David Moran wrote:
Yeah, what Finne said. Thanks for the straw man, though.
FMF
Lets do this in *Simple English* style.
Dead horse. Stick. Do not beat it. Walk back.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
___
foundation-l mailing list
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
As is often stated WMF is an ISP, and not a publisher.
Stating it often doesn't make it true. The WMF is quite clearly a
publisher. It even has
2009/11/18 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com:
Ray,
you seem to me to be essentially discussing the 'users' perspective on
wikipedia - whilst it's my view that the foundation, and the projects could
(and should) do more to allow things like descriptive image filtering for
users (I think
George Herbert wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
So state it as much as you want. The WMF is a publisher. Under
Section 230 of the CDA it most likely won't be treated as a publisher,
but that doesn't mean it isn't a publisher.
The section
There are two possible discussions:
1) a discussion about the legal requirements - please leave this to
the legal experts. I'm confident that Mike Godwin keeps an eye onto
it, and if he doesn't you could solicit the advice of a legal expert,
and bring that advice to him or the WMF ED/board.
2) a
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote:
If the
ultimate source of the content is elsewhere, regardless of what
editorial or publishing decisions are made in the middle, it's
Section-230-protected under _Batzel_. Of course, _Batzel_ might be wrong
and overturned
This discussion seems to have branched out somewhat. Peter's concern was
that underage admins shouldn't be involved in the maintenance of sexually
explicit images. OK, so, legalese aside -
* you could put in place a vetting process for admins akin to what we have
for OTRS - real names, ages, etc.
Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's somehow inappropriate
for minors to be viewing or working on images depicting human nudity
and sexuality. Cultural sensibilities on this matter are inconsistent,
irrational and entirely lacking in
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 19:09, Gregory Kohs thekoh...@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, you (and others) seem to place a lot of stock in parent
responsibility:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056095.html
Work with me for a moment here... if a parent takes her 9-year-old
Yeah, what Finne said. Thanks for the straw man, though.
FMF
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Finne Boonen hen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 19:09, Gregory Kohs thekoh...@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, you (and others) seem to place a lot of stock in parent
responsibility:
To Boonen Moran:
Thank you for confirming your opinion that the Foundation cannot and
should not find within its means to even formulate some
recommendations and guidelines to help steer the activities of
children on Wikimedia projects, because that is something that parents
alone should be
The Foundation, Commons and the English Wikipedia typically address
problems associated with minors by refusing to engage as a group. Some
individuals advise children not to put personally identifying
information on their userpage, but that is advice haphazardly given
and no effort is made to
+1. Not sure what I can add to that, other than I agree completely. We have
great nuance in our debates about copyright and take consummate care when
concerns are raised on that front. But when concerns are raised in other
areas (such as this one) we often tend towards extreme positions
There are a number of problems with these statements.
One - the Foundation exists to host and legally protect the
encyclopedia, not direct it in all matters. Most policy flows up
rather than down. Things which would grossly embarrass or endanger
the encyclopedia are an exception, but no good
Right now I'm just going to quote a bit from the General Policy page of
the Huntsville-Madison County Public Library system in Alabama. Not because
they're special, but the anecdotal sample here is fairly representative of
the policies of public information resources everywhere, not just here in
Gregory Kohs thekoh...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for confirming your opinion that the Foundation cannot and
should not find within its means to even formulate some
recommendations and guidelines to help steer the activities of
children on Wikimedia projects, because that is something that
On 16/11/2009, at 1:04 AM, private musings wrote:
Hi all,
On Wikipedia Review, 'tarantino' pointed out that on WMF projects,
self-identified minors (in this case User:Juliancolton) are involved
in
routine maintenance stuff around sexually explicit images reasonably
describable as porn
Even though I do agree to some extent with you, Andrew, I would like
to make a remark.
You correctly state that the cultural sensibilities differ over the
world on this topic. However, this does not excuse for calling the
sensibilities irrational and lacking in substance (inconsistent is
fair
The New York City public library system--and I would imagine most municipal
library systems in general--is filled with underage interns (or pages, or
whatever they're called now) who play a not insignificant role in curating
collections that contain material every bit as explicit as those examples
Here is a good example of what can happen when we set free those children
who have gained the trust of their parents to use the internet within
whatever
limits those parents (or, indeed, the minor) believe is appropriate:
It is absolutely not the job of the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the
Wikimedia community, to supervise a child's internet access and/or
usage
Frankly, I dont think that is what I read in PMs post which started this
discussion.
In many countries it is the responsibility of parents for their childs
2009/11/17 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM, David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com
wrote:
It is correspondingly true that there are many people who would more
comfortably use, or let their children use, regular brick and mortar
libraries if they could be sure that
If anybody wants censored encyclopedia there is a very easy way how to obtain
it:
1) Take a copy of Wikipedia's database.
2) Use it at your own Mediawiki server.
3) Censor whatever you want.
4) Never ever bother others with your hobbies.
This solution of your problem is completely legal and
One point that the apologists seem to be missing is that the Wikimedia
Foundation assumes and expects that sometimes minors have administrator
rights on the Wikimedia projects. This then gives them the responsibility
of deciding what is suitable content or not for the project. Likewise, the
Andrew Garrett wrote:
On 16/11/2009, at 1:04 AM, private musings wrote:
On Wikipedia Review, 'tarantino' pointed out that on WMF projects,
self-identified minors (in this case User:Juliancolton) are involved
in
routine maintenance stuff around sexually explicit images reasonably
Ray,
you seem to me to be essentially discussing the 'users' perspective on
wikipedia - whilst it's my view that the foundation, and the projects could
(and should) do more to allow things like descriptive image filtering for
users (I think it would drive participation in places like schools, and
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
As is often stated WMF is an ISP, and not a publisher.
Stating it often doesn't make it true. The WMF is quite clearly a
publisher. It even has admitted as much when it exercised the GFDL
clause purporting to allow any
Thanks for the link to the 'youth protection' page, geni - I've linked to it
from Wikipedia:Child protection rather than redirect or abandon that page
just yet - I hope we might make some progress :-)
With that in mind, it occurred to me that this list would be a good spot to
ask folks if they
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:04 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi all,
On Wikipedia Review, 'tarantino' pointed out that on WMF projects,
self-identified minors (in this case User:Juliancolton) are involved in
routine maintenance stuff around sexually explicit images
I should add that if folk are interested in the english wikipedia, and have
any ideas / comments etc. in this area, I kicked this off here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_Protection
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Brian J Mingus
2009/11/16 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com:
I should add that if folk are interested in the english wikipedia, and have
any ideas / comments etc. in this area, I kicked this off here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_Protection
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009
2009/11/16 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com:
I should add that if folk are interested in the english wikipedia, and have
any ideas / comments etc. in this area, I kicked this off here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_Protection
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
Already been
32 matches
Mail list logo
