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 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
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
On 10/9/11 11:57 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Sue Gardner wrote:
Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
the community to develop a solution that meets the original
requirements as laid out in its resolution. It is asking me to do
something. But it is not
I was following the discussion without ever giving my own opinion, and my
impression is that we are going nowhere.
Imagine we make another poll, properly prepared, and the poll shows, say,
that 65% support the filter and 35% oppose. So what? Concluding then then
the community rejecting the filter
dear Anneke,
+1
and see the basic difference and the disaccordance in understanding and
meaning of violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
hubertl.
Am 09.10.2011 16:35, schrieb Anneke Wolf:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewalt
Anneke
Am 09.10.2011 um 16:12 schrieb Ting Chen:
On 10 October 2011 11:17, Hubert hubert.la...@gmx.at wrote:
Am 09.10.2011 16:35, schrieb Anneke Wolf:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewalt
dear Anneke,
+1
and see the basic difference and the disaccordance in understanding and
meaning of violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
I
Am 09.10.2011 16:56, schrieb Thomas Dalton:
On 9 October 2011 15:12, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
the text of the May resolution to this question is ... and that the
feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
logged-in and logged-out readers, and on the
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, 10 October 2011, 4:47
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:10 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
On 10 October 2011 10:19, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 10/9/11 11:57 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Sue Gardner wrote:
Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
the community to develop a solution that meets the original
requirements as laid out
Hello Fae,
thank you very much for pointing this out. Yes, I think you indeed hit
the nail. We discussed this problem on our meeting and Sue provided some
plans on how to work on this problem. I am normally reluctant to comment
what the staff is doing or what they are planning to do, because
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Given comments like this, it seems the contingent in support of filters
is utterly and completely delusional. That proposal mitigates none of
the valid objections to enabling other forces from just taking what we
would be foolish enough to supply, and abusing the
On 10 October 2011 12:16, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Taking a step back, to look at the bigger picture
I would; but someone added it to this pesky image filter...
(too soon? sorry :P)
Tom
___
foundation-l mailing list
From: Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de
Hello Fae,
thank you very much for pointing this out. Yes, I think you indeed hit
the nail. We discussed this problem on our meeting and Sue provided some
plans on how to work on this problem. I am normally reluctant to comment
what the staff is doing or
That can't be meant serious anymore. You first make a Board decision and then
want to research how big the problem is or if it at all exists, after you
already made
the decision about the solution? The Board seems to act on a highly confused
and amateur level ... it is not to understand anymore
Julius, I do understand your feelings (believe me: I do) but screaming and
offend the board (Like call them highly confused and amateur) will not
help you in your cause.
I do understand your anger against the board and their decision (even
because your wiki decided to NOT have the filter.) but I
From: Hubert hubert.la...@gmx.at
Because the wars in Commons, which Categories at least will fit
violence, will be unmanageable.
I don´t want to confront myself with fundamental christian groups in
categorising cruzification and holy cross as to become a to
phoebe ayers wrote:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:10 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The majority of editors who responded to the
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Actually, I don't foresee these types of issues becoming overly contentious,
at least not in the context of the image filter as proposed (opt-in).
Editors would eventually realise that the choices they make only affect the
small proportion of readers who actually switch
From: Möller, Carsten c.moel...@wmco.de
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, 10 October 2011, 18:01
Subject: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
Andreas Kolbe jayen466 at yahoo.com
David, did you read the german article completely?
have you compared the contents of which part of the concept of violence
and more attention is paid to what portion of the term violence in en:
wp did not occur?
Gewalt ist nicht unbedingt in gleicher Form Gewalt.
to say it simply: hitting
I'd like to emphasize Carsten's point there-- many users (though I can't say
how many) don't mind the otherwise shocking images when displayed in certain
contexts; particularly medical, war, or art subjects.
A filter that is sensitive to whether a user has such a preference would be
more ideal
From: Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org
Yes, I hear you. The Board didn't specifically discuss yesterday what
to do if there is no acceptable solution. So I don't think they can
make a statement like this: it hasn't been discussed. I hear what
you're saying
: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
David, did you read the german article completely?
have you compared the contents of which part of the concept of violence
and more attention is paid to what portion of the term violence in en:
wp did not occur?
