Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thank you for this deep analysis. While claiming that we should not compromise any of the principles, you didn't address directly the possibility that we won't reach everybody if we don't compromise. Reaching every human is a (currently and apparently) conflicting principle with free uncensored information. What is your vision about that? Wait for better times? Do you think that with time, the inherent virtues of our model will end convincing the reluctant or opposed people of today? On 12/05/2010 17:50, David Goodman wrote: Even more than what Ray says: if we do not offer comprehensive free uncensored but reliable information, who will? Other sites may feel they have to censor; other uncensored sites may and mostly do have little standards of reliability. Some uncensored reliable sites are likely to require some form of payment, either directly or through advertising or government support. If there is a audience for compromised sources of information, there are many organizations eager to provide it. Other free uncensored reliable projects can be very important in their sphere, but we have an almost universal range. We're at present unique, which we owe to the historical fact of having been able to attract a large community, committed to free access in every sense, operating in a manner which requires no financial support beyond what can be obtained from voluntary contributions, and tied to no groups with pre-existing agendas--except the general agenda of free information. That we alone have been able to get there is initially the courage and vision of the founders, their correct guess that the conventional wisdom that this would be unworkable was erroneous, the general world-wide attractiveness of the notion of free information, and, at this point , the Matthew effect, that we are of such size and importance that working here is likely to be more attractive and more effective than working elsewhere--and thus our continuing ability to attract very large numbers of volunteer workers of many cultural backgrounds. We have everything to lose by compromising any of the principles. To the extent we ever become commercial, or censored , or unreliable, we will be submerged in the mass of better funded information providers. On the contrary, they have an interest in supporting what we do, because we provide what they cannot and give the basis for specialized endeavors. If there is a wish for a similar but censored service, this can be best done by forking ours; if there is a wish to abandon NPOV or permit commercialism, by expanding on our basis. We do not discourage these things; our licensing is in fact tailored to permitting them--but we should stay distinct from them. We have provided a general purpose feed and suitable metadata, and what the rest of the world does is up to them--our goal is not to monopolize the provision of information. We need not provide specialized hooks--just continue our goal for improved quality and organization of the content and the metadata. That China has chosen to take parts of our model and develop independently in line with its government's policy, rather than forking us, is possible because of the size of the government effort and, like us, the very large potential number of interested and willing highly literate and well-educated participants. All we can do in response is continue our own model, and hope that at some point their social values will change to see the virtues of it. If some other countries do similarly, we will at least have contributed the idea of a workable very large scale intent encyclopedia with user input. All information is good, though free information is better. If those in the Anglo-american sphere wish to censor, they know at least they have a potent uncensored competitor that it practice will also be available, which cannot but induce therm to a more liberal policy than if we did not have our standards. I wish very much Citizendium had succeeded--the existence of intellectual coopetition is a good thing. Even as it is, I think they have been a strong force in causing us to improve our formerly inadequate standards of reliability--as well as demonstrating by their failure the need for a very large committed group to emulate what we have accomplished, and also demonstrating the unworkability of excessively rigid organization and an exclusively expert-bound approach to content. I'm glad Larry did what he did in founding it--had it achieved more ,so would we have also. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Milos Rancic wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Milos Rancic wrote: On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: Let
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you for this deep analysis. While claiming that we should not compromise any of the principles, you didn't address directly the possibility that we won't reach everybody if we don't compromise. Reaching every human is a (currently and apparently) conflicting principle with free uncensored information. What is your vision about that? Wait for better times? Do you think that with time, the inherent virtues of our model will end convincing the reluctant or opposed people of today? I don't know that reaching everybody was ever a stated goal. Being theoretically available to everybody is a different matter... In any case this issue has been specifically addressed here: David (a real thought leader) Goodman wrote: If there is a wish for a similar but censored service, this can be best done by forking ours; if there is a wish to abandon NPOV or permit commercialism, by expanding on our basis. We do not discourage these things; our licensing is in fact tailored to permitting them--but we should stay distinct from them. We have provided a general purpose feed and suitable metadata, and what the rest of the world does is up to them--our goal is not to monopolize the provision of information. Kat Walsh wrote: Another principle to state related to this (that I've been trying to think about how to expand upon): no resource that is compatibly-licensed is our adversary, and we should encourage that sort of competition. Obsessively chasing every last reader, every last editor, regardless of other factors is just as evil as the practice of chasing every last dollar. Diversity is good. Insisting that our _project_, rather than just the benefits of our good work, directly reach into the lives of each and every person, regardless of the costs? I'd call that megalomania. That isn't to say that balancing audience vs other factors isn't an important thing to do— the decision to run multiple language Wikipedias rather than just teach everyone English was arguably one such decision— but we _do_ have an answer for how we're going to help the people who are inevitably left out. We help them by being freely licensed so that its easier for others to specialize in helping those audiences. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 13/05/2010 13:01, Gregory Maxwell wrote: I don't know that reaching everybody was ever a stated goal. Being theoretically available to everybody is a different matter... Ah, that's the part that is not clear to me. If you talk about the intrinsic properties of the Big Project, I agree that the core must be free, uncensored resources. My concern, however, is about the interface with the real world, that is, the way this project containing information, ideas and knowledge (specifically set in the context of the 21st century, mostly english language, mostly western, mostly rich users) interacts with mankind. Allow me to explain: My current vision is that there are several main obstacles to a free interaction, for example: - - illiteracy - - no internet access - - cultural rejection - - political censorship With this context, I wonder if being theoretically available is enough, or if the Foundation and community should worry about solving or circumventing the pragmatical obstacles. I understand the debate of the last days as an example about what I call a political censorship, in a very generic meaning: an arsenal of cultural values and technological means that forbid some ideas to circulate, thus governing the minds into certain authorized or tolerated behaviours (and thoughts). I think most of mankind feel some kind of taboos are necessary to achieved a civilized society. This feeling leads to the need (and thus acceptation) of laws, which can be viewed as a legitimized form of censorship. Because of this generalized feeling towards laws, it is impossible to sum up all the knowledge of humanity without offending each of these cultural laws, and thus incommoding their believers. Abiding to the cultural laws of a community gives a sense of belonging, of identity, of security... It's a strong, common urge. Let's add to this fact that many of those laws are in the hands of tutors who use them as a tool to shape their protected ones. (It doesn't matter if I agree with their values or not, I'm focused on the mechanism.) The result is that you have deciding people between the foundation projects and their potential users, deciding people that have control of the flow of information. If they lose this control they lose power and their community (or child, for example) will lose faith in the official values and may start differing. From their perspective, it's the beginning of chaos. So, back to Wikipedia an Commons. Allowing such conflicts (free universal information versus locally controlled information) would antagonize the leaders and disturb the society order (which may be viewed as good or bad from our point of view, but is usually terrifying from theirs). The pragmatical approach seen in the debates is to compromise enough to avoid the conflicts and keep reaching the censored masses, minimizing the compromise of principles. The idealistic approach seems to only care about the internal community. For example: David (a real thought leader) Goodman wrote: If there is a wish for a similar but censored service, this can be best done by forking ours; But the wish to censor is not internal (except for parent maybe), thus a fork wouldn't be followed by users. It's not users who want the censorship system, it's detractors who don't want any out of their control, free access to information to begin with. My impressions from the last events is that people who believe in Wikipedia and Commons projects don't wish major changes to the censorship system that is satisfactorily self-managed by the users and editors. I think the people who feel strongly threatened by the lack of censorship on Wikipedia and Commons are whether from an opposing side or on a confused, testing phase. Because there is a war of influence, I wonder if we are robust enough to ignore the enemies we're creating by our very existence, given that they are influential. Fox News, Iran, China are just symptoms: what's happening here is that we're beginning to be a threat, imho, and that an escalation of hostility is to be expected the more we are successful and they become aware of us. Is it wise to ignore how the rest of the world reacts to the free access of information? Can the community thrives only on the shoulders of the people not offended by our current handling of information, or not? I don't know the answer, but I think we should be attentive and realistic enough to avoid a war, for example. That is not saying that we should change or compromise just to please. But if we choose to compromise, in this case allow some kind of censorship, forked or not, we need to know what's at stake and the dangers. Most of the libertarian communities that I know failed because they were too disturbing / annoying for the surrounding powers. There should be a constant acute perception of that. Maybe I've been too long in South America to have blind faith in our enemies, but a net with a few
