The huge problem here seems to be that the argument is being framed in
terms of editorial judgement, but the means seems to the thinking
public aimed at sidestepping editorial judgement by supposedly giving
a viewing public more choice, but infact enabling gatekeepers when
they want to keep you fro
>
> (Not because they actually do want it but don't have the resources.
> Not because it is hard for an external body to do but might be easier
> for the WMF to do. No, those aren't possible at all.)
>
Well, given that an image filter is a technically easy proposition, no, its
not because of lack
Tom Morris wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:24, Theo10011 wrote:
>> Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
>> euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and
>> what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The strongest
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Tom Morris wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:24, Theo10011 wrote:
> > Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
> > euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see
> and
> > what not. It should not be our job to
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:24, Theo10011 wrote:
> Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
> euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and
> what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The strongest
> argument I read again
On 09/30/11 10:59 AM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> On 30 September 2011 09:15, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker wrote:
>>> Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about
>>> in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating t
On 09/30/11 11:15 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 19:59, Sue Gardner wrote:
>> That's what I'm used to, as a Canadian -- it's normal for me to listen
>> to minorities and find ways to incorporate their perspectives into
>> mine.
> Most importantly, you are a manger :P
>
>
The tro
On 09/30/11 9:41 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
>> I have never said, *ever*, led on I don't think "girls should not be
>> educated" about sexuality. I also grew up in a time when I had to find
>> "sexual content" by way of a pile of Playboys in my cousins bathroom,
>> watching MTV, and stealing my sisters c
David Levy wrote:
> MZMcBride wrote:
>
>> I'd forgotten all about Toby. That was largely a joke, wasn't it?
>
> Do not try to define Toby. Toby might be a joke or he might be
> serious. Toby might be watching over us right now or he might be a
> bowl of porridge. Toby might be windmills or he
MZMcBride wrote:
> I'd forgotten all about Toby. That was largely a joke, wasn't it?
Do not try to define Toby. Toby might be a joke or he might be
serious. Toby might be watching over us right now or he might be a
bowl of porridge. Toby might be windmills or he might be giants.
Don't fight ab
David Gerard wrote:
> On 30 September 2011 13:40, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> wrote:
>
>> First attempt at labeling content was made by Uwe Kils, and his class
>> of students collectively logging as Vikings or something of the sort
>> tagged content not suitable for teenst. Jimbo banned them, but an
: David Levy
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Saturday, 1 October, 2011, 13:42
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> We'd still be in good company, as all other major websites, including
> Google
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> We'd still be in good company, as all other major websites, including
> Google, YouTube and Flickr, use equivalent systems, systems that are
> widely accepted.
I'm going to simply copy and paste one of my earlier replies (from a
different thread):
Websites like Flickr (an
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> If you want to make a valid counterargument, say that you are worried that
> some censorious
> ISPs and countries might use our category definitions as a starting point
> for a bolt-on
> censorship system that restricts access to these ima
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
> Hiya Bishakha
>
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> >
> I have said, it is a matter of perspective how you view them. But if we go
> by the assumption that editorial judgement is a separate thing, whose job
> is
> it to exer
--- On Sat, 1/10/11, Theo10011 wrote:
From: Theo10011
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Date: Saturday, 1 October, 2011, 1:58
> We're not suggesting that as far as
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:10:37PM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
>
> No, we won't be. We will be putting certain categories/tags/classifications
> on images, but it will still be the readers themselves who decide whether or
> not they see the tagged images.
Well, those tags would be public, so *anyo
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:12:37PM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
> (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
> (Brazil/Portugal) is against.
This is not entirely true. At least one other .us female is against.
(
Hiya Bishakha
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Bishakha Datta wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>
> >
> > Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
> > euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see
> and
> > what not.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 05:56:02PM -0700, phoebe ayers wrote:
> For heaven's sake. This is the worst kind of cutting and pasting to
> make a point I have seen in ages (Kim's experiments
> notwithstanding)...
:-( That was labelled, and disproved a very specific argument people were
making :-/
I
I wrote:
> And for a hypothetical "nudity" category, we'll have to decide what
> constitutes "nudity." This will trigger endless debate, and whatever
> definition prevails will fail to jibe that held by a large number of
> readers.
The above should read "jibe _with_ that held by a large number o
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 21:12, David Gerard wrote:
> On 30 September 2011 20:04, Michael Snow wrote:
>> On this score, it seems likely that we are failing to live up to one of
>> our core principles, that of neutrality. I think we need significantly
>> better editorial judgment applied to many of
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>
> Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
> euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and
> what not.