Gewalt ist nicht unbedingt
On 10 October 2011 18:37, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I think that having the image blurring system, combined with an option to
unblur,
would get us very far towards the stated board directive, and I don't think
many in the community would object, and we could reach consensus
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
On 10 October 2011 18:37, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I think that having the image blurring system, combined with an option to
unblur,
would get us very far towards the stated board directive, and I don't think
many in the community
Sue wrote:
It is asking me to do something.
But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
been discussed over the past several months, and which the Germans
voted against.
I may translate:
As the German community has voted against filters,
I was ordered to circumvent this vote by
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:49:04PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 10 October 2011 18:37, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I think that having the image blurring system, combined with an option to
unblur,
would get us very far towards the stated board directive, and I don't think
On 10 October 2011 11:56, Möller, Carsten c.moel...@wmco.de wrote:
Sue wrote:
It is asking me to do something.
But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
been discussed over the past several months, and which the Germans
voted against.
I may translate:
As the German
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:37:05 +0200, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 01:44:09PM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
I was following the discussion without ever giving my own opinion, and
my
impression is that we are going nowhere.
I think what should come
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:18:23PM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:37:05 +0200, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 01:44:09PM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
I was following the discussion without ever giving my own opinion, and
my
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:39:43PM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:32:57 +0200, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl
wrote:
I'll (re)join the community discussion.
Which page(s) are being used atm?
None I know of.
That's ok. I'll leave the initiative to
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:35 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Given comments like this, it seems the contingent in support of filters
is utterly and completely delusional. That proposal mitigates none of
the valid objections to enabling other forces
On 10 October 2011 16:47, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:35 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Given comments like this, it seems the contingent in support of filters
is utterly and completely delusional.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:52:48PM -0400, Risker wrote:
Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system seems
to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current system, which
is obviously necessary in order for people to find types of images, does not
have
On 10 October 2011 18:08, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:52:48PM -0400, Risker wrote:
Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system
seems
to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current system,
which
is
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Any (and I stress *any*) tagging system is very nicely vulnerable to being
hijacked by downstream users.
I've steadfastly opposed the introduction of a tag-based image filter system.
The proposal to which I linked involves no tagging (as I understand
the term).
Risker wrote:
So does the current categorization system lend itself to being hijacked by
downstream users?
Yes, but not nearly to the same extent.
Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system seems
to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:12:04PM -0400, Risker wrote:
Oh please, Kim; this is nonsense.
Be careful with what you call nonsense. :-)
Commercially available software is, even
right now, blocking certain content areas by category and/or keywords for
(at minimum) Commons and English
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:31 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Any (and I stress *any*) tagging system is very nicely vulnerable to being
hijacked by downstream users.
I've steadfastly opposed the introduction of a tag-based image filter system.
The
On 10 October 2011 18:45, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:12:04PM -0400, Risker wrote:
I've seen it in operation.
Let me check: Have seen your image filter software actually
directly use categories from commons? Are you sure?
Yes, I have seen
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
if you like the image browsers
Sorry, I don't know what you mean.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/09/11 7:12 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
the text of the May resolution to this question is ... and that the
feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
logged-in and logged-out readers, and on the current board meeting we
decided to not ammend the original resolution.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 08:49:13PM -0400, Risker wrote:
No, I can't arrange a demonstration, Kim. I do not have net nannies on any
system that I control. The systems on which I have encountered them are not
publicly accessible. They have prevented access to all articles I tested
within a
* Sue Gardner wrote:
This is how the system is supposed to work. The Board identified a
problem; the staff hacked together a proposed solution, and we asked
the community what it thought. Now, we're responding to the input and
we're going to iterate. This is how it's supposed to work: we mutually
On 10 October 2011 20:03, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 08:49:13PM -0400, Risker wrote:
No, I can't arrange a demonstration, Kim. I do not have net nannies on
any
system that I control. The systems on which I have encountered them are
not
publicly
Risker,
The net nanny software could have been doing a keyword filter on the
word Sex, which would reject every page and image in
[[Category:Sexual positions]] because it contains the word sex.
