There are several issues here. One is that we are an open source site, “The
idea we discussed was that NetSpark would either donate or heavily discount
the cost of the filter for Wikipedia." Surely Sanger knows us well enough
to know not to suggest that we ditch open source and work with a software
The exercise of privilege is not usually called bullying, nor, when its
prerogatives are denied are its holders called victims.
Wikipedia does accord privilege to authority but only published authority.
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wi
> On Sep 10, 2012 9:20 PM, "Risker" wrote:
>>
>> In reality, many businesses and individuals have filtering in place to
>> prevent access to pages that include certain keywords. I've sometimes
> been
>> stymied when following a legitimate link when I'm on a computer that
>> has
>> some form of ne
"Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger has launched a campaign against the
online encyclopedia for content filters to be put in place."
Part of being a reference work. There are aspects of reality that are
offensive or disturbing. I think we've made considerable progress on this
matter in terms of rem
On Sep 10, 2012 9:20 PM, "Risker" wrote:
>
> In reality, many businesses and individuals have filtering in place to
> prevent access to pages that include certain keywords. I've sometimes
been
> stymied when following a legitimate link when I'm on a computer that has
> some form of net nanny soft
It's telling that Fox News are using the Simple English Wikipedia.
Also someone should let them know you only need to type in one of the
search boxes to do a search, not both.
> NetSpark's technology was used in 2010 with Israeli technology company
> Cellcom to filter the mobile web, creating a "
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Bob the Wikipedian
wrote:
> Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say "best". Having never browsed around
> specifically for porn, and Wikipedia having been the only site that's put
> porn in my face without my asking for it, on top of the fact Wikipedia has
> an excellen
In reality, many businesses and individuals have filtering in place to
prevent access to pages that include certain keywords. I've sometimes been
stymied when following a legitimate link when I'm on a computer that has
some form of net nanny software.
As it turns out, it seems that software isn't
Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say "best". Having never browsed around
specifically for porn, and Wikipedia having been the only site that's
put porn in my face without my asking for it, on top of the fact
Wikipedia has an excellent categorization system and is allowed even in
the workplace and
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Bob the Wikipedian
wrote:
> I can't imagine a site more accessible and better organized than Wikipedia
> for someone seeking porn. They're quite correct.
>
> Bob
>
>
Really? Wikipedia is the best porn site you can imagine? Welcome to
the Internets, Bob, take a loo
I can't imagine a site more accessible and better organized than
Wikipedia for someone seeking porn. They're quite correct.
Bob
On 9/10/2012 1:51 PM, Steve Summit wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/09/10/wikipedia-slow-to-filter-graphic-imagery-from-site/
"Wikipedia has turned down a mor
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/09/10/wikipedia-slow-to-filter-graphic-imagery-from-site/
"Wikipedia has turned down a more or less free offer for software
that would keep minors and unsuspecting web surfers from
stumbling upon graphic images of sex organs, acts and emissions,
FoxNews.com has lea
on 9/10/12 12:26 PM, Matthew Jacobs at sxeptoman...@gmail.com wrote:
>skip<
> I'm really, really sick of administrators acting like complete jerks, and
> not only failing to get admonished in any significant way for it, but
> people making up excuses for their dickish behavior, and then attacking
On 10 September 2012 17:26, Matthew Jacobs wrote:
> Only on WP. This kind of crap is why I've essentially given up on the site.
> The man wants an article on HIS OWN WORK to be accurate, and was frustrated
> by the apparently quite unhelpful people he met there. That's just plain
> ridiculous, bu
On 10 September 2012 17:32, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
>
>> Besides, once he is verified to be himself, he is a reliable source. The
>>> issue was that he was a primary source and the secondary sources had
>>> preference.
>>>
>> The issue appears to be som
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
Besides, once he is verified to be himself, he is a reliable source. The
issue was that he was a primary source and the secondary sources had
preference.
The issue appears to be something different. Roth's biographer wanted the
existing secondary sou
Only on WP. This kind of crap is why I've essentially given up on the site.
The man wants an article on HIS OWN WORK to be accurate, and was frustrated
by the apparently quite unhelpful people he met there. That's just plain
ridiculous, but it's beyond absurd that he would then be called a "bully"
On 10 September 2012 17:04, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
>
>> You might be justified in saying this if he was really told he wasn't
>> "credible". If he was told that he wasn't a "reliable source" in WP's
>> terms, that is a different kettle of fish.
>>
>
> Ho
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
You might be justified in saying this if he was really told he wasn't
"credible". If he was told that he wasn't a "reliable source" in WP's
terms, that is a different kettle of fish.
How's he supposed to know the difference?
Besides, once he is verif
19 matches
Mail list logo