Theo: they are different things, and given the premium on accuracy and
precision
André Engels wrote:
> We will be putting certain categories/tags/classifications on images,
> but it will still be the readers themselves who decide whether or not
> they see the tagged images.
But _we_ will need to determine the categories/tags/classifications to
use and the images to which they
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 30 September 2011 18:24, Theo10011 wrote:
>> Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
>> euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and
>> what not.
>
> That is just completely untr
On 30 September 2011 20:04, Michael Snow wrote:
> On this score, it seems likely that we are failing to live up to one of
> our core principles, that of neutrality. I think we need significantly
> better editorial judgment applied to many of these articles to address
> it. That will be a challeng
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> > That is just completely untrue. The image filter will allow people to
> > choose what to see and what not to see. We won't be making the
> > decisions...
> >
>
>
> Actually, "we" will be. Depending upon how such a system is implemented, it
>
On 9/30/2011 8:53 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> As mentioned in some of the previous posts, I think that it is
> much more feminist to defend right of girls to be sexually educated,
> even if it would mean secretly browsing Wikipedia articles on
> sexuality, than to insist on comfort of adult females i
On 30 September 2011 19:41, Theo10011 wrote:
> Then, there also Kim's challenge to break such a filtering system.
Kim doesn't need to do a damn thing. There are enough *actual* trolls
on the Internet to mess with it just for the lulz.
- d.
___
foun
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 30 September 2011 18:24, Theo10011 wrote:
> > Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
> > euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see
> and
> > what not.
>
> That is just completel
On Friday 30 September 2011 11:47 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Achal Prabhalawrote:
>
>>
>> On Friday 30 September 2011 11:19 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhala>> wrote:
>>>
>>> How about an encyclopedia? Anywhere?
>>>
>>> Are you
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote:
>
>
> On Friday 30 September 2011 11:19 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhala >wrote:
> >
> > How about an encyclopedia? Anywhere?
> >
> > Are you suggesting a rating system for an encyclopedia?
>
> No.
>
>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 19:59, Sue Gardner wrote:
> I just want to point out quickly that I am not American, and my
> position on all these issues is actually a very Canadian one. Ray and
> Risker and other Canadians will recognize this.
>
> Canada doesn't really feel itself to have a fixed nation
On 30 September 2011 18:24, Theo10011 wrote:
> Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
> euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and
> what not.
That is just completely untrue. The image filter will allow people to
choose what to see an
On Friday 30 September 2011 11:19 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhalawrote:
>
>>
>> On Friday 30 September 2011 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Datta>> wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic
>>
On 30 September 2011 09:15, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker wrote:
>> Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about
>> in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to
>> others who may have useful and progressiv
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote:
>
>
> On Friday 30 September 2011 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Datta >wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker wrote
On Friday 30 September 2011 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha
> Dattawrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was ta
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:07, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> Uh, ok. I'm pansexual and I like pornography. I'm also a feminist (I believe
> in equality). I'm also tired of being accused of being a prudish American
> because I think it's stupid that we have to have a mediocre photograph of a
> naked woman
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Datta wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker wrote:
> > > Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
> > about
> > > in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alie
they meant it. Doesn't it to you? They were all
> established users; one of them an admin. I had a long, and perfectly amicable
> e-mail discussion about it with him afterwards. Their position is entirely
> logical, but it lacks common sense and, indeed, a little empathy
rote:
From: Tobias Oelgarte
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 17:06
Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> --- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>
> I have no idea about your personal stance, but correct me if I am wrong.
> Weren't you the one surprised to find an "in your face photo
> of a vagina" on an article about Vagina? You know where you said it was
> up-front and at the top unlike
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:46, Risker wrote:
> Do you have any reason to believe that a statistically significant number
> and percentage of female editors of the German Wikipedia are active
> participants in this mailing list?
No, but there are German Wikipedians who could research that issue.
