On 03/09/12 10:00 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 10 March 2012 00:57, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 03/09/12 6:06 AM, Neil Babbage wrote:
Wikimedia is not supposed to be some kind of exercise in perfection for
perfection's sake. It's supposed to be open, accessible and useful.
On 11 March 2012 00:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 March 2012 22:15, Andrew Gray andrew.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 don't need to
do anything and leaving it
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
Wikipedia as long as it is perfect.
This attitude strikes across the core principle of the movement to make
knowledge available to all.
--Original Message--
From: Ray Saintonge
To: n...@thebabbages.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter
Sent: 10 Mar
On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Neil Babbage n...@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
Thomas Morton wrote:
Give as a clear message, that Wikipedia/Wikimedia will never assist in
hiding knowledge.
The day that Wiki*edia changes its mission from providing access to free
knowledge to enforcing our view of knowledge on you, would be a saddening
day.
You've excluded Wiktionary,
On 9 March 2012 14:17, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
We also work quite well as a filter of information. And it is improving
this that we are currently discussing.
Improving the filtering of information is a critical facet of making it
accessible to as many people as
On 10 March 2012 22:15, Andrew Gray andrew.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 don't need to
do anything and leaving it there; this isn't the case, and we do need
to think seriously
The ugly content censors are raising their heads again.
Just stop it and dont spend any more funds on this.
I understand between the lines that it was stopped in order to protect the
fundraiser from unwanted discussions in the public.
Give as a clear message, that Wikipedia/Wikimedia will
Give as a clear message, that Wikipedia/Wikimedia will never assist in
hiding knowledge.
The day that Wiki*edia changes its mission from providing access to free
knowledge to enforcing our view of knowledge on you, would be a saddening
day.
Tom
___
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote:
Give as a clear message, that Wikipedia/Wikimedia will never assist in
hiding knowledge.
The day that Wiki*edia changes its mission from providing access to free
knowledge to enforcing our view of
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote:
Give as a clear message
-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote:
Give as a clear message, that Wikipedia/Wikimedia will never assist in
hiding knowledge
Hoi,
With all due respect, there are plenty of images that do not particularly
add to the sum of all wisdom. There are plenty of images in that category
that do not add anything at all to what is already there.
Commons has as its motto: a database of
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
On 9 March 2012 14:47, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:
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
On 9 March 2012 14:50, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
Partly because it is the low hanging fruit (i.e. the thing that will have
the most impact in forwarding our goals of accessible knowledge).
Citation needed.
- d.
___
Hoi,
Forget about Mr Larry Fox, I have never met him and I do not care really
what he has to say. It is not even relevant if it is the first question to
be tackled, it is an issue that is being tackled. The one thing that is
relevant is: is this something that prevents the use of Commons. If this
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Neil Babbage n...@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 right by the entrance.
^^^ This. ^^^
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
On 9 March 2012 17:34, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
The little difference is that we aren't a store and have no front or back
room. We are a skyscraper with an elevator and hundreds of buttons for every
floor, while kids tend to press on any button at once.
No, we are
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 02:17:28PM +, Thomas Morton wrote:
Improving the filtering of information is a critical facet of making it
accessible to as many people as possible. If a Muslim refuses to go to
Wikipedia because of our image policy - which we (realistically) impose on
him - then we
On 03/09/12 6:06 AM, Neil Babbage wrote:
Wikimedia is not supposed to be some kind of exercise in perfection for
perfection's sake. It's supposed to be open, accessible and useful.
Useful, like notable is another of those words that cannot be easily
defined. In many otherwise
On 10 March 2012 00:57, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 03/09/12 6:06 AM, Neil Babbage wrote:
Wikimedia is not supposed to be some kind of exercise in perfection for
perfection's sake. It's supposed to be open, accessible and useful.
Useful, like notable is another of those
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 01/12/2011 7:58 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
[...] yes, we may be building up a list of categories that could be
reused by censorware sellers, but that’s not our primary intention.
I'm sorry, but who the fsck
On 07/12/2011 4:47 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Uhm, that was not actually what I wrote, but what I was rebutting
Oh! Err, well, then you are obviously correct. Carry on! :-)
-- Coren / Marc
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 01/12/2011 7:58 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
[...] yes, we may be building up a list of categories that could be
reused by censorware sellers, but that’s not our primary intention.
