Hello Elias,
Welcome to the mailing list.
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva
tolkiend...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/5/9 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com:
(..)
board to do things is to give guidance to the communities. But, this
topic is already pending for years.
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
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
Being educational should be just another word for being in scope, and
in scope are, in my opinion, in the first place those files that are
usable for the
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
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
On 10/05/10 15:25, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
of Trustees?
Jimmy Wales determined the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation when
he created it. He and Bomis donated the relevant assets, such as the
domain names, to
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
Tim Starling hett schreven:
On 10/05/10 15:25, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
of Trustees?
Jimmy Wales determined the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation when
he created it. He and Bomis donated the
On 05/10/2010 03:11 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
On 10/05/10 15:25, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
of Trustees?
Jimmy Wales determined the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation when
he created it. He and Bomis
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
2010/5/10 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
Hello Elias,
Welcome to the mailing list.
Hi! ^^
Are you a member of the Board of Trustees or something?
Could you inform me if the whole board has this kind of position?
No, the whole Board does not have this position. (not to speak for
others
Dear all,
It is with great pleasure that we announce the third in a series of events
exploring academic research perspectives on Free Culture. After Sapporo and
Boston, the event moves this year to Berlin and expands to a 2-day
conference! Please see below for the details and click on the links
-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
Dear Derk-jan,
As for 1), I think youtube can be compared in populairity and size with
wikipedia, and in videos surpasses commons.
Youtube enables its visitors to tag videos as adult.
see for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA22WSVlCZ4
kind regards,
Teun Spaans
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 6:27 PM, teun spaans teun.spa...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Derk-jan,
As for 1), I think youtube can be compared in populairity and size with
wikipedia, and in videos surpasses commons.
Youtube enables its visitors to tag videos as adult.
I think there is a difference
Presumably you mean nude female breast, and then you are involved with
exactly the nudity definition dilemma you allude to. If you mean
nude or clothed, Every full or half length picture of a woman seen
from the front or side contains a depiction of the female breast.
As another consideration, If
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/05/2010 22:10, Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Aphaia aph...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any option to tell them commons has its own mailing list
instead of adding it to the foundation-l?
I think Austin touched upon
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/05/2010 05:51, Andre Engels wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
Being educational should be just another word for being in scope, and
2010/5/10 Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva tolkiend...@gmail.com:
I sincerely don't personally care much about Muhammad pictures, for
example. If people decided to delete them, I would simply think they
are too afraid of offending, but I wouldn't care that much. (I know
that being very notable
-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
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,
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
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
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
Hello,
I think it would be good to have an open meeting (or a few) to discuss
the wider Wikimedia community, project governance, and recent issues
on Commons and Meta. Przykuta suggested an IRC meeting soon.
For those who are available, please join us in #wikimedia on
Wednesday, at 1900 UTC.
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
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
For those who are available, please join us in #wikimedia on
Wednesday, at 1900 UTC. (for those who dislike IRC, there's a link
* on the page below to a webclient you can use to connect.)
For everyone, please add topics
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
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
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
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
Despite Content Purge, Pornographic Images Remain on Wikimedia
By Jana Winter
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-remains/
Any attempt to filter ourselves is not addressing the fact that the
images exist at all on Commons.
Any attempted appeasement of these
Hello,
I think it would be good to have an open meeting (or a few) to discuss
the wider Wikimedia community, project governance, and recent issues
on Commons and Meta. Przykuta suggested an IRC meeting soon.
For those who are available, please join us in #wikimedia on
Wednesday, at 1900
David Levy writes:
Agreed. As some predicted, Fox News has cited Jimbo's actions as
validation that its earlier claims were correct. And because any
graphic images remain, this means that we're aware of an egregious
problem and have made only a token effort to address it.
Essentially,
Mike Godwin wrote:
The hidden assumption here -- an incorrect assumption, in my view -- is that
there is some universe of possibilities in which Fox News would not have
cited Jimbo's *inaction* as validation that it was correct. I infer from
this comment that you imagine that if Jimbo had not
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Instead, Jimbo has essentially announced to the world that Fox News
was correct. And until we purge our servers of every graphic image,
we knowingly retain our self-acknowledged state of indecency.
