I wrote:
> > I believe that we should focus on the criteria behind reliable sources'
> > illustrative decisions, *not* the decisions themselves.
Andreas Kolbe replied:
> Ah well, that *is* second-guessing the source, because unless the author
> tells you, you have no way of knowing *why* they di
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:13 AM, David Levy wrote:
> Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't go so far as to say that we should consider ourselves *bound*
> by
> > others' decisions either. But I do think that the presence or absence of
> > precedents in reliable sources is an important factor that
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I wouldn't go so far as to say that we should consider ourselves *bound* by
> others' decisions either. But I do think that the presence or absence of
> precedents in reliable sources is an important factor that we should weigh
> when we're contemplating the addition of a pa
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:19 PM, David Levy wrote:
> Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > Whether to add a media file to an article or not is always a
> > cost/benefit not is always a cost/benefit question. It does not make
> > sense to argue that any benefit, however small and superficial,
> > outweighs a
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Whether to add a media file to an article or not is always a
> cost/benefit not is always a cost/benefit question. It does not make
> sense to argue that any benefit, however small and superficial,
> outweighs any cost, however large and substantive.
Agreed. I'm not arguin
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:29 PM, David Levy wrote:
>
> Indeed, but *not* when it comes to images' basic illustrative
> properties. Again, I elaborated in the text quoted below.
This process can be applied to images depicting almost any subject,
> even if others decline to do so.
I mention
Am 19.10.2011 23:19, schrieb Philippe Beaudette:
> 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 init
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
Andreas Kolbe 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?
It depends on the context. There's nothing inherently bad about
sati
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
in this respect.
As
* 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?
Many Wikipedians would disagree that they or Wikipedia as a whole is a
"se
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am 18.10.2011 23:20, schrieb Andreas K.:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Tobias Oelgarte<
> > tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You said that we should learn from Google and other top w
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:17 PM, David Levy wrote:
> Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > Now, given that we are a top-10 website, why should it not make sense to
> > look at what other large websites like Google, Bing, and Yahoo allow the
> > user to filter, and what media Flickr and YouTube require opt-i
Am 18.10.2011 23:20, schrieb Andreas K.:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Tobias Oelgarte<
> tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> You said that we should learn from Google and other top websites, but at
>> the same time you want to introduce objective criteria, which neither of
>> this we
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:30 PM, David Levy wrote:
> Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > I don't consider press sources the most reliable sources, or in general a
> good
> > model to follow. Even among press sources, there are many (incl. Reuters)
> > who call the Twitter feed by its proper name, "Shit m
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I don't consider press sources the most reliable sources, or in general a good
> model to follow. Even among press sources, there are many (incl. Reuters)
> who call the Twitter feed by its proper name, "Shit my dad says".
The sources to which I referred are the most reputa
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> You said that we should learn from Google and other top websites, but at
> the same time you want to introduce objective criteria, which neither of
> this websites did?
What I mean is that we should not
From: David Levy
> > The New York Times (recipient of more Pulitzer Prizes than any other
> > news organization) uses "Stuff My Dad Says." So does the Los Angeles
> > Times, which states that the subject's actual name is "unsuitable for
> > a family publication."
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com
>
> This is only no problem, as long we don't represent default settings, aka
>
categories, which introduce our judgment to the readership. Only the
> fact that our judgment is visible, is already enough to manipulate the
> reader in what to see as objectionable or not. This scenario is very
> much
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Now, given that we are a top-10 website, why should it not make sense to
> look at what other large websites like Google, Bing, and Yahoo allow the
> user to filter, and what media Flickr and YouTube require opt-ins for?
> Why should we not take our cues from them? The situa
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> The English Wikipedia community, like any other, has always contained a
> wide spectrum of opinion on such matters.
Of course. But consensus != unanimity.
Your interpretation of the English Wikipedia's neutrality policy
contradicts that under which the site operates.
