Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content

Hi all, I thought I'd note for those interested in the latest from the community side of the 'controversial content' discussions - the Commons 'Sexual Content' proposal has just gone into a polling stage for the second time; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_pol

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial Content Study Part 3

There's probably an important and interesting 'meta' point to make about whether or not lists such as this one actually have utility in forwarding discussion and resolution,or whether we prefer to sort of talk to ourselves, then let things slide... but I'm going for the later... I really just want

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial Content Study Part 3

failed at copy / paste - with apologies, here is the link to the image I would think it best to remove permanently; http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_masturbation_pastel.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 cheers, Peter, PM. On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:59 PM,

[Foundation-l] Controversial Content Study Part 3

Hi Robert / all, I wonder if perhaps folk on the foundation-l mailing list may be able to help with this issue I'm hoping to clarify as tangetial, but related to the Controversial Content study; http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_important In short, I've had

[Foundation-l] Mini update on sexual content discussions

G'day all, I hope it's appropriate to cross-post this to both commons and foundation lists - it seems so to me, and no doubt if there's a courtesy or practice I'm unaware of, someone will be kind enough to point it out :-) (rude words and nasty comments are ok, but it's better if they rhyme.) Dis

Re: [Foundation-l] Study of Potentially Objectionable Content

han wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:57 PM, private musings > wrote: > > > > I think you have the wrong Robert Harris, PM. Robert L instead of Robert M. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@

Re: [Foundation-l] Study of Potentially Objectionable Content

G'day Robert :-) I write as a wiki user who's been advocating for change in the area of sexual content on wmf projects for a few years now, and personally I'm very happy at the direction the foundation has taken in commissioning a third party (that'd be you) to investigate and report etc. on this i

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

sometimes things with broad community support don't really bear examination ;-) http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/internet-filter-survey-results On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Tim Starling wrote: > Gregory Kohs wrote: > > Point of clarification... does Jimmy Wales have the authority to > >

Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects

naging assertions of model age and release related to explicit media - perhaps we could agree that might be a good thing? :-) cheers, Peter, PM. On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, private musings > wrote: > >> >> F

Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects

( ah c'mon d - who loves ya' baby ;-) It's good to see you (Mike) here too - I'm glad you're clearly aware of the concerns I've consistently raised, and I appreciate that I may not have been completely clear about what I would hope the foundation, as oppose to the communities, might be able to do -

Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects

n this area (ie. I'm sadly not surprised that this issue occurs in this way) - but mileage inevitably varies... I'm hopeful of hearing of a strong resolution to this one imminently. On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > Дана Sunday 17 January 2010 22:13:28 priva

Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects

Here's another concerning aspect of management of explicit media on WMF; It's been asserted that images of a 16 year old girl masturbating have been uploaded to commons; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=338426080#User:Misty_Willows_pr

[Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects

G'day all, I continue to have concerns related to the growing number of explicit images on WMF projects (largely commons) - but rather than banging on with dull mailing list posts which gaurantee a chorus of groans, I'm trying to be a bit less dull, and have made a short video presentation. It's my

[Foundation-l] open wikis for chapters....?

G'day all, over on the wikimedia au mailing list, we've been having a discussion about whether or not our 'official wiki' should be able to be edited by more than just the current financial members (I think we've got around 30 - 50 members at the mo) ( see http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikim

[Foundation-l] volunteering outreach

G'day all :-) I mentioned in a previous post ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056092.html) that I was personally interested in getting some external advice from Volunteering Australia ( http://www.volunteeringaustralia.org/html/s01_home/home.asp ) about good practic

Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff

y next steps. Regardless, I'll hop back on this list following a meeting with Volunteering Australia, just in case they have any useful or interesting advice :-) cheers, Peter, PM. On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > Andrew Garrett wrote: > > On 16/11/2009, at 1:

Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff

the radar - I think it's very important. best, Peter, PM. On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/11/16 private musings : > > I should add that if folk are interested in the english wikipedia, and > have > > any ideas / comments etc. in this are

Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff

009 at 6:04 PM, private musings >wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > On Wikipedia Review, 'tarantino' pointed out that on WMF projects, > > self-identified minors (in this case User:Juliancolton) are involved in > > routine maintenance stuff around sexually e

[Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff

Hi all, On Wikipedia Review, 'tarantino' pointed out that on WMF projects, self-identified minors (in this case User:Juliancolton) are involved in routine maintenance stuff around sexually explicit images reasonably describable as porn (one example is 'Masturbating Amy.jpg'). http://wikipediarevi

Re: [Foundation-l] Board election spamming

No silly - it's a mistake! (don't be so grumpy. - or be aware that this could come across as grumpy at least) I recall the grumbles when Greg sent something out last year or the year before, and feel the same about this as that - the folk sending the email are using an imperfect system, but ov

Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers

/strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and looks really good to me!) cheers, Peter, PM. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musings > wrote: > >> Well yeah M

Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers

Milos Rancic wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musings > wrote: > > Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly. > > > > I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / > > evaluating some of the

Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers

g at, Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?) cheers, Peter, PM. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:21 AM, geni wrote: > > 2009/8/7 private musings : > >> Hi all, > >> > >>

[Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers

Hi all, Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance with things like this; http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf This is a german code of conduct - but there are many more (I've also spoken with these chaps =- http://www.iia.net.au/ - and I got t

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] flagged revisions

Hi all, It's been almost a month since the last post in this 'flagged revisions' thread (sincere apologies if I've failed to find discussion which has no doubt been occurring on lists and wikis everywhere!) - I wanted to ask for an update from the folk at the coalface working on getting flagged re

Re: [Foundation-l] Permanent deletion (tangent to the national portrait gallery thing)

he image I linked to in my previous post was permanently deleted, which by my judgment would be the best outcome. cheers, Peter, PM. On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:45 PM, private musings > wrote: > [snip] > > I > > consider t

[Foundation-l] Permanent deletion (tangent to the national portrait gallery thing)

Hi all, As a tangent to the national portrait gallery thing, I though I'd raise something which I've chatted about previously (possibly here, but certainly with various community members) which seems unresolved. My understanding of the status quo is that when a commons administrator deletes an im

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] flagged revisions

d flagged revisions, but then it > was held up due to "purely technical reasons" ... what is this crap > now? > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: K. Peachey > Date: Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:29 PM > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] flagged revisions > To:

[Foundation-l] Proposals re : sexual content on wikimedia

Hi all, I saw this news item today; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8061979.stm and felt that it was tangentially related to the discussions on this list concerning sexual content on wikimedia - it's prompted me to make this reply anywhoo (both the story and the comments are worth reading, and I f

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Re : This from brion; On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: > > Sites like Flickr and Google image search keep this to a single toggle; > the default view is a "safe" search which excludes items which have been > marked as "adult" in nature, while making it easy to opt out of the

Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

opless chicks on the beach without their permssion.. and other assorted problems with explicit sexual images being easily accessible on wmf projects. cheers, Peter PM. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Pedro Sanchez wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:06 PM, private musings >wrote: > > &

Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

27;s gonna be a good thing regardless of the opinion that it's also important, I reckon cheers, Peter PM. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Pedro Sanchez wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:16 PM, private musings >wrote: > > > > > I believe that this is an example

Re: [Foundation-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

rs, Peter, PM. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:27 AM, masti wrote: > > > W dniu 14.05.2009 06:03, private musings pisze: > > g'day all, > > > > There's an interesting deletion discussion taking place here; > > > > > http://commons.wikimed

Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

gt; be the project's decision, not that of Commons. Some may prefer one, > > others the other. Sexuality is in scope on Wikimedia projects, so its > > images are in scope at Commons. > > > > Andre > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:03 AM, private m

[Foundation-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

g'day all, There's an interesting deletion discussion taking place here; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sexuality_pearl_necklace_small.png concerning an image of a woman with sperm on her neck. To my mind it's very doubtful that this is in fact a freely licensed

Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content

ps. for my proposal see; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content#Proposal_3_-_Model_ages.2C_releases.2C_and_personality_rights pps. the general reception for that particular proposal was that I'm a bit of a crazy person. On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM, private musings

Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content

. It's my view that the later image should be deleted. Thoughts? best, Peter, PM. On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: > Last post on this thread. > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, private musings > wrote: > > > There are many shots clearly &#x

Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content

ok - well to try and take sj's sage advice, and move this conversation forward, I'll focus on one smaller aspect of the bigger issue. Commons currently has quite a few photographs of people in various states of undress on beaches. The permission of the subject's for this material, for example, an

Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content

heh - as I say in the essay (and the noticeboard) - oh the irony! My hands are indeed filthy - although I never went blind ;-) - and yes, we still need to talk about this stuff. cheers, Peter, PM. > How about 'unclean hands'. > > In the recent en.wp discussion that you mention, you added an im

[Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content

Hello all, Those of you foolish enough to watchlist the english wikipedia's admin.s noticeboard, or Jimmy's talk page, might have noticed a broo ha ha this last weekend concerning nude pictures on userpages. Basically, a user has an image of a shaven vagina on their userpage with the caption 'No m

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

ue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:06 AM, philippe wrote: > > > On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM, private musings wrote: > > > basically there's a sensible three stage plan to follow to help drive > > quality and minimise 'BLP' harm; > > > > 1) Semi-protext all &

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

my tuppence in amongst the many voices :-). > 1) If we're imagining a continuum with smaller/higher-quality/restrictive > at one end, and larger/variable-in-quality/permissive at the other I > am > curious to know where the other language versions situate themselves. I am > assuming th

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

> > I think it rates pretty low of "potential for harm" since > the subjects aren't identified and they chose to sunbathe topless on a > public beach. A photo where we have the subjects' permissions would be > better, but I don't see how we could be sure of that (any kind of > posing would ruin the

[Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

G'day all, This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this post, I apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia projects for proposing policy , flooding and generally getting a bit boring about this issue, so