I'm sorry, but who the fsck cares about intentions? The road to hell is
paved with the best ones. The
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
]]
--
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 19:06:50 +
From: Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal
filter lists
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID
On 2 December 2011 11:00, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
A fourth area of contention is money and specifically whether this is a
legitimate use of the money donated to the movement. We've already had one
UK board member ask awkward question re this.
Wikimedia
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 14:55:29 +0200
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal
filter lists
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
CAJ9
On 2 December 2011 14:36, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
My reading of that is that the board has agreed to drop the idea of a
filter based on our category system, but unfortunately they haven't yet
agreed to drop the idea that someone controlling an IP could censor what
On 2 December 2011 14:50, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 December 2011 14:36, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com
wrote:
My reading of that is that the board has agreed to drop the idea of a
filter based on our category system, but unfortunately they haven't yet
agreed
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:36 PM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
We already have a no censorship policy that makes various exceptions. For
Example Paedophilia advocates get blocked on site on EN wikipedia. There
may in the past have been a consensus against any change to
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I being dense, or are you being silly? Blocking advocacy from a site with
a NPOV policy is a bajillion miles from being censorship.
It may be a bajillion miles, I still think it's closer to it than
giving the
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I being dense, or are you being silly? Blocking advocacy from a site with
a NPOV policy is a bajillion miles from being censorship.
@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter
lists
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 03:34, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
While I don't find that line of argument to be a fully fledged
straw-horse argument, it
does appear to me to be a cherry-picked argument to
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 real horse of a
different colour, and not
of
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 03:34, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
While I don't find that line of argument to be a fully fledged
straw-horse argument, it
does appear to me to be a cherry-picked argument to
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 08:53:09PM +1100, John Vandenberg wrote:
The latter can be solved by labelling but not filtering. If you are
on the train and a link is annotated with a tag nsfw, you can not
click it, or be wary about the destination page.
Dude, no. That's prejudicial labelling.
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 03:34, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
While I don't find that line of argument to be a fully fledged
straw-horse argument, it
does appear to me to be a cherry-picked argument to
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 advertising campaign. I hesitate to call this
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
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
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
I was drawing an analogy: the point I was making is very simple - the
general principle of we shouldn't do X because someone else might
reuse it for bad thing Y is a pretty lousy argument, given that we do
quite a lot of
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 13:28, Alasdair w...@ajbpearce.co.uk wrote:
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
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:21 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, the issue is not dead.
That's correct; nobody from WMF has said otherwise. What's dead is the
idea of a category-based image
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
If the image filter uses a user-specific personal filter list stored on the
Foundation's server, that would assume that the censor can populate the
user's list without the user noticing, can prevent the user from emptying
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
I find it highly unconvincing and wrote an extended blog post on the
topic a while back:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 03:34, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
While I don't find that line of argument to be a fully fledged
straw-horse argument, it
does appear to me to be a cherry-picked argument to *attempt* to
refute. There are
much stronger arguments, both practical
... 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 hammers, screwdrivers and
drills.
We have consensus: Wikipedia should not be censored.
Scattered pieces
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:09, Möller, Carsten c.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. Wikipedia should not be censored!
Even if
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.
I agree that the main obstacle at the moment is that any form of filter list
proposal is very controversial as many editors feel that this would be a way of
enabling POV censorship that users may not want.
One thing I would like to know, which has not been clear to me in discussions
is
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 of reader/users) would have to define it. That
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 likely to gain consensus support and
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 to create this sets and this will be
unavoidably a violation of NPOV in the first place. If the user would
choose for himself the
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
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 they are only blurred you will get a rough impression
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 they are
On 29 November 2011 12:56, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
... And I still want to see the good reason for doing so. So far i
could not find one single reason that was worthy to implement such a
filter considering all the drawbacks it causes. That doesn't mean that
Yes.
