On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 09:45:38AM -0400, Sydney Poore wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarization
Due to my knowing the historical context, I would actually prefer that
people were confronted by
I fundamentally disagree. If the content can be managed to be culturally
sound, that is effective to disseminate globally. If Islamic countries do
not want to see images of Mohammed, that is effect in maintaining other
content without blocking the site. Same applies to other religious
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I fundamentally disagree. If the content can be managed to be culturally
sound, that is effective to disseminate globally. If Islamic countries
do
not want to see images of Mohammed, that is effect in
On 14 September 2011 14:45, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote:
Besides your acknowledged bias towards confronting people with their bias
and forcing a discussion, it is also not very practical that we be the host
for discussions on talk pages continuously with large groups of people.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
The end game for this strategy of giving every (sub-) culture their own
subset of the images and/or text (when every medium agrees all at once),
and where everyone lives past each other is actually well known and well
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 9:52 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 September 2011 14:45, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote:
Besides your acknowledged bias towards confronting people with their bias
and forcing a discussion, it is also not very practical that we be the
Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote:
Other people want it because of a desire to keep controversial content out
of their home. Giving these user control over image selection may bring *
more* people to Wikipedia, and an article with controversial content.
Intellectual curiosity may
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Marcin Cieslak sa...@saper.info wrote:
Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote:
Other people want it because of a desire to keep controversial content
out
of their home. Giving these user control over image selection may bring *
more* people to
Other people want it because of a desire to keep controversial content
out
of their home. Giving these user control over image selection may bring *
more* people to Wikipedia, and an article with controversial content.
Intellectual curiosity may entice them to click through and see the
2011/9/14 Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Marcin Cieslak sa...@saper.info wrote:
I am especially interested in
countries where access to information is restricted by the environment,
for example by governments, whether the same reasoning applies to them
as
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:54:07PM +1000, Andrew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
The end game for this strategy of giving every (sub-) culture their own
subset of the images and/or text (when every medium agrees all at once),
and
Unfortunately the proposed mechanism (which cannot with integrity be
disentangled from the proposal, for juts such reasons as this) would
download the images regardless, the filter would merely affect the
display. It is possible that even a smarter mechanism might suffer the
same drawback if
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 09:45:38AM -0400, Sydney Poore wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarization
Due to my knowing the historical context, I would actually prefer that
people were confronted by cultural differences and have a healthy
dialogue about them, to prevent or
A wiki usually serves its participants first, (with the world at
large being a secondary goal; after all - the entire world is
invited and welcome to participate if they want to).
I've commented at length already on why this is the wrong approach; and
forces us into an even more insular
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:56 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Well, when I ask people why they want the feature, that's what it
comes down to. They say they want to be able to hide things that are
offensive to their own culture. (Given that it would work) This
method would allow
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:50:55PM +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:
A wiki usually serves its participants first, (with the world at
large being a secondary goal; after all - the entire world is
invited and welcome to participate if they want to).
I've commented at length already on why this
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:41:41AM +1000, Andrew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:56 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Well, when I ask people why they want the feature, that's what it
comes down to. They say they want to be able to hide things that are
offensive to
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 07:39, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, you state that Americans see everything involving nudity under the
label as porn and offensive, and filtering with that mindset is a bad idea.
You're correct about Americans acting that way in general.
Just a
On 12 September 2011 06:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
Only countries which have lists of monuments compiled by the government
and having the status of the law are eligible for WLM. This is in some
sense POV but no more POV than say writing articles of members of
parliament
It would be systemic bias rather than a NPOV problem as such.
- d.
Right, but we do have this systemic bias already in place: in ALL our
projects, the articles on localities in Sweden are longer and better
written (and better illustrated) than the articles on localities in Burkina
Faso.
*I do see two other problems with WLM, which are (...) involvement of the
chapters as a precondition
*
Be organized by a Chapter is *not* a condition. The Andorra WLM is organized
by
Amicalhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Associaci%C3%B3_Amical_Viquip%C3%A8dia(who
is not a chapter). If any
I didn't participate in the referendum. I understood from the beginning
that this was going to be implimented, the matter of community opinion is
nice to ask for but didn't really matter, and ultimately the only thing that
comes of this is help answering Islamic users questioning us showing
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 08:35:00AM +0100, WereSpielChequers wrote:
As for Kim's Red team Blue team shenanigans, why would anyone bother?
But if devout Bahais decide to use this filter ...
Heh, I never thought about trolling devout Bahai. ;-) I wouldn't use
a filter though. I'm sure smart
Off topic alert:
I haven't given a closer look to your main topic, Milos, so I cannot
give a responsible statement in any way. But your reference to Wiki
Loves Monuments, while I agree it's heavily Europe-focused, I strongly
disagree with you on its decadency, as an (retired) aesthetic. While
the
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:51:33 +0900, KIZU Naoko aph...@gmail.com wrote:
Off topic alert:
I haven't given a closer look to your main topic, Milos, so I cannot
give a responsible statement in any way. But your reference to Wiki
Loves Monuments, while I agree it's heavily Europe-focused, I
As this debate has ploughed on I've become less likely to use this feature
myself. But am still utterly unconvinced by the opposition arguments.
