation > for 'the community' to build a dataset that they appear reluctant to > build. Second this concern - particularly the comment r.e. problem definition. Thi

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:16 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 19 October 2011 14:14, Andrew Garrett wrote: > >> Well, let's make sure that in any implementation of an image filter >> that does go ahead, we've thought through and addressed each of those >> consequences. You won't find any argument fr

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:10 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > Andrew Garrett wrote: >> My point is about quick wins. We can attack a large portion >> (that may or may not be exactly 90%) of the problem by offering >> readers the opportunity to hide a small number of categories that >> people commonly don't

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On 19 October 2011 14:14, Andrew Garrett wrote: > Well, let's make sure that in any implementation of an image filter > that does go ahead, we've thought through and addressed each of those > consequences. You won't find any argument from me on that. > -- > Andrew Garrett > Wikimedia Foundation >

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:10 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > Andrew Garrett wrote: >> My point is about quick wins. We can attack a large portion >> (that may or may not be exactly 90%) of the problem by offering >> readers the opportunity to hide a small number of categories that >> people commonly don't

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

Andrew Garrett wrote: > My point is about quick wins. We can attack a large portion > (that may or may not be exactly 90%) of the problem by offering > readers the opportunity to hide a small number of categories that > people commonly don't want to see. The simplest solutions can often have the g

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > If I may be so  blunt. What part of non-negotiable don't people quite grasp? I'm not sure I understand. Could you tell me what you think is non-negotiable? -- Andrew Garrett Wikimedia Foundation agarr...@wikimedia.org ___

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

> > If I may be so blunt. What part of non-negotiable don't people quite > grasp? > Sorry, you're claiming this as non-negotiable in favour of your view? What's that discussion about censorship again? Apologies for being so bluntly critical but of all your rather odd emails today this one had me

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Andrew Garrett > wrote: >>.. >> Yes, I'm being rhetorical. Surely you understand what I'm trying to >> say and that "90%" is not intended to be interpreted literally. >> >> Just in case, I'll recap withou

Re: [Foundation-l] IMDb sued for revealing actresses age

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:40:18 +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15360864 > > I'm not sure of the details of this case, but it looks like it would > be worth us keeping an eye on it since it could potentially have > repercussions for us. Hopefully, the case wil

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote: >.. > Yes, I'm being rhetorical. Surely you understand what I'm trying to > say and that "90%" is not intended to be interpreted literally. > > Just in case, I'll recap without using statistics for rhetorical > purposes: My point is about qui

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Am 19.10.2011 11:07, schrieb Andrew Garrett: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > wrote: >> Yes, but that is not proof of what we as a community understand the >> principle to mean, it means the board is on crack. > That's not a helpful contribution to this discussion. > But

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Béria Lima wrote: > I would freaking LOVE to see the study who proves 90% of the population > (btw, which population? USA, Americas, Europe, Asia, World, Wikipedians?) > are offended by ANYTHING. > > If you show me, I myself change course in College and go study a

[Foundation-l] IMDb sued for revealing actresses age

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15360864 I'm not sure of the details of this case, but it looks like it would be worth us keeping an eye on it since it could potentially have repercussions for us. Hopefully, the case will either be thrown out or it will turn out to depend on the existing

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

Yes, that was an unfortunate use of un-statistics. I had a {{facepalm}} moment when I read it. On the other hand I do not think it is a ludicrous or unexpected claim that most people do not wish to view images of gore or bodily functions :) Tom ___ fou

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

I would freaking LOVE to see the study who proves 90% of the population (btw, which population? USA, Americas, Europe, Asia, World, Wikipedians?) are offended by ANYTHING. If you show me, I myself change course in College and go study a way to create a filter. _ *Béria Lima*

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > I've said this before. I would like to not look at women with > humongously oversize breasts (And yes, Dolly Parton, this means you > too) or women with perfect teeth whitened to porcelain level shine, > smiling with their teeth. If y

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On 19 October 2011 10:07, Andrew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > wrote: >> Yes, but that is not proof of what we as a community understand the >> principle to mean, it means the board is on crack. > That's not a helpful contribution to this discussion.

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > wrote: >> Yes, but that is not proof of what we as a community understand the >> principle to mean, it means the board is on crack. > > That's not a helpful contribution to this disc

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Béria Lima wrote: > I'm still missing the goal of this thread. What do you people want? To know > how many people see the "porn section"***  of Wikipedia or to remove those > articles from Random article button and them make it a "random article (but > porn safe)"

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Yes, but that is not proof of what we as a community understand the > principle to mean, it means the board is on crack. That's not a helpful contribution to this discussion. -- Andrew Garrett Wikimedia Foundation agarr...@wikimedi

Re: [Foundation-l] Global Fundraiser Test

Hi Charles, all, maybe I'm missing it - but I don't seem to be able to find an actual timeline (or planned timeline) for this year's fundraiser. Could you please point me to it? Thanks a lot, Lodewijk No dia 18 de Outubro de 2011 22:45, Charles A. Barr escreveu: > The global test is now set for

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Andreas K. wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: >> >> >> > >> > The English Wikipedia community, like any other, has always contained a >> wide spectrum of opinion on su

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

I'm still missing the goal of this thread. What do you people want? To know how many people see the "porn section"*** of Wikipedia or to remove those articles from Random article button and them make it a "random article (but porn safe)" button? Maybe if I start to complain about French villages (