Contrary to the widespread meme that Americans are ignorant, [some of
the] US diplomatic cables are precious material for studying cultural
diversity.
Building global movement requires reading documents about societies,
like this one [1] is. Analysis is fully accurate, although 7 years old
and
On 4 September 2011 05:33, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The committee running the vote on the features for the Personal Image Filter
have released their interim report and vote count. You may see the results
at
Blame the wording of the survey for not be clear enough?
_
*Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 4
Florence Devouard, 02/09/2011 21:11:
You seek to remove perceived conflicts of interest, even if that means
creating real conflicts of interest ?
Because there would be conflict of interest and rather BIG ONES.
We are facing rather severe challenges right now. Let's say it straight,
On Sep 3, 2011, at 18:15 , Thomas Dalton wrote:
Could you elaborate on the ways it can be made to work where the board
members with other affiliations have a vote?
Ways for voting members to serve more than one board include:
– Clarifying why mutual overlap is important: improve
Hello,
I would like to know: Is the introduction of WMF people on national
boards a serious idea, or is it just a whim, a piece of loud thinking,
and does not need to be discussed further?
Kind regards
Ziko
2011/9/4 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com:
Florence Devouard, 02/09/2011
I said from the beginning that this poll was too badly designed for anyone
to be able to draw useful conclusions from whatever the results are. I think
that has been proven correct.
A very large proportion of voters said they don't consider the feature
important. If they simply mean not important
Ziko van Dijk, 04/09/2011 14:26:
I would like to know: Is the introduction of WMF people on national
boards a serious idea, or is it just a whim, a piece of loud thinking,
and does not need to be discussed further?
If you're quoting me on purpose, I'd say it belongs to the realms of
On 4 September 2011 13:48, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
The Foundation needs to be mature enough to admit that they've screwed up
this survey, apologise and try again. Next time, start by figuring out what
you want to achieve by asking the questions and then choose the
On 4 September 2011 14:08, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote:
Frankly, I am quite unhappy about the referendum and share the
concerns expressed by Thomas. I think that the Foundation did not take
those Wikimedians serious who are opposed to the filter. The
Foundation avoided the
David Gerard, 04/09/2011 11:17:
The bimodal distribution in the first graph suggests this feature will
continue to be controversial (to say the least), with fans saying we
had the majority and foes saying there is clearly not a consensus.
Or that a successful plebiscite (as it's called in the
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 08:32:59AM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
So, to understand the circumstances around building community or
chapter in particular country, I strongly suggest reading relevant
cables.
3
Lots of work.
And, BTW, Wikipedia articles could be improved thanks to those cables.
Maybe whoever wrote the cable had been drinking too much Johnny Walker?
--
David Richfield
e^(πi)+1=0
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 08:32:59AM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
So, to understand the circumstances around building community or
chapter in particular country, I strongly suggest reading relevant
cables.
3
Lots of work.
And, BTW, Wikipedia articles could be improved thanks to those cables.
Yeah whatever was the final ruling on that, as to whether wikileaks cables
can be cited?
Dan Rosenthal
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 08:32:59AM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
So, to understand the circumstances around building
We consider WL to be a reliable source?
[1] http://wikileaks.org/cable/2006/01/06BELGRADE41.html
(goes off to read)
Leaked cables are primary sources, some of which pose problems because
they may contain non-public personal identifying information. Generally
the information in
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 03:08:54PM +0200, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
Hello,
On German language Wikipedia, there is a poll of its own.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter
Assuming that the .de community is similar to the wikimedia
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:36:10PM +0300, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
Leaked cables are primary sources, some of which pose problems because
they may contain non-public personal identifying information. Generally
the information in them becomes available for our purposes after they
have been
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 03:08:54PM +0200, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
Hello,
On German language Wikipedia, there is a poll of its own.
Walker, Wikipedia Ranger?
2011/9/4 David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com
Maybe whoever wrote the cable had been drinking too much Johnny Walker?
--
David Richfield
e^(πi)+1=0
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On 09/04/2011 07:43 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
Assuming that the .de community is similar to the wikimedia community at
large […]
That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
sense in German Wikipedia, since the German culture is generally pretty
liberal with respect to
2011/9/4 Jon Davis w...@konsoletek.com:
Walker, Wikipedia Ranger?
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2010/11/24/jimmy-wales-facts/
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 4 September 2011 20:11, church.of.emacs.ml
church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 09/04/2011 07:43 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
Assuming that the .de community is similar to the wikimedia community at
large […]
That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
sense in
On 4 September 2011 20:42, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September 2011 20:11, church.of.emacs.ml
church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com wrote:
That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
sense in German Wikipedia, since the German culture is generally
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika looks good to me (visually and
in Google translation).
(I realise you may have been asking more broadly than an educational context.)