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: This post by David does prove that it is possible to argue, with intellectual integrity, that there are more important things at stake than getting Commons into schools. Yes. All of our core principles are designed to maximize the long-term benefit to humanity of free access to human knowledge; and those things are generally more important than any specific goal such as outreach to schools. David Goodman writes: if we do not offer comprehensive free uncensored but reliable information, who will? This is well said, as is the rest of your post. Having comprehensive free uncensored reliable information is essential to our mission. So is having information that is freely available to everyone. But there are barriers to both of these goals, and we will realize each of them partly on our own and partly through collaboration with other projects. Other comments: * Currently we do censor in the name of notability. In particular, established groups of editors censor the work of those who have different notability standards. Is this the right approach to take, or do you see those subselections also happening outside of a big tent for uncensored knowledge? * The Matthew effect has implications: modest changes to how welcoming we are can significantly expand the community contributing to free knowledge -- in a way that the right to fork has not. And unfriendliness often stems from editors who are defending core principles on the wikis. So it is worth finding ways to uphold our principles respectfully, without driving people away. About China's big online encyclopedias: All we can do in response is continue our own model, and hope that at some point their social values will change to see the virtues of it. There is more that we can and should do. We should acknowledge the good work Hudong and Baike are doing to share knowledge - tremendously furthering part of our mission (if not the 'uncensored' part, certainly encouraging a generation of collaborators). [1] And, as with the Encyclopedia of Life, we should recognize that they are providing very meaningful cooperative competition. They are exploring different ways of presenting knowledge, creating views for multiple audiences, and building social networks and games around knowledge-creation -- all things we should be thinking hard about. We can learn quite a bit from one another before stumbling over licensing. Sam [1] Hudong's 'learn, create, collaborate' is a good slogan. From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 12 May, 2010, 21:50 Even more than what Ray says: if we do not offer comprehensive free uncensored but reliable information, who will? Other sites may feel they have to censor; other uncensored sites may and mostly do have little standards of reliability. Some uncensored reliable sites are likely to require some form of payment, either directly or through advertising or government support. If there is a audience for compromised sources of information, there are many organizations eager to provide it. Other free uncensored reliable projects can be very important in their sphere, but we have an almost universal range. We're at present unique, which we owe to the historical fact of having been able to attract a large community, committed to free access in every sense, operating in a manner which requires no financial support beyond what can be obtained from voluntary contributions, and tied to no groups with pre-existing agendas--except the general agenda of free information. That we alone have been able to get there is initially the courage and vision of the founders, their correct guess that the conventional wisdom that this would be unworkable was erroneous, the general world-wide attractiveness of the notion of free information, and, at this point , the Matthew effect, that we are of such size and importance that working here is likely to be more attractive and more effective than working elsewhere--and thus our continuing ability to attract very large numbers of volunteer workers of many cultural backgrounds. We have everything to lose by compromising any of the principles. To the extent we ever become commercial, or censored , or unreliable, we will be submerged in the mass of better funded information providers. On the contrary, they have an interest in supporting what we do, because we provide what they cannot and give the basis for specialized endeavors. If there is a wish for a similar but censored service, this can be best done by forking ours; if there is a wish to abandon NPOV or permit commercialism, by expanding on our basis. We do not discourage these things; our licensing is in
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
I continue to be inspired by the quality of discourse in this debate. Noein, I appreciate all of the points you make below, but want to call out one in particular: My current vision is that there are several main obstacles to a free interaction, for example: - - illiteracy - - no internet access - - cultural rejection - - political censorship Also - - language barrier for people literate in a language with no content. You are right that we should consider what we can do about pragmatic obstacles. And all of these are of real importance. Communities that are restricted by one of these obstacles are often those most in need of free access to information. Sam On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 13/05/2010 13:01, Gregory Maxwell wrote: I don't know that reaching everybody was ever a stated goal. Being theoretically available to everybody is a different matter... Ah, that's the part that is not clear to me. If you talk about the intrinsic properties of the Big Project, I agree that the core must be free, uncensored resources. My concern, however, is about the interface with the real world, that is, the way this project containing information, ideas and knowledge (specifically set in the context of the 21st century, mostly english language, mostly western, mostly rich users) interacts with mankind. Allow me to explain: My current vision is that there are several main obstacles to a free interaction, for example: - - illiteracy - - no internet access - - cultural rejection - - political censorship With this context, I wonder if being theoretically available is enough, or if the Foundation and community should worry about solving or circumventing the pragmatical obstacles. I understand the debate of the last days as an example about what I call a political censorship, in a very generic meaning: an arsenal of cultural values and technological means that forbid some ideas to circulate, thus governing the minds into certain authorized or tolerated behaviours (and thoughts). I think most of mankind feel some kind of taboos are necessary to achieved a civilized society. This feeling leads to the need (and thus acceptation) of laws, which can be viewed as a legitimized form of censorship. Because of this generalized feeling towards laws, it is impossible to sum up all the knowledge of humanity without offending each of these cultural laws, and thus incommoding their believers. Abiding to the cultural laws of a community gives a sense of belonging, of identity, of security... It's a strong, common urge. Let's add to this fact that many of those laws are in the hands of tutors who use them as a tool to shape their protected ones. (It doesn't matter if I agree with their values or not, I'm focused on the mechanism.) The result is that you have deciding people between the foundation projects and their potential users, deciding people that have control of the flow of information. If they lose this control they lose power and their community (or child, for example) will lose faith in the official values and may start differing. From their perspective, it's the beginning of chaos. So, back to Wikipedia an Commons. Allowing such conflicts (free universal information versus locally controlled information) would antagonize the leaders and disturb the society order (which may be viewed as good or bad from our point of view, but is usually terrifying from theirs). The pragmatical approach seen in the debates is to compromise enough to avoid the conflicts and keep reaching the censored masses, minimizing the compromise of principles. The idealistic approach seems to only care about the internal community. For example: David (a real thought leader) Goodman wrote: If there is a wish for a similar but censored service, this can be best done by forking ours; But the wish to censor is not internal (except for parent maybe), thus a fork wouldn't be followed by users. It's not users who want the censorship system, it's detractors who don't want any out of their control, free access to information to begin with. My impressions from the last events is that people who believe in Wikipedia and Commons projects don't wish major changes to the censorship system that is satisfactorily self-managed by the users and editors. I think the people who feel strongly threatened by the lack of censorship on Wikipedia and Commons are whether from an opposing side or on a confused, testing phase. Because there is a war of influence, I wonder if we are robust enough to ignore the enemies we're creating by our very existence, given that they are influential. Fox News, Iran, China are just symptoms: what's happening here is that we're beginning to be a threat, imho, and that an escalation of hostility is to be expected the more we are successful and they become aware of us.
