Am 13.03.2012 03:39, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
It's not me who's uploading hundreds of pornographic media onto Wikimedia
sites. There are places for porn online, just like there are places for
online poker, and amateur digital art. I have no problem with any of them.
But listen to yourself – you
Am 13.03.2012 10:39, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 13.03.2012 03:39, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
No. I'm not accusing you for prudery, but for making wrong cited
statements. Your assumption is that we have
I'm tired to reply to this kind of comments since I said anything
important multiple times already. So I will keep it as that and only
write the following:
Sorry, but your comments are total bullshit¹ and you know it.
¹ includes strong language, overly repeated selective examples,
bending
Am 12.03.2012 23:14, schrieb Andrew Gray:
On 11 March 2012 00:23, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 March 2012 22:15, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The image filter may not be a good solution, but too much of the
response involves saying we're fine, we're neutral, we
Am 09.03.2012 15:34, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
The question you have to ask yourself, where is the value in Commons when
we do not optimise it as much as possible so that it will be the repository
of choice of freely licensed imagery.
Thanks,
GerardM
That's right. But why did the current
Am 09.03.2012 18:15, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Neil Babbagen...@thebabbages.com wrote:
If you ran a charity store committed to providing educational products
free to all who needed them you wouldn't get many children as customers if
you put hardcore sex products
Am 07.03.2012 23:41, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
Juliana,
You simply don't understand where I am coming from.
I have nothing against Wikimedia websites hosting adult content, just like
I have nothing against the far greater amounts of explicit adult material
on Flickr for example. What saddens me
Am 08.03.2012 01:53, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 07.03.2012 23:41, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
Sorry to interrupt you. But as i can see, you constantly rage against
sexuality in any form. I came to this little
Am 05.03.2012 19:21, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
I agree you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, and you have my
sympathy.
However, I would like you to consider what our users get when they do a
Multimedia search for male human in Wikipedia:
Am 01.12.2011 10:53, schrieb John Vandenberg:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
... The downstream
use objection
was *never* about downstream use of _content_ but downstream use of _labels_
and
the structuring of the semantic data. That is a
Am 01.12.2011 20:06, schrieb Tom Morris:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 09:11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
This is not a theoretical risk. This has happened. Most famously in
the case of Virgin using pictures of persons that were licenced under
a free licence, in their
Am 29.11.2011 10:32, schrieb Tom Morris:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:09, Möller, Carstenc.moel...@wmco.de wrote:
No, we need to harden the wall agaist all attacks by hammers, screwdrivers
and drills.
We have consensus: Wikipedia should not be censored.
You hold strong on that principle.
and still be useful -
except for one that gives users the option to hide all images by default
and then click on the greyed out images to load them if they want to see them.
--
Alasdair (User:ajbpearce)
On Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 11:37, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 29.11.2011 10:32
Am 29.11.2011 12:09, schrieb Andre Engels:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
If the filter is predefined then it might meet the personal preference
and can be easy to use. But it will be an violation of NPOV, since
someone else (a group
Am 29.11.2011 13:03, schrieb MZMcBride:
Alasdair wrote:
If the feeling is that such a weak filter would (regardless of how the
pre-populated filter lists are created) still attract significant
opposition on many projects then I personally don't see how there can be
any filter created that is
Am 29.11.2011 13:45, schrieb David Gerard:
On 29 November 2011 12:03, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
What i found to be the best solution so far was the blurred images
filter. You can 'opt-in' to enable it and all images will be blurred as
the default. Since
Am 29.11.2011 14:28, schrieb Alasdair:
On Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 13:42, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
With the tiny (actually big) problem that such lists are public and can
be directly feed into the filters of not so people loving or extremely
caring ISP's.
