Hi all. Thanks so much for all the encouragement my last email received.
Replying to Ting's:
Point 1-- NOTCENSORED isn't what you think it is:
So, the first thing to realize is that our NOTCENSORED policies are
far more narrow than you seem to suspect:
• In the case of traditional
Ting Chen wrote:
Hello Alec,
I don't oppose people 'censoring' themselves if that's truly their
choice-- what I oppose is someone censoring US against our consent.
What I oppose is WMF trying take a NONCENSORED project swap out
NPOV/NOTCENSORED in favor of a fiat-imposed
Hello Alec,
at first thank you for the long mail. It would take me some time to
write my own answer but I don't want to make a hasty and unconsidered
reply. So if the answer comes a little late, please accept my honest
apolozies. My reaction to your mail is very complicated. There are a lot
A child seeing such a page will ordinarily go instead to something
they understand. Unless we're talking about teen-agers.
I see this as an excellent example of the slippery slope we would be
in if we did anything targeted at facilitating censorship, especially
considering the author of the book
Wikipedia images and pages normally have descriptive titles. If you want to
prevent children seeing bad stuff on the internet, set up a web blocker.
Mind you, if you want to prevent children seeing bad stuff on the internet,
best to raise them in an Amish village.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:05 PM,
Hoi,
Children in Romania know what to expect of a
pizdăhttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pizd%C4%83#Romanian,
children in Indonesia know it for the
tempikhttp://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=tempikaction=editredlink=1..
They are both descriptive and you do not know at all that you want to
look
David Goodman wrote:
A child seeing such a page will ordinarily go instead to something
they understand. Unless we're talking about teen-agers.
I see this as an excellent example of the slippery slope
Would that be the slippery slope to the thin end of the wedge perchance?
we would be
in
On 7/24/10 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
In other words cultural context is usually just an
excuse for POV pushing of various kinds.
Actually, I think the opposite is true. Right now we impose our
arbitrary Western moral standards on the rest of the world, and because
those standards are
On 26 July 2010 20:08, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
failure
offer filtering. Frankly, we're already filtering content, even on
en.wiki, but only according to a default Western/American POV. We use
line drawings instead of photos in articles on sex positions.
And this was a
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 7/24/10 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
In other words cultural context is usually just an
excuse for POV pushing of various kinds.
Actually, I think the opposite is true. Right now we impose our
arbitrary Western
On 26 July 2010 20:40, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
If photos of Tienanmen protests are
forbidden in China, we should remove them for population from China.
I certainly hope you're saying this as an attempt at reductio ad absurdum.
- d.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:43 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 July 2010 20:40, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
If photos of Tienanmen protests are
forbidden in China, we should remove them for population from China.
I certainly hope you're saying this as an attempt at
I don't think using an illustration of Bukake rather than a photo is a
failure of neutrality, but perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on
that. Regardless, as a global project, we need to seriously consider
what steps we can take to accommodate cultures very different from our
own, while
I should make the disclaimer that all of my opinions expressed on this
list are as a community member rather than a WMF employee. I have no
official involvement in the current study or any decision making power
thereof. I just code donation banners :)
Ryan Kaldari
On 7/26/10 2:14 PM, Ryan
On 26 July 2010 22:14, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I don't see anything
threatening about Mr. Harris evaluating the issues,
As has been pointed out several times already, the presumption that
there is a case to answer. (#5 on the original board resolution.)
I note also that
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:43 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 July 2010 20:40, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
If photos of Tienanmen protests are
forbidden in China, we should remove them for
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
to see its content.
Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out the correct
parameters for default IP access. Each language version of any
project could make its own determination in this regard. Arabic, no
Mohammed images; India, no sex and kissing; Dutch and
2010/7/25 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out
the correct parameters for default IP access. Each language
version of any project could make its own determination in
this regard. Arabic, no Mohammed
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
2010/7/25 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out
the correct parameters for default IP access. Each language
version of any project could make its own determination in
this regard.