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
Milos Rancic wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Milos Rancic wrote: On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: Let me know if I'm missing anything important. Actually, yes. In spite of multicultural nature of Wikimedia, this process shouldn't be formulated as purely related to sexual content, but as related to cultural taboos or to offensive imagery if we want to use euphemism. Under the same category are: * sexual content; * images Muhammad; * images of sacral places of many tribes; * etc. I'm sure you mean sacred instead of sacral :-) . I've just went to Wikipedia [1] (accidentally, instead of Wiktionary) to see the difference between sacral and sacred and I've seen that those words are synonyms. Anyhow, it is good to know that sacral is at leas ambiguous. (Sacral is a borrowed word in Serbian, too; and Latin words make life easier to one native speaker of Serbian when he speaks English [and some other languages] :) ) Borrowed words can also be false friends. Sacral as sacred tends to be a more recent and specialized usage of the word, applicable to, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, anthropology and religion. Sometimes for me the danger is to know the language too well, and in the present context that started with pornographic images I only too easily imagined a series of photos about the sacral places of individuals. :-D Censoring by default puts us back in the same old conflict of having to decide what to censor. Given a random 100 penis pictures we perhaps need to ask questions like what distinguishes penis picture #27 from penis picture #82. The same could be asked about numerous photographs of national penises like the Washington Monument or Eiffel Tower. ... Voting is evil, particularly when it entrenches the tyranny of the majority. People should be able to choose categories and to vote about them. That doesn't seem very practical. The choice of categories would itself be the source of disputes. If what is seen depends on where one lives there would be an endless stream of variations that could not be easily tracked. A 51% vote can as easily go in the opposite direction on the very next day. That part of proposal is not about denying to anyone to see something, but to put defaults on what not logged in users could see. There should be a [very] visible link, like on Google images search, which would easily overwrite the default rules. Personal permission would overwrite them, too. (If I was not clear up to now, cultural censorship won't forbid to anyone to see anything. It would be just *default*, which could be easily overwritten.) I agree that users' choice should be paramount. Making that choice needs to be carefully worded. Simply putting, Do you want to see dirty pictures? on the Main Page would inspire people to actively look for those pictures. The point is that cultural censorship should reflect dominant position of one culture. My position is that we shouldn't define that one of our goals is to enlighten anyone. We should build knowledge repository and everyone should be free to use it. However, if some culture is oppressive and not permissive, it is not up to us to *actively* work on making that culture not oppressive and permissive. The other issue is that I strongly believe that free and permissive cultures are superior in comparison with other ones. Reflecting the dominance of one culture is dangerous, and in the extreme has led to genocidal behaviour, and served to make the great inquisition holy. It is somewhat naïve to believe that we can limit ourselves to strictly factual data. There is implicit enlightenment in the choice of which facts to present. The encyclopedists of the 18th century likely thought of themselves as bringers of enlightenment. The 1389 Battle of Kosovo is of great historical importance to Serbs, but another group might not attach such importance to a battle from more than six centuries ago and omit iit entirely. I agree that liberating oppressed people is not one of our tasks. We should not be the ones going into China or Iran to make a fuss when those governments have blocked access to Wikimedia projects. That's up to the residents of those countries. Nor should we alter our presentation of data when those governments insist on their version of the truth. It's unfortunate that some governments would view a dispassionate treatment of facts as subversive. So, basically, if residents of Texas decide to censor all images of Bay Area, including the Golden Gate Bridge, because they worry that Bay Area values are transmissible via Internet (as they are), I don't have anything against it. If more than 50% of Wikipedia users from Texas think so, let it be. Other inhabitants of Texas would need just to simply click on
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
Even more than what Ray says: if we do not offer comprehensive free uncensored but reliable information, who will? Other sites may feel they have to censor; other uncensored sites may and mostly do have little standards of reliability. Some uncensored reliable sites are likely to require some form of payment, either directly or through advertising or government support. If there is a audience for compromised sources of information, there are many organizations eager to provide it. Other free uncensored reliable projects can be very important in their sphere, but we have an almost universal range. We're at present unique, which we owe to the historical fact of having been able to attract a large community, committed to free access in every sense, operating in a manner which requires no financial support beyond what can be obtained from voluntary contributions, and tied to no groups with pre-existing agendas--except the general agenda of free information. That we alone have been able to get there is initially the courage and vision of the founders, their correct guess that the conventional wisdom that this would be unworkable was erroneous, the general world-wide attractiveness of the notion of free information, and, at this point , the Matthew effect, that we are of such size and importance that working here is likely to be more attractive and more effective than working elsewhere--and thus our continuing ability to attract very large numbers of volunteer workers of many cultural backgrounds. We have everything to lose by compromising any of the principles. To the extent we ever become commercial, or censored , or unreliable, we will be submerged in the mass of better funded information providers. On the contrary, they have an interest in supporting what we do, because we provide what they cannot and give the basis for specialized endeavors. If there is a wish for a similar but censored service, this can be best done by forking ours; if there is a wish to abandon NPOV or permit commercialism, by expanding on our basis. We do not discourage these things; our licensing is in fact tailored to permitting them--but we should stay distinct from them. We have provided a general purpose feed and suitable metadata, and what the rest of the world does is up to them--our goal is not to monopolize the provision of information. We need not provide specialized hooks--just continue our goal for improved quality and organization of the content and the metadata. That China has chosen to take parts of our model and develop independently in line with its government's policy, rather than forking us, is possible because of the size of the government effort and, like us, the very large potential number of interested and willing highly literate and well-educated participants. All we can do in response is continue our own model, and hope that at some point their social values will change to see the virtues of it. If some other countries do similarly, we will at least have contributed the idea of a workable very large scale intent encyclopedia with user input. All information is good, though free information is better. If those in the Anglo-american sphere wish to censor, they know at least they have a potent uncensored competitor that it practice will also be available, which cannot but induce therm to a more liberal policy than if we did not have our standards. I wish very much Citizendium had succeeded--the existence of intellectual coopetition is a good thing. Even as it is, I think they have been a strong force in causing us to improve our formerly inadequate standards of reliability--as well as demonstrating by their failure the need for a very large committed group to emulate what we have accomplished, and also demonstrating the unworkability of excessively rigid organization and an exclusively expert-bound approach to content. I'm glad Larry did what he did in founding it--had it achieved more ,so would we have also. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Milos Rancic wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Milos Rancic wrote: On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: Let me know if I'm missing anything important. Actually, yes. In spite of multicultural nature of Wikimedia, this process shouldn't be formulated as purely related to sexual content, but as related to cultural taboos or to offensive imagery if we want to use euphemism. Under the same category are: * sexual content; * images Muhammad; * images of sacral places of many tribes; * etc. I'm sure you mean sacred instead of sacral :-) . I've just went to Wikipedia [1] (accidentally, instead of Wiktionary) to see the difference between sacral and sacred and I've seen that those words are synonyms. Anyhow, it is good to know that sacral is
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On 12 May 2010 21:50, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: Even more than what Ray says: +1 to this entire email. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