That is not a category based filter. If you believe it was a category
based filter, I would definitely
On 10/10/11 4:47 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
So that leaves you with much broader categorization, I guess? Violence,
Gore, etc. And then that leaves you with people debating which images
belong to which broad category?
The Gore Family of Tennessee?? :-P
Ray
On 10 October 2011 21:26, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Risker,
The net nanny software could have been doing a keyword filter on the
word Sex, which would reject every page and image in
[[Category:Sexual positions]] because it contains the word sex.
That is not a category based
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:22:09PM -0400, Risker wrote:
all the articles in [[:Category:Sexual positions]]
looks extremely puzzeled
What are you trying to ...
Let's try a question like:
...Can you block [[:Category:Demolished windmills]] (and all
subcats?) for yourself?
sincerely,
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote:
The problem is that what is usually called the Board on this list is
not a single entity. It is actually a group of persons.
And right now, the situation is that there is no real agreement within
the Board about
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
If you are right that the board is split on this (and I expect you
are), then what seems to be happening is that they can't make a
decision so they are telling the staff to make it for them. That is
really not the
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
If you are right that the board is split on this (and I expect you
are), then what seems to be happening is that they can't make a
Dear Wikimedia community,
First, I want to thank the 24,000 editors who participated in the
Wikimedia Foundation's referendum on the proposed personal image hiding
feature. We are particularly grateful to the nearly seven thousand
people who took the time to write in detailed and thoughtful
On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed.
How do you know? The referendum didn't ask whether people were opposed or not.
We are not going to
On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed.
How do you know? The
Hi Ting,
one simple question: Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to enable the
image filter on _all_ projects, disregarding consensus by local
communities of rejecting the image filter? (E.g. German Wikipedia)
We are currently in a very unpleasant situation of uncertainty. Tensions
in the
I was thinking about that too. So what? --Ebe123
On 11-10-09 10:43 AM, church.of.emacs.ml
church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Ting,
one simple question: Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to enable the
image filter on _all_ projects, disregarding consensus by local
communities of
Hello Tobias,
the text of the May resolution to this question is ... and that the
feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
logged-in and logged-out readers, and on the current board meeting we
decided to not ammend the original resolution.
Greetings
Ting
Am
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewalt
Anneke
Am 09.10.2011 um 16:12 schrieb Ting Chen:
Hello Tobias,
the text of the May resolution to this question is ... and that the
feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for
both
logged-in and logged-out readers, and on the
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
Hello Tobias,
the text of the May resolution to this question is ... and that the
feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
logged-in and logged-out readers, and on the current board meeting we
On 9 October 2011 15:12, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
the text of the May resolution to this question is ... and that the
feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
logged-in and logged-out readers, and on the current board meeting we
decided to not ammend
That can just mean an italian solution. The Board is ignorant against the
community needs and wishes, while the Foundation was just some month ago, so
caring about the editors and to keep them happy and contributing to the
projects. If the filter should get forced on a project that voted
On 10/09/2011 04:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
If the WMF picks a fight with the community on something the
community feel very strongly about (which this certainly seems to
be), the WMF will lose horribly and the fall-out for the whole
movement will be very bad indeed.
+1.
(And I say that,
On 9 October 2011 16:31, church.of.emacs.ml
church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/09/2011 04:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
If the WMF picks a fight with the community on something the
community feel very strongly about (which this certainly seems to
be), the WMF will lose horribly and
David Gerard wrote:
On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed.
How do
On 09.10.2011 17:00, Julius Redzinski wrote:
That can just mean an italian solution. The Board is ignorant against the
community needs and wishes, while the Foundation was just some month ago, so
caring about the editors and to keep them happy and contributing to the
projects. If the filter
I could probably look this up and find out, but can anyone tell me
when the next Board election will be?
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 9 October 2011 08:50, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 October 2011 16:31, church.of.emacs.ml
church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/09/2011 04:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
If the WMF picks a fight with the community on something the
community feel very strongly
On 9 October 2011 17:19, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Nobody wants civil war.
I'm sure they don't actively want one, but it seems the board do
consider one an acceptable cost.
Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
the community to develop a
On 9 October 2011 12:18, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I could probably look this up and find out, but can anyone tell me
when the next Board election will be?
