Phil Nash writes:
> Whilst I would agree with that, context does not appear to have
> contributed
> to their original decision.
Of course it didn't. This particular incident, however, seems to have
taught them the value of considering images in context.
> One wonders how many similar cases
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
> I can not help reflect further on the whole Virgin Killer story.
>
> Whilst I am very happy of the final outcome, and thank David Gerard and
> WMF for having handled that very well, I feel also a big disatisfied by
> the way we acknowledg
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Phil Nash wrote:
> [...] context does not appear to have contributed
> to their original decision.
Based on their description of the process, it almost surely wasn't.
> One wonders how many similar cases there have
> been in the last twelve years of their exist
> The IWF said that contextual issues are important in the decision of whether
> or not they will keep the webpage on their list. They specifically
> reiterated that they still consider the image to be potentially illegal.
You expected them to actually admit to having made a mistake? Why
would th
Mike Godwin wrote:
>> Anthony writes:
>>
>>> I'm sure they're in the process of changing their review system to
>>> take
>>> these issues into account. At the same time, requiring *all* images
>>> to be
>>> "found illegal" before taking action, would not be a good idea.
>>
>> In this particular in
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>>> Long-time ago, I suggested adding a short-duration cookie whenever a
>>> block was triggered that would allow the software to detect the most
>>> obvious IP jumping vandals (asumming they used the same bro
2008/12/12 Anthony :
> The IWF said that contextual issues are important in the decision of whether
> or not they will keep the webpage on their list. They specifically
> reiterated that they still consider the image to be potentially illegal.
The head of the IWF is potentially a fabulous drag
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
> Anthony writes:
>
> > I'm sure they're in the process of changing their review system to
> > take
> > these issues into account. At the same time, requiring *all* images
> > to be
> > "found illegal" before taking action, would not be a goo
Anthony writes:
> I'm sure they're in the process of changing their review system to
> take
> these issues into account. At the same time, requiring *all* images
> to be
> "found illegal" before taking action, would not be a good idea.
In this particular instance, however, it is worth notin
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Chad wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> > We don't know that the person (or group) who made the decision was the
> same
> > person (or group) that viewed the Wikipedia page. In fact, I would tend
> to
> > believe the opposite.
> >
> > A
geni wrote:
> They are not entirely comfortable with it. That is rather the
> problem. The IWF exists because in 1996 Chief inspector Stephen
> French made it clear that if ISPs didn't do something about
> certain usenet groups he would do something about those ISPs.
>
> What we saw in action
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Anthony wrote:
> We don't know that the person (or group) who made the decision was the same
> person (or group) that viewed the Wikipedia page. In fact, I would tend to
> believe the opposite.
>
> Anthony
>
I've been of the opinion the person who reported it ju
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:27 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> Let's take a step back.
>
> This incident arose because of a third party making a judgement call
> about content which was an album cover by an at-the-time leading rock
> group, had been published fairly continuously for 30-ish years, and
>
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM, teun spaans wrote:
>
>> On the other hand: our mission is to spread knowledge in a free form. Under
>> a free license. I think it is NOT our task to combat censorship, or to
>> advocate free speech.
>
>
> In fact,
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>
>> 2008/12/12 Florence Devouard :
>>
>> > We all perfectly know that if this particular image was borderline,
>> > there are images or texts that are illegal in certain countries. I am
>> >
Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> "They" didn't block editing. "You" did.
Technically, yes, but they made it impossible for us to do anything
>> else.
>>> I think at this point you have to describe what you mean by "block
>> editing",
>>> then.
>>
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM, teun spaans wrote:
> On the other hand: our mission is to spread knowledge in a free form. Under
> a free license. I think it is NOT our task to combat censorship, or to
> advocate free speech.
In fact, restricting the content to only "free content" *is*
self-ce
cite:* if a legal decision forbid us to show a certain article or a certain
image, we'll implement a system to block showing the images or text in a
certain country.
I feel doubts with this statement. It sounds like giving in to censorship,
though I think this is noty what you mean.
When i take it
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > I'd say it's long past the point where the (minimal) saved hassle is
> worth
> > the trouble.
>
> The trouble is minimal, the hassle is almost certainly enough to lose
> us some good edits.
>
I find it hard to believe you managed to keep a
> I'd say it's long past the point where the (minimal) saved hassle is worth
> the trouble.
The trouble is minimal, the hassle is almost certainly enough to lose
us some good edits.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscr
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >> > "They" didn't block editing. "You" did.
> >>
> >> Technically, yes, but they made it impossible for us to do anything
> else.
> >>
> >
> > I think at this point you have to describe what you mean by "block
> editing",
> > then.
>
> I th
>> > "They" didn't block editing. "You" did.
>>
>> Technically, yes, but they made it impossible for us to do anything else.
>>
>
> I think at this point you have to describe what you mean by "block editing",
> then.
I think we all know what "block editing" means. It's when you go to
Special:Bloc
2008/12/12 Anthony :
> If there is a one-to-one correspondence between IP addresses and users, then
> there isn't any anonymity, is there?
Not if you have the power to get ISPs to reveal what the
correspondence actually is no.
--
geni
___
foundation
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2008/12/12 Anthony :
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Florence Devouard >wrote:
> >
> >> If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they
> >> will block it for real. And they will block again editing.
> >
> >
> > "
2008/12/12 Anthony :
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
>
>> If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they
>> will block it for real. And they will block again editing.
>
>
> "They" didn't block editing. "You" did.
