Stillwater Rising wrote:
> Actually, it's not only the uploaders that have 18 USC 2257(A) record
> keeping requirements, *anybody* who "inserts on a computer site or service a
> digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a
> computer site or service that contains a visu
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Wouldn't it? Unless you're going to support what appears to be an
> unsupportable platform that "child porn" (or whatever you want to call it) is
> somehow different from any other type of content such as snuff films or
> instructions on how to build a fertilizer bomb
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>
> The illustration still fosters the notion of some overseeing
> gatekeeper on an article expressing editorial control— which is not
> the expected behaviour of the system, nor a desired behaviour, nor
> something we would even have the
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I have revised the graphic based on input from Andrew Gray and others.
>
> http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org:8080/~gmaxwell/flagged_protection3.png
That version's a lot better and clearer, for the record, I can
actually follow it now. :-)
--
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I have created a poster suitable for distribution to journalists
> http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org:8080/~gmaxwell/flagged_protection.png
I have revised the graphic based on input from Andrew Gray and others.
http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org:
Due to numerous requests we have extended the submission deadline for
Wikimania 2010 as follows:
* Abstract Registration: May 24, 11.59 p.m. (Pacific Time)
* Notification for workshops: May 29, 11.59 p.m. (Pacific Time)
* Notification for panels, tutorials, presentations: June 3, 11.59
p.m. (Pacif
Sadly, my greatest doubt lies more in the direction of
the delay being used to actually nullifying the original
agreeement reached, and actually the implementation
being something completely different, in the vain hope
that folks won't just be remembering what was agreed
to after all the hue and cr
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm preparing a patch against FlaggedRevs which includes changes that Howie
> and I worked on in preparation for the launch of its deployment onto
> en.wikipedia.org . We started first by creating a style guide describing
> h
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>>
>> Across the world the "Nobody is home" argument is quickly running out of
>>
>>> steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for
>>> its user's piracy, and blog owne
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 3:16 PM, William Pietri wrote:
> On 05/22/2010 09:25 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> If I were a betting man, I'd say the next
>> "deadline" will be "before Wikimania!" When that passes, everyone can get
>> distracted spending six months focusing on the annual fundraiser and we'l
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/22/2010 11:41:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>
>> <> DO
>> have the power, to delete submissions that are considered non
>> encyclopedic, trolling, libelous and etc. There is constant moderation
>> on by or
On 05/22/2010 09:25 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> If I were a betting man, I'd say the next
> "deadline" will be "before Wikimania!" When that passes, everyone can get
> distracted spending six months focusing on the annual fundraiser and we'll
> see you in 2011. Think I'm wrong? Prove it.
>
Would
In a message dated 5/22/2010 11:41:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
> < DO
> have the power, to delete submissions that are considered non
> encyclopedic, trolling, libelous and etc. There is constant moderation
> on by or on behalf of the foundation. If not t
MZMcBride wrote:
> No, it really isn't a legitimate concern.
Contrary to your claim that "nobody cares," some of us obviously do.
Does this mean that we're in on the conspiracy, or have we merely been
brainwashed to go along with it?
Or is it possible that people simply disagree with you in good
Mike Godwin wrote:
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
> Across the world the "Nobody is home" argument is quickly running out of
>> steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for
>> its user's piracy, and blog owner found liable for user submitted libel.
>>
>
> It he
It is EXTREMELY important to use proper expressions. Otherwise you
will create confusion and even scare people away.
When I helped preparing the introduction of "flagged revisions" on
Dutch Wikipedia I came up with "marked versions". Above all, it's
versions we are talking about, not "revisions" w
David Levy wrote:
> The feature's name is a legitimate concern, and I see no attempt to
> erect any hurdles. (On the contrary, Rob unambiguously noted that
> time is of the essence.)
No, it really isn't a legitimate concern. It wasn't a legitimate concern
when the "AbuseFilter" was enabled and ev
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Still Waterising wrote:
>
> However, when that image is selected for reuse (and not in an automated
> way, but by an actual human) on an article page, user page, or off-wiki that
> person also becomes a secondary producer.
>
Can you point me to which case you are
On 05/21/2010 07:03 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
>
>> implementation, and there's no "flagging" in the proposed configuration.
>> Additionally, "protection" in our world implies "no editing" whereas this
>>
> [snip]
>
>>- Must
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
Across the world the "Nobody is home" argument is quickly running out of
> steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for
> its user's piracy, and blog owner found liable for user submitted libel.
>
It helps to actually read the stories
David Goodman gives a very fair and accurate summary of our interactions in
the AmSci Forum (though I would not have said that some were unfriendly --
just impatient, on my part; and if anything, I'm even more impatient now
that another half-decade has gone by and we still don't have universal OA!)
On 22 May 2010 02:09, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> While that is true, making up names without any real thought is what
> has resulted in the mess we have now where most people have no idea
> what the differences are between Wikipedia, Wikimedia and MediaWiki,
> since the names are all so similar. I thi
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Your over-broad reading of this law would effectively gut that other
> law which states that a "host" company is not responsible for what
> people are hosting.
>
> Wouldn't it? Unless you're going to support what appears to be an
> unsupportable platform that "child porn
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> The foundation does not "own and operate" the site in the way that Fox news
> owns and operates their site.
> The foundation merely ensures that the site operates, functions, runs.
> It does not edit the contents of the site. That is the fundamental flaw in
> this argu
2010/5/21 Delphine Ménard
> ...we should not forget, that there are on Commons some of the most
> beautiful images I've ever seen in my entire life.
>
> Free. As in Speech.
>
> Thanks for that reminder, Delphine.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation
25 matches
Mail list logo
