Yes we are aware of such pages. Just search for google safe version
and so on. At first you will find plugins from Google for browsers
itself, that can be used to enable the filter as an default option. If
you scroll down a bit, then you will find other pages that are using
Google to perform
How odd, checking Tobias' list, I tried
http://www.safesearchkids.com/wikipedia-for-kids.html to look for
penis and it recommended [[File:Male erect penis.jpg]] as the second
match. I was expecting it to restrict me to the more rounded and
educational encyclopaedia entries, not straight to the
Am 23.09.2011 10:27, schrieb Fae:
How odd, checking Tobias' list, I tried
http://www.safesearchkids.com/wikipedia-for-kids.html to look for
penis and it recommended [[File:Male erect penis.jpg]] as the second
match. I was expecting it to restrict me to the more rounded and
educational
Tobias,
That is not quite what I thought we were talking about, because these are
set-ups made on an individual computer, rather than restrictions at the
internet service provider level.
For example, I would not have a problem with it if schools figured out a way to
prevent access to
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
...
I believe Saudi Arabia has sporadically blocked access to Wikipedia, and
blocks access to porn sites at the Internet service provider level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Saudi_Arabia
I gave you a simple example on how easy it would be to use our
categorization to implement a filter based upon those categories.
The sources on that this actually happens are not rare if we look at
china or Iran. The problem are many local providers over which you will
seldom find a report.
On 23 September 2011 11:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Wikipedia was also briefly blocked in Pakistan, because of the Mohammed
cartoon controversy. So there might be a scenario where countries like Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan figure out how to block access to adult images and
Thanks. It was surprising the info wasn't in these articles already.
Do we know what the current status of Wikipedia is in Saudi Arabia? Blocked or
accessible?
There also seems to be some confusion about whether or not Wikipedia is blocked
in China:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 04:50:03AM -0700, Robert Rohde wrote:
I have had the impression that the oh-my-god-think-of-the-children
crowd was at least 95% of the reason we were discussing this entire
endeavor.
So how about the folks who don't want to see kids exposed to
filters? (serious
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:20:06PM +0100, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 22 September 2011 12:19, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
One of the objections is that we don't want a Flickr style system which
involves images being deleted, accounts being suspended and the burden of
After some thinking I come to the conclusion that this whole
discussion is a social phenomenon.
You probably know how some topics when mentioned in newspaper articles
or blogs spur wild arguments in the comments sections. When the
article mentions climate change commentators contest the
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 04:43:08PM +0200, emijrp wrote:
Hi all;
I have written an essay (my first one)[1] about the idea There is a
deadline. It is opposite to the old essay (from 2006) which holds that
there is no deadline.
Wow, excellent text. The only downside to stating that there is a
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 02:03:00PM +0200, m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
After some thinking I come to the conclusion that this whole
discussion is a social phenomenon.
I think the same is happening here. The majority of people probably
think that an optional opt-in filter is a thing that
On 21/09/2011 19:05, Andre Engels wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
I still can't the a rational difference between images included in
articles by the will of the community and text passages included by the
will of the community.
+1
You've just posted what many of us think and feel. I read the transcript for
office hours with Sue from yesterday and it was the same thing. 45 minutes of
image filter skepticism and more. I'm glad I couldn't attend it, seemed like a
painful and unintellectual experience to sit through.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:27:41AM +0100, Fae wrote:
How odd, checking Tobias' list, I tried
http://www.safesearchkids.com/wikipedia-for-kids.html to look for
penis and it recommended [[File:Male erect penis.jpg]] as the second
match. I was expecting it to restrict me to the more rounded and
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:38:18AM +0100, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Wikipedia was also briefly blocked in Pakistan, because of the Mohammed
cartoon controversy. So there might be a scenario where countries like Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan figure out how to block access to adult images and images
Am 23.09.2011 14:03, schrieb m...@marcusbuck.org:
After some thinking I come to the conclusion that this whole
discussion is a social phenomenon.