This post by David does prove that it is possible to argue, with intellectual integrity, that there are more important things at stake than getting Commons into schools. Andreas --- On Wed, 12/5/10, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 12 May, 2010, 21:50 Even more than what Ray says: if we do not offer comprehensive free uncensored but reliable information, who will? Other sites may feel they have to censor; other uncensored sites may and mostly do have little standards of reliability. Some uncensored reliable sites are likely to require some form of payment, either directly or through advertising or government support. If there is a audience for compromised sources of information, there are many organizations eager to provide it. Other free uncensored reliable projects can be very important in their sphere, but we have an almost universal range. We're at present unique, which we owe to the historical fact of having been able to attract a large community, committed to free access in every sense, operating in a manner which requires no financial support beyond what can be obtained from voluntary contributions, and tied to no groups with pre-existing agendas--except the general agenda of free information. That we alone have been able to get there is initially the courage and vision of the founders, their correct guess that the conventional wisdom that this would be unworkable was erroneous, the general world-wide attractiveness of the notion of free information, and, at this point , the Matthew effect, that we are of such size and importance that working here is likely to be more attractive and more effective than working elsewhere--and thus our continuing ability to attract very large numbers of volunteer workers of many cultural backgrounds. We have everything to lose by compromising any of the principles. To the extent we ever become commercial, or censored , or unreliable, we will be submerged in the mass of better funded information providers. On the contrary, they have an interest in supporting what we do, because we provide what they cannot and give the basis for specialized endeavors. If there is a wish for a similar but censored service, this can be best done by forking ours; if there is a wish to abandon NPOV or permit commercialism, by expanding on our basis. We do not discourage these things; our licensing is in fact tailored to permitting them--but we should stay distinct from them. We have provided a general purpose feed and suitable metadata, and what the rest of the world does is up to them--our goal is not to monopolize the provision of information. We need not provide specialized hooks--just continue our goal for improved quality and organization of the content and the metadata. That China has chosen to take parts of our model and develop independently in line with its government's policy, rather than forking us, is possible because of the size of the government effort and, like us, the very large potential number of interested and willing highly literate and well-educated participants. All we can do in response is continue our own model, and hope that at some point their social values will change to see the virtues of it. If some other countries do similarly, we will at least have contributed the idea of a workable very large scale intent encyclopedia with user input. All information is good, though free information is better. If those in the Anglo-american sphere wish to censor, they know at least they have a potent uncensored competitor that it practice will also be available, which cannot but induce therm to a more liberal policy than if we did not have our standards. I wish very much Citizendium had succeeded--the existence of intellectual coopetition is a good thing. Even as it is, I think they have been a strong force in causing us to improve our formerly inadequate standards of reliability--as well as demonstrating by their failure the need for a very large committed group to emulate what we have accomplished, and also demonstrating the unworkability of excessively rigid organization and an exclusively expert-bound approach to content. I'm glad Larry did what he did in founding it--had it achieved more ,so would we have also. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Milos Rancic wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Milos Rancic wrote: On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: Let me know if I'm
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 4:53 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 May 2010 21:50, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: Even more than what Ray says: +1 to this entire email. Ditto. Another principle to state related to this (that I've been trying to think about how to expand upon): no resource that is compatibly-licensed is our adversary, and we should encourage that sort of competition. -Kat -- Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en Wikimedia, Press: k...@wikimedia.org * Personal: k...@mindspillage.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:mindspillage IRC(freenode,OFTC):mindspillage * identi.ca:mindspillage * phone:ask ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
Kat Walsh wrote: On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 4:53 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 May 2010 21:50, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: Even more than what Ray says: +1 to this entire email. Ditto. Another principle to state related to this (that I've been trying to think about how to expand upon): no resource that is compatibly-licensed is our adversary, and we should encourage that sort of competition. Which brings to mind a question. Is there useful content on Citizendium that might be ported over to Wikipedia? Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
2010/5/12 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com: (...) Which brings to mind a question. Is there useful content on Citizendium that might be ported over to Wikipedia? their best stuff is supposed to be here, http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Approved_Articles -- Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva tolkiend...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, What I am missing is that Iran has blocked the whole Wikimedia domain as Commons is included in that domain. I understand that the reason is there being too much sexual explicit content. As a consequence this important free resource is no longer available to the students of Iran as a resource for illustrations for their project work. What I would like to know is if we have been talking to Iranian politicians and / or if we have an understanding of what it takes to ensure that Commons becomes available again. That's ultimately up to the Iranians to find a solution. We should no more adapt to their lowest standards of free speech for the sake of being accepted than we would stop talking about Tibet to please the Chinese government. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
Ray Saintonge wrote: Sue Gardner wrote: 1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy's actions over the past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving. That's mostly happened here and on meta. What made that one easier to resolve is that the problem could be easily defined, and very specific solutions could be clearly enunciated. The longer term and more important problems do not adapt very well to easy definitions. Right, the problem was never just Jimmy. The board were also complicit, so Jimmy shouldn't be made to carry the can. I dearly hope none of the staff were complicit, because they would be even further away from their remit than the Board of Trustees. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
Sue Gardner wrote: Yeah. I don't remember exactly what Ting said, and even if I did, I wouldn't comment on it. But FWIW to your point, Ting's not in a chapters-selected seat; Ting was elected by the Wikimedia community. His seat doesn't come up for re-election until next year, but I'm sure somebody will remember this discussion during that campaign. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
Milos Rancic wrote: On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: Let me know if I'm missing anything important. Actually, yes. In spite of multicultural nature of Wikimedia, this process shouldn't be formulated as purely related to sexual content, but as related to cultural taboos or to offensive imagery if we want to use euphemism. Under the same category are: * sexual content; * images Muhammad; * images of sacral places of many tribes; * etc. I'm sure you mean sacred instead of sacral :-) . Although it is not the same medium, under the same category are all texts which some culture may treat as offensive. So, censorship categorization below assumes categorization of media *and texts*. Fair enough. Important note is that we have to put some principles before going into the process: 1) We don't want to censor ourselves (out of illegal material under the US and Florida laws). 2) We want to allow voluntary auto-censorship on personal basis. (Anyone can decide which categories he or she doesn't want to see.) 3) We should allow voluntary/default censorship on cultural basis, as the most of our readers are not registered. (Based on IP address of reader. Thus, pictures of Muhammad should be shown by default for someone from Germany, but shouldn't be shown by default to someone from Saudi Arabia. In all cases there has to be possibility to overrule such censorship by simple click or by preferences.) 