> >
Am 18.10.2011 19:04, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
>
> From: Tobias Oelgarte
>> Am 18.10.2011 11:43, schrieb Thomas Morton:
>>> It is this fallacious logic that underpins our crazy politics of
>>> "neutrality" which we attempt to enforce on people (when in practice we lack
>>> neutrality almost as much as
Am 18.10.2011 17:23, schrieb Thomas Morton:
>> That comes down to the two layers of judgment involved in this proposal.
>> At first we give them the option to view anything and we give them the
>> option to view not anything. The problem is that we have to define what
>> "not anything" is. This imp
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 such matters. We have seen this in the past,
> with long discuss
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 such matters. We have seen this in the past, with long
> discussions about contentious cases like the goatse image, or the Katzouras
From: Tobias Oelgarte
>
>Am 18.10.2011 11:43, schrieb Thomas Morton:
>> It is this fallacious logic that underpins our crazy politics of
>> "neutrality" which we attempt to enforce on people (when in practice we lack
>> neutrality almost as much as the next man!).
>... and that is exactly what m
>
> That comes down to the two layers of judgment involved in this proposal.
> At first we give them the option to view anything and we give them the
> option to view not anything. The problem is that we have to define what
> "not anything" is. This imposes our judgment to the reader. That means,
>
Am 18.10.2011 14:00, schrieb Thomas Morton:
> On 18 October 2011 11:56, Tobias
> Oelgartewrote:
>
>> That controversial content is hidden or that we
>> provide a button to hide controversial content is prejudicial.
>
> I disagree on this, though. There is a balance between encouraging people to
>
On 18 October 2011 11:56, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> I don't assume that. I say that they should have the opportunity to
> change if they like to.
Absolutely - we do not disagree on this.
> That controversial content is hidden or that we
> provide a button to hide controversial content is prejud
Am 18.10.2011 11:43, schrieb Thomas Morton:
>>> And that is a mature and sensible attitude.
>>>
>>> Some people do not share your view and are unable to ignore what to
>>> them are rude or offensive things.
>>>
>>> Are they wrong?
>>>
>>> Should they be doing what you (and I) do?
>>>
>>> Tom
>> The
On 18 October 2011 11:08, David Gerard wrote:
> On 18 October 2011 10:43, Thomas Morton
> wrote:
>
> > If an individual expresses a preference to hide certain content, it is
> > reasonable for us to provide that option for use at their discretion.
> > Anything else is like saying "No, your views
On 18 October 2011 10:43, Thomas Morton wrote:
> If an individual expresses a preference to hide certain content, it is
> reasonable for us to provide that option for use at their discretion.
> Anything else is like saying "No, your views on acceptability are wrong and
> we insist you must see th
>
> > And that is a mature and sensible attitude.
> >
> > Some people do not share your view and are unable to ignore what to
> > them are rude or offensive things.
> >
> > Are they wrong?
> >
> > Should they be doing what you (and I) do?
> >
> > Tom
> The question is, if we should support "them" t
Am 18.10.2011 09:57, schrieb Tom Morris:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2011, Thomas Morton wrote:
>
>> On 17 Oct 2011, at 09:19, Tobias Oelgarte
>> > wrote:
>>> I have no problem with any kind of controversial content. Showing
>>> progress of fisting on the mainpage? No problem for me. Reading your
>>
Am 18.10.2011 01:54, schrieb Thomas Morton:
> On 17 Oct 2011, at 09:19, Tobias Oelgarte
> wrote:
>
>> Am 16.10.2011 21:27, schrieb ???:
>>> On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
> On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 16 October 2011 1
Sorry to take a tangential point from Tom's email, but is the random
article tool truly random or does it direct to only stable articles or
some other sub-set of article space?