I think this is a point that I
Am 29.11.2011 14:40, schrieb Andre Engels:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
The problem starts at the point where the user does not choose the
image(s) for himself and uses a predefined set on what should no be
shown. Someone will have
Am 29.11.2011 14:48, schrieb Andre Engels:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
I neither agree. We decide what belongs to which preset (or who will do
it?), and it is meant to filter out controversial content. Therefore we
define what
Am 29.11.2011 23:47, schrieb Kim Bruning:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 09:09:04AM +0100, M?ller, Carsten wrote:
... but -if we want to reach consensus[1]- what we really need to be
discussing is: screwdrivers.
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
No, we need to harden the wall agaist all attacks by
Am 30.11.2011 00:04, schrieb Kim Bruning:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:48:24PM +0200, Itzik Edri wrote:
Hi,
*I happy to announce that all the videos from Wikimania 2011 in Haifa are
now available on our channel in YouTube!: http://www.youtube.com/WikimediaIL
.*
*
?
nya~
Am 26.11.2011 15:41, schrieb Tom Morris:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 14:59, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm a little bit confused by this approach. On the one side it is good
to have this information stored privately and personal, on the other
side we encouraging
Am 24.11.2011 15:09, schrieb MZMcBride:
Andreas K. wrote:
The way this would work is that each project page would have an Enable
image filtering entry in the side bar. Clicking on this would add a Hide
button to each image displayed on the page. Clicking on Hide would then
grey the image, and
That shouldn't be the issue. The question is the effect. What would make
you more pleased, a standard message/template that you did good, or a
personal message from someone from who you know yourself that he watched
over your work? Personally, I doubt that a simple template machine could
lead
Am 23.10.2011 08:30, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 22:56 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
the use case this does not serve?
Are you even trying to pretend to be serious? Use case: me reading an
article.
It is my
Am 23.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is
intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you
No, it is intended to let people discriminate
Am 23.10.2011 15:46, schrieb WereSpielChequers:
--
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 02:57:51 +0200
From: Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] category free image filtering
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Am 23.10.2011 17:19, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 10:31 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 23.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is
intended
Am 23.10.2011 17:24, schrieb Andrew Garrett:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
A neutral all-or-nothing image filter would not have such side effects
(and would also neatly help low bandwidth usage).
It would also make the project useless. I don't want to
Am 23.10.2011 19:32, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
On 23.10.2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be
allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a
censorship tool.
Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow
If something is useful or not, shouldn't be the question. Alt least the
WMF seams to see it that way, because it is very doubtful that the image
filter is useful for the project, for its goals, growth and development.
I would invite the Board to view the movie Schoolbreak Special: The Day
They
Am 22.10.2011 22:16, schrieb David Gerard:
Unless nuances of the translation are inaccurate - is this the case?
Do you see wiggle room in the original German phrasing?
There is no room for interpretation. It clearly says that no category
based filtering of any illustrative media will be
Am 22.10.2011 22:21, schrieb Erik Moeller:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:16 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
This would appear to indicate the opposition is to *any* personal
image filter per the Board resolution, and the category-based proposal
additionally as an example of such rather
Am 22.10.2011 22:31, schrieb Erik Moeller:
What am I proposing, Jussi-Ville? So far, the only material proposal
I've made as part of this debate is here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/069077.html
And, I don't think you're being accurate, historically or
Am 22.10.2011 23:23, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:16 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In
contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
Foundation, personal image filters should not be introduced
Am 22.10.2011 23:44, schrieb Erik Moeller:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
No one said it would be evil. But since we already have working
solutions for this projects, why do we need another, now global,
solution, based on categories
Am 23.10.2011 00:13, schrieb Erik Moeller:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and
the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?
1) Add a collapsible [*] parameter
Am 23.10.2011 01:57, schrieb Billinghurst:
On 22 Oct 2011 at 15:36, Erik Moeller wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte
And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
the use case this does
Am 23.10.2011 01:49, schrieb WereSpielChequers:
Hi Tobias,
Do youhave any problems with this category free proposal
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter
WereSpelChequers
The idea isn't bad. But it is based on the premise that there are enough
users of the filter to
Am 19.10.2011 23:19, schrieb Philippe Beaudette:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
I ask Sue and Philippe again: WHERE ARE THE PROMISED RESULTS - BY PROJECT?!
