On 12/05/2010, AGK wiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 11 May 2010 22:43, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I've long thought the presence of graphic sexual pictures on
Commons, and certainly in Wikipedia, does more harm than good, because
it means the site can't be trusted in the eyes of
Yikes! That could be quite problematic!
But still, fundamentally, we aren't here for the money. Clearly,
people need to put their heads together and come up with a creative
back up money making solution for the Wikimedia Foundation should this
happen again.
Emily
On May 12, 2010, at 12:24
Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
Long-term, we're aiming to compile all knowledge into one
freely-accessible location. We shouldn't infringe on that mission,
even if we displease some easily-upset persons along the way.
Notable here is this oft-repeated and rather
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 1:56 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
Long-term, we're aiming to compile all knowledge into one
freely-accessible location. We shouldn't infringe on that mission,
even if we displease some easily-upset persons along the
On 05/11/2010 02:43 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Fwiw, I've long thought the presence of graphic sexual pictures on
Commons, and certainly in Wikipedia, does more harm than good, because
it means the site can't be trusted in the eyes of librarians,
teachers, etc etc.
What level of
Censorship is normally used to mean a refusal to include something on
the basis of content, not on the basis of form or external
characteristics. Not including a picture because it does not have a
free license is not censorship, not including it because it's of poor
quality is not censorship, not
On Tue, 11 May 2010, David Goodman wrote:
Censorship is normally used to mean a refusal to include something on
the basis of content, not on the basis of form or external
characteristics. Not including a picture because it does not have a
free license is not censorship, not including it
On 11 May 2010 15:22, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
In that case removing private social security numbers or even dates of birth
is still censorship. Removing the Brian Peppers page is censorship. Even
removing illegal content is censorship.
The no censorship rule isn't, and never
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:33 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 May 2010 15:22, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
In that case removing private social security numbers or even dates of
birth
is still censorship. Removing the Brian Peppers page is censorship.
Even
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:08 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 May 2010 00:12, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Can you explain why Wikipedia and Wikimedia tends to avoid having
explicit guidelines on such matters?
It's a gross NPOV violation.
I don't see it,
On 11 May 2010 22:43, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I've long thought the presence of graphic sexual pictures on
Commons, and certainly in Wikipedia, does more harm than good, because
it means the site can't be trusted in the eyes of librarians,
teachers, etc etc.
Long-term, we're
Fwiw, I've long thought the presence of graphic sexual pictures on
Commons, and certainly in Wikipedia, does more harm than good,
because it means the site can't be trusted in the eyes of
librarians, teachers, etc etc.
So, in other words, it's a good idea to have rules based on what
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Fwiw, I've long thought the presence of graphic sexual pictures on
Commons, and certainly in Wikipedia, does more harm than good,
because it means the site can't be trusted in the eyes of
librarians, teachers, etc etc.
For what's it's worth, Jimbo has now limited the powers of the Founder
flag.
Emily
On May 9, 2010, at 7:58 PM, AGK wrote:
What a thoroughly unpleasant business.
AGK
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:58 AM, AGK wiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
What a thoroughly unpleasant business.
There is now a BBC news story linked from their main news page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10104946.stm
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l
It's obvious some of Jimbo's idea is ill-considered. But what bothers me is
the responses that this violates some kind of blanket policy. Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia, and we may not remove useful information for any reason.
Wikipedia is not censored, we are not allowed to have exceptions.
I
On 10 May 2010 23:14, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
I suggest that this is a piss-poor way to create Wikipedia policy. There's
a substantial contingent of policy wonks who take any blanket policy statement
as gospel and use it as an excuse to avoid even *trying* to figure out if
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
I suggest that this is a piss-poor way to create Wikipedia policy. There's
a substantial contingent of policy wonks who take any blanket policy statement
as gospel and use it as an excuse to avoid even *trying* to figure
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:21 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 May 2010 23:14, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
I suggest that this is a piss-poor way to create Wikipedia policy. There's
a substantial contingent of policy wonks who take any blanket policy
statement
as
On 10 May 2010 23:39, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
The problem there is the name. If you call it censorship (which it
isn't) then people oppose it. If you don't call it censorship, people
will still wave the not censored banner. The idea of Wikipedia not
See also the talk
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:49 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 May 2010 23:39, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
The problem there is the name. If you call it censorship (which it
isn't) then people oppose it. If you don't call it censorship, people
will still wave
On 10 May 2010 23:53, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On the talk page, I mostly see people calling it out for the
censorship stalking horse it was.
You can tag a goat a very special sort of chicken, but people will
see through that.
So you are saying anything labelled content
Actually, I should quote from the current page, not the one from 2 years ago!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IMAGE#Offensive_images
Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's
encyclopedic mission. Wikipedia is not censored. However, images that
can be
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
OK. Would you like to try writing something that would be suitable for
use as image content guidelines, or at least being
* Explicit sexual content
* Explicit medical content
* Images of identifiable people
* Images depicting death
* Images
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
But when it comes to the human body and physiological functions, it is
possible (and in my opinion, better) to limit the number of images to
the best pictures and those that *really* improve an article, rather
than accept everything and hope the
On 11 May 2010 00:12, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Can you explain why Wikipedia and Wikimedia tends to avoid having
explicit guidelines on such matters?
It's a gross NPOV violation.
My position is that a single sentence (Do not place shocking or
explicit pictures into an
On Mon, 10 May 2010, David Gerard wrote:
On the talk page, I mostly see people calling it out for the
censorship stalking horse it was.
You can tag a goat a very special sort of chicken, but people will
see through that.
Well, it is a form of censorship, but just removing someone's private
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo's explanation? bad press:
- http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057896.html
In related news, there is a proposal to
What a thoroughly unpleasant business.
AGK
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
29 matches
Mail list logo