Re: Demagogy of multiculturalism when it means pushing POV by right-wing
US. As long as the image filter would enable Moslems to opt out of seeing a
Can anyone explain me how this Image Filter is not against the mission
of the Wikimedia Foundation?
Letting some users to block Wikipedia content is NOT a good way to
disseminate it effectively and globally as stated in the mission
statement.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement
Since I moved to an internet connection that doesn't cripple my
connection speed after 1 GB of traffic/month, I probably won't use this
feature either.
But, as I to and fro have tried to follow the debate over the last week,
I got curious about the feasibility of one possible solution that *I
On 10 September 2011 12:14, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
And while I think that such tool would include other cultures as well
(there are other cultures in the world, besides Christian and Muslim
right-wingers), motivation for this filter didn't come from Muslims or
indigenous people
On Thursday, September 8, 2011, Kim Bruning wrote:
That said, even a self controlled filter can be problematic qua bias
(especially if you're not sure entirely how to control it) [1]
[1] http://www.thefilterbubble.com/ted-talk
I'm not sure what I think about the image filter, but that's a
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 13:44, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
On 9/7/11 9:15 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
I think that damage produced by thiswhatever should be localized.
The target is English Wikipedia, Board is not especially interested in
other Wikipedia editions and other projects in
2011/9/9 Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com:
If you don't like the feature, then don't use it.
Every single proposal I've seen on this feature from the staff assumed
that the filter will be enabled by default and could (perhaps) be
disabled. Did I miss something?
Strainu
2011/9/9 Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com:
If you don't like the feature, then don't use it.
Every single proposal I've seen on this feature from the staff assumed
that the filter will be enabled by default and could (perhaps) be
disabled. Did I miss something?
Could just be misreading;
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 03:54:46PM +1000, Andrew Garrett wrote:
This is the point of the image filter. There are images that,
notwithstanding their being educational and high quality, I don't
necessarily want to see without warning. Even if I'm looking up
'vagina' for whatever reason.
Are
On 9 September 2011 13:31, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/9/9 Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com:
If you don't like the feature, then don't use it.
Every single proposal I've seen on this feature from the staff assumed
that the filter will be enabled by default and could (perhaps) be
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 09:24:36AM +0100, Tom Morris wrote:
On Thursday, September 8, 2011, Kim Bruning wrote:
That said, even a self controlled filter can be problematic qua bias
(especially if you're not sure entirely how to control it) [1]
[1] http://www.thefilterbubble.com/ted-talk
On 9 September 2011 12:54, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
After that, we get back to the side effects of regular (non-wikipedia
kind) filters. This information is well documented all over the net.
You'll discover that not just images, but also the pages those images
are on will not
2011/9/9 Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com:
If you don't like the feature, then don't use it.
You talk like the filter existence is fait accompli, a matter already
decided, and there is nothing people can do about it. The referendum
also gave this impression, by asking things about its details
On 9 September 2011 12:44, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
If you don't like the feature, then don't use it.
In the unhappy event that this filter is enabled, will it be
possible/allowed for a community to make its use mandatory and to
punish readers who turn it off?
No. Same as you can't tell most preferences a user has set, or which
articles they watch. In simple terms, the filter code only filters content
when user prefs say so, and other users can't tell what filter prefs a user
has or what code is executed client-side (ie in their browser not at the
Wouldn't the filter use the preferences system for registered users?
In that case, the preferences are stored in the database.
~K
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 2:44 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
No. Same as you can't tell most preferences a user has set, or which
articles they watch. In simple
2011/9/9 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com:
No. Same as you can't tell most preferences a user has set, or which
articles they watch. In simple terms, the filter code only filters content
when user prefs say so, and other users can't tell what filter prefs a user
has or what code is executed client-side
Jimmy Wales wrote:
On 9/7/11 9:15 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
I think that damage produced by thiswhatever should be localized.
The target is English Wikipedia, Board is not especially interested in
other Wikipedia editions and other projects in English; which means
that it should be localized
On 9/9/2011 3:37 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
It's not out of line to suggest that Wikimedia is especially interested in
the English Wikipedia. It's _indisputable_ at the Wikimedia Foundation
level. Whether it's as true at the Wikimedia Board level is a bit more
arguable, though there's a good deal of
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 00:59, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
The resolutions are more a reflection of what issues the board is able
to reach a consensus on, as opposed to what it is interested in. From my
experience, there was a fair bit of discussion about various concerns
MZMcBride wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
On 9/7/11 9:15 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
I think that damage produced by thiswhatever should be localized.