First, there's a bit of a framing difference here. We did not initially
Am 19.10.2011 11:07, schrieb Andrew Garrett:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but that is not proof of what we as a community understand the
principle to mean, it means the board is on crack.
That's not a helpful contribution to this
Am 18.10.2011 09:57, schrieb Tom Morris:
On Tuesday, October 18, 2011, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 17 Oct 2011, at 09:19, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comjavascript:; wrote:
I have no problem with any kind of controversial content. Showing
progress of fisting on the mainpage
Am 18.10.2011 14:00, schrieb Thomas Morton:
On 18 October 2011 11:56, Tobias
Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:
That controversial content is hidden or that we
provide a button to hide controversial content is prejudicial.
I disagree on this, though. There is a balance between
Am 18.10.2011 17:23, schrieb Thomas Morton:
That comes down to the two layers of judgment involved in this proposal.
At first we give them the option to view anything and we give them the
option to view not anything. The problem is that we have to define what
not anything is. This imposes our
Am 18.10.2011 19:04, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
From: Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
Am 18.10.2011 11:43, schrieb Thomas Morton:
It is this fallacious logic that underpins our crazy politics of
neutrality which we attempt to enforce on people (when in practice we lack
neutrality
Am 18.10.2011 23:20, schrieb Andreas K.:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
You said that we should learn from Google and other top websites, but at
the same time you want to introduce objective criteria, which neither of
this websites did
Am 16.10.2011 21:27, schrieb ???:
On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search
In the last weeks i hold myself back and watched over the comments at
multiple places to see what is the current development. At first i have
to point out that I'm very disappointed by the current progress. Sue
called for a more general discussion. Ting stated again, like in
Nürnberg, that it
Am 16.10.2011 12:53, schrieb ???:
On 11/10/2011 15:33, Kim Bruning wrote:
flame on Therefore you cannot claim that I am stating nonsense.
The inverse is true: you do not possess the information to support
your position, as you now admit. In future, before you set out to
make claims
Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for
Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was
complaining about
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
on and that we should stay patient. How many weeks ago
this request was made? I did not count anymore...
Seriously pissed off greetings from
Tobias Oelgarte / user:niabot
Am 09.10.2011 16:12, schrieb Ting Chen:
Hello Tobias,
the text of the May resolution to this question is ... and that the
feature
Am 05.10.2011 10:46, schrieb Ray Saintonge:
On 10/04/11 6:03 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
The question is that the server are in USA, but for the penal law it's
sufficient to edit from the Italian country.
I am in a special situation because I live in Switzerland and I
publish in USA servers,
Am 30.09.2011 17:06, schrieb Bishakha Datta:
...
**I am also dismayed at the use of the word 'censorship' in the context of a
software feature that does not ban or block any images. But somehow there
doesn't seem to be any other paradigm or language to turn to, and this is
what is used as
Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date:
I would prefer to read these comments in context and not in snippets.
Can you point me to the corresponding discussion(s)?
-- Niabot
Am 30.09.2011 19:02, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
Tobias, you be the judge whether I misunderstood my fellow Wikipedians'
comments. Here are some verbatim quotes,
Am 29.09.2011 17:00, schrieb Nathan:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:45 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against
any imposed filter is just *weird*. Not mentioning it, and not
acknowledging why someone would do that, doesn't
Am 24.09.2011 23:40, schrieb :
On 23/09/2011 17:46, Kim Bruning wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:43:14AM +1000, Stephen Bain wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Kim Bruningk...@bruning.xs4all.nl
wrote:
The survey was not a poll or referendum, and did not address the
fundamental
Am 25.09.2011 00:15, schrieb :
On 24/09/2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:
On 24 September 2011 22:40, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
The last I heard the German people, as expressed through their
lawmakers, DO NOT want their kids looking at porn or images that are
excessively
Am 25.09.2011 00:43, schrieb David Gerard:
On 24 September 2011 23:00, Phil Nashphn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
The IWF just did not understand how access to Wikipedia works; a strange
situation, given their mission. And it wasn't helped by their publicity at
the time, IIRC. Fortunately, they
Am 25.09.2011 01:10, schrieb Jussi-Ville Heiskanen:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Phil Nashphn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
wrote:
On 24/09/2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:
On 24 September 2011 22:40, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.ukwrote:
The last I heard the German people, as
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
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
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.
