On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Julius Redzinski
julius.redzin...@hotmail.de wrote:
On such a decision the Board should have before making any decision researched
really what raeders expect and want and this with empathy for different
regions and
the understanding that germany maybe has
If the members of de.wikipedia.org are *unaffected by explicit sexual
images* because there are already ahead as they practice bondage or
BDSM, it doesn't mean that all person of the world are so evolute in
sexual matters.
I find these sorts of comments personally offensive, likely to disrupt
I have learnt this morning that the Timedmedia extension is not yet
installed on wikimedia sites, but its meant to replace the existing
player (1).
As I was uploading videos, and needed some specific tools, I happened
the other day to use the mwEmbed gadget on Wikimedia Commons which
seems to be
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
If I search Commons for electric toothbrushes, the second search result is
an image of a woman masturbating with an electric toothbrush:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchsearch=electric+
If the video player actually worked for anything, it would be a problem. But
it doesn't and therefore it isn't.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
I assume that you, before sending this email to a mailing list that is not
exactly technical in nature,
In the news today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8818827/Parents-to-be-urged-to-report-sexual-imagery-aimed-at-children.html
The Prime Minister will unveil Parentport, an online complaints site targeted
at mothers and fathers who have concerns about their children being exposed to
--
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:17:21 -0700
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial
Content
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Also in today's Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/11/david-cameron-porn-filter-isps?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
ISPs moved quickly to insist that the provisions will only apply to people
taking out completely new contracts, who will be offered the choice of a
connection with
On 11 October 2011 15:08, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Also in today's Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/11/david-cameron-porn-filter-isps?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
ISPs moved quickly to insist that the provisions will only apply to people
taking out completely
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 07:19:00AM +0530, Theo10011 wrote:
...,a viable alternative to not relying blindly on the categorization
system, would be implementing a new image reviewer flag on en.wp and maybe
in commons. This method would create a list of reviewed images that can be
considered
...,a viable alternative to not relying blindly on the categorization
system, would be implementing a new image reviewer flag on en.wp and maybe
in commons. This method would create a list of reviewed images that can be
considered objectionable, that could be filtered/black-listed.
We could
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:53:55PM -0400, Risker wrote:
Kim, I am getting the impression you are being deliberately obtuse.
No, I'm being exhaustive. I wanted to ensure that there is no hair
of a possibility that I might have missed a good faith avenue.
(I wouldn't have asked this question
From: Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk
We could also just delete them, unless someone actually uses them in a
sensible way in an article. :-)
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
Not on Commons; being objectionable to some viewers and not being
currently in use does not make a potentially educational
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
If I search Commons for electric toothbrushes, the second search result is
an image of a woman masturbating with an electric toothbrush:
David,
You asked for a reply to your earlier questions.
As has been mentioned numerous times, deeming certain subjects (and
not others) potentially objectionable is inherently subjective and
non-neutral.
Unveiled women, pork consumption, miscegenation and homosexuality are
considered
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 18:19, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
If we provide a filter, we have to be pragmatic, and restrict its application
to media that significant demographics really might want to filter.
That should be designed well and maintained, too. I am really
frustrated by
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
If the members of de.wikipedia.org are *unaffected by explicit sexual
images* because there are already ahead as they practice bondage or
BDSM, it doesn't mean that all person of the world are so evolute in
sexual matters.
I
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
If we provide a filter, we have to be pragmatic, and restrict its application
to media that significant demographics really might want to filter.
Define significant demographics. Do you have a numerical cut-off
point in mind (below which we're to convey you're a small
Am 11.10.2011 17:42, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
From: Faef...@wikimedia.org.uk
We could also just delete them, unless someone actually uses them in a
sensible way in an article. :-)
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
Not on Commons; being objectionable to some viewers and not being
currently in
MediaWiki serves more than the Wikimedia Foundation too. ~~Ebe123
On 11-10-11 4:42 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 17:42, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
From:
Faef...@wikimedia.org.uk
We could also just delete them, unless someone
actually uses them in a
Here, in Spain, we are talking about Wikidocumentals. I.e, documentals
about wikipedia articles.
