Michael Peel wrote:
On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long time. The
more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia
have
ever seen an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, dictionary definitions and
image
On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Michael Peel wrote:
On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long
time. The
more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia
have
ever seen an
effe iets anders wrote:
Hi Veronique,
thanks for posting this. In Part VI, question 82b, it is mentioned that
333,125 USD was donated in kind. Can you confirm that this does not include
the volunteer contributions to Wikipedia? (assume not, or at least hope that
it's not valued that low ;-)
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
The challenge here isn't technical, but political/cultural; choosing how
to mark things and what to mark for a default view is quite simply
_difficult_ as there's such a huge variance in what people may find
objectionable.
...
Michael Peel wrote:
On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to
cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered.
Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image
galleries. Commons
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
Michael Peel wrote:
On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to
cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered.
Commons has
Hi David, All,
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The obvious thing to do would be for a third party to offer a
filtering service. So far there are no examples, suggesting there is
negligible demand for such filtering in practice - many individuals
have
John Vandenberg wrote:
I have once made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_gallery_of_toucans
that was deleted. Let's say it was similar to
http://www.emeraldforestbirds.com/EmeraldGallery.htm and I believe you
will find such a gallery is encyclopedic.
I have checked, and the deleted
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8051262.stm
Google has an hour of slow service and it's headline news. Imagine the
donations we could get if our downtime (which, as David is fond of
saying, is our most profitable product) got into the headlines!
Perhaps we should take to issuing press
2009/5/15 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Google has an hour of slow service and it's headline news. Imagine the
donations we could get if our downtime (which, as David is fond of
saying, is our most profitable product) got into the headlines!
Originally a Jimbo quote :-)
- d.
Your really didn't address my question. Why do you think WMF resources are
best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by
sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for
*any* of different of audiences in the world that find various
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Have you any idea how california-centered that sounds?
We all stood shoulder to shoulder against Uwe Kils and
the Norwegian Vikings, and this is what we get?
A more perniciously, smoother talked version of the same
old spiel. One would be really excused at this
--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons
and freely licensed sexual imagery
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
I'm with Simetrical on this one. One persons censorship is anothers
editorial decision, and by and large[1] the actual content on Wikimedia
projects is determined by the cultural sensitivities of the Wikimedia
community and not the ideals to which we aspire. The arguments we make are
by turns
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
Your really didn't address my question. Why do you think WMF resources are
best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by
sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons
and freely licensed sexual imagery
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think this email really shows a misunderstanding of Wikipedia is not
censored is about; so I am starting a new thread to discuss the issue.
Well, for my part, I think the entire Wikipedia is not censored
policy
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
Well you now snipped it all, but someone suggested creating mirror under a
different domain name for schools. I replied to that saying how I thought
resources were best spent. Then you replied to me.
If you weren't
El 5/14/09 4:14 PM, Mike.lifeguard escribió:
While this may be true for Wikipedia (English Wikipedia?), it is
certainly not true of Wikimedia project generally. For example,
Wikibooks has a subproject Wikijunior which is an attempt to create
high-quality children's books. Part of the defined
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not
the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
To: Wikimedia Foundation
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons
and freely licensed sexual imagery
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
The affiliate question was mainly triggered by page 1, question H (and might
be especially interesting in later files of 990 with US chapters on their
way who might or might not be affiliates according to the IRS definition).
I noted that question H(c) has not been filled in. I assume that this
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not
the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote:
El 5/14/09 3:16 PM, private musings escribió:
- Commons currently hosts many pictures, taken in a public place, without
the apparent permission of the subject...
highly unlikely to me to be genuinely released
The argument against concealing or making it more difficult in any way
to access material is that it inevitably amounts to censorship. In my
youth, one could not receive publications--on any subject--through the
mail from the Communist countries without signing a form that one had
requested them;
25 matches
Mail list logo