Thanks
Fae
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Un
On Tuesday, October 18, 2011, Thomas Morton wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2011, at 09:19, Tobias Oelgarte
> > wrote:
> > I have no problem with any kind of controversial content. Showing
> > progress of fisting on the mainpage? No problem for me. Reading your
> > comments? No problem for me. Reading your ins
On 17 Oct 2011, at 09:19, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> Am 16.10.2011 21:27, schrieb ???:
>> On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>>> Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
> On 16 October 2011 14:40, ??? wrote:
>
>> Don't be an arsehole
> You view them as standalone pieces of information, entirely distinct
> from those conveyed textually. You believe that their inclusion
> constitutes undue weight unless reliable sources utilize the same or
> similar illustrations (despite their publication of text establishing
> the images' accu
Re
>> I claim that you are talking total crap. It is not *that* difficult to
>> get the
>> categories of an image and reject based on which categories the image
>> is in are. There are enough people out there busily categorizing all the
>> images already that any org that may wish to could block i
Note: This foundation-l post is cross-posted to commons-l, since this
discussion may be of interest there as well.
> From: Tobias Oelgarte
> It is a in house made problem, as i explained at brainstorming [1].
> To put it short: It is a self made problem, based on the fact that this
> images
pornographic films which are undoubtedly of significant historical interest,
> but are also pretty much as explicit as any modern representative of the
> genre.
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
>> ________________
>> From: Dan Rosenthal
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Ma
Am 16.10.2011 21:27, schrieb ???:
> On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>> Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
>>> On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
On 16 October 2011 14:40, ??? wrote:
> Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for
Presu
dreas
>
>From: Thyge
>To: Andreas Kolbe ; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
>Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011, 2:59
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
>
>2011/10/17 Andreas Kolbe :
>> Commons featured
>
>From: Bjoern Hoehrmann
>To: Andreas Kolbe ; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
>Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011, 2:15
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
>
>* Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>Personality conflicts aside
* Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>Personality conflicts aside, we're noting that non-sexual search terms
>in Commons can prominently return sexual images of varying explicitness,
>from mild nudity to hardcore, and that this is different from entering a
>sexual search term and finding that Google fails to fil
genre.
Andreas
>
>From: Dan Rosenthal
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>Sent: Sunday, 16 October 2011, 20:31
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
>
>If the entire premise of an email comes down to "I&
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:57 AM, ??? wrote:
> On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> > Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
> >> On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
> >>> On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wrote:
> >>>
> Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you sear
If the entire premise of an email comes down to "I'm taunting you", that's
an indication it probably shouldn't be sent.
Dan Rosenthal
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:27 PM, ??? wrote:
> On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> > Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
> >> On 16/10/2011 14:50, Davi
On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
>> On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
>>> On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wrote:
>>>
Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for
>>>
>>> Presumably this is the sort of quality of di
Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
> On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 16 October 2011 14:40, ??? wrote:
>>
>>> Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for
>>
>> Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was
>> complaining about from filter advo
On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
> On 16 October 2011 14:40, ??? wrote:
>
>> Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for
>
>
> Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was
> complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs lacking in
> empathy.
I wrote:
> > In this context, you view images as entities independent from the people and
> > things depicted therein (and believe that our use of illustrations not
> > included in other publications constitutes undue weight).
Andreas Kolbe replied:
> I view images as *content*, subject to the s
On 16 October 2011 14:40, ??? wrote:
> Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for
Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was
complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs lacking in
empathy.
- d.
On 16/10/2011 12:37, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> Am 16.10.2011 12:53, schrieb ???:
>> On 11/10/2011 15:33, Kim Bruning wrote:
>>> Therefore you cannot claim that I am stating nonsense.
>>>The inverse is true: you do not possess the information to support
>>>your position, as you now admi
Am 16.10.2011 12:53, schrieb ???:
> On 11/10/2011 15:33, Kim Bruning wrote:
>> Therefore you cannot claim that I am stating nonsense.
>> The inverse is true: you do not possess the information to support
>> your position, as you now admit. In future, before you set out to
>> make claims o
On 11/10/2011 00:47, MZMcBride wrote:
> Risker wrote:
> > Given the number of people who insist that any categorization
> > system seems to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the
> > current system, which is obviously necessary in order for people to
> > find types of images, does not
On 11/10/2011 15:33, Kim Bruning wrote:
> Therefore you cannot claim that I am stating nonsense.