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
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
intern for
Einstürzende Neubauten. So don't think I don't love my Germans ;-) (and
Bayern Munich is my favorite team!)
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Please don't do the rhetorical trick that a mass of users would support
some point
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
Am 22.09.2011 05:15, schrieb Bjoern Hoehrmann:
* David Gerard wrote:
233 would be a *large* turnout on en:wp. What is a large turnout on de:wp?
Most Meinungsbilder have between 100 and 300 editors participating and
the 300s are seen regularily. Participation maxes out at around 500 so
large
Am 22.09.2011 08:07, schrieb Kanzlei:
Am 21.09.2011 um 22:37 schrieb David Gerarddger...@gmail.com:
On 21 September 2011 21:20, Kanzleikanz...@f-t-hofmann.de wrote:
This poll was not representative for wikipedia readers, but only for some
German wikipedia editors. Scientifically research
Am 22.09.2011 23:55, schrieb Andrew Gray:
On 21 September 2011 14:14, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
The real problem here is that if there was a real market for stupid
sites like that, they would already be there. And they are not, which
does seem to point to the
Am 22.09.2011 23:49, schrieb Andrew Gray:
On 21 September 2011 18:20, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Truthfully, i see not different approach to include images and text
passages. Both are added, discussed, removed, re-added the same way as
text is. Now i heard some
Am 23.09.2011 01:21, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
And where would the problem be? If a user prefers to go to a Bowdlerised site
like that,
rather than wikipedia.org, where they will see the pictures unless they
specifically ask not
to see them, then that is their choice, and no skin off our
Am 21.09.2011 16:43, schrieb Milos Rancic:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 15:16, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 September 2011 14:14, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
The real problem here is that if there was a real market for stupid
sites like that, they would
Am 21.09.2011 16:53, schrieb phoebe ayers:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:10 PM, phoebe ayersphoebe.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
This seems like an over-hasty statement. There are many possible
categorization schemes
Am 21.09.2011 17:21, schrieb Jussi-Ville Heiskanen:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:53 PM, phoebe ayersphoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:10 PM, phoebe ayersphoebe.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
This
Am 21.09.2011 17:37, schrieb WereSpielChequers:
I get the idea that there are theoretical reasons why image filters can't
work, and I share the view that the proposal which was consulted on needs
some improvement. An individual choice made at the IP level was a circle
that looked awfully
Am 21.09.2011 18:31, schrieb Kanzlei:
Am 21.09.2011 um 17:36 schrieb Tobias
Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com:
It's your basic philosophy that sucks. It's _not_ the choice of the
reader to hide image he don't like. It's the choice of the reader to
hide image that others don't like! Now
Am 21.09.2011 18:41, schrieb Andrew Gray:
On 21 September 2011 16:53, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
They do it by crowdsourcing a mass American bias, don't they?
An American POV being enforced strikes me as a problematic solution.
(I know that FAQ says global community. What they
Am 21.09.2011 18:45, schrieb Milos Rancic:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 18:00, David Levylifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Some people won't be content until Wikipedia's prose conveys their
cultural/religious/spiritual beliefs as absolute truth. Should the
WMF provide en.[insert belief
Am 21.09.2011 18:56, schrieb Michael Snow:
On 9/21/2011 7:53 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:10 PM, phoebe ayersphoebe.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
This seems like an over-hasty statement.
Am 21.09.2011 19:10, schrieb Thomas Dalton:
On 21 September 2011 14:06, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote:
You didn't understand me well. It's not about fork(s), it's about
wrappers, shells around the existing projects.
