Michael Peel wrote:
On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long time. The
more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia
have
ever seen an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, dictionary definitions and
image
On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Michael Peel wrote:
On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long
time. The
more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia
have
ever seen an
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
The challenge here isn't technical, but political/cultural; choosing how
to mark things and what to mark for a default view is quite simply
_difficult_ as there's such a huge variance in what people may find
objectionable.
...
Michael Peel wrote:
On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to
cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered.
Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image
galleries. Commons
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
Michael Peel wrote:
On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to
cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered.
Commons has
Hi David, All,
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The obvious thing to do would be for a third party to offer a
filtering service. So far there are no examples, suggesting there is
negligible demand for such filtering in practice - many individuals
have
John Vandenberg wrote:
I have once made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_gallery_of_toucans
that was deleted. Let's say it was similar to
http://www.emeraldforestbirds.com/EmeraldGallery.htm and I believe you
will find such a gallery is encyclopedic.
I have checked, and the deleted
Your really didn't address my question. Why do you think WMF resources are
best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by
sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for
*any* of different of audiences in the world that find various
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Have you any idea how california-centered that sounds?
We all stood shoulder to shoulder against Uwe Kils and
the Norwegian Vikings, and this is what we get?
A more perniciously, smoother talked version of the same
old spiel. One would be really excused at this
El 5/14/09 4:14 PM, Mike.lifeguard escribió:
While this may be true for Wikipedia (English Wikipedia?), it is
certainly not true of Wikimedia project generally. For example,
Wikibooks has a subproject Wikijunior which is an attempt to create
high-quality children's books. Part of the defined
This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
sexual activity. A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
any drawing could be.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
The image is an excellent illustration of its subject.
in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs: KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
very best,
oscar
Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
right thing.
Fred
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
2009/5/14 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
sexual activity. A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
any drawing could be.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
The image
Fred Bauder wrote:
in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs: KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
very best,
oscar
Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
right thing.
From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms
around like there is no
2009/5/14 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
Karma Sutra.
What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
violations? Articles
I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long
enough
to know that censorship is a dead issue.
It is never too late to quit doing a dumb thing. I might find gifting
someone with a nice pearl necklace a fine thing to do, but unlike
comprehensive information about
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/14 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
Karma Sutra.
What about
El 5/14/09 7:31 PM, Thomas Dalton escribió:
2009/5/14 Robert Rohderaro...@gmail.com:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/5/14 Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net:
I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
manual of
Perhaps the problem is that the particular photograph sends a
sex-positive, not a clinical message. Why shouldn't it? It's not a
pathological state; it's not shameful. Using a clinical image
indicates there is something about it that needs to be shown in a
specially restrained manner. The picture
2009/5/14 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
I'm sorry, but why is this even a discussion? Wikipedia is not censored.
Wikipedia is censored with respect to a myriad of different sorts of
content. In fact it is routinely censored, consider articles for
deletion, just for a start then move on
2009/5/14 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
(In practice, those considering Wikipedia unsuitable for mass
consumption write their own encyclopedia site, e.g. Conservapedia or
Christopedia.)
Or - how could I forget, the example of an actually good selection of
Wikipedia that's proving very
2009/5/14 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
So is my cookbook censored because it doesn't include a description of
the Peloponnesian War? Of course not. It's not a matter of censorship,
it's a matter of scope. If you wish to argue that pearl
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/14 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
So is my cookbook censored because it doesn't include a description of
the Peloponnesian War? Of course not. It's not a matter of
2009/5/14 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
Or for enwiki to stop thinking themselves such fantastic editors
and accept the notion that not all material is suitable for all ages.
I don't accept that notion. I fail to see how children are harmed by
such images. If we were to implement any kind of
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/14 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
Or for enwiki to stop thinking themselves such fantastic editors
and accept the notion that not all material is suitable for all ages.
I don't accept that notion. I fail to
2009/5/14 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/5/14 Oldak Quill oldakqu...@gmail.com:
I post the suggestion above about tagging articles that may be
considered inappropriate by some, because it is better to give people
tools to block content if they choose to, than to delete content on
that
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote:
IMHO any restriction that's not present in the default view isn't likely
to accomplish much. The answer an objecting parent wants to my daughter
saw a lady with semen on her neck on your website is *not* you should
have
Fred is conflating guidelines on style with guidelines on content.
Articles about food items are not banned.
Articles about fiction are not banned.
Fred is advocating banning a *class of articles.*
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I'm sorry, but why
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote:
IMHO any restriction that's not present in the default view isn't likely
to accomplish much. The answer an objecting parent wants to my daughter
saw
2009/5/14 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement.
Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't
share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population
community is long overdue.
Schools
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/14 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement.
Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't
share the outlook of our
2009/5/14 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
And? What's wrong with pleasing the parents? I would rather do that
and have children be able to access all the good content Wikipedia
has than have their parents just make Wikipedia off-limits because of
a small subset of the overall content.
Nothing
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that the particular photograph sends a
sex-positive, not a clinical message. Why shouldn't it? It's not a
pathological state; it's not shameful. Using a clinical image
indicates there is something
--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons
and freely licensed sexual imagery
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
If there is a massive market for this, then why hasn't such a mirror already
been created?
I am serious here. Is there something that acting as a stumbling block to a
third-party creating a SafeForKidsPedia mirror?
2009/5/14 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
Yes, the two big stumbling blocks for making mirrors are:
1) No recent good full dump of enwiki (last complete one was Jan '07)
Why do you need a full dump? The most recent versions should be plenty.
___
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:44, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement.
Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't
share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population
community
David Gerard hett schreven:
(c.f. the earlier proposal for a Victims of Soviet Repression wiki -
nice idea, but utterly unsuited to WMF through utter lack of
neutrality.)
http://sep11.wikipedia.org/ does still work by the way.
Marcus Buck
User:Slomox
Obviously not; here we are discussing it. One wonders if we actually did
learn any lessons during the Enlightenment...
-Mike
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 10:04 -0400, The Cunctator wrote:
I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long enough
to know that censorship is a dead
Actually, I would argue that we shouldn't censor for principled reasons.
Supposing it were the case that we could safely censor only sexual
content with no slippery slope, we still shouldn't do so because it is
wrong regardless what the practical consequences may or may not be. That
said, a more
While this may be true for Wikipedia (English Wikipedia?), it is
certainly not true of Wikimedia project generally. For example,
Wikibooks has a subproject Wikijunior which is an attempt to create
high-quality children's books. Part of the defined scope here is that
the books are appropriate for
Re : This from brion;
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sites like Flickr and Google image search keep this to a single toggle;
the default view is a safe search which excludes items which have been
marked as adult in nature, while making it easy to
42 matches
Mail list logo