/7/10, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk
wrote:
From: wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for
Potentially-Objectionable Content
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 1:12 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
I think you are confused. It is not a POV not to display images by
default if those images can be accessed by a simple mouse click, it is
simple good manners. For example I may want to read about 'Tribute
pictures':
Milos, when I am talking about the possibility of a censored default for IP
access, I am talking about the types of censorship Flickr and YouTube are
using. They categorise their content on the basis of whether it is moderate or
explicit adult content.
This has not resulted in Serbian YouTube
From: Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
And what about words? Do you think that one devoted
homophobic
Christian would be willing to see [relevant] citation
inside of some
general article that Jesus was gay?
If it is not acceptable to someone to see pornographic
content, it is
highly
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I was not aware of the Flickr situation in Germany. Are some of their
servers based in Germany?
As far as I am aware, the German Bundesprüfstelle für
jugendgefährdende Medien[1] and the Kommission für Jugendmedienschutz
(KJM) are limited in what they can do about
On 25 July 2010 18:17, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
You're right, it is not just about images. If I set up a censored account for
a small child, I should be able to set it up in such a way that they won't be
able to see articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogg_(novel) or
George Herbert wrote:
Is there in fact sufficient evidence that this is a topic that the
Foundation must, or should, engage in actively at this time?
I know why the Foundation has an inclination to get involved - people
ask about it, and some very uncomfortable stuff finds its way into
I have no idea whether anything in here is productive or just
reiteration of the same old themes. I doubt it will be coherent or
persuasive, but this discussion is too important not to try to say
something. Opinions were solicited, so here's such an opinion.
I don't really know if a
Conroy alecmcon...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for
Potentially-Objectionable Content
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Saturday, 24 July, 2010, 15:47
I have no idea whether anything in
here is productive or just
On 24 July 2010 18:28, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
- That IPs are shown a mildly censored version, and that seeing the
uncensored version of Wikipedia requires registering an account and setting
the preferences up accordingly.
And this is where it all breaks down. Once you start
On 24 July 2010 18:39, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 July 2010 18:28, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
- That IPs are shown a mildly censored version, and that seeing the
uncensored version of Wikipedia requires registering an account and setting
the preferences up accordingly.
geni wrote:
On 24 July 2010 18:28, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
- That IPs are shown a mildly censored version, and that seeing the
uncensored version of Wikipedia requires registering an account and setting
the preferences up accordingly.
And this is where it all breaks down.
--- On Sat, 24/7/10, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
- That IPs are shown a mildly censored version,
and that seeing the uncensored version of Wikipedia requires
registering an account and setting the preferences up
accordingly.
And this is where it all breaks down. Once you start
On 25 July 2010 00:46, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out the correct parameters
for default IP access. Each language version of any project could make its
own determination in this regard. Arabic, no Mohammed images; India, no sex
On 25 July 2010 01:07, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
This didn't save Encarta. They did this as a marketing move. They
threw neutrality out the window as a marketing move [1]. That this is
a blatant distortion was problematic enough that Britannica took them
up on it [2]. I recall a
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out
the correct parameters for default IP access. Each language
version of any project could make its own determination in
this regard. Arabic, no Mohammed images; India, no sex and
kissing; Dutch and
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
No, not filtered according to what *we* think, but filtered according to what
the local editor community in that project think is appropriate to their
cultural context.
I am completely unsure how to react after this
Hello,
(all below are my private opinion.)
I'm strongly supporting the No censorship camp, and as of such i am
against any wiki-wide measures that would make content unavailable, with the
argument that people can choose whether or not to look at offensive content,
but people cannot choose
to illustration should
reflect the approaches used in the most reliable sources on the subject.
Instead, we have [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] ...
Andreas
(Jayen466)
--- On Fri, 23/7/10, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
From: Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions
Meta-question -
Is there in fact sufficient evidence that this is a topic that the
Foundation must, or should, engage in actively at this time?
I know why the Foundation has an inclination to get involved - people
ask about it, and some very uncomfortable stuff finds its way into
Commons and the
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:52 AM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there in fact sufficient evidence that this is a topic that the
Foundation must, or should, engage in actively at this time?