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 was missing about the objections to
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 13:28, Alasdair w...@ajbpearce.co.uk wrote:
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
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 to create this sets and this will be
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:09, Möller, Carsten c.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
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
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 controversial content is, - or at least we tell the
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
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Alasdair w...@ajbpearce.co.uk wrote:
So a big objection is that any sets of filters is not so much to the weak
filtering on wikipedia but that such sets would enable other censors to
more easily make a form of strong censorship of wikipedia where some images
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
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
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
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Do you remember your last mail in which you said that my viewpoints are
extreme? I was writing that considering anything controversial or not
are the only neutral positions to take. You opposed it strongly.
on 11/29/11 8:01 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 November 2011 12:56, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
... And I still want to see the good reason for doing so. So far i
could not find one single reason that was worthy to implement such a
filter
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:09, Möller, Carsten c.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
I think this sounds pretty good. Is there any indication how German
Wikipedians generally view an implementation like this? I can't imagine
English Wikipedians caring about an additional sidebar link/opt-in
feature
like this.
Actually I think, they do not like it too much. I'll try to
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 hammers, screwdrivers
and drills.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 02:40:15PM +0100, Andre Engels wrote:
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
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 02:28:13PM +0100, Alasdair wrote:
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
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:30:12PM +, Tom Morris wrote:
I find it highly unconvincing and wrote an extended blog post on the
topic a while back:
http://blog.tommorris.org/post/11286767288/opt-in-image-filter-enabling-censorware
Yes, but that blog post attacks a straw man. The actual
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
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:51:04AM +0100, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
If we are careful enough we might be able to recycle the hammer to
construct two or more small screwdrivers an argument against the image
filter that is read as this: Put more effort inside ideas how to
improve search
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
That is more or less a search and time issue. If you search for a
cucumber and a sexual related image ranks first instead of an actual
cucumber then it would be time to improve the search function. If we
On 28 November 2011 02:12, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Using phrases like some people, a few people is a pathetic representation
of the reality. It isn't a minority you want to address/oppose, but a huge and
strong entrenched core group. Pretending otherwise is just pure
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the fundamental error in this reasoning is that you seem to under the
impression that this is something new here that is considered, and that there
have only been a few people commenting on these
On 28 November 2011 09:34, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
Our core mission is making information and knowledge available to
people who want it, not pushing it down their throats against their
will.
Show that there is a demand. Build a filtered Wikipedia and get rich.
(There must
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 November 2011 09:34, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
Our core mission is making information and knowledge available to
people who want it, not pushing it down their throats against their
will.
Show that
On 28 November 2011 10:07, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
You're saying that anything that is not wanted by more than a few
people goes against our core mission?
No, and nor did I say anything that could reasonably be construed as that.
- d.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:21 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, the issue is not dead.
That's correct; nobody from WMF has said otherwise. What's dead is the
idea of a category-based image filter, not the idea of giving
additional options to readers to reversibly collapse
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 November 2011 10:07, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
You're saying that anything that is not wanted by more than a few
people goes against our core mission?
No, and nor did I say anything that could
On 28 November 2011 10:51, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
I said that an image filter was not against our core mission. You
reacted to that by saying that I should show that there is a demand.
Then you added something about all the points refuted a thousand
times like this. Surely
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:58 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
At this point you appear to be stretching to keep a flame war going.
Stretching? It seemed like a valid chain of reasoning to me. But if
you don't agree, please give your line of reasoning as to how your
statement was a
On 28 November 2011 11:03, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:58 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
At this point you appear to be stretching to keep a flame war going.
Stretching? It seemed like a valid chain of reasoning to me. But if
you don't
Greetings
Hope you are okay
just follow us on twitter
Ali Abdul Baasit
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 4:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l
Liam Wyatt wrote:
Perhaps we could focus on those practical points - preferably on-wiki -
rather than having endless debates about what different people did/didn't
mean to say or getting into abstract ideological discussions.
Buzzkill.
There are a lot of ideas here:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:34:16AM +0100, Andre Engels wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Our core mission is making information and knowledge available to
people who want it, not pushing it down their throats against their
will.
Well,
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:26 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Liam Wyatt wrote:
Perhaps we could focus on those practical points - preferably on-wiki -
rather than having endless debates about what different people did/didn't
mean to say or getting into abstract ideological
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 02:41:51PM +, Tom Morris wrote:
You can have lists stored
(...)
on the WMF servers but in a secret file that they'll never
ever ever ever release promise hand-on-heart*)
This works so well if you DO read it sarcastically. ;-)
and you can have lists stored
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
The proposal is currently being discussed here:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Wikipedia-Fork#.22Der_Filter.22
So far, several editors who were rigorously opposed to the category-based
filter idea
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