4) We shouldn't help any kind of organized censorship by any organization. For example, if looking at the naked body is prohibited in some [Western] school even for educational purposes of teaching anatomy, it is not our responsibility to censor it. Contrary, as naked body is much deeper taboo in Muslim world, it should be censored on cultural basis. It's also important to keep it simple. We need to be aware of the various hot button issues without judging them. We want to facilitate private decisions, not make them for people. Speaking about default censorship on cultural basis and in the context of the Western cultural standards, this should be contextual. Commons gallery of penises should be censored by default, but that exemplary image shouldn't be censored inside of the Wikipedia article about penis. Censoring by default puts us back in the same old conflict of having to decide what to censor. Given a random 100 penis pictures we perhaps need to ask questions like what distinguishes penis picture #27 from penis picture #82. The same could be asked about numerous photographs of national penises like the Washington Monument or Eiffel Tower. We should have a voting system for registered users at site like censor.wikimedia.org can be. At that site *registered* users would be able to vote [anonymously] should they or not have censored images of any category in their region (again, this is about Google-like cultural based censorship which can be overruled by personal wish). Users from Germany will definitely put different categories for censorship than users from Texas. And it should be respected. Rights of more permissive cultures shouldn't be endangered because of rights of less permissive cultures. That kind of voting system would remove the most of responsibility from WMF. If majority of users in one culture expressed their wish, it is not about us to argue with anyone why is it so. Voting is evil, particularly when it entrenches the tyranny of the majority. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Milos Rancic wrote: On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: Let me know if I'm missing anything important. Actually, yes. In spite of multicultural nature of Wikimedia, this process shouldn't be formulated as purely related to sexual content, but as related to cultural taboos or to offensive imagery if we want to use euphemism. Under the same category are: * sexual content; * images Muhammad; * images of sacral places of many tribes; * etc. I'm sure you mean sacred instead of sacral :-) . I've just went to Wikipedia [1] (accidentally, instead of Wiktionary) to see the difference between sacral and sacred and I've seen that those words are synonyms. Anyhow, it is good to know that sacral is at leas ambiguous. (Sacral is a borrowed word in Serbian, too; and Latin words make life easier to one native speaker of Serbian when he speaks English [and some other languages] :) ) We want to facilitate private decisions, not make them for people. Agreed. My mail was partially self-contradictory. I've realized that it is not so good idea to decide what shouldn't be seen by default even though we could reasonably suppose that. Censoring by default puts us back in the same old conflict of having to decide what to censor. Given a random 100 penis pictures we perhaps need to ask questions like what distinguishes penis picture #27 from penis picture #82. The same could be asked about numerous photographs of national penises like the Washington Monument or Eiffel Tower. ... Voting is evil, particularly when it entrenches the tyranny of the majority. People should be able to choose categories and to vote about them. That part of proposal is not about denying to anyone to see something, but to put defaults on what not logged in users could see. There should be a [very] visible link, like on Google images search, which would easily overwrite the default rules. Personal permission would overwrite them, too. (If I was not clear up to now, cultural censorship won't forbid to anyone to see anything. It would be just *default*, which could be easily overwritten.) The point is that cultural censorship should reflect dominant position of one culture. My position is that we shouldn't define that one of our goals is to enlighten anyone. We should build knowledge repository and everyone should be free to use it. However, if some culture is oppressive and not permissive, it is not up to us to *actively* work on making that culture not oppressive and permissive. The other issue is that I strongly believe that free and permissive cultures are superior in comparison with other ones. So, basically, if residents of Texas decide to censor all images of Bay Area, including the Golden Gate Bridge, because they worry that Bay Area values are transmissible via Internet (as they are), I don't have anything against it. If more than 50% of Wikipedia users from Texas think so, let it be. Other inhabitants of Texas would need just to simply click on I don't want to be censored if they are not logged in, or they could adjust their settings as they like if they are logged in. But, I would be, of course, completely fine if we implement censorship just on [voluntary] personal basis and thus just for logged in users. (As well as we don't implement censorship at all.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: Let me know if I'm missing anything important. Actually, yes. In spite of multicultural nature of Wikimedia, this process shouldn't be formulated as purely related to sexual content, but as related to cultural taboos or to offensive imagery if we want to use euphemism. Under the same category are: * sexual content; * images Muhammad; * images of sacral places of many tribes; * etc. Although it is not the same medium, under the same category are all texts which some culture may treat as offensive. So, censorship categorization below assumes categorization of media *and texts*. Important note is that we have to put some principles before going into the process: 1) We don't want to censor ourselves (out of illegal material under the US and Florida laws). 2) We want to allow voluntary auto-censorship on personal basis. (Anyone can decide which categories he or she doesn't want to see.) 3) We should allow voluntary/default censorship on cultural basis, as the most of our readers are not registered. (Based on IP address of reader. Thus, pictures of Muhammad should be shown by default for someone from Germany, but shouldn't be shown by default to someone from Saudi Arabia. In all cases there has to be possibility to overrule such censorship by simple click or by preferences.) 4) We shouldn't help any kind of organized censorship by any organization. For example, if looking at the naked body is prohibited in some [Western] school even for educational purposes of teaching anatomy, it is not our responsibility to censor it. Contrary, as naked body is much deeper taboo in Muslim world, it should be censored on cultural basis (3). Speaking about default censorship on cultural basis and in the context of the Western cultural standards, this should be contextual. Commons gallery of penises should be censored by default, but that exemplary image shouldn't be censored inside of the Wikipedia article about penis. We should have a voting system for registered users at site like censor.wikimedia.org can be. At that site *registered* users would be able to vote [anonymously] should they or not have censored images of any category in their region (again, this is about Google-like cultural based censorship which can be overruled by personal wish). Users from Germany will definitely put different categories for censorship than users from Texas. And it should be respected. Rights of more permissive cultures shouldn't be endangered because of rights of less permissive cultures. That kind of voting system would remove the most of responsibility from WMF. If majority of users in one culture expressed their wish, it is not about us to argue with anyone why is it so. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
2010/5/10 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com snip 3) We should allow voluntary/default censorship on cultural basis, as the most of our readers are not registered. (Based on IP address of reader. Thus, pictures of Muhammad should be shown by default for someone from Germany, but shouldn't be shown by default to someone from Saudi Arabia. In all cases there has to be possibility to overrule such censorship by simple click or by preferences.) /snip I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France wherever. I think the world has moved on a bit from the one country, one religion / set of values / morals. AD ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:17 AM, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov alexandrdmitriroma...@gmail.com wrote: I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France wherever. I think the world has moved on a bit from the one country, one religion / set of values / morals. You didn't read it well or I didn't explain it well. I should be just default, like Google image search. You would be able to override it by: * logging into your account; or * by simply clicking somewhere that you don't want to be censored. The only level of censorship which should be imposed on cultural basis is default censorship. That means that just defaults should be in accordance to the majority's taboos. However, everyone should be able to switch from censored version to not censored version. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven: I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France wherever. I think the world has moved on a bit from the one country, one religion / set of values / morals. You are of course right. But what is the alternative? The only alternative is not basing it on location so everybody sees the same. That's like one world, one set of values. Marcus Buck User:Slomox ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