Nathan
Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has certain
rights to refuse the selected candidates.
On 9 October 2011 09:31, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 October 2011 17:19, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Nobody wants civil war.
I'm sure they don't actively want one, but it seems the board do
consider one an acceptable cost.
It may seem that way, but it's
Risker, 09/10/2011 18:40:
Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has certain
rights to refuse the selected candidates. Chapter-selected candidates will
be appointed in 2012.
The WMF-wide community holds an election in odd-numbered years to nominate
three candidates.
On 9 October 2011 12:48, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, 09/10/2011 18:40:
Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has
certain
rights to refuse the selected candidates. Chapter-selected candidates
will
be appointed in 2012.
The WMF-wide
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has certain
rights to refuse the selected candidates. Chapter-selected candidates will
be appointed in 2012.
The WMF-wide community holds an election in
mid-2013.
Last ones were in June.
Tom
On 9 October 2011 17:18, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I could probably look this up and find out, but can anyone tell me
when the next Board election will be?
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 9 October 2011 17:46, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 9 October 2011 09:31, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 October 2011 17:19, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Nobody wants civil war.
I'm sure they don't actively want one, but it seems the board do
On 9 October 2011 18:16, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Discussing 'what if' scenarios in public rarely does any good if those same
people have full power to avoid that scenario in the first place. Both the
community and the board can avoid the sitation that we don't reach
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't think the community really can avoid it, since it isn't a
coherent body. An individual member of the community can't really
achieve anything. The WMF has a hierarchy and structured decision
making mechanisms, so it can
On 9 October 2011 17:49, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't think the community really can avoid it, since it isn't a
coherent body. An individual member of the community can't really
achieve anything. The WMF has a
On 10/09/2011 07:20 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
The community doesn't trust the WMF at the moment. A firm commitment
not to go against an overwhelming community opinion would go a long
way towards fixing that.
That's exactly the situation. Right now, we're in a deadlock:
WMF is waiting for the
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I didn't say it can't take coherent action. Writing an encyclopaedia
is a coherent action, after all. I said it can't take deliberate
action. By deliberate action, I mean deciding to do something and then
doing it.
That's right.
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't think the community really can avoid it, since it isn't a
coherent body. An individual member of the community can't really
achieve anything. The
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't think the community really can avoid it, since it isn't a
coherent body. An individual member of the community can't really
achieve anything. The
Since no one has explicitly come out and said exactly what the issue is
here, I'll ask:
*What exactly is harmful about an opt-in filter? *If it's opt-in, then
you have the choice to not even enable it if you so choose. You don't
have to use it; it'd just be an option in the preferences page or
Since no one has explicitly come out and said exactly what the issue is
here, I'll ask:
*What exactly is harmful about an opt-in filter? *If it's opt-in, then
you have the choice to not even enable it if you so choose. You don't
have to use it; it'd just be an option in the preferences page
Well we can't have that... lol.
Bob
On 10/9/2011 2:19 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
You don't get to grind someone's nose into your shit. Fred
___ foundation-l mailing
list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Objection to the WMF implementing an image filter would in fact be
removed by such a project--if, like AdBlock, it were run outside and
independently of the WMF. If i believe in individual freedom, I must
believe in the ability of individuals to choose in what manner they
access information,
That means it will be pushed in no matter if wanted/needed or in respect
to the local communities? I think that will push over the line of
acceptability.
I also want to remember you that the referendum/referendumm
1. asked the wrong question(s)
2. did not mention any of the possible issues
Calm down. No one is forcing or pushing anything, more like
offering. Everything I've read indicates it will be opt-in (though the
manner for opting in will be easily accessible upon arrival at
Wikipedia). This will probably be something just as transparent to those
not using it as is the
On 9 October 2011 22:03, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
Calm down. No one is forcing or pushing anything, more like
offering. Everything I've read indicates it will be opt-in (though the
manner for opting in will be easily accessible upon arrival at
Wikipedia).
Tobias
On 9 October 2011 22:03, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
The fact
is that a majority of the community expressed it was either a good idea
or something important to them (interpret that however you care to), and
Wikimedia finds it important to please the majority of their
101 - 200 of 211 matches
Mail list logo