You'll find them only in educational contexts as they are prohibited
by law in any other context in Germany and this
On 4 September 2011 20:50, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September 2011 20:42, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September 2011 20:11, church.of.emacs.ml
church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com wrote:
That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
On 4 September 2011 20:57, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I never said there was anything wrong with the German Wikipedia. I was
suggesting that swastikas might be something German people would want
to filter out, even if none of them are offended by sex, violence, or
images of
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 08:57:22PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
(I realise you may have been asking more broadly than an educational
context.)
I never said there was anything wrong with the German Wikipedia. I was
suggesting that swastikas might be something German people would want
to
On 4 September 2011 21:12, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, yes, quite plausibly (I'm not German so I can't say from
personal experience). That said, you can't go to an article called
[[Swastika]] and not expect to see swastikas, any more than you can go
to an article called [[Cock
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 21:42, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September 2011 20:11, church.of.emacs.ml
church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 09/04/2011 07:43 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
Assuming that the .de community is similar to the wikimedia community at
large […]
On 4 September 2011 21:16, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September 2011 21:12, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The trouble is that at its edges, education is fundamentally
disconcerting, upsetting and subversive. And that this is a matter
only of degree, not of kind.
On 4 September 2011 21:20, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
swastikas are not problem, but scorpions seem to be recently, haha:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
* http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
Well, en:wp allows fair use, but de:wp doesn't. Which averts
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:16:42PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
The trouble is that at its edges, education is fundamentally
disconcerting, upsetting and subversive. And that this is a matter
only of degree, not of kind.
I agree, and I would never turn on such a filter. That doesn't mean
On 4 September 2011 20:28, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:16:42PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I agree, and I would never turn on such a filter. That doesn't mean
that other people shouldn't be allowed to if they want to.
Right, but then they won't be
On 4 September 2011 20:28, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:16:42PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
The trouble is that at its edges, education is fundamentally
disconcerting, upsetting and subversive. And that this is a matter
only of degree, not of kind.
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:29:25PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 4 September 2011 20:28, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:16:42PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
The trouble is that at its edges, education is fundamentally
disconcerting, upsetting and
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 22:22, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September 2011 21:20, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
swastikas are not problem, but scorpions seem to be recently, haha:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
*
On 4 September 2011 20:38, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:29:25PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
They won't be educated *as much*. They can still be educated. If they
don't use Wikipedia at all because of fear of seeing things they don't
want to see (or,
On 4 September 2011 21:36, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 22:22, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September 2011 21:20, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
swastikas are not problem, but scorpions seem to be recently, haha:
*
It will be a lot easier to import from YouTube once Timed media handler adds
support for webm to commons. If you check out the wikivideo-l and commons lists
for some recent example YouTube to commons scripts. I know this is not super
useful info right this second, but there is hope on the
On 4 September 2011 21:44, Michael Dale md...@wikimedia.org wrote:
It will be a lot easier to import from YouTube once Timed media handler adds
support for webm to commons. If you check out the wikivideo-l and commons
lists for some recent example YouTube to commons scripts. I know this is
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 10:36:31PM +0200, rupert THURNER wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 22:22, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September 2011 21:20, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
swastikas are not problem, but scorpions seem to be recently, haha:
*
Yes (maybe). It's not at all clear that this use case should not be
ignored to avoid the possibility of compromising the encyclopedia.
I have to ask: if there's such a demand for a censored Wikipedia,
where are the third-party providers? Anyone? This is a serious
question. Even workplace
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Why? Because our mission is to make things free (as in speech).
You may have heard about that ;-)
Here is WMF's mission statement:
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people
around the
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 04:51:27PM -0400, Sarah Stierch wrote:
Yes (maybe). It's not at all clear that this use case should not be
ignored to avoid the possibility of compromising the encyclopedia.
Some workplace filters don't allow for certain subjects to be searched. I
work at a major
Hello,
I also detest the use of the word censorship, which is obviously out
of range here. It's simply about what individuals want to see or not.
Some Wikimedians are rather short sighted or ignorant towards the fact
that other people may think and feel differently.
Still, I had preferred to let
* There's nothing wrong with the filter program itself
* The problem is with categorizing things to work with such a program.
* This is called prejudicial labelling
* AMA defines prejudicial labelling as A censoring tool
* This definition has existed for over half a century.
We also have
On 4 September 2011 21:18, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I really wish people would read previous discussions.
But it's all LOL so simple if you don't.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 4 September 2011 22:18, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
I really wish people would read previous discussions.
Don't be passive aggressive ;)
I think it's an entirely reasonable statement, given what Kim's cited
in his reply is stuff that came up in the last week.
- d.
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 05:04:43PM -0400, Sarah Stierch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Why? Because our mission is to make things free (as in speech).
You may have heard about that ;-)
Here is WMF's mission statement:
...under a
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 5:23 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September 2011 22:18, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
I really wish people would read previous discussions.
Don't be passive aggressive ;)
I think it's an entirely reasonable statement, given what
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:15:28PM +0200, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
Hello,
I also detest the use of the word censorship, which is obviously out
of range here. It's simply about what individuals want to see or not.