2010/5/10 Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org: J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven: I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France wherever. I think the world has moved on a bit from the one country, one religion / set of values / morals. You are of course right. But what is the alternative? The only alternative is not basing it on location so everybody sees the same. That's like one world, one set of values. The alternative is to not censor, in any circumstance, to any kind of audience whatsoever. I must confess I find this particular alternative brilliant. It is imperfect, as any other form of freedom of thought and expression. But other options are more imperfect, not less, in my opinion. I think some projects (like the English Wikipedia) already reached consensus on this issue. -- Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva tolkiend...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I put my impressions of the moment on this discussion page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Censorship#Some_reflexions_following_the_censorship_polemic_of_May_2010 On 09/05/2010 20:04, Sue Gardner wrote: Yeah, Pryzkuta, I know there are lots of debates happening everywhere; that's a good thing --- obviously talking about all this stuff is good, and people should use whatever mechanisms work for them. All the discussions are good, and everybody is bringing useful stuff to the table. Re Jimmy, my understanding is that he has voluntarily relinquished the ability to act globally and unlilaterally, in an attempt to bring closure to that thread of discussion, because he thinks it's a distraction from the main conversation. Which is, the projects contain, and have contained, material which many people (different groups, for different reasons) find objectionable. The main question at hand is: what, if anything, should be done about the inclusion in the projects of potentially objectionable material. Should we provide warnings about potentially objectionable material, should we make it easy for people to have a safe view if they want it, should we make a safe view a default view, and so forth. My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the scope of Jimmy's authority question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about what's happened over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less angry. But I think Jimmy's goal --which I support-- is to enable people to now move on to have the more important conversation, about how to resolve the question of objectionable material. To recap: it's a big conversation, and it's happening in lots of places. That may need to happen for a while. I would like to see us move into a synthesis phase, where we start talking in a focused way, in a few places, about what we should do to resolve the question of objectionable material. I think the thread by Derk-Jan is a step towards that. But it may be that we're not ready to move into a synthesis phase yet: people may still need to vent and brainstorm and so forth, for a while. Thanks, Sue -Original Message- From: Przykuta przyk...@o2.pl Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 00:16:02 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the d iscussion ishappening 1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy#039;s actions over the past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving. That#039;s mostly happened here and on meta. Sue - everywhere - mailing lists, IRC channels, village pumps... We need to talk as Wikimedia Community. There is no authority without communication - face to face(s); keyboard to keyboard. The biggest fire (RfC flame) is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag 400 votes - 400 users !--- (and probably puppets :p) --- Maybe the best way will be to start special IRC debate - about past, present and future. (and again, and again, and again - yeah) Yes... We have bigger problems, but... maybe not. This is real trouble. przykuta ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6DLoAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LPyEIANZz0qs0ETveeNNZl+cLAWYo q6Ivu/2Y49VpfzRrgCm1RtUMiYPxvFtoXPv2PQpOmf4CiU6opm/fFZ06cEp30ete Jey5525ALYyZidrnFaCnzzSl2Mai4zjKsLCcT3FPveAYdPk0JSf5Y4gIiWxU9a3i WTbOnKByved0AN5tHlxFrorGx2cva/atUQX+RDGWfD6YWP4gbiyz4U2HyXaaMMOK GXL3kA3wE/mUXg33hRmqJBVbIrMzQB6vrbkTbAijm2FiLW6j7iGC1iOFUDNMdVdA hteOXYsIZs/UvtGLb8E0xZb+5UmjUtuwP+yMGSBNSy5TzuRVW7obu6AsFOhqSAA= =eOeC -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
If we follow sexual taboos, which ones do we follow? Some Moslem and non-Moslem groups object to the depiction of any part of the anatomy, some to depiction or exposure of certain parts only. Some extend it to males. Some object to the portray of certain objects in an irreverent manner--there have been major commotions over such displays of christian symbols in artworks. Different cultures have different taboos on the depiction of violence, taboos not connected with religion. There are similar cultural restrictions on verbal; expression. There are the obvious different ones for sexual expression. US law includes the concept of community standards --but our community is the entire world. Some have taboos against public discussion of any religion not the majority religion there. Some avoid the public discussion of politics. And so on endlessly. Someone above mentioned going by the majority in the region. Protecting minority interests is part of NPOV, and actively promoting minority languages is a policy of the WMF. There is no way to limit censorship. The only consistent positions are either to not have external media at all, a position adopted by some religious groups, or to not have censorship at all. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Censorship#Some_reflexions_following_the_censorship_polemic_of_May_2010 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/05/2010 07:56, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote: 2010/5/10 Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org: J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven: I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France wherever. I think the world has moved on a bit from the one country, one religion / set of values / morals. You are of course right. But what is the alternative? The only alternative is not basing it on location so everybody sees the same. That's like one world, one set of values. The alternative is to not censor, in any circumstance, to any kind of audience whatsoever. I must confess I find this particular alternative brilliant. It is imperfect, as any other form of freedom of thought and expression. But other options are more imperfect, not less, in my opinion. I think some projects (like the English Wikipedia) already reached consensus on this issue. I don't understand exactly your thoughts. What happens to someone who wants to navigate Wikipedia or use Commons but doesn't want to reach offending (according to his/her personal sensibility) pages? If this person wants a protecting tool, what is your answer? You give me the impression that you're saying: ignore him, let's let him be offended. In this case even if you're think you're right theoretically, you're alienating part of humanity from the big project that is reaching them all. Creating negligently a strong feeling of rejection with a few month of obliviousness to their culture can take dozen of years to repair. I don't think the topic should be solved so lighly and bluntly. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6Ez7AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LKkQH/0c0uBfRQ6NJsSAiJQzCHSGt Irl+uUg2xGhK9YfkeKFVpIcpSPzOTZA2oNZXjSr8lTS65U/jTui1f2T+zJsIUlTt 4TA87eRWY8lWub9zOdVmmlW3tOsrG12XB70GDrQOYqkVraYUX1owlRXS/nxWl877 rU3Uq+Y7LWhcILC8cFvQQ9LIsWKAfTrDQbsPITDAmWVV7LeDcllMShn6l9cMbAs9 TazNTb/CJwi0j/vdnjy4JYJ0sGPrGoLKfQ3QZPFSZ/EoyfcUnx6GwjgPOMPol5ZO hEK+QzY3lbUqbtcDtEMX3/V1RR/gKCnHocP9bOiFNWxdruJq1cFAcSCTwqgPY1Q= =1xe5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On 10 May 2010 19:14, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: I don't understand exactly your thoughts. What happens to someone who wants to navigate Wikipedia or use Commons but doesn't want to reach offending (according to his/her personal sensibility) pages? If this person wants a protecting tool, what is your answer? You give me the impression that you're saying: ignore him, let's let him be offended. In this case even if you're think you're right theoretically, you're alienating part of humanity from the big project that is reaching them all. Creating negligently a strong feeling of rejection with a few month of obliviousness to their culture can take dozen of years to repair. I don't think the topic should be solved so lighly and bluntly. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Create a tool (e.g. a JavaScript gadget) that allows a logged-in user to block images from Commons or local categories they don't want to see images from. Then it's each individual's discretion as to what they want not to see, and uses the existing category systems. Popular unpopular categories can be offered as a package. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On 10 May 2010 19:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Create a tool (e.g. a JavaScript gadget) that allows a logged-in user to block images from Commons or local categories they don't want to see images from. Then it's each individual's discretion as to what they want not to see, and uses the existing category systems. Popular unpopular categories can be offered as a package. Adblock already exists and can be used to provide exactly the feature set you describe. I'm not aware of any wikipedia image blocklists being produced for it. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
I have been taking an extreme anticensorship position, but I would consider this acceptable. People certainly do have the right as individuals to select what they want to see. It is not censorship, just a display option Such display options could be expanded--I would suggest an option to initially display the lead paragraph only, of articles in certain categories. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:18 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 May 2010 19:14, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: I don't understand exactly your thoughts. What happens to someone who wants to navigate Wikipedia or use Commons but doesn't want to reach offending (according to his/her personal sensibility) pages? If this person wants a protecting tool, what is your answer? You give me the impression that you're saying: ignore him, let's let him be offended. In this case even if you're think you're right theoretically, you're alienating part of humanity from the big project that is reaching them all. Creating negligently a strong feeling of rejection with a few month of obliviousness to their culture can take dozen of years to repair. I don't think the topic should be solved so lighly and bluntly. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Create a tool (e.g. a JavaScript gadget) that allows a logged-in user to block images from Commons or local categories they don't want to see images from. Then it's each individual's discretion as to what they want not to see, and uses the existing category systems. Popular unpopular categories can be offered as a package. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