Can you point me
The Fox article helpfully describes how to find those cartoon illustrations
depicting child sex acts
Would anyone be interested in seeing how many times those pictures were viewed
prior to Fox's article, and after the article came out? Dirty hands is an
effective legal counter-claim is it
Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion that
Fox News was correct?
I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw
upon encountering Jimbo's remarks first-hand, with or without reading
Fox's subsequent reports on the matter.
David Levy
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
that
Fox News was correct?
I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw
upon encountering Jimbo's remarks first-hand,
On 10 May 2010 22:32, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
that
Fox News was correct?
I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my
Mike Godwin wrote:
Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
that Fox News was correct?
I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw
upon encountering Jimbo's remarks first-hand, with or without reading
Fox's subsequent reports
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is anyone here really concerned by Fox News actions? From the beginning
it seemed to me that what they were barking about were of no impact:
they would confirm the WMF's opponents in their opinions and obtain an
indifferent or amused shrug from the
This is excellent advice from David. I could not agree more regarding Fox
News; ignore them. They won't go away, but any reaction feeds their
nonsense.
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Noein wrote:
Is anyone here really concerned by Fox News actions? From the beginning
it seemed to me that what they were barking about were of no impact:
they would confirm the WMF's opponents in their opinions and obtain an
indifferent or amused shrug from the rest of the world. Am I wrong?
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 May 2010 22:32, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
that
Fox News
Hi,
Le lundi 10 mai 2010 13:25:29, David Gerard a écrit :
Any attempt to filter ourselves is not addressing the fact that the
images exist at all on Commons.
Any attempted appeasement of these vicious morons was and is
counterproductive at best. Fox News is best aggressively ignored from
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you draw that conclusion?
Your equivocation on this point is wearisome.
I don't know what you mean by equivocation here. I'm not equivocating, so
far as I know. Perhaps I'm just not understanding what you mean by
Mike Godwin wrote:
Do you mean the vast majority of persons in Earth's population? I don't
imagine much of Earth's population is even aware of the story, much less
Jimmy's actions.
Of course not. I mean the vast majority of persons encountering
Jimbo's statements.
David Levy
Let us assume for a minute that would not have taken any action whatsoever.
Seeing Fox's habit of stretching and turning the truth upside down i would
not be surprised if the next headline would have been Wikipedia or
Pedopedia? - Online encyclopedia endorses child pornography. Eventually the
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
Fox News (or at least this reporter and her editors) have dedicated
themselves to damaging Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects. This is a
given, and it is evident from their behavior. *Any* followup story would
have demonstrated what these days in the U.S. we are calling epistemic
closure
I've read most of the replies in this thread, And i think I should
point out a few things out:
* The omg tagging for any reason is censorship mentality is a
needless, Yes we tag things presently *shock horror* look at the
currently category system.
* Omg adding this to Mediawiki will destroy
On 10/05/10 20:51, Delirium wrote:
That isn't really true, though. He recruited volunteers with the promise
of the free-content license for sure, and with a sort of implicit
promise of a generally free-culture / volunteer-run encyclopedia. If he
had *not* promised anything, he would have
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#An_initial_notice_to_reduce_surprises
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#An_initial_notice_to_reduce_surprises
_
Rock on!
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 05/10/2010 02:57 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo's actions were
ridiculously damaging for *no gain whatsoever*.
I understand that you believe this. But it depends on what you mean by
damage and on what you
On 10 May 2010 22:57, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo's actions were
ridiculously damaging for *no gain whatsoever*.
I understand that you believe this. But it depends on what you mean by
damage and on what you mean by no gain. The thesis has been advanced
here that Jimmy's
First of all, this is entirely my own opinion, not that of the board,
and anyone who quotes it as a statement of the WMF will get promptly
crushed by a giant puzzle globe.
I absolutely sign on to the board statement[1]. Commons should not be
a host for media that has very little informational or
59 matches
Mail list logo