On 30 September 2011 12:06, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> > --- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> >
> > From: Ryan Kaldari
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
> judgement, and imag
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker wrote:
> > Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
> about
> > in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
> to
> > others who may have useful a
On 30 September 2011 12:32, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:29, Risker wrote:
> > I think there is much that can be discussed on the range of topic areas
> > covered in this thread. But we must keep in mind that the views expressed
> > here are those of the individuals, and ther
: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 16:02
Am 30.09.2011 16:46, schrieb Risker:
>> My question to you is why anyone would want to participate in a discussion
>> whe
Hi Sarah
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
> >
> > As a member of one feminist organization, I understand dominant
> > position among feminists toward pornography. It's generally personal
> > (thus, not an ideological
On 30 September 2011 03:47, WereSpielChequers
wrote:
> Re David's point that "The trouble with responding on the blog is that
> responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered". I can relate to that, it
> isn't just an annoying delay, there are posts which have gone up with
> timestamps long after
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:29, Risker wrote:
> I think there is much that can be discussed on the range of topic areas
> covered in this thread. But we must keep in mind that the views expressed
> here are those of the individuals, and there is absolutely insufficient
> information for any of us t
On 30 September 2011 12:15, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker wrote:
> > Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
> about
> > in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
> to
> > others who may have useful and pr
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker wrote:
> Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about
> in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to
> others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing
> the opinions of ot
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
> As a member of one feminist organization, I understand dominant
> position among feminists toward pornography. It's generally personal
> (thus, not an ideological position), but as the main stream
> pornography is male-centric and historic
Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> --- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
>
> From: Ryan Kaldari
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
> judgement, and image filters
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Friday, 30
You can't always get what you want," Stierch
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> --- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
>
> From: Ryan Kaldari
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
> judgement, and image fil
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:23, Sarah Stierch wrote:
>> One more, but forgot her name and too lazy to search. German females
>> in discussion on German Wikipedia should be also checked.
>>
>> Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
>> (though, Sarah just tactically) and
I must confess I completely fail to understand how the discussions in this
thread, especially the last several dozens or so posts, advance our
mission.
Cheers
Yaroslav
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://l
--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldari
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28
On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> This p
On 30 September 2011 13:40, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> First attempt at labeling content was made by Uwe Kils, and his class
> of students collectively logging as Vikings or something of the sort
> tagged content not suitable for teenst. Jimbo banned them, but an
> accomodation was made where
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Risker wrote:
>
> I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point, Nathan. The blog
> post was about two basic issues:
>
> *How Wiki[mp]edians are interacting with each other , and
>
> *The role of editorial judgment in selecting which content is most
> edu
On 30 September 2011 10:36, Nathan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Risker wrote:
> > On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >> Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
> >> (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one
Am 30.09.2011 16:46, schrieb Risker:
>> My question to you is why anyone would want to participate in a discussion
>> where their opinions are going to be classified by their sex or their
>> geographic location rather than their input.
There's absolutely no harm in coming to a finding that, say, 8
On 30 September 2011 10:44, Oliver Koslowski wrote:
> Am 30.09.2011 16:24, schrieb Risker:
> > The implication of your post is "if you're a woman from
> > the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the
> > discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making
Am 30.09.2011 16:24, schrieb Risker:
> The implication of your post is "if you're a woman from
> the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the
> discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such
> posts in the future.
Weird. I've only seen a post where
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Risker wrote:
> On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
>
>> Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
>> (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
>> (Brazil/Portugal) is against.
>>
>
>
> Milos, I
On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
>
> Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
> (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
> (Brazil/Portugal) is against.
>
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking a
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
>
> One more, but forgot her name and too lazy to search. German females
> in discussion on German Wikipedia should be also checked.
>
> Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
> (though, Sarah just tactically) a
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
> (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
> (Brazil/Portugal) is against.
>
> Hope we're not going to call this a poll. :)
Cheers
Bishakha
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 15:54, Sumana Harihareswara
wrote:
>> (As > example: the only 2 girls who commented here - phoebe and me - are in
>> opposite sides. ...)
> -*B?ria Lima*
>
> Technically, you, Sarah Stierch, Phoebe, and Sue have all commented --
> at least 4 women, not just 2.
One more, bu
> (As > example: the only 2 girls who commented here - phoebe and me - are in
> opposite sides. ...)
-*B?ria Lima*
Technically, you, Sarah Stierch, Phoebe, and Sue have all commented --
at least 4 women, not just 2.
--
Sumana Harihareswara
Volunteer Development Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:36 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>> Erik, if you really want to change the focus of the debate, suggest to
>> Sue and the board that they make a commitment: that an image filter
>> won't be imposed on the projects against strong majority opposition in
>> the contri
Sorry if this is *too* condensed, but here is one summary of this issue...