Right, strictly speaking the issue is with the danger of prejudicial
labelling,
(Off-Topic post)
On 09/04/2011 09:53 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
Also, de.wikipedia uses Commons 100% iirc. Commons also only
hosts actual free (as in speech) images. Because -hey- that's
their mission.
That's almost correct :)
There are some exceptions due to a relative low Threshold of
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 05:30:11PM -0400, Sarah Stierch wrote:
in #wikilove (and frustration sometimes!),
You're certainly very graceful, online. :-)
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
On 09/04/2011 09:57 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I never said there was anything wrong with the German Wikipedia. I was
suggesting that swastikas might be something German people would want
to filter out […]
An empirical assumption I disagree with. Most people are imho only
offended by swastikas
On 4 September 2011 21:18, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I really wish people would read previous discussions.
I read the discussions, I just don't see any merit in the arguments.
Of course the labels are prejudiced, that's the whole point. People
can choose which prejudice they want
On 4 September 2011 22:50, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September 2011 21:18, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I really wish people would read previous discussions.
I read the discussions, I just don't see any merit in the arguments.
Of course the labels are
On 4 September 2011 22:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm glad the ALA-unbiased method of selecting labels is clear to
everyone. Oh, wait.
The selection of labels isn't supposed to be unbiased. Users select
whichever labels they want. All you have to do is make sure it's easy
for
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 10:50:26PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 4 September 2011 21:18, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I really wish people would read previous discussions.
I read the discussions, I just don't see any merit in the arguments.
Of course the labels are prejudiced,
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
The selection of labels isn't supposed to be unbiased. Users select
whichever labels they want. All you have to do is make sure it's easy
for people to create new labels if none of the existing ones fit their
needs,
On Sep 4, 2011 11:02 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 10:50:26PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 4 September 2011 21:18, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I really wish people would read previous discussions.
I read the discussions, I just
Hi Kim,
We keep rehashing the same debates because to some extent we disagree on
what some of the issues are, what some of the questions mean and even what
some of the words mean.
For example you still use the word censorship when talking about the image
filter, now to me censorship is about
On Sep 4, 2011 11:34 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
The selection of labels isn't supposed to be unbiased. Users select
whichever labels they want. All you have to do is make sure it's easy
for
On 04/09/2011 3:11 PM, church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
sense in German Wikipedia, since the German culture is generally pretty
liberal with respect to depictions of sexuality, (partially) violence
and of course Muhammed. So it's
On 04/09/2011 4:28 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Because they *demand* an Internet that acts as a one-way filter to
their bubble, enhancing without contradicting!
Even if they did (which I believe to not even be true of readers at
large -- just of a tiny but loud minority), I don't see how we're
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:54:44PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Yes, exactly! You're smart! :-)
Now, one definition of censorship is :
* Filtering on the basis of prejudicial labels.
We're not actually allowed to censor, because censorship is evil.
If we want to do this, we'll
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Philippe Beaudette
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The committee running the vote on the features for the Personal Image Filter
have released their interim report and vote count. You may see the results
at
On Sep 5, 2011 12:20 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:54:44PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Yes, exactly! You're smart! :-)
Now, one definition of censorship is :
* Filtering on the basis of prejudicial labels.
We're not actually allowed
On 5 September 2011 00:26, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Please define censorship because I think the word must mean something very
different to you than it does to me. To me it means one person stopping
another person from seeing something the first person doesn't want the
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:59:05PM +0100, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Hi Kim,
For example you still use the word censorship when talking about the image
filter, now to me censorship is about somebody deciding for someone else
what they can or can't see or hear. As long as the image filter is
On 04/09/11 14:33, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
Please note that the results are not final: although the vote count
is, and has been finalized, the analysis of comments is ongoing.
It would be nice to see a correlation analysis of some kind. For
example, it would be interesting to know whether
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 20:34, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Leaked cables are primary sources, some of which pose problems because
they may contain non-public personal identifying information. Generally
the information in them becomes available for our purposes after they
have been
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 04/09/11 14:33, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
Please note that the results are not final: although the vote count
is, and has been finalized, the analysis of comments is ongoing.
It would be nice to see a correlation
Dear all,
I completed a first draft:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RCom/OA/EU .
Daniel
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote:
[sorry for cross-posting]
I wanted to remind you all that the deadline of the European
consultation on Open Access and Open
starting from is there a tool has some truth :) if there would be an
itch, somebody would scratch it. if there is a real need a tool would
exist written by somebody. and if somebody really feels to use such a
tool, this person would switch it on.
because, contrary to a mediawiki parser and
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
I was mentioned in a leaked US diplomatic cable - with my name spelled
wrong!
http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/11/08SANTIAGO1015.html
Hilarious.
--Jimbo
Dy-no-MITE!
--
[[User:Ral315]]
For future Wikimanias, it may be helpful to have a small team led by a
video editing lead, that is expected to start their work at Wikimania
and finish two weeks after, to handle all of the video editing and
uploading. Including a contract with / sponsorship by a professional
videography shop
77 matches
Mail list logo