You probably know how some topics when mentioned in newspaper articles
or blogs spur wild arguments in the comments sections. When the
article
As I see it, if the personal image filter categories can be exploited by
censors to restrict image access permanently and irrevocably, this could result
in the following scenarios:
1. A country or ISP that currently does not censor access to Wikipedia switches
to access without the categorised
Please don't do the rhetorical trick that a mass of users would support
some point of view without actual proof. (You've just posted what many
of us think and feel.)
The chat was of course dominated by the word German. It's the one and
only poll that states the opposite to the view of the
You may need to add additional points:
5. A country or ISP does not unblock Wikipedia because he doesn't think
that it's a usable alternative for a full block, even if he could filter
the images based on the filter. (It already works, why step down...)
6. A country or ISP that only hides
All that I'm saying is that I THINK the majority of the people on this
mailing list are bored and tired of the conversation and it's the same 10
people who seem to be arguing it and I think that many people on this list
probably have no strong opinion, or fairly mainstream beliefs, about the
Am 23.09.2011 15:01, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
All that I'm saying is that I THINK the majority of the people on this
mailing list are bored and tired of the conversation and it's the same 10
people who seem to be arguing it and I think that many people on this list
probably have no strong
On 23 September 2011 14:01, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
And all the data in the world right now is not going to change the way I
feel, and this stuff just frustrates me.
I too heartily endorse MPOV as a foundational Wikimedia principle.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MPOV
Am 23.09.2011 14:03, schrieb m...@marcusbuck.org:
I think the same is happening here. The majority of people probably
think that an optional opt-in filter is a thing that does no harm to
non-users and has advantages for those who choose to use it. (Ask your
gramma whether You can hide pictures
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
However, poll data suggests otherwise (taking the de.wikipedia
sample). AFAIK it's a minority that want filters, with a majority
that doesn't.
The dewiki poll had 300 participants, the one on meta over 23,000.
--
On 23 September 2011 14:57, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote:
The dewiki poll had 300 participants, the one on meta over 23,000.
There was a poll on meta which asked do you want the filter? I'd
love a link to it.
- d.
___
foundation-l
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:57:01PM +1000, Stephen Bain wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
However, poll data suggests otherwise (taking the de.wikipedia
sample). AFAIK it's a minority that want filters, with a majority
that doesn't.
The
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:18:21AM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote:
Extension Babel is now deployed.
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Babel
Thank you Roan.
Oh noes! The start of the userboxen debacle is now internalized in
teh codes! ;-)
OTOH, babel boxes actually were/are useful from
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:19:48PM +0100, B?ria Lima wrote:
+1
On 21 September 2011 08:11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.comwrote:
+1
Please, enough with the plussing!
This isn't G+ or /. . It is not
conducive to a consensus debate. :-/
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
--
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:01:54AM -0400, Sarah Stierch wrote:
I'm not the only one, and again, I'M PUTTING MY TRUST, in WMF to make the
decision. That's what I make donations to the foundation every month for.
That's why I donate my time to contributing to Wikimedia projects.
Meh, they're
Such school and safesearch variations already exist. Why waste
donor's money creating more?
I find it significant that the WMF has been unable to tell us how much
the exercise has cost so far apart from informal vague claims that it
was tiny or a couple of week's of someone's time. Projects using
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 04:22:15PM +0200, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
On 23/09/11 16:08, David Gerard wrote:
On 23 September 2011 14:57, Stephen Bainstephen.b...@gmail.com wrote:
The dewiki poll had 300 participants, the one on meta over 23,000.
There was a poll on meta which asked do you
Zitat von Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 02:03:00PM +0200, m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
I think the same is happening here. The majority of people probably
think that an optional opt-in filter is a thing that does no harm to
non-users and has advantages for those
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 14:03, m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
After some thinking I come to the conclusion that this whole
discussion is a social phenomenon.
