Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
Better would be to keep those articles, and also (at some point) to preserve TVTropes. sincerely, Kim Bruning On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 06:17:57PM +, Mike Dupont wrote: well i decided to delete them, and other articles dealing with peoples personal lives. I dont want to deal with stuff like that, mike On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Well you think i should delete them from the speedydeletion wikia? http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/index.php?search=rapefulltext=Search mike On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a number of pages due to advertiser pressure. ? ? ? ?http://www.themarysue.com/tv-tropes-rape-articles/ In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our movies. It somehow feels soviet. :-/ sincerely, ? ? ? ?Kim Bruning -- ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
well i can give you copies of the scripts, the articles are still on archive org, I dont want to host them, mike On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: Better would be to keep those articles, and also (at some point) to preserve TVTropes. sincerely, Kim Bruning On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 06:17:57PM +, Mike Dupont wrote: well i decided to delete them, and other articles dealing with peoples personal lives. I dont want to deal with stuff like that, mike On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Well you think i should delete them from the speedydeletion wikia? http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/index.php?search=rapefulltext=Search mike On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a number of pages due to advertiser pressure. ? ? ? ?http://www.themarysue.com/tv-tropes-rape-articles/ In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our movies. It somehow feels soviet. :-/ sincerely, ? ? ? ?Kim Bruning -- ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
well i decided to delete them, and other articles dealing with peoples personal lives. I dont want to deal with stuff like that, mike On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Well you think i should delete them from the speedydeletion wikia? http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/index.php?search=rapefulltext=Search mike On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a number of pages due to advertiser pressure. http://www.themarysue.com/tv-tropes-rape-articles/ In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our movies. It somehow feels soviet. :-/ sincerely, Kim Bruning -- ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On 27/06/12 06:46, Nathan wrote: It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for political reasons. Actually, the SOPA blackout notice was developed and deployed by WMF staff. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Centralnotice-template-blackoutaction=history http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralNoticeLogsoffset=2012011805limit=100 -- Tim Starling ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Actually, the SOPA blackout notice was developed and deployed by WMF staff. Point of clarification: Developed and deployed, yes - but at the request of the English Wikipedia community, in the form of the RFC that was run. Staff developed it because they could be quickly tasked to it; had the RFC gone the other way, we wouldn't have intervened. PB ___ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 6643 phili...@wikimedia.org phili...@wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a long time. Almost all of these tropes are untouched: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexualHarassmentAndRapeTropes?from=Main.RapeTropes - it seems they just had a problem with Google withdrawing ad revenue because they hadn't clearly demarcated all the pages which were not OK according to Google's terms. With that said, it does make a great case for why Wikimedia should remain independent: we have enough to do to ensure the quality of our project without also worrying about whether we'll irritate Google. [[:en:User:Slashme]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 June 2012 16:02, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote: This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a long time. Almost all of these tropes are untouched: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexualHarassmentAndRapeTropes?from=Main.RapeTropes - it seems they just had a problem with Google withdrawing ad revenue because they hadn't clearly demarcated all the pages which were not OK according to Google's terms. This is pretty much completely wrong, as you'd know if you'd read the links at the beginning. The pages were already marked don't put ads here. Google objected to their presence on the site at all. The pages were removed, the internet said wtf and TVtropes has now restored them without hearing back from Google. Wow, they moved fast! I read the blog post and then went to check, and found the supposedly deleted articles up, less than a full day after the original mailing list email, so I assumed there had to be some mistake. How long were the articles actually deleted? -- David Richfield [[:en:User:Slashme]] +27718539985 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On 27 June 2012 16:30, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, they moved fast! I read the blog post and then went to check, and found the supposedly deleted articles up, less than a full day after the original mailing list email, so I assumed there had to be some mistake. How long were the articles actually deleted? Coupla days. But it turns out TVtropes is big enough that the Internet now notices when Google starts getting into corporate censorship. Also, the Tropers were more than a little annoyed at the response of the site's founder and proprietor. The site is CC by-sa, but I don't think there are downloadable dumps or anything. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 27/06/2012 12:10 AM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kim Bruningk...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality. Figuratively speaking, or do you think it actually made a whit of difference? I'm pretty sure it had an effect; if only that of increased media coverage (Wikipedia's visible action did focus much of the coverage). To me, at least, it seems evident that the backlash against SOPA was stoked by that media coverage. So yes, I'm pretty sure it did make a difference. As I recall SOPA was already dead in the water before the blackout occurred. Am I wrong about this? The law was quite clearly flawed, even beyond what I think the current US congress is capable of passing (at least, without some direct tie to terrorism). Interestingly, one of the best arguments against SOPA will be if Jimmy Wales loses the argument about his newest cause. If websites like TVShack.net can be shut down without relying on SOPA-like language, then this would be preferred, since 1) current law is much less likely to hit legitimate sites like Google and Wikipedia; and 2) Extradition under SOPA is much less likely to meet the dual criminality standard. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote: Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a number of pages due to advertiser pressure. And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship highlighted for all too see. I've always supported the model of yearly donation drives to avoid it -- occasionally creepy Jimmy pictures notwithstanding -- and this is the reason why. We are, like it or not, in a society increasingly driven by marketeers and focus groups; being at the mercy of entities who care nothing for information or knowledge so long as their precious *image* is pristine is the norm, and Wikipedia remains a bastion of sanity in that sea of madness. -- Coren / Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On 26 June 2012 19:02, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our movies. It somehow feels soviet. :-/ A significant chunk of them would probably fail [[WP:V]]. Actually for the most part I just feel sorry for the people who are meant to enforce the new rules. On the other hand I note that home made explosive tropes are not affected. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:41:04PM +0100, geni wrote: On 26 June 2012 19:02, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our movies. It somehow feels soviet. :-/ A significant chunk of them would probably fail [[WP:V]]. Actually for the most part I just feel sorry for the people who are meant to enforce the new rules. On the other hand I note that home made explosive tropes are not affected. TvTropes and en.wp have different foci, so that should not surprise anyone. (else there wouldn't need to be 2 different wikis) That said, a number of the expunged topics (eg. movies, books, etc) do appear to overlap with articles on en.wp, where they are discussed in our typical dry manner. (This from a small sample, and they're still working at it, so ymmv) sincerely, Kim Bruning ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote: Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a number of pages due to advertiser pressure. And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship highlighted for all too see. I've always supported the model of yearly donation drives to avoid it -- occasionally creepy Jimmy pictures notwithstanding -- and this is the reason why. Wow! Indeed! Someone somewhere bowed for something to advertizers! Of course, if we would have had advertizing, we would also have bowed for them after they of course would have had similar demands. Is Wikipedia also going to remove rape articles if people are saying they will not donate if we do not? No way. Why can we tell that to donators and not to advertizers? -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:07:02PM +0100, Andreas Kolbe wrote: I've always been against ads, but as far as I am concerned, the illusion of an NPOV project ended with the SOPA strike, and Jimbo's current exploits around O'Dwyer (who I agree should not be extradited, but doh, that is not the point ...) just underscore that. The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality. (It's the old freedom to swing your fists where you wish, versus limiting the arc to avoid my nose discussion; aka BSD vs GPL; aka do what you want, vs do unto others; etc. (incidentally, is there a general term for this 100% freedom vs -except not allowed to take away freedom- rule?)) It might be useful to try to correct newspapers if they state we set aside our neutrality. It was precisely our neutrality that was at stake! Of course if Jimmy wants to do other political things, he should be a bit careful to either explain to everyone why it's necessary for the foundation and/or explain that he's doing it independently and his views do not nescessarily reflect the views of the board, etc etc. I hope he's doing that consistently. Are you saying that maybe he hasn't? Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take the pages down, are Google. That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to Wikimedia. Hmmm. I think WMF talks with different departments at Google than TV Tropes does. It might be useful to enquire? sincerely, Kim Bruning ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take the pages down, are Google. That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to Wikimedia. True. But if Google told WMF Change Foo and Bar or we'll pull our donations, WMF would go straight to the media, get in triple what Google contributes from sympathy/outrage donations, and Google would be pilloried. And Google's not dumb--they know that. They also know that Wikipedia significantly enhances their search results, and that their donations to WMF are getting them a very good thing for very little investment. The chances are very slim they'd jeopardize that. Are you not being a bit naive here? Seriously, if Google wanted something, and were willing to pay Wikimedia another half million dollars for it, they'd talk to Jimbo and other WMF luminaries behind closed doors. And if they agreed to whatever it is, then the press would just happen to report a few weeks later that Brin has donated half a million to Wikipedia. And if WMF refused whatever Google wanted, then there simply wouldn't be an announcement of a Google donation to that amount at the next fundraiser. No one in the press would pillory Google for not donating half a million that year. After all, no one is obliged to donate to Wikimedia, including Google. It's unfortunate that TVTropes didn't do the same thing. I imagine, if that hit the tech press, they would've found themselves getting a very significant amount of support (both financial and moral), and again, Google would've gotten pilloried and had to back off. But not taking ads means we don't have to be dependent on the whims of advertisers, or an ad provider. Well, there is a slashdot report. Let's see how much Google get pilloried for their actions with regard to TV Tropes. My prediction: not much. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of whether or not people should make donations to the WMF, and utilizes the project (through banners) to that end. However, they do not go put into the article [[Wikimedia Foundation]] a line that says Donating to WMF is great, go do it! Similarly, we never once advocated abandoning neutrality on the [[SOPA]] article. It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of whether or not people should make donations to the WMF, and utilizes the project (through banners) to that end. However, they do not go put into the article [[Wikimedia Foundation]] a line that says Donating to WMF is great, go do it! Similarly, we never once advocated abandoning neutrality on the [[SOPA]] article. It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality. And I still don't understand where all those IPs and single-purpose accounts voting for the blackout came from, or why administrators were directed to let their votes stand, when we regularly exclude such votes from far less important community discussions. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
