Dear Wikimedia community,
First, I want to thank the 24,000 editors who participated in the
Wikimedia Foundation's referendum on the proposed personal image hiding
feature. We are particularly grateful to the nearly seven thousand
people who took the time to write in detailed and thoughtful
On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed.
How do you know? The referendum didn't ask whether people were opposed or not.
We are not going to
On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed.
How do you know? The
Hi Ting,
one simple question: Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to enable the
image filter on _all_ projects, disregarding consensus by local
communities of rejecting the image filter? (E.g. German Wikipedia)
We are currently in a very unpleasant situation of uncertainty. Tensions
in the
I was thinking about that too. So what? --Ebe123
On 11-10-09 10:43 AM, church.of.emacs.ml
church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Ting,
one simple question: Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to enable the
image filter on _all_ projects, disregarding consensus by local
communities of
Hello Tobias,
the text of the May resolution to this question is ... and that the
feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
logged-in and logged-out readers, and on the current board meeting we
decided to not ammend the original resolution.
Greetings
Ting
Am
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewalt
Anneke
Am 09.10.2011 um 16:12 schrieb Ting Chen:
Hello Tobias,
the text of the May resolution to this question is ... and that the
feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for
both
logged-in and logged-out readers, and on the
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
Hello Tobias,
the text of the May resolution to this question is ... and that the
feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
logged-in and logged-out readers, and on the current board meeting we
On 9 October 2011 15:12, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
the text of the May resolution to this question is ... and that the
feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
logged-in and logged-out readers, and on the current board meeting we
decided to not ammend
That can just mean an italian solution. The Board is ignorant against the
community needs and wishes, while the Foundation was just some month ago, so
caring about the editors and to keep them happy and contributing to the
projects. If the filter should get forced on a project that voted
On 10/09/2011 04:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
If the WMF picks a fight with the community on something the
community feel very strongly about (which this certainly seems to
be), the WMF will lose horribly and the fall-out for the whole
movement will be very bad indeed.
+1.
(And I say that,
On 9 October 2011 16:31, church.of.emacs.ml
church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/09/2011 04:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
If the WMF picks a fight with the community on something the
community feel very strongly about (which this certainly seems to
be), the WMF will lose horribly and
David Gerard wrote:
On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed.
How do
On 09.10.2011 17:00, Julius Redzinski wrote:
That can just mean an italian solution. The Board is ignorant against the
community needs and wishes, while the Foundation was just some month ago, so
caring about the editors and to keep them happy and contributing to the
projects. If the filter
I could probably look this up and find out, but can anyone tell me
when the next Board election will be?
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 9 October 2011 08:50, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 October 2011 16:31, church.of.emacs.ml
church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/09/2011 04:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
If the WMF picks a fight with the community on something the
community feel very strongly
On 9 October 2011 17:19, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Nobody wants civil war.
I'm sure they don't actively want one, but it seems the board do
consider one an acceptable cost.
Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
the community to develop a
On 9 October 2011 12:18, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I could probably look this up and find out, but can anyone tell me
when the next Board election will be?
Nathan
Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has certain
rights to refuse the selected candidates.
On 9 October 2011 09:31, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 October 2011 17:19, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Nobody wants civil war.
I'm sure they don't actively want one, but it seems the board do
consider one an acceptable cost.
It may seem that way, but it's
Risker, 09/10/2011 18:40:
Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has certain
rights to refuse the selected candidates. Chapter-selected candidates will
be appointed in 2012.
The WMF-wide community holds an election in odd-numbered years to nominate
three candidates.
On 9 October 2011 12:48, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, 09/10/2011 18:40:
Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has
certain
rights to refuse the selected candidates. Chapter-selected candidates
will
be appointed in 2012.
The WMF-wide
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has certain
rights to refuse the selected candidates. Chapter-selected candidates will
be appointed in 2012.
The WMF-wide community holds an election in
mid-2013.
Last ones were in June.
Tom
On 9 October 2011 17:18, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I could probably look this up and find out, but can anyone tell me
when the next Board election will be?
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 9 October 2011 17:46, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 9 October 2011 09:31, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 October 2011 17:19, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Nobody wants civil war.
I'm sure they don't actively want one, but it seems the board do
On 9 October 2011 18:16, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Discussing 'what if' scenarios in public rarely does any good if those same
people have full power to avoid that scenario in the first place. Both the
community and the board can avoid the sitation that we don't reach
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't think the community really can avoid it, since it isn't a
coherent body. An individual member of the community can't really
achieve anything. The WMF has a hierarchy and structured decision
making mechanisms, so it can
On 9 October 2011 17:49, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't think the community really can avoid it, since it isn't a
coherent body. An individual member of the community can't really
achieve anything. The WMF has a
On 10/09/2011 07:20 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
The community doesn't trust the WMF at the moment. A firm commitment
not to go against an overwhelming community opinion would go a long
way towards fixing that.