You probably know how some topics when mentioned in newspaper articles
or blogs spur wild arguments in the comments sections. When the
On 23 September 2011 16:17, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously, majority of those who have small number of edits --
who represent specific part of readers, those who have opinion toward
Wikipedia articles, but who don't want to spend their time on editing
Wikipedia -- they are in
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 17:20, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 September 2011 16:17, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously, majority of those who have small number of edits --
who represent specific part of readers, those who have opinion toward
Wikipedia articles, but
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 05:02:42PM +0200, Marcus Buck wrote:
Zitat von Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 02:03:00PM +0200, m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
The arguments that the filter could aid in censorship for evil
governments or organizations seems a bit
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
The survey was not a poll or referendum, and did not address the
fundamental question of whether this feature is wanted.
The only actual poll I am aware of which asked this question was on
de.wikipedia.
My point is
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 18:43, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote:
My point is that the dewiki poll being worded in a manner that is
pleasing to people who have critiqued the Foundation-wide survey does
not render it representative, when it was participated in by at most
one eightieth
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:43:14AM +1000, Stephen Bain wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
The survey was not a poll or referendum, and did not address the
fundamental question of whether this feature is wanted.
The only actual poll I am
Dear Press: a self-described 13 YO joined Wikiproject Pornography. Wikipedians
support him. webcitation.org/61v0ykxJe
webcitation.org/61v1FfW3K
- http://twitter.com/#!/lsanger/status/117299089439334400
The on-wiki argument is that there are many areas in that project that don't
Marcus Buck wrote:
The majority of people probably think that an optional opt-in filter is
a thing that does no harm to non-users and has advantages for those who
choose to use it. (Ask your gramma whether You can hide pictures if you
don't want to see them sounds like a threatening thing to
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 20:42, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
I find it odd that some are inclined to discount the German
Wikipedia's poll on the basis that it reflects the views of editors
(as opposed to readers as a whole). Setting aside the general
public's ignorance of the WMF
Am 23.09.2011 19:26, schrieb Kim Bruning:
Dear Press: a self-described 13 YO joined Wikiproject Pornography.
Wikipedians support him. webcitation.org/61v0ykxJe
webcitation.org/61v1FfW3K
- http://twitter.com/#!/lsanger/status/117299089439334400
The on-wiki argument is that there are
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 19:26, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Dear Press: a self-described 13 YO joined Wikiproject Pornography.
Wikipedians support him. webcitation.org/61v0ykxJe
webcitation.org/61v1FfW3K
- http://twitter.com/#!/lsanger/status/117299089439334400
Who cares
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 21:20, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
There are around 300M of readers and less than 30k of the extended
poll of editors, which brings number of 0,01%. Thus, not just
poll = pool
___
foundation-l mailing list
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 16:27, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Such school and safesearch variations already exist. Why waste
donor's money creating more?
Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be
easily assumed that at least 10% of ~$10M given by US citizens and
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:35:18PM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 19:26, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Dear Press: a self-described 13 YO joined Wikiproject Pornography.
Wikipedians support him. webcitation.org/61v0ykxJe
webcitation.org/61v1FfW3K
? ? ? ?-
On 23 September 2011 21:44, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 16:27, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Such school and safesearch variations already exist. Why waste
donor's money creating more?
Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be
Milos Rancic wrote:
There are around 300M of readers and less than 30k of the extended
pool of editors, which brings number of 0,01%. Thus, not just
irrelevant, but much less than the margin of statistical error.
You appear to have ignored my points regarding non-editors'
unfamiliarity with
Milos Rancic wrote:
Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be
easily assumed that at least 10% of ~$10M given by US citizens and
corporations want to have a kind of family friendly Wikipedia. Thus,
$1M/year is fair price for creating something which would please
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 00:51, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
There are around 300M of readers and less than 30k of the extended
pool of editors, which brings number of 0,01%. Thus, not just
irrelevant, but much less than the margin of statistical error.
You
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 00:51, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be
easily assumed that at least 10% of ~$10M given by US citizens and
corporations want to have a kind of family friendly Wikipedia.
New RFC on image filter, for wikisource, being setup on meta. Please
help set it up, and please contribute! :-)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Image_filter_on_Wikisource
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
___
foundation-l
55 matches
Mail list logo
