-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Some thoughts, not aiming at anybody in particular.
The pressure from Fox News, the childish founders' jealousies, the void
FBI threats, the "patriarch complex" of Mr. Wales, if they're real,
should be of no inflated importance. Our personal tastes ab
I recall personally deleting and asking for oversight of an
identifiable picture of a clearly underage person in a similar
context, where the images were the basis of an internet meme. The
picture was oversighted; the article on the meme itself was almost
unanimously deleted from WP.
The courts ma
Samuel Klein wrote:
> To Robert's point below,
>
> I would appreciate a serious discussion on Commons, grounded in this
> sort of precedent, about what a special concern and stronger
> justification for inclusion might look like. An OTRS-based model
> release policy? How does one prove that one
To Robert's point below,
I would appreciate a serious discussion on Commons, grounded in this
sort of precedent, about what a special concern and stronger
justification for inclusion might look like. An OTRS-based model
release policy? How does one prove that one really is the
photographer / the
Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
> 2010/5/13 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>> Samuel Klein wrote:
>>
>>> I agree strongly with this. You are right to point out the connection
>>> to improving BLP policies -- we should be much more careful to
>>> confirming model rights for people in any po
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> The obvious solution is not to display images by default
> that a large
> number of viewers would prefer not to view. Instead,
> provide links,
> or maybe have them blurred out and allow a click to unblur
> them. You
> don't hide any information from p
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Aryeh Gregor
> wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Aryeh Gregor <
> > simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com <
> simetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com >>
> wrote:
> >> [[Daniel Pearl]] does not contain an image
> >> of
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Aryeh Gregor <
> simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com > wrote:
>> [[Daniel Pearl]] does not contain an image
>> of him being beheaded (although it's what he's famous for), and
>> [[Goatse.cx]] does not contain an image of
2010/5/13 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Samuel Klein wrote:
>>
>> I agree strongly with this. You are right to point out the connection
>> to improving BLP policies -- we should be much more careful to
>> confirming model rights for people in any potentially exploitative or
>> embarrassing photos.
>>
Samuel Klein wrote:
>
> I agree strongly with this. You are right to point out the connection
> to improving BLP policies -- we should be much more careful to
> confirming model rights for people in any potentially exploitative or
> embarrassing photos.
>
> Such ideas have been around for a long t
Delirium wrote:
>
> I don't actually mind this proposal, and would like it myself for a lot
> of pages. But I'm not sure naked people are actually at the top of the
> list (perhaps someone should try to determine it empirically via some
> sort of research on our readers?). If I personally were t
2010/5/13 Delirium :
> On 05/11/2010 09:45 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> The obvious solution is not to display images by default that a large
>> number of viewers would prefer not to view. Instead, provide links,
>> or maybe have them blurred out and allow a click to unblur them. You
>> don't hide
On 05/11/2010 09:45 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> The obvious solution is not to display images by default that a large
> number of viewers would prefer not to view. Instead, provide links,
> or maybe have them blurred out and allow a click to unblur them. You
> don't hide any information from people
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>[...]
> However, I also see the issue from another frame that is not part of
> Tim's spectrum. Sexual photographs, especially those of easily
> recognized people, have the potential to exploit or embarrass the
> people in them. I place a high
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I would suggest a "child-safe" approach to
> Commons, is simply to use the Google image browser with a
> "moderate filter" setting. Try it, it works.
Actually, it doesn't. For example, if you search for
masturbation site:commons.wikimedia.org
yo
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
[snip]
> However, I also see the issue from another frame that is not part of
> Tim's spectrum. Sexual photographs, especially those of easily
> recognized people, have the potential to exploit or embarrass the
> people in them. I place a high
I am sorry about the horrible formatting in my last post (any advice
appreciated). I'll try this again.
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone
> will fill that void. That someone does not need to be us. Google
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone will fill
that void. That someone does not need to be us. Google does this job with
their image browser already without the need for any providers to actively
"tag" any images.
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
>
>> On foundation-l we are divided between moderates and libertarians. The
>> libertarians are more strident in their views, so the debate can seem
>> one-sided at times, but there is a substantial moderate contingent,
Tim Starling wrote:
> Solution 1: Exercise editorial control to remove particularly
> offensive images from the site.
>
> Standard answer 1: Some people may wish to see that content, it would
> be wrong for us to stop them.