* Nathan wrote: It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality. Neutrality is an article concept, not a project concept and the protest did not change articles, it rendered them hard to access and different content was rendered in their stead, and that fact was very obvious. If the project was neutral, in the sense the concept is defined for articles, it would be defined be how it is seen by others. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote: * Nathan wrote: It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality. Neutrality is an article concept, not a project concept and the protest did not change articles, it rendered them hard to access and different content was rendered in their stead, and that fact was very obvious. If the project was neutral, in the sense the concept is defined for articles, it would be defined be how it is seen by others. I disagree - I think it is a content concept. Content being what people looking for encyclopedic content will find; just as people have often argued against advertising on the grounds that it becomes non-neutral content that questions the impartiality of the encyclopedia, the same is even more obviously true if all articles are replaced with a political banner. There is a degree of cognitive dissonance for people who believe both in neutrality and in protesting SOPA/PIPA, which understandably leads to tortured arguments like neutrality is an article concept and not a content concept... but such arguments are plainly not true. Anyway, this is most definitely a sidetrack from the topic of this thread. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
Kim Bruning wrote: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:07:02PM +0100, Andreas Kolbe wrote: I've always been against ads, but as far as I am concerned, the illusion of an NPOV project ended with the SOPA strike, and Jimbo's current exploits around O'Dwyer (who I agree should not be extradited, but doh, that is not the point ...) just underscore that. The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality. (It's the old freedom to swing your fists where you wish, versus limiting the arc to avoid my nose discussion; aka BSD vs GPL; aka do what you want, vs do unto others; etc. (incidentally, is there a general term for this 100% freedom vs -except not allowed to take away freedom- rule?)) Libertarianism. Also, the SOPA strike wasn't necessary; it was disruptive and foolish. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality. Figuratively speaking, or do you think it actually made a whit of difference? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: I was actually thinking of the board, or just Jimbo himself, rather than any wider group of luminaries (or actual Wikipedia editors). If Google wanted something, I am sure they would speak in person to the people they have had personal contact with. I was struck by the following four-month timeline the other day: ---o0o--- October 4 to October 6, 2011: Italian Wikipedia blackout, hailed as successful in preventing Italian legislation. November 18, 2011: Media announce that Google's Sergey Brin is donating half a million dollars to Wikipedia. December 10, 2011: Jimmy first raises the topic of an anti-SOPA Wikipedia blackout on Wikipedia. January 16, 2012: English Wikipedia is blacked out for a day, in an action hailed as successful in preventing US legislation. So, a chain of events during a 4 month period can not be incidental. What you neglect to mention that there was an annual fundraiser during the end of the year, this was not the first grant Google made to Wikimedia, in fact, it might not even be the second, they donated in the past fundraisers as well, larger amounts I believe. I am thinking of the 2 Million received from Google in 2010. Now, far be it for me to defend Jimmy, but the central assumption in your polemic is, that jimmy is devoid of caring about any social issues, issues that might even affect the identity he has created. He would have to be paid in order to care, if not Google than someone else paying him off to care, can't it just be that he believes in something? even if there is a perceived threat? I know it might be hard to believe, but people have been known to care about legislation and larger social issues from time to time, and use the platform they have. Your timeline seems clouded with conspiracy theories. Maybe geni is right, and you have been hanging around the critics forum too much. I fail to see the mass conspiracy being alluded to here. As far as funding goes, I have been around WMF funding discussion more than a lot of people. The last fundraiser was close to 30 Million USD, majority of which was accumulated through small donations. Large grants aren't something that's all that new, WMF has been receiving them for a few years now, 2012, wasn't particularly that eventful in terms of large grants [1]. I fail to see your point about the luminaries being bought off. As a non-profit, they have to legally declare large grants and mention the sources of their revenue. I absolutely fail to understand why Jimmy or anyone would jeopardize their standing now, raising money for an organization that really has no trouble raising it at this point. Regards Theo [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Grants ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On 27 June 2012 05:15, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps so. :)) (But clearly, so have you.) The difference being that I've been following Wikipedia criticism for much longer to the point where I can just view it as a rather repetitive soap opera. I was actually thinking of the board, or just Jimbo himself, rather than any wider group of luminaries (or actual Wikipedia editors). If Google wanted something, I am sure they would speak in person to the people they have had personal contact with. The problem with your theory is that firstly it assumes a level of control that those people don't have and secondly that you are forgetting that Google is a PLC. So, seen from one perspective, all the value that volunteers had created in the English Wikipedia over a decade was leveraged to support one view on copyrights, which happened to coincide with Google's business interests. And Google happened to donate half a million to Wikipedia just around that time. That would be the conspiracy theorist perspective yes. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