Most browsers have the ability to not automatically download images, but display only the ones that one clicks on--a very useful option for slow connections and those using screen readers. For some sites with distracting advertising, I enable it myself before I go there. But David Gerard's suggestion above would be a very flexible extension of this. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/05/2010 07:56, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote: 2010/5/10 Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org: J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven: I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France wherever. I think the world has moved on a bit from the one country, one religion / set of values / morals. You are of course right. But what is the alternative? The only alternative is not basing it on location so everybody sees the same. That's like one world, one set of values. The alternative is to not censor, in any circumstance, to any kind of audience whatsoever. I must confess I find this particular alternative brilliant. It is imperfect, as any other form of freedom of thought and expression. But other options are more imperfect, not less, in my opinion. I think some projects (like the English Wikipedia) already reached consensus on this issue. I don't understand exactly your thoughts. What happens to someone who wants to navigate Wikipedia or use Commons but doesn't want to reach offending (according to his/her personal sensibility) pages? If this person wants a protecting tool, what is your answer? You give me the impression that you're saying: ignore him, let's let him be offended. In this case even if you're think you're right theoretically, you're alienating part of humanity from the big project that is reaching them all. Creating negligently a strong feeling of rejection with a few month of obliviousness to their culture can take dozen of years to repair. I don't think the topic should be solved so lighly and bluntly. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6Ez7AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LKkQH/0c0uBfRQ6NJsSAiJQzCHSGt Irl+uUg2xGhK9YfkeKFVpIcpSPzOTZA2oNZXjSr8lTS65U/jTui1f2T+zJsIUlTt 4TA87eRWY8lWub9zOdVmmlW3tOsrG12XB70GDrQOYqkVraYUX1owlRXS/nxWl877 rU3Uq+Y7LWhcILC8cFvQQ9LIsWKAfTrDQbsPITDAmWVV7LeDcllMShn6l9cMbAs9 TazNTb/CJwi0j/vdnjy4JYJ0sGPrGoLKfQ3QZPFSZ/EoyfcUnx6GwjgPOMPol5ZO hEK+QzY3lbUqbtcDtEMX3/V1RR/gKCnHocP9bOiFNWxdruJq1cFAcSCTwqgPY1Q= =1xe5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
David Goodman writes: I have been taking an extreme anticensorship position, but I would consider this acceptable. People certainly do have the right as individuals to select what they want to see. It is not censorship, just a display option Such display options could be expanded--I would suggest an option to initially display the lead paragraph only, of articles in certain categories. I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to categorically block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article pages? Presumably, those Commons images that are found in articles are relevant and appropriately encyclopedic (speaking generally -- I also assume there are some exceptions). Images that were just dumped to Commons without being associated with any particular article would still be available to those who were looking for them -- perhaps to complement a particular article that needs illustration -- but the umpteenth superfluous porn shot (or unconnected Muhammed image) would be invisible to those who chose this option. Obviously, this notion is too cute to actually be helpful, but I thought I'd share it. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to categorically block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article pages? Presumably, those Commons images that are found in articles are relevant and appropriately encyclopedic (speaking generally -- I also assume there are some exceptions). Images that were just dumped to Commons without being associated with any particular article would still be available to those who were looking for them -- perhaps to complement a particular article that needs illustration -- but the umpteenth superfluous porn shot (or unconnected Muhammed image) would be invisible to those who chose this option. Obviously, this notion is too cute to actually be helpful, but I thought I'd share it. And what about choosing Would you like to see uncategorized images? And the same for cultural censorship: Is your culture brave enough to gamble would you be horrified by seeing a penis or Muhammad or not? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: And what about choosing Would you like to see uncategorized images? And the same for cultural censorship: Is your culture brave enough to gamble would you be horrified by seeing a penis or Muhammad or not? I'm not sure I understand either question. The proposal I suggest would allow you to see uncategorized images if you want to. It would also allow you to see a penis or Muhammed if you want to (or in encyclopedic articles about penises or Muhammed images). --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to categorically block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article pages? Presumably, those Commons images that are found in articles are relevant and appropriately encyclopedic (speaking generally -- I also assume there are some exceptions). A good number of the deleted images were in use... so I don't quite know about that, but lets assume it to be true. Images that were just dumped to Commons without being associated with any particular article would still be available to those who were looking for them -- perhaps to complement a particular article that needs illustration -- but the umpteenth superfluous porn shot (or unconnected Muhammed image) would be invisible to those who chose this option. Obviously, this notion is too cute to actually be helpful, but I thought I'd share it. It has an enormously cute strawman answer: If you don't want to see images which aren't used inline in another wiki, don't look at commons at all! By definition any image in use in a Wikipedia is available outside of commons. :) Don't forget that a major reason that people look at commons is because Wikipedia articles will usually only have a few illustrations, for editorial/flow reasons. If you're mostly interested in visual details about the subject of your interest you'll follow the commons link from the Wikipedia article. ... but in that case your suggested image hiding wouldn't be helpful. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote: Obviously, this notion is too cute to actually be helpful, but I thought I'd share it. It has an enormously cute strawman answer: If you don't want to see images which aren't used inline in another wiki, don't look at commons at all! By definition any image in use in a Wikipedia is available outside of commons. :) Right. The difference is that instead of simply telling people not to go to Commons, you could say go to Commons, but if you only want to see images that have been deemed to be worth including in an article, click here. Back in the old days, we used to call this user empowerment (I actually coined the term in mid-1990s for EFF). Don't forget that a major reason that people look at commons is because Wikipedia articles will usually only have a few illustrations, for editorial/flow reasons. If you're mostly interested in visual details about the subject of your interest you'll follow the commons link from the Wikipedia article. ... but in that case your suggested image hiding wouldn't be helpful. It might be helpful for people who are worried about seeing images that have merely been dumped in Commons. Presumably those who want to see all the images could click the appropriate option and see all unlinked images as well. Remember that the goal here (not my personal goal, but the goal of some) is less for a perfect solution than for a way of avoiding superfluous dumped images that don't have educational value. My suggestion is inelegant (there are no elegant solutions), but also content-neutral (the umpteenth unlinked image of Lincoln or Gandhi would be blocked too). That way, the only offensive images we'd have to defend would be the ones that the community deemed appropriate to include in an article (a category of images that I personally am generally willing to defend, regardless of the type of content). --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to categorically block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article pages? Presumably, those Commons images that are found in articles are relevant and appropriately encyclopedic (speaking generally -- I also assume there are some exceptions). A good number of the deleted images were in use... so I don't quite know about that, but lets assume it to be true. What is the issue that you're trying to solve? I thought the issue was with images which aren't (or, at least, shouldn't be) used on any project. Yes, Jimbo confused the issue by deleting some images which were (and/or should be) used in Wikipedia, but I thought we were pretty much all in agreement that this was a mistake. Images that were just dumped to Commons without being associated with any particular article would still be available to those who were looking for them -- perhaps to complement a particular article that needs illustration -- but the umpteenth superfluous porn shot (or unconnected Muhammed image) would be invisible to those who chose this option. Obviously, this notion is too cute to actually be helpful, but I thought I'd share it. It has an enormously cute strawman answer: If you don't want to see images which aren't used inline in another wiki, don't look at commons at all! By definition any image in use in a Wikipedia is available outside of commons. :) Well, yeah, exactly. How the issue got moved from non-educational porn to educational yet offensive images, I really don't know. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