> The inverse is true: you do not possess the information to support
> your position, as you now admit. In future, before you set out to
> make claims of bad faith in others, it would be wise to en
> From: David Levy
> It most certainly is a matter of interpretation. If the English
> Wikipedia community shared yours, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion.
> In this context, you view images as entities independent from the
> people and things depicted therein
I view images as *conten
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > > NPOV policy as written would require us to do the same, yes.
> > The community obviously doesn't share your interpretation of said policy.
> It's not a question of interpretation; it is the very letter of the policy.
It most certainly is a matter of interpretation. I
ndation Mailing List
>Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011, 5:45
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
>
>bla
>
>
>
>>
>>From: David Levy
>>To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>Sent: Fr
bla
>
>From: David Levy
>To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011, 3:52
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
>
>I wrote:
>
>> > In an earlier reply, I cited ult
I wrote:
> > In an earlier reply, I cited ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspapers and magazines
> > that refuse to publish photographs of women. If this were a mainstream
> > policy, would that make it "neutral"?
Andreas Kolbe replied:
> NPOV policy as written would require us to do the same, yes.
Th
> From: David Levy
> > > In an earlier reply, I cited ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspapers and
> > > magazines
> > > that refuse to publish photographs of women. If this were a mainstream
> > > policy, would that make it "neutral"?
> Please answer the above question.
NPOV policy as written woul
I wrote:
> > Apart from the name (which the MediaWiki developers inexplicably
> > refused to change), the bad image list is entirely compliant with the
> > principle of neutrality (barring abuse by a particular project, which
> > I haven't observed).
MZMcBride replied:
> Not inexplicably: https:
David Levy wrote:
> Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> Again, I think you are being too philosophical, and lack pragmatism.
>>
>> We already have bad image lists like
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list
>>
>> If you remain wedded to an abstract philosophical approach, such lists
>>
Am 13.10.2011 09:54, schrieb Hubert:
> Meanwhile, I prefer the following solution:
>
> Everyone, who will not understand and perceive the world so as it is,
> should unsubscribe his internet connection - just like his newspaper
> subscription, radio and television and - of course - any advertising
+1
h
Am 11.10.2011 03:20, schrieb Bjoern Hoehrmann:
> * Sue Gardner wrote:
>> This is how the system is supposed to work. The Board identified a
>> problem; the staff hacked together a proposed solution, and we asked
>> the community what it thought. Now, we're responding to the input and
>> we'r
Am 10.10.2011 21:16, schrieb Sue Gardner:
> On 10 October 2011 11:56, Möller, Carsten wrote:
>> Sue wrote:
>>> It is asking me to do something.
>>> But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
>>> been discussed over the past several months, and which the Germans
>>> voted against.
te to the English word
> "violence", because that word lacks several shades of meaning that the German
> word "Gewalt" has.
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
> From: Hubert
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent
Hello,
To me, this shows that the search engine is badly configured, or has a
major problem.
So fix it instead of creating a filter, which would have unwanted side effects.
Having a good search engine would be within the WMF mission,
creating a filter is not.
Regards,
Yann
2011/10/12 Andreas Ko
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Well, you need to be clear that you're using the word "neutral" here with a
> different meaning than the one ascribed to it in NPOV policy.
>
> Neutrality is not abstractly defined: like notability or verifiability, it
> has a very specific meaning within Wikipedia policy. T
>
> It contains facts about opinions - it does not itself express an opinion.
> It
> is both factual, and a fact.
>
It expresses the *opinion* of the judge that Abbey killed Betty :) We
include it because the global *opinion* is that judges are in a position to
make such statements with authority.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Thomas Morton <
morton.tho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> You've confused "a fact" with factual.
I've confused the adjective form with the noun form of "fact"? I'm quite
sure that I have.
*The judge convicted Abby of killing Betty, saying that the overwhelming
>
From: David Levy
>
>> You assume here that there is any kind of neutrality in Wikipedia that is
>> not defined by reliable sources.
