-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Some thoughts, not aiming at anybody in particular.
The pressure from Fox News, the childish founders' jealousies, the void
FBI threats, the patriarch complex of Mr. Wales, if they're real,
should be of no inflated importance. Our personal tastes
Samuel Klein wrote:
To Robert's point below,
I would appreciate a serious discussion on Commons, grounded in this
sort of precedent, about what a special concern and stronger
justification for inclusion might look like. An OTRS-based model
release policy? How does one prove that one
I recall personally deleting and asking for oversight of an
identifiable picture of a clearly underage person in a similar
context, where the images were the basis of an internet meme. The
picture was oversighted; the article on the meme itself was almost
unanimously deleted from WP.
The courts
To Robert's point below,
I would appreciate a serious discussion on Commons, grounded in this
sort of precedent, about what a special concern and stronger
justification for inclusion might look like. An OTRS-based model
release policy? How does one prove that one really is the
photographer /
Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
2010/5/13 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Samuel Klein wrote:
I agree strongly with this. You are right to point out the connection
to improving BLP policies -- we should be much more careful to
confirming model rights for people in
2010/5/13 Delirium delir...@hackish.org:
On 05/11/2010 09:45 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
The obvious solution is not to display images by default that a large
number of viewers would prefer not to view. Instead, provide links,
or maybe have them blurred out and allow a click to unblur them. You
Delirium wrote:
I don't actually mind this proposal, and would like it myself for a lot
of pages. But I'm not sure naked people are actually at the top of the
list (perhaps someone should try to determine it empirically via some
sort of research on our readers?). If I personally were to
Samuel Klein wrote:
I agree strongly with this. You are right to point out the connection
to improving BLP policies -- we should be much more careful to
confirming model rights for people in any potentially exploitative or
embarrassing photos.
Such ideas have been around for a long time.
2010/5/13 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Samuel Klein wrote:
I agree strongly with this. You are right to point out the connection
to improving BLP policies -- we should be much more careful to
confirming model rights for people in any potentially exploitative or
embarrassing
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com simetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com wrote:
[[Daniel Pearl]] does not contain an image
of him being beheaded (although it's what he's famous for), and
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.comsimetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com simetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
The obvious solution is not to display images by default
that a large
number of viewers would prefer not to view. Instead,
provide links,
or maybe have them blurred out and allow a click to unblur
them. You
don't hide
Tim Starling wrote:
Solution 1: Exercise editorial control to remove particularly
offensive images from the site.
Standard answer 1: Some people may wish to see that content, it would
be wrong for us to stop them.
Solution 2: Tag images with an audience-specific rating system, like
movie
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On foundation-l we are divided between moderates and libertarians. The
libertarians are more strident in their views, so the debate can seem
one-sided at times, but there is a substantial
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone will fill
that void. That someone does not need to be us. Google does this job with
their image browser already without the need for any providers to actively
I am sorry about the horrible formatting in my last post (any advice
appreciated). I'll try this again.
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone
will fill that void. That someone does not need to
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
However, I also see the issue from another frame that is not part of
Tim's spectrum. Sexual photographs, especially those of easily
recognized people, have the potential to exploit or embarrass the
people in them.
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I would suggest a child-safe approach to
Commons, is simply to use the Google image browser with a
moderate filter setting. Try it, it works.
Actually, it doesn't. For example, if you search for
masturbation
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
However, I also see the issue from another frame that is not part of
Tim's spectrum. Sexual photographs, especially those of easily
recognized people, have the potential to exploit or embarrass the
people in them. I
On 05/11/2010 09:45 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
The obvious solution is not to display images by default that a large
number of viewers would prefer not to view. Instead, provide links,
or maybe have them blurred out and allow a click to unblur them. You
don't hide any information from people
Tim Starling wrote:
Libertarians want all information to be available to everyone. Some
say all adults, some say children too should be included. Their
principles allow for individuals to choose for themselves to avoid
seeing that which offends them, which leaves the problem of how the
Tim Starling writes:
It's a proposal which only really makes sense when analysed from the
libertarian end of this debate. It's not a compromise with the rest of
the spectrum.
That's correct. That was intentional. A libertarian proposal that attempts
to adhere to NPOV and reduces general noise
On 11/05/10 23:06, Anthony wrote:
I assume here you're talking about choosing what images to allow on the
websites. I wouldn't call that making a decision on behalf of another,
but I assume that's what you're referring to. If I'm wrong, please correct
me.
I'm including:
Solution 1:
On 11/05/10 23:56, Mike Godwin wrote:
That's a feature, not a bug. If there is a compromise that pleases some
factions but not others, it's not exactly a compromise, is it?
The trick is to find a compromise which pleases both factions, or at
least upsets both equally.
In particular, I think
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
[snip]
But more generally, yes I suppose I may be overstating. Studying
religious views on sex and pornography is interesting, because those
views align closely with the laws and norms of wider society. Unlike
wider
On 11 May 2010 16:44, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
There are other resources which address these subject areas in a
manner which religious conservatives may find more acceptable, such as
conservapedia.
Actually, Conservapedia has almost no readers or editors. (Its
activity rate
*The trick is to find a compromise which pleases both factions, or at
least upsets both equally.
*
If we generalize the situation we could state the following:
The *Libertarians *point of view could be worded as: Allow everyone to view
all content
The *Conservative *point of view could be worded
On 11 May 2010 17:45, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, and that's inevitable. You aren't going to please people who
have ideological problems with Wikipedia's entire premise. But
leaving aside people who think nudity is morally wrong on principle,
we are still left
I agree with David Gerard's suggestion above: this is a solution that
will meet a variety of needs, and is therefore value-neutral. It can
be applied to more than categories--someone with a moderately slow
connection might wish to disable images in articles above a certain
size, or articles
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/05/2010 12:44, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I would propose that the reason we are subject to such a _small_
amount of complaint about our content is that much of the world
understands that what Wikipedia does is —in a sense— deeply subversive
and
Hi,
2010/5/11 Noein prono...@gmail.com:
On 11/05/2010 12:44, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I would propose that the reason we are subject to such a _small_
amount of complaint about our content is that much of the world
understands that what Wikipedia does is —in a sense— deeply subversive
and not
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block
images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're
the target market, after all.
I'd be happy to do any software development if that were
If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone will fill
that void. That someone does not need to be us. Google does this job with
their image browser already without the need for any providers to actively
tag any images. How do they do that? I have no idea, but they
On 11 May 2010 21:42, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block
images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're
the target
On 05/11/2010 11:58 AM, Noein wrote:
And there is a general consensus here about those libertarian views?
I'm impressed. Sorry to repetitively check the ethical temperature of
the community, but I come from social horizons where it's not only not
natural, but generates hatred. I never could
Tim's post is excellent. However there is a viewpoint on this issue
that is important to me personally that I feel is not well represented
by his spectrum.
To the extent that Tim's spectrum does represent me, I am probably
moderate. I recognize that some people (e.g. the conservatives) find
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 11/05/10 23:06, Anthony wrote:
I assume here you're talking about choosing what images to allow on the
websites. I wouldn't call that making a decision on behalf of another,
but I assume that's what you're
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:06 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, there appears to be an assumption - on the part of board
members, the WMF and some contributors to this thread - that Commons
has been somehow indiscriminate in what it accepts.
I don't read that. What I see
Tim, thank you for this excellent post. A few comments:
Tim Starling writes:
it's only the libertarians who value educational value above
moral hazard
I don't really agree with this. Contributors from across your
spectrum consider whether potentially-harmful information about a
person is
39 matches
Mail list logo