Technically, yes, but they made
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
> IMO, the best approach would be to have a channel (a phone number, an
> email address, etc...) where governments can contact the WMF to
> request that certain pages are blocked in certain countries. These
> entries can then be publicly listed,
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2008/12/12 Florence Devouard :
>
> > We all perfectly know that if this particular image was borderline,
> > there are images or texts that are illegal in certain countries. I am
> > not even speaking of China here, but good old westernish c
2008/12/12 Anthony :
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
>> If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they
>> will block it for real. And they will block again editing.
> "They" didn't block editing. "You" did.
Actually, Virgin Media, with whom (
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
> If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they
> will block it for real. And they will block again editing.
"They" didn't block editing. "You" did.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Dan Collins wrote:
>
> Do yo
2008/12/12 Michael Peel :
> IMO, the best approach would be to have a channel (a phone number, an
> email address, etc...) where governments can contact the WMF to
> request that certain pages are blocked in certain countries. These
> entries can then be publicly listed, so that people know that t
On 12 Dec 2008, at 10:52, Florence Devouard wrote:
> Now, seriously, what is more important right now ?
> That citizens can not read one article ?
> Or that all the citizens of a country can not edit all articles any
> more ?
>
> I would argue that the content of Wikipedia can be copied and
> d
--- On Fri, 12/12/08, Florence Devouard wrote:
> From: Florence Devouard
> Subject: [Foundation-l] and what if...
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Friday, December 12, 2008, 4:52 AM
> I can not help reflect further on the whole Virgin Killer
> story.
>
> Whilst I am very happy
I see Summer of Code is kind like gambling or a long term investment...
The metavid.org project was partially inspired by my SOC participation
as a student for mediaWiki in SOC 06. While metavid efforts will likely
not directly benefit Wikipedia until 2009. Metavid pioneered a lot of
the techno
2008/12/12 David Moran :
> I absolutely agree with Judson that we should be devoting exactly zero of
> our material and mental resources to thinking of ways to assist in the work
> of censors. The problems presented in this example are almost entirely
> those of a national legislature comfortable
"David Moran" wrote:
> I absolutely agree with Judson that we should be devoting exactly zero of
> our material and mental resources to thinking of ways to assist in the work
> of censors. The problems presented in this example are almost entirely
> those of a national legislature comfortable wi
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Long-time ago, I suggested adding a short-duration cookie whenever a
>> block was triggered that would allow the software to detect the most
>> obvious IP jumping vandals (asumming they used the same browser on the
>> same machine each time
2008/12/12 Robert Rohde :
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>>> Long-time ago, I suggested adding a short-duration cookie whenever a
>>> block was triggered that would allow the software to detect the most
>>> obvious IP jumping vandals (asumming they used the same browser
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Long-time ago, I suggested adding a short-duration cookie whenever a
>> block was triggered that would allow the software to detect the most
>> obvious IP jumping vandals (asumming they used the same browser on the
>> same machine each time)
I absolutely agree with Judson that we should be devoting exactly zero of
our material and mental resources to thinking of ways to assist in the work
of censors. The problems presented in this example are almost entirely
those of a national legislature comfortable with allowing private bodies to
m
> Long-time ago, I suggested adding a short-duration cookie whenever a
> block was triggered that would allow the software to detect the most
> obvious IP jumping vandals (asumming they used the same browser on the
> same machine each time). It doesn't get at the bulk of Tomek's
> criticism, but i
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>> Indeed, I don't see any alternative way to block anonymous users. Even
>>> forcing people to register wouldn't help since, without IP addresses,
>>> we can't block account creation by people creating new accounts every
>>> time one gets blo
>> Indeed, I don't see any alternative way to block anonymous users. Even
>> forcing people to register wouldn't help since, without IP addresses,
>> we can't block account creation by people creating new accounts every
>> time one gets block. What we need to do is put pressure on ISPs to use
>> XF
2008/12/12 Thomas Dalton :
> 2008/12/12 Dan Collins :
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>>> Well, the story with IWF have shown that the current system of
>>> blocking vandals by their IP has to be changed ASAP. In fact it is
>>> causing a lot of problems even without action
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Judson Dunn wrote:
> Not a response to your email, but the reaction in general strikes me
> as very inconsistent. With China they have been censored, they try and
> use TOR, and we block them, and say for years that there is
> regrettably nothing we can do about th
> Not a response to your email, but the reaction in general strikes me
> as very inconsistent. With China they have been censored, they try and
> use TOR, and we block them, and say for years that there is
> regrettably nothing we can do about this situation. UK gets blocked
> for a day and we are
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> The censorship issue isn't really an issue - if an image (or content
> or whatever) is genuinely illegal in a given country then of course
> that country has every right to block it. If countries block legal
> images (as in this case), or bl
2008/12/12 Dan Collins :
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>> Well, the story with IWF have shown that the current system of
>> blocking vandals by their IP has to be changed ASAP. In fact it is
>> causing a lot of problems even without action of IWF and other similar
>> wach
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> Well, the story with IWF have shown that the current system of
> blocking vandals by their IP has to be changed ASAP. In fact it is
> causing a lot of problems even without action of IWF and other similar
> wachdogs. There are more and more I
2008/12/12 Florence Devouard :
> Now, seriously, what is more important right now ?
> That citizens can not read one article ?
> Or that all the citizens of a country can not edit all articles any more ?
It isn't an either or.
> I would argue that the content of Wikipedia can be copied and
> dis
2008/12/12 Florence Devouard :
> We all perfectly know that if this particular image was borderline,
> there are images or texts that are illegal in certain countries. I am
> not even speaking of China here, but good old westernish countries.
> In some countries, it may be sexually-oriented picts.
I can not help reflect further on the whole Virgin Killer story.
Whilst I am very happy of the final outcome, and thank David Gerard and
WMF for having handled that very well, I feel also a big disatisfied by
the way we acknowledged what happen and discuss future steps.
We all perfectly know th
51 matches
Mail list logo
