On 10/9/11 11:57 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* 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
I was following the discussion without ever giving my own opinion, and my
impression is that we are going nowhere.
Imagine we make another poll, properly prepared, and the poll shows, say,
that 65% support the filter and 35% oppose. So what? Concluding then then
the community rejecting the filter
dear Anneke,
+1
and see the basic difference and the disaccordance in understanding and
meaning of violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
hubertl.
Am 09.10.2011 16:35, schrieb Anneke Wolf:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewalt
Anneke
Am 09.10.2011 um 16:12 schrieb Ting Chen:
On 10 October 2011 11:17, Hubert hubert.la...@gmx.at wrote:
Am 09.10.2011 16:35, schrieb Anneke Wolf:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewalt
dear Anneke,
+1
and see the basic difference and the disaccordance in understanding and
meaning of violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
I
Am 09.10.2011 16:56, schrieb Thomas Dalton:
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
Taking a step back, to look at the bigger picture -- one thing that has always
struck me
as odd is how different our approach to text and illustrations is.
For text, we are incredibly censorious, insisting that any material presented
to the reader
must reflect what is found in reliable
On 10 October 2011 10:19, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 10/9/11 11:57 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* 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
Hello Fae,
thank you very much for pointing this out. Yes, I think you indeed hit
the nail. We discussed this problem on our meeting and Sue provided some
plans on how to work on this problem. I am normally reluctant to comment
what the staff is doing or what they are planning to do, because
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Given comments like this, it seems the contingent in support of filters
is utterly and completely delusional. That proposal mitigates none of
the valid objections to enabling other forces from just taking what we
would be foolish enough to supply, and abusing the
On 10 October 2011 12:16, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Taking a step back, to look at the bigger picture
I would; but someone added it to this pesky image filter...
(too soon? sorry :P)
Tom
___
foundation-l mailing list
From: Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de
Hello Fae,
thank you very much for pointing this out. Yes, I think you indeed hit
the nail. We discussed this problem on our meeting and Sue provided some
plans on how to work on this problem. I am normally reluctant to comment
what the staff is doing or
That can't be meant serious anymore. You first make a Board decision and then
want to research how big the problem is or if it at all exists, after you
already made
the decision about the solution? The Board seems to act on a highly confused
and amateur level ... it is not to understand anymore
Julius, I do understand your feelings (believe me: I do) but screaming and
offend the board (Like call them highly confused and amateur) will not
help you in your cause.
I do understand your anger against the board and their decision (even
because your wiki decided to NOT have the filter.) but I
From: Hubert hubert.la...@gmx.at
Because the wars in Commons, which Categories at least will fit
violence, will be unmanageable.
I don´t want to confront myself with fundamental christian groups in
categorising cruzification and holy cross as to become a to
phoebe ayers 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:
The majority of editors who responded to the
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Actually, I don't foresee these types of issues becoming overly contentious,
at least not in the context of the image filter as proposed (opt-in).
Editors would eventually realise that the choices they make only affect the
small proportion of readers who actually switch
Megan Hernandez wrote:
The fundraising team has been testing new messages over the past couple of
months and we're happy to report we've found some new voices that will allow
us to move away from our dependence on Jimmy to appeal to readers for
donations. This year we want the fundraiser to
It's a great idea, I will ask to WM-MX guys to participate.
And I support the idea of MZM, we need to do most in social media. I don't
know if we have a strategy for content in FB, Twitter, Identi.ca, etc.
Warmly.
2011/10/10 MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com
Megan Hernandez wrote:
The fundraising
From: Möller, Carsten c.moel...@wmco.de
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, 10 October 2011, 18:01
Subject: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
Andreas Kolbe jayen466 at yahoo.com
David, did you read the german article completely?
have you compared the contents of which part of the concept of violence
and more attention is paid to what portion of the term violence in en:
wp did not occur?
Gewalt ist nicht unbedingt in gleicher Form Gewalt.
to say it simply: hitting
I'd like to emphasize Carsten's point there-- many users (though I can't say
how many) don't mind the otherwise shocking images when displayed in certain
contexts; particularly medical, war, or art subjects.
A filter that is sensitive to whether a user has such a preference would be
more ideal
From: Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org
Yes, I hear you. The Board didn't specifically discuss yesterday what
to do if there is no acceptable solution. So I don't think they can
make a statement like this: it hasn't been discussed. I hear what
you're saying
Hubert,
The fact is that the English word violence has a quite different etymology,
and a much narrower meaning, than the German word Gewalt, which historically
also means control, or even administrative competence.
The scope of the English article is indeed appropriate to the English word
On 10 October 2011 18:37, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I think that having the image blurring system, combined with an option to
unblur,
would get us very far towards the stated board directive, and I don't think
many in the community would object, and we could reach consensus
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
On 10 October 2011 18:37, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I think that having the image blurring system, combined with an option to
unblur,
would get us very far towards the stated board directive, and I don't think
many in the community
Sue wrote:
It is asking me to do something.
But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
been discussed over the past several months, and which the Germans
voted against.