I know why the Foundation has an inclination to get involved - people
ask about it,
On 7/23/10 3:52 PM, George Herbert wrote:
Meta-question -
Is there in fact sufficient evidence that this is a topic that the
Foundation must, or should, engage in actively at this time?
That seems to be one of the questions that Robert Harris is trying to
answer.
Ryan Kaldari
Hello Robert,
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:59 AM, R M Harris rmhar...@sympatico.ca wrote:
the time has come, I think, to actively begin a discussion within the
communities
about some of the questions which I've encountered, specifically around
Commons
and images within Commons.
I'd love to
Hello. It’s Robert Harris once again. It’s been just over a
month since I began working on the study commissioned by the Wikimedia Board on
Potentially Objectionable Content on WMF projects. During that time, I’ve
spoken to many people inside and outside Wikimedia, but the time has come, I
On 22 July 2010 12:59, R M Harris rmhar...@sympatico.ca wrote:
I’ve posted a series of questions for discussion on the Meta page that hosts
the study
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content.)
Please feel free to visit the page and contribute to the
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:04 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at the contributors so far, I'm not sure that discussion is
recoverable to any form of usefulness.
1. Checked and agreed.
2. I am not going to discuss with well known censorship trolls.
3. If this would be the main
On 22 July 2010 16:32, R M Harris rmhar...@sympatico.ca wrote:
May I just reply to thank Excirial for the excellent suggestions
re:formatting contained in his thoughtful reply (I'll look them over
carefully) and just to note a couple of things. I'm well aware of the
long-standing debates
You have my sympathy to - no matter what the outcome is, some if not
many people will label it censorship, directly or indirectly. We dont
censor has been an standard argument so far in any attempt to
regulate upload of images or discussion of features that some people
obviously want.
kind
*You have my sympathy to - no matter what the outcome is, some if not many
people will label it censorship, directly or indirectly. We dont censor
has been an standard argument so far in any attempt to
regulate upload of images or discussion of features that some people
obviously want.*
Come
On 22 July 2010 20:10, Excirial wp.excir...@gmail.com wrote:
I would, however, strongly support a system that gives users
a choice to censor if they wish. It should be possible to categorize commons
in such a way that certain images can be blocked. For example, a user might
choose to block
Hi Excirial,
I think I am completely factual. After I wrote this, I went to the
questionlist and found the cry we dont censor in one of the
reactions. Which proves my point, I think. You yourself use that term
in your email.
Personally i find labeling your opponents view as censorship a way
of
On 22 July 2010 21:01, teun spaans teun.spa...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I am completely factual. After I wrote this, I went to the
questionlist and found the cry we dont censor in one of the
reactions. Which proves my point, I think. You yourself use that term
in your email.
Well, we don't.
R M Harris
.. but the time has come, I think, to actively begin a discussion
within the communities about some of the questions which I've
encountered, specifically around Commons and images within Commons. ...
I look forward to the comments of any of you who wish to join the
discussion.
David Gerard wrote:
On 22 July 2010 16:32, R M Harris rmhar...@sympatico.ca wrote:
May I just reply to thank Excirial for the excellent suggestions
re:formatting contained in his thoughtful reply (I'll look them over
carefully) and just to note a couple of things. I'm well aware of the
David Gerard wrote:
On 22 July 2010 21:01, teun spaans teun.spa...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I am completely factual. After I wrote this, I went to the
questionlist and found the cry we dont censor in one of the
reactions. Which proves my point, I think. You yourself use that term
in your
*If I were to make an account with the user name CumInYourCornflakes or
HitlerMyHero there'd be someone all over the account within minutes,
blocking banning, and deleting.*
Hem, is that information? I would have trouble calling that Raw data,
let alone information. Keep in mind that there are
Excirial wrote:
*If I were to make an account with the user name CumInYourCornflakes or
HitlerMyHero there'd be someone all over the account within minutes,
blocking banning, and deleting.*
Hem, is that information? I would have trouble calling that Raw data,
let alone information. Keep in
56 matches
Mail list logo