The target is English Wikipedia, Board is not especially interested
in other Wikipedia editions and other projects in English; which
means that it
(as a side-respons: besides being quite rude of making your point this way;
it is nonsensical, because in this case it is the broadcaster (you) who
decides what to leave out, and not the receiver (me). Showing everything or
showing only the parts people want to see have just as much chance for
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 05:20:40PM +0200, Lodewijk wrote:
(as a side-respons: besides being quite rude of making your point this way;
Interesting; it's actually a fairly common depiction, eg. :
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JN5JdlnKd7g/Sp-5xSd6pKI/AUI/bXiSz5mhgao/s400/censorship.JPG
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
Does your feminism excludes necessity for sexual education?
No, but, I can send you some pictures on Commons that have been speedy
I think it is obvious that some people will have a problem with those
images, and others don't. Apparently Sarah is (justified or not - that
doesn't matter) under the impression that it would not be appreciated at her
work if she would open such images there. That she has this impression is a
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 03:34, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 06/09/2011 3:19 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
I realized that I started to participate in this madness when I asked
for some data from the results. And now, community is asked to
participate into the Next steps [3]
Milos, I
On 7 September 2011 09:15, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
We need to stop wasting time and energy on personal wishes of two
Board members. As it isn't about removing the content, any solution is
better than wasting willingness on one nonconstructive and decadent
project. If that time
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:22, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 September 2011 09:15, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
We need to stop wasting time and energy on personal wishes of two
Board members. As it isn't about removing the content, any solution is
better than wasting
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:30:54PM +0200, Kim Bruning wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:51:40PM +0200, Lodewijk wrote:
The question shouldn't [...] be about whether we want to
offer [...] people [...] Wikipedia?
(
just as a note: This quote is intended as an illustration of why
it may be
Logically, we have the solution: If Board really cares what Concerned
Women for America think, let it, please, implement that filter on
English Wikipedia and leave the rest of the projects alone -- if they
don't ask for the filter explicitly. As members of that organization
probably don't
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 15:54, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this moves beyond just one organization. As a concerned feminist
who lives in America the idea of calling the women who support the
referendum, aren't into bad porn on Commons, and tacky use of sexualized
images
Does your feminism excludes necessity for sexual education?
No, but, I can send you some pictures on Commons that have been speedy
keeps of strippers with their legs spread wide because they are
educational and high quality.
My boss, who is bound to have a baby any day now, can't open the
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
Does your feminism excludes necessity for sexual education?
No, but, I can send you some pictures on Commons that have been speedy
keeps of strippers with their legs spread wide because they are
educational and
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 16:15, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
No, but, I can send you some pictures on Commons that have been speedy
keeps of strippers with their legs spread wide because they are
educational and high quality.
I really don't care about strippers. However, it would
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 15:54, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
Logically, we have the solution: If Board really cares what Concerned
Women for America think, let it, please, implement that filter on
English Wikipedia and leave the rest of the projects alone -- if they
don't ask for
Hey Milosh,
I think we all say things in private mails that we wouldn't post on
public lists. If I posted any of a number of my private emails to our
office mailing list I'd be at risk of getting fired. I think highly
of you, and I'm sure most of the people here do, even when they
disagree with
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 17:30, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 15:54, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this moves beyond just one organization. As a concerned feminist
who lives in America the idea of calling the women who support the
referendum,
The question shouldn't be about who is right - whether it is good that
certain images are not considered safe for work - we are not in a position
to change the opinion of society, and we shouldn't want to be in such
position either.
The discussion however should be, if at all, about whether we
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:51:40PM +0200, Lodewijk wrote:
The question shouldn't [...] be about whether we want to
offer [...] people [...] Wikipedia? [*]
Do you think it is better to force people to choose between
watching an article with an image they do not want to see,
and not seeing
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:31:52PM +0200, David Richfield wrote:
and is totally reversible, so I support it.
Yeah... about that. I propose a challenge to you too then.
I'm proposing to run a wiki server, emulating different scenarios with
the image filter and category system. The filter
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:31:52PM +0200, David Richfield wrote:
and is totally reversible, so I support it.
Yeah... about that. I propose a challenge to you too then.
I'm proposing to run a wiki server, emulating
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 02:55:43AM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote:
wikis are predicated on the belief that there are more people willing
to do good than bad, that they are highly protective of their
collective work, they are smarter and better organised, and all they
need to win the battles (as
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 17:31, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand the attitude of being against censorship at any costs -
it is a very important fight. But as H.L. Mencken said:
Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the
exclusive possession of a
*My boss (...) can't open the pregnancy article at work because the intro
is NSFW our workplace.
*
I'm sorry but i don't find the problem in this article.
*I can't open the [[vagina]] article at work either, because of the really
in your face photo of a vagina when you open it up
*
The
On 06/09/2011 3:19 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
I realized that I started to participate in this madness when I asked
for some data from the results. And now, community is asked to
participate into the Next steps [3]
Milos, I think you're stepping out to the backyard there. I'm probably
one of
70 matches
Mail list logo