I may translate:
As the German community has voted against filters,
I was ordered to circumvent this vote by
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:49:04PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 10 October 2011 18:37, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I think that having the image blurring system, combined with an option to
unblur,
would get us very far towards the stated board directive, and I don't think
Hi everyone,
Just a quick note that this Friday (Oct 14th) at 17:00 UTC, Sue Gardner will
be in #wikimedia-office to have an open discussion. As usual, instructions
and time conversion links are on Meta.[1]
Also, for those of you who have asked about office hours with someone *other
* than Sue,
On 10 October 2011 11:56, Möller, Carsten c.moel...@wmco.de wrote:
Sue wrote:
It is asking me to do something.
But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
been discussed over the past several months, and which the Germans
voted against.
I may translate:
As the German
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:37:05 +0200, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 01:44:09PM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
I was following the discussion without ever giving my own opinion, and
my
impression is that we are going nowhere.
I think what should come
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:18:23PM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:37:05 +0200, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 01:44:09PM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
I was following the discussion without ever giving my own opinion, and
my
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:39:43PM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:32:57 +0200, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl
wrote:
I'll (re)join the community discussion.
Which page(s) are being used atm?
None I know of.
That's ok. I'll leave the initiative to
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:35 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Given comments like this, it seems the contingent in support of filters
is utterly and completely delusional. That proposal mitigates none of
the valid objections to enabling other forces
On 10 October 2011 16:47, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:35 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Given comments like this, it seems the contingent in support of filters
is utterly and completely delusional.
Ilario writes:
We have two ways: to be passive or to be active. If we choose the
passivity, it means that we can only organize a system of proxies like
done in China or to organize some workarounds to make Wikipedia
available to the person living in totalitarism.
The Italian
Hi.
With nudging from Kim, I've started a subpage at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming to
brainstorm ideas for a workable solution to dealing with controversial
content on Wikimedia wikis.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:52:48PM -0400, Risker wrote:
Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system seems
to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current system, which
is obviously necessary in order for people to find types of images, does not
have
Nickanc Wikipedia, 10/10/2011 22:59:
Why dont allow Ip block exemptions for TOR when
wikipedians are strongly biased by local laws?
This is already possible on all wikis with ipblock-exempt group and
is/was used mainly for Chinese wikipedians AFAIK.
Everybody happily editing on clandestinity
On 10 October 2011 18:08, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:52:48PM -0400, Risker wrote:
Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system
seems
to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current system,
which
is
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Any (and I stress *any*) tagging system is very nicely vulnerable to being
hijacked by downstream users.
I've steadfastly opposed the introduction of a tag-based image filter system.
The proposal to which I linked involves no tagging (as I understand
the term).
Risker wrote:
So does the current categorization system lend itself to being hijacked by
downstream users?
Yes, but not nearly to the same extent.
Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system seems
to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:12:04PM -0400, Risker wrote:
Oh please, Kim; this is nonsense.
Be careful with what you call nonsense. :-)
Commercially available software is, even
right now, blocking certain content areas by category and/or keywords for
(at minimum) Commons and English
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:31 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Any (and I stress *any*) tagging system is very nicely vulnerable to being
hijacked by downstream users.
I've steadfastly opposed the introduction of a tag-based image filter system.
The
On 10 October 2011 18:45, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:12:04PM -0400, Risker wrote:
I've seen it in operation.
Let me check: Have seen your image filter software actually
directly use categories from commons? Are you sure?
Yes, I have seen
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
if you like the image browsers
Sorry, I don't know what you mean.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/09/11 7:12 AM, Ting Chen 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 the original resolution.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 08:49:13PM -0400, Risker wrote:
No, I can't arrange a demonstration, Kim. I do not have net nannies on any
system that I control. The systems on which I have encountered them are not
publicly accessible. They have prevented access to all articles I tested
within a
* Sue Gardner wrote:
This is how the system is supposed to work. The Board identified a
problem; the staff hacked together a proposed solution, and we asked
the community what it thought. Now, we're responding to the input and
we're going to iterate. This is how it's supposed to work: we mutually
On 10 October 2011 20:03, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 08:49:13PM -0400, Risker wrote:
No, I can't arrange a demonstration, Kim. I do not have net nannies on
any
system that I control. The systems on which I have encountered them are
not
publicly
Risker,
The net nanny software could have been doing a keyword filter on the
word Sex, which would reject every page and image in
[[Category:Sexual positions]] because it contains the word sex.
That is not a category based filter. If you believe it was a category
based filter, I would definitely
On 10/10/11 4:47 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
So that leaves you with much broader categorization, I guess? Violence,
Gore, etc. And then that leaves you with people debating which images
belong to which broad category?
The Gore Family of Tennessee?? :-P
Ray
On 10 October 2011 21:26, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Risker,
The net nanny software could have been doing a keyword filter on the
word Sex, which would reject every page and image in
[[Category:Sexual positions]] because it contains the word sex.
That is not a category based
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:22:09PM -0400, Risker wrote:
all the articles in [[:Category:Sexual positions]]
looks extremely puzzeled
What are you trying to ...
Let's try a question like:
...Can you block [[:Category:Demolished windmills]] (and all
subcats?) for yourself?
sincerely,
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote:
The problem is that what is usually called the Board on this list is
not a single entity. It is actually a group of persons.
And right now, the situation is that there is no real agreement within
the Board about
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
If you are right that the board is split on this (and I expect you
are), then what seems to be happening is that they can't make a
decision so they are telling the staff to make it for them. That is
really not the
http://www.benchmarkcs.com/hello.php?html143
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
If you are right that the board is split on this (and I expect you
are), then what seems to be happening is that they can't make a
57 matches
Mail list logo