* en.safe.wikipedia.org/wiki/whatever would point to
Am 21.09.2011 19:36, schrieb Kanzlei:
Am 21.09.2011 um 19:04 schrieb Tobias
Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com:
Don't you think that we would have thousands of complaints a day if your
words would be true at all? Just have a look at the article [[hentai]]
and look at the illustration.
Am 21.09.2011 19:37, schrieb Milos Rancic:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 19:10, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the advantage of that compared with the feature as it was
originally proposed? All you've done is made the URL more complicated.
You'll still need to use user
Am 21.09.2011 20:05, schrieb Andre Engels:
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
Am 21.09.2011 21:02, schrieb Milos Rancic:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 20:47, David Levylifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
Don't worry! Any implementation of censorship project would lead to
endless troll-fests which would be more dumb than Youtube comments.
The point is just to
Am 21.09.2011 21:28, schrieb Sue Gardner:
On 21 September 2011 11:10, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 21.09.2011 19:36, schrieb Kanzlei:
Am 21.09.2011 um 19:04 schrieb Tobias
Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com:
Don't you think that we would have thousands
Am 21.09.2011 22:20, schrieb Kanzlei:
Am 21.09.2011 um 20:10 schrieb Tobias
Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com:
Am 21.09.2011 19:36, schrieb Kanzlei:
Am 21.09.2011 um 19:04 schrieb Tobias
Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com:
Don't you think that we would have thousands of
Am 21.09.2011 22:37, schrieb David Gerard:
On 21 September 2011 21:20, Kanzleikanz...@f-t-hofmann.de wrote:
This poll was not representative for wikipedia readers, but only for some
German wikipedia editors. Scientifically research found that Germa editors
are not representative for
Am 21.09.2011 21:52, schrieb Sue Gardner:
On 21 September 2011 12:37, Bjoern Hoehrmannderhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* Sue Gardner wrote:
Yes we put the vulva on the main page and it got quite some attention.
We wanted it this way to test out the reaction of the readers and to
start a discussion
Am 21.09.2011 23:53, schrieb Bjoern Hoehrmann:
* Sue Gardner wrote:
Does it mean basically this: deWP put the Vulva article on its front
page, and then held a poll to decide whether to i) stop putting
articles like Vulva on its front page, because they might surprise or
shock some readers, or
Am 22.09.2011 00:07, schrieb Andrew Gray:
On 21 September 2011 18:04, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
One of the problems with the discussions about the image filter is
that many of them argue - I paraphrase - that Wikipedia must not be
censored because it would stop
Am 22.09.2011 00:20, schrieb Robert Rohde:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:00 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
The board resolution specifies a magical flying unicorn pony that
shits rainbows. A wide-ranging survey has been conducted on the
precise flight patterns and the importance of
Am 22.09.2011 00:42, schrieb Bjoern Hoehrmann:
* Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
The poll asked whether there should be formalized restrictions beyond
the existing ones (only good articles can be proposed). Voters decided
against that and to keep the status quo instead where it is decided on
a case
Many contributers to the poll mentioned that the categorization by
sensitivities is already a big problem in itself. At first, as you
mentioned, it can be misused. Either by third parties which could use it
for aggressive filtering (completely hidden/cot out images) or directly
at the Wiki
Am 19.09.2011 15:33, schrieb m...@marcusbuck.org:
Zitat von Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com:
The second problem will be the categorization progress. We would
categorize the images for others, not our selfs, and we also have no
sources for argumentation. But there is another
Am 19.09.2011 18:08, schrieb Stephen Bain:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
We discussed this already and came to the conclusion, that you would
need hundreds of these categories to filter out most of the
objectionable content.
And once
Am 18.09.2011 09:46, schrieb Andre Engels:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Wikimedia *used* to hold the position that we wouldn't aid China to block
images of the Tianamen Massacre, and went to great lengths to assure
that chinese users of
Am 18.09.2011 13:56, schrieb Andre Engels:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 18.09.2011 09:46, schrieb Andre Engels:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Wikimedia *used* to hold
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