>>
>> There isn't.
>
>Again, you're conflating two separate concepts.
>
>In most cases, we can objectively determine, based on information from
>reliable sources, tha
>
> Secondly, it ignores the fact that an encyclopedia, at least in intention,
> does not deal in opinions at all, but rather in facts
Not at all!
You've confused "a fact" with factual. What we record is factual - but it
might be a fact, or it might be an opinion. When relating opinions we
refle
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
> Their opinions and preferences are as legitimate as our own
This is a problematic statement. Although as a bland truism it initially
seems unexceptional and obvious, it is in fact flatly untrue. It is greatly
troubling to think that this statem
On 12 October 2011 14:09, David Levy wrote:
> Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> We already have bad image lists like
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list
>> If you remain wedded to an abstract philosophical approach, such lists
>> are not neutral. But they answer a real need.
> Apart f
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Again, I think you are being too philosophical, and lack pragmatism.
>
> We already have bad image lists like
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list
>
> If you remain wedded to an abstract philosophical approach, such lists
> are not neutral. But they answ
> From:David Levy
> Setting aside the matter of category tags, I disagree with the premise
> that the neutrality principle is inapplicable to display options.
> When an on-wiki gadget is used to selectively suppress material deemed
> "objectionable," that's a content issue (despite not affecting
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Bob the Wikipedian wrote:
>>Zooming out may work for individuals like you, but for folks like me,
>>it's actually a distraction, and I try to see what the tiny picture is,
>>staring at it until it makes sense. Yay for ADHD:-\
>
You
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Neutrality applies to content. I don't think it applies in the same way to
> *display options* or other gadget infrastructure.
Category tags = content.
Setting aside the matter of category tags, I disagree with the premise
that the neutrality principle is inapplicable to d
* Bob the Wikipedian wrote:
>Zooming out may work for individuals like you, but for folks like me,
>it's actually a distraction, and I try to see what the tiny picture is,
>staring at it until it makes sense. Yay for ADHD:-\
Zooming out is something that works for me pretty much everywhere w
Ideally, this would be as transparent as possible, so that should not be
an issue if all goes well.
Bob
On 10/11/2011 8:17 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> I'd wonder how they feel about adding some notice like "Seeing this
> image makes some people feel bad" to the image caption for all images
>
Zooming out may work for individuals like you, but for folks like me,
it's actually a distraction, and I try to see what the tiny picture is,
staring at it until it makes sense. Yay for ADHD:-\
Bob
On 10/11/2011 8:17 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * David Gerard wrote:
>> Not sure the blurri
Call be dumb, but is there a denomination of Islam that is disallowed
from looking at images of Muhammed?
Bob
On 10/11/2011 5:17 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> We need to look at mainstream issues (including Muhammad images).
___
foundation-l mailing list
* David Gerard wrote:
>Not sure the blurring system would do the job for a workplace. At a
>distance, the blurred penis still looks exactly like a penis ...
There are many alternatives to a blur effect. A much simpler effect
would be a Small Images option that shrinks all images to icon size.
The
> From: David Levy
> Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > I would use indicators like the number and intensity of complaints received.
> For profit-making organizations seeking to maximize revenues by
> catering to majorities, this is a sensible approach. For most WMF
> projects, conversely, neutrality is a
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I would use indicators like the number and intensity of complaints received.
For profit-making organizations seeking to maximize revenues by
catering to majorities, this is a sensible approach. For most WMF
projects, conversely, neutrality is a fundamental, non-negotiable
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2011, 22:40
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content -
Commons searches
> What you are all missing here is that commons is a service site, not a
> repository
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Thomas Morton
wrote:
>>
>> By modern day standards the image is more comical than titillating
>> *by our Finnish standards* --- but would be highly suspect in the US,
>> atleast
>> if the deletion debate for that image at commons is to be given credence
>> to...
>
1 - 100 of 242 matches
Mail list logo