>
> Solution 2: Tag images with an audience-specific rating system, like
>
Tim, thank you for this excellent post. A few comments:
Tim Starling writes:
> it's only the libertarians who value educational value above
> moral hazard
I don't really agree with this. Contributors from across your
spectrum consider whether potentially-harmful information about a
person is
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:06 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> By the way, there appears to be an assumption - on the part of board
> members, the WMF and some contributors to this thread - that Commons
> has been somehow indiscriminate in what it accepts.
I don't read that. What I see is a debate abo
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> On 11/05/10 23:06, Anthony wrote:
> > I assume here you're talking about choosing what images to allow on the
> > websites. I wouldn't call that "making a decision on behalf of another",
> > but I assume that's what you're referring to. If
Tim's post is excellent. However there is a viewpoint on this issue
that is important to me personally that I feel is not well represented
by his spectrum.
To the extent that Tim's spectrum does represent me, I am probably
moderate. I recognize that some people (e.g. the conservatives) find
cert
On 05/11/2010 11:58 AM, Noein wrote:
> And there is a general consensus here about those libertarian views?
> I'm impressed. Sorry to repetitively check the ethical temperature of
> the community, but I come from social horizons where it's not only not
> natural, but generates hatred. I never could
On 11 May 2010 21:42, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block
>> images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're
>> the target market, after all.
> I'd be happy to do any
If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone will fill
that void. That someone does not need to be us. Google does this job with
their image browser already without the need for any providers to actively
"tag" any images. How do they do that? I have no idea, but they
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block
> images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're
> the target market, after all.
I'd be happy to do any software development if that were helpful.
I've be
Hi,
2010/5/11 Noein :
>
> On 11/05/2010 12:44, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> I would propose that the reason we are subject to such a _small_
>> amount of complaint about our content is that much of the world
>> understands that what Wikipedia does is —in a sense— deeply subversive
>> and not at all c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/05/2010 12:44, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I would propose that the reason we are subject to such a _small_
> amount of complaint about our content is that much of the world
> understands that what Wikipedia does is —in a sense— deeply subversive
>
I agree with David Gerard's suggestion above: this is a solution that
will meet a variety of needs, and is therefore value-neutral. It can
be applied to more than categories--someone with a moderately slow
connection might wish to disable images in articles above a certain
size, or articles contai
On 11 May 2010 17:45, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> Sure, and that's inevitable. You aren't going to please people who
> have ideological problems with Wikipedia's entire premise. But
> leaving aside people who think nudity is morally wrong on principle,
> we are still left with a very large number of
*"The trick is to find a compromise which pleases both factions, or at
least upsets both equally."
*
If we generalize the situation we could state the following:
The *Libertarians *point of view could be worded as: "Allow everyone to view
all content"
The *Conservative *point of view could be worde
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> On foundation-l we are divided between moderates and libertarians. The
> libertarians are more strident in their views, so the debate can seem
> one-sided at times, but there is a substantial moderate contingent,
> and I count myself among the
On 11 May 2010 16:44, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> There are other resources which address these subject areas in a
> manner which religious conservatives may find more acceptable, such as
> conservapedia.
Actually, Conservapedia has almost no readers or editors. (Its
activity rate is marginally hi
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
[snip]
> But more generally, yes I suppose I may be overstating. Studying
> religious views on sex and pornography is interesting, because those
> views align closely with the laws and norms of wider society. Unlike
> wider society, religious c
On 11/05/10 23:56, Mike Godwin wrote:
> That's a feature, not a bug. If there is a compromise that "pleases" some
> factions but not others, it's not exactly a compromise, is it?
The trick is to find a compromise which pleases both factions, or at
least upsets both equally.
In particular, I think
On 11/05/10 23:06, Anthony wrote:
> I assume here you're talking about choosing what images to allow on the
> websites. I wouldn't call that "making a decision on behalf of another",
> but I assume that's what you're referring to. If I'm wrong, please correct
> me.
I'm including:
Solution 1: Ex
Tim Starling writes:
It's a proposal which only really makes sense when analysed from the
> libertarian end of this debate. It's not a compromise with the rest of
> the spectrum.
>
That's correct. That was intentional. A libertarian proposal that attempts
to adhere to NPOV and reduces general noi
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> The debate on this issue has been organised along predictable lines,
> dividing neatly into libertarians, moderates and conservatives.
>
[...]
> Libertarians want all information to be available to everyone. Some
> say all adults, some say
Tim Starling wrote:
>
> Libertarians want all information to be available to everyone. Some
> say all adults, some say children too should be included. Their
> principles allow for individuals to choose for themselves to avoid
> seeing that which offends them, which leaves the problem of how the
>
On 11/05/10 05:34, Mike Godwin 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 enc
42 matches
Mail list logo