It will be easy: upload video cuts, and then all the GFDL work will fall
upon production work, you know: voice, dubbing, visual effects... mashup...
It's the same way to make a BBC documental about
OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should
meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the
objections that I'm aware of. Just as importantly it should actually work.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk
We could also just delete them, unless someone actually uses them in a
sensible way in an article. :-)
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
Not on Commons; being objectionable to some viewers
From: Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
Someone on Meta has pointed out that Commons seems to list sexual image
results for search terms like cucumber, electric toothbrushes or pearl
necklace way higher than a corresponding Google search. See
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
Someone on Meta has pointed out that Commons seems to list sexual image
results for search terms like cucumber, electric toothbrushes or pearl
necklace way higher
What you are all missing here is that commons is a service site, not a
repository
for the public to go into without knowing it caters to different
cultures than their
own. Period.
--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
___
foundation-l
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:55:46PM +0100, WereSpielChequers wrote:
OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should
meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the
objections that I'm aware of. Just as importantly it should actually work.
From: David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
If we provide a filter, we have to be pragmatic, and restrict its
application
to media that significant demographics really might want to filter.
Define significant demographics. Do you have a numerical cut-off
point in
On 11 October 2011 21:51, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:55:46PM +0100, WereSpielChequers wrote:
OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should
meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the
By modern day standards the image is more comical than titillating
*by our Finnish standards* --- but would be highly suspect in the US,
atleast
if the deletion debate for that image at commons is to be given credence
to...
It is a horrendously useless illustration of Pedophilia (from the
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:55 PM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should
meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the
objections that I'm aware of. Just as importantly it should
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
By modern day standards the image is more comical than titillating
*by our Finnish standards* --- but would be highly suspect in the US,
atleast
if the deletion debate for that image at commons is to be given
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2011, 22:40
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content -
Commons searches
What you are all missing here is that
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:20:15PM +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 11 October 2011 21:51, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:55:46PM +0100, WereSpielChequers wrote:
OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should
meet most of
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I would use indicators like the number and intensity of complaints received.
For profit-making organizations seeking to maximize revenues by
catering to majorities, this is a sensible approach. For most WMF
projects, conversely, neutrality is a fundamental, non-negotiable
From: David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I would use indicators like the number and intensity of complaints received.
For profit-making organizations seeking to maximize revenues by
catering to majorities, this is a sensible approach. For most WMF
projects, conversely,
* David Gerard wrote:
Not sure the blurring system would do the job for a workplace. At a
distance, the blurred penis still looks exactly like a penis ...
There are many alternatives to a blur effect. A much simpler effect
would be a Small Images option that shrinks all images to icon size.
The
Call be dumb, but is there a denomination of Islam that is disallowed
from looking at images of Muhammed?
Bob
On 10/11/2011 5:17 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
We need to look at mainstream issues (including Muhammad images).
___
foundation-l mailing list
Zooming out may work for individuals like you, but for folks like me,
it's actually a distraction, and I try to see what the tiny picture is,
staring at it until it makes sense. Yay for ADHD:-\
Bob
On 10/11/2011 8:17 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* David Gerard wrote:
Not sure the blurring
Ideally, this would be as transparent as possible, so that should not be
an issue if all goes well.
Bob
On 10/11/2011 8:17 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
I'd wonder how they feel about adding some notice like Seeing this
image makes some people feel bad to the image caption for all images
that
* Bob the Wikipedian wrote:
Zooming out may work for individuals like you, but for folks like me,
it's actually a distraction, and I try to see what the tiny picture is,
staring at it until it makes sense. Yay for ADHD:-\
Zooming out is something that works for me pretty much everywhere
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* Bob the Wikipedian wrote:
Zooming out may work for individuals like you, but for folks like me,
it's actually a distraction, and I try to see what the tiny picture is,
staring at it until it makes sense. Yay for
42 matches
Mail list logo