Hoi, What I am missing is that Iran has blocked the whole Wikimedia domain as Commons is included in that domain. I understand that the reason is there being too much sexual explicit content. As a consequence this important free resource is no longer available to the students of Iran as a resource for illustrations for their project work. What I would like to know is if we have been talking to Iranian politicians and / or if we have an understanding of what it takes to ensure that Commons becomes available again. Thanks, GerardM On 9 May 2010 23:28, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi folks, I'm aiming to stay on top of this whole conversation -- which is not easy: there is an awful lot of text being generated :-) So for myself and others --including new board members who may not be super-fluent in terms of following where and how we discuss things--, I'm going to recap here where I think the main strands of conversation are happening. Please let me know if I'm missing anything important. 1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy's actions over the past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving. That's mostly happened here and on meta. 2) There is a strand about a proposed new Commons policy covering sexual content: what is in scope, how to categorize and describe, etc. This policy has been discussed over time, and is being actively discussed right now. It is not yet agreed to, nor enforced. I gather it (the policy) reaffirms that sexual imagery needs to have some educational/informational value to warrant inclusion in Commons, attempts to articulate more clearly than in the past what is out of scope for the project and why, and overall, represents a tightening-up of existing standards rather than a radical change to them. It's here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content 3) There is a strand about content filtering (and, I suppose, other initiatives we might undertake, in addition to new/tighter policy at Commons). This discussion is happening mostly here on foundation-l, where it was started by Derk-Jan Hartman with the thread title [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia. AFAIK it's not taking place on-wiki anywhere. http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/195663 I also think that if people skipped over Greg Maxwell's thread [Foundation-l] Appropriate surprise (Commons stuff) -- it might be worth them going back and taking a look at it. I'm not expressing an opinion on Greg's views as laid out in that note, and I think the focus of the conversation has moved on a little in the 12 hours or so since he wrote it. But it's still IMO a very useful recap/summary of where we're at, and as such I think definitely worth reading. Few of us seem to gravitate towards recapping/summarizing/synthesizing, which is probably too bad: it's a very useful skill in conversations like this one, and a service to everyone involved :-) http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/195598. Let me know if I'm missing anything important. Thanks, Sue -- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation 415 839 6885 office Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia. AFAIK it's not taking place on-wiki anywhere. http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/195663 After Greg's, David Gerard's and Mike's arguments, I think that it is clear that ICRA is not so good idea. We should make our own not aggressive approach based on existing categorization system. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
Yeah, Pryzkuta, I know there are lots of debates happening everywhere; that's a good thing --- obviously talking about all this stuff is good, and people should use whatever mechanisms work for them. All the discussions are good, and everybody is bringing useful stuff to the table. Re Jimmy, my understanding is that he has voluntarily relinquished the ability to act globally and unlilaterally, in an attempt to bring closure to that thread of discussion, because he thinks it's a distraction from the main conversation. Which is, the projects contain, and have contained, material which many people (different groups, for different reasons) find objectionable. The main question at hand is: what, if anything, should be done about the inclusion in the projects of potentially objectionable material. Should we provide warnings about potentially objectionable material, should we make it easy for people to have a safe view if they want it, should we make a safe view a default view, and so forth. My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the scope of Jimmy's authority question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about what's happened over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less angry. But I think Jimmy's goal --which I support-- is to enable people to now move on to have the more important conversation, about how to resolve the question of objectionable material. To recap: it's a big conversation, and it's happening in lots of places. That may need to happen for a while. I would like to see us move into a synthesis phase, where we start talking in a focused way, in a few places, about what we should do to resolve the question of objectionable material. I think the thread by Derk-Jan is a step towards that. But it may be that we're not ready to move into a synthesis phase yet: people may still need to vent and brainstorm and so forth, for a while. Thanks, Sue -Original Message- From: Przykuta przyk...@o2.pl Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 00:16:02 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the d iscussion ishappening 1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy#039;s actions over the past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving. That#039;s mostly happened here and on meta. Sue - everywhere - mailing lists, IRC channels, village pumps... We need to talk as Wikimedia Community. There is no authority without communication - face to face(s); keyboard to keyboard. The biggest fire (RfC flame) is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag 400 votes - 400 users !--- (and probably puppets :p) --- Maybe the best way will be to start special IRC debate - about past, present and future. (and again, and again, and again - yeah) Yes... We have bigger problems, but... maybe not. This is real trouble. przykuta ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner susanpgard...@gmail.com wrote: My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the scope of Jimmy's authority question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about what's happened over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less angry. Ting's statements on the role of the Board (that it should regulate project content) will also take some digesting. I doubt chapters outside the US put people forward for the Board thinking this would mean the Board supporting content removal to appease Fox News. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
Yeah. I don't remember exactly what Ting said, and even if I did, I wouldn't comment on it. But FWIW to your point, Ting's not in a chapters-selected seat; Ting was elected by the Wikimedia community. --Original Message-- From: David Gerard To: Sue Gardner GMail To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening Sent: 9 May 2010 4:21 PM On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner susanpgard...@gmail.com wrote: My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the scope of Jimmy's authority question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about what's happened over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less angry. Ting's statements on the role of the Board (that it should regulate project content) will also take some digesting. I doubt chapters outside the US put people forward for the Board thinking this would mean the Board supporting content removal to appease Fox News. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
Wouldn't regulating content mean abdicating the role of webhost, which would call Section 230 into question? From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com To: susanpgard...@gmail.com; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 4:21:46 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner susanpgard...@gmail.com wrote: My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the scope of Jimmy's authority question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about what's happened over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less angry. Ting's statements on the role of the Board (that it should regulate project content) will also take some digesting. I doubt chapters outside the US put people forward for the Board thinking this would mean the Board supporting content removal to appease Fox News. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
Geoffrey Plourde writes: Wouldn't regulating content mean abdicating the role of webhost, which would call Section 230 into question? Mere removal of content posted by others does not create a Section 230 problem or a problem under equivalent provisions elsewhere in the law. A guideline or policy urged by the Wikimedia Foundation and adopted/implemented by the volunteer-editor community would not create such a problem either. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