First attempt at labeling content was made by Uwe Kils, and his class
of students collectively logging as Vikings or something of the sort
tagged content not suitable for teenst. Jimbo banned them, but an
accomodation was m
Nathan wrote:
> Erik, if you really want to change the focus of the debate, suggest to
> Sue and the board that they make a commitment: that an image filter
> won't be imposed on the projects against strong majority opposition in
> the contributing community. Then you can move on to the hard work o
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> Overall, I think Sue's post was an effort to move the conversation
>> away from thinking of this issue purely in the terms of the debate as
>> it's taken place so far. I think that's a very
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:45 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against
>> any imposed filter is just *weird*.
>
> The intro and footer of Sue's post say: "The purpose of this post is
> not to talk specifically about th
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Overall, I think Sue's post was an effort to move the conversation
> away from thinking of this issue purely in the terms of the debate as
> it's taken place so far. I think that's a very worthwhile thing to do.
> I would also point out that
-
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:56:02 -0700
> From: phoebe ayers
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
>judgement, and image filters
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Message-ID:
&
I'll go by pieces in your mail Erik.
*The intro and footer of Sue's post say: "The purpose of this post is not to
> talk specifically about the referendum results or the image hiding feature"
> (...) So it's perhaps not surprising that she doesn't mention the de.wp poll
> regarding the filter in a
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:45 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against
> any imposed filter is just *weird*.
The intro and footer of Sue's post say: "The purpose of this post is
not to talk specifically about the referendum results or the im
On 09/29/2011 04:37 PM, Dirk Franke wrote:
> For anybody interested: I wrote a blog-post full of disagreement :-)
>
> http://asinliberty.blogspot.com/2011/09/sorry-sue-gardner-but-image-filter.html
So basically, we find that there are two different, somewhat
incompatible definitions of Wikipedia:
On 30 September 2011 01:56, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-letter.html
>> He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all
>> manner of names ("who are acting li
On 30 September 2011 00:34, David Gerard wrote:
> On 30 September 2011 00:28, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
>
>> Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with
>> nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems
>> quite valid.
>
>
> Really, every single response
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
>
>> http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
>> Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please
>> discuss the blog on the blog and not t
* Keegan Peterzell wrote:
>http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
I don't think this is contributing much to the discussion. The point in
the blog post is basically just that people should discuss how to make
articles better. Everybody agrees. That, in the sense of the
This isn't just about the image filter. Try discussing whether or not
porn should be allowed on the Main page of Commons. Let me know if you
get any responses that don't cite [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. Somehow the
majority of the community there believes that there are only two
possible positions on t
On 30 September 2011 00:28, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with
> nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems
> quite valid.
Really, every single response to every single comment?
It suggests communication has alr
On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
>
> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
>
> - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
> be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and
> that
On 29 September 2011 23:55, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 September 2011 23:53, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Not dealing with pending comments promptly doesn't sound like
>> arbitrary filtering to me...
>
>
> Note comments from others in this thread experiencing the same.
I'm not disputing anyone's e
On 29 September 2011 23:53, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Not dealing with pending comments promptly doesn't sound like
> arbitrary filtering to me...
Note comments from others in this thread experiencing the same.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
found
On 29 September 2011 23:49, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 September 2011 23:45, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:
>>> The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be
>>> being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.
>
>> Really? What did you say?
On 29 September 2011 23:45, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
>>> http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
>>> Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally,
On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
>
>> http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
>> Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please
>> discuss the blog on the blog and not thread
> On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell
> wrote:
>
>> http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
>> Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally,
>> please
>> discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
>> conversatio
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
> Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please
> discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
> conversation about the image f
Am 29.09.2011 17:00, schrieb Nathan:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:45 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against
>> any imposed filter is just *weird*. Not mentioning it, and not
>> acknowledging why someone would do that, doesn't make it go a
> It makes some sense. If you come to the conclusion that your
> constituency for a particularly important decision is a huge and
> diverse array of people (i.e. the readers), and then further conclude
> that opposition to your decision is coming from a very narrow and
> homogenous slice of that a
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:45 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against
> any imposed filter is just *weird*. Not mentioning it, and not
> acknowledging why someone would do that, doesn't make it go away.
>
> As you say, this blog post reads
For anybody interested: I wrote a blog-post full of disagreement :-)
http://asinliberty.blogspot.com/2011/09/sorry-sue-gardner-but-image-filter.html
regards,
southpark
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:45 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 September 2011 07:40, Keegan Peterzell
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep
On 29 September 2011 07:40, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
>> - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
>> be abusi
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