That's exactly the situation. Right now, we're in a deadlock:
WMF is waiting for the
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I didn't say it can't take coherent action. Writing an encyclopaedia
is a coherent action, after all. I said it can't take deliberate
action. By deliberate action, I mean deciding to do something and then
doing it.
That's right.
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't think the community really can avoid it, since it isn't a
coherent body. An individual member of the community can't really
achieve anything. The
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't think the community really can avoid it, since it isn't a
coherent body. An individual member of the community can't really
achieve anything. The
Since no one has explicitly come out and said exactly what the issue is
here, I'll ask:
*What exactly is harmful about an opt-in filter? *If it's opt-in, then
you have the choice to not even enable it if you so choose. You don't
have to use it; it'd just be an option in the preferences page or
Since no one has explicitly come out and said exactly what the issue is
here, I'll ask:
*What exactly is harmful about an opt-in filter? *If it's opt-in, then
you have the choice to not even enable it if you so choose. You don't
have to use it; it'd just be an option in the preferences page
Well we can't have that... lol.
Bob
On 10/9/2011 2:19 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
You don't get to grind someone's nose into your shit. Fred
___ foundation-l mailing
list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Objection to the WMF implementing an image filter would in fact be
removed by such a project--if, like AdBlock, it were run outside and
independently of the WMF. If i believe in individual freedom, I must
believe in the ability of individuals to choose in what manner they
access information,
That means it will be pushed in no matter if wanted/needed or in respect
to the local communities? I think that will push over the line of
acceptability.
I also want to remember you that the referendum/referendumm
1. asked the wrong question(s)
2. did not mention any of the possible issues
Calm down. No one is forcing or pushing anything, more like
offering. Everything I've read indicates it will be opt-in (though the
manner for opting in will be easily accessible upon arrival at
Wikipedia). This will probably be something just as transparent to those
not using it as is the
On 9 October 2011 22:03, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
Calm down. No one is forcing or pushing anything, more like
offering. Everything I've read indicates it will be opt-in (though the
manner for opting in will be easily accessible upon arrival at
Wikipedia).
Tobias
On 9 October 2011 22:03, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
The fact
is that a majority of the community expressed it was either a good idea
or something important to them (interpret that however you care to), and
Wikimedia finds it important to please the majority of their
Hi Ting,
Thanks for explaining the position of the board in your own words. I
appreciate the board is listening. I am concerned that you state that
the board is acting from belief, I recommend you consider how this
can move to proposing a strategy based on facts and non-controversial
analysis.
I
* Sue Gardner wrote:
Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
the community to develop a solution that meets the original
requirements as laid out in its resolution. It is asking me to do
something. But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
been
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
Since no one has explicitly come out and said exactly what the issue is
here, I'll ask:
*What exactly is harmful about an opt-in filter? *If it's opt-in, then
you have the choice to not even enable it if you
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 09:19:40AM -0700, Sue Gardner wrote:
The Board is hoping there is a solution that will 1) enable readers to
easily hide images they don't want to see, as laid out in the Board's
resolution [1], while 2) being generally acceptable to editors. Maybe
this will not be
I'm all for it, too.
Bob
On 10/9/2011 6:31 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 09:19:40AM -0700, Sue Gardner wrote:
The Board is hoping there is a solution that will 1) enable readers to
easily hide images they don't want to see, as laid out in the Board's
resolution [1], while 2)
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 09:19:40AM -0700, Sue Gardner wrote:
The Board is hoping there is a solution that will 1) enable readers to
easily hide images they don't want to see, as laid out in the Board's
resolution [1],
Sue Gardner wrote:
The Board is hoping there is a solution that will 1) enable readers to
easily hide images they don't want to see, as laid out in the Board's
resolution [1], while 2) being generally acceptable to editors. Maybe
this will not be possible, but it's the goal.
As I've noted in
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:10 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 6:13 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
The Board is hoping there is a solution that will 1) enable readers to
easily hide images they don't want to see, as laid out in the Board's
resolution [1], while 2) being generally acceptable to
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 14:55, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Wikimedia community,
First, I want to thank the 24,000 editors who participated in the
Wikimedia Foundation's referendum on the proposed personal image hiding
feature. We are particularly grateful to the nearly seven
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 6:47 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:10 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
50 matches
Mail list logo
