On 18/10/2011 15:14, Thomas Morton wrote:
Just to clarify the technical details for those interested... the code is
located here:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/includes/specials/SpecialRandompage.php?view=markup
Ostensibly this gives (currently) 1 in 3,769,030 odds of
I'm still missing the goal of this thread. What do you people want? To know
how many people see the porn section*** of Wikipedia or to remove those
articles from Random article button and them make it a random article (but
porn safe) button? Maybe if I start to complain about French villages (I
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
The English Wikipedia community, like any other, has always
Hi Charles, all,
maybe I'm missing it - but I don't seem to be able to find an actual
timeline (or planned timeline) for this year's fundraiser. Could you please
point me to it? Thanks a lot,
Lodewijk
No dia 18 de Outubro de 2011 22:45, Charles A. Barr
cb...@wikimedia.orgescreveu:
The global
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but that is not proof of what we as a community understand the
principle to mean, it means the board is on crack.
That's not a helpful contribution to this discussion.
--
Andrew Garrett
Wikimedia
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm still missing the goal of this thread. What do you people want? To know
how many people see the porn section*** of Wikipedia or to remove those
articles from Random article button and them make it a random article (but
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but that is not proof of what we as a community understand the
principle to mean, it means the board is on crack.
That's not
On 19 October 2011 10:07, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but that is not proof of what we as a community understand the
principle to mean, it means the board is on crack.
That's not a
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
I've said this before. I would like to not look at women with
humongously oversize breasts (And yes, Dolly Parton, this means you
too) or women with perfect teeth whitened to porcelain level shine,
smiling with
I would freaking LOVE to see the study who proves 90% of the population
(btw, which population? USA, Americas, Europe, Asia, World, Wikipedians?)
are offended by ANYTHING.
If you show me, I myself change course in College and go study a way to
create a filter.
_
*Béria Lima*
Yes, that was an unfortunate use of un-statistics. I had a {{facepalm}}
moment when I read it.
On the other hand I do not think it is a ludicrous or unexpected claim that
most people do not wish to view images of gore or bodily functions :)
Tom
___
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15360864
I'm not sure of the details of this case, but it looks like it would
be worth us keeping an eye on it since it could potentially have
repercussions for us. Hopefully, the case will either be thrown out or
it will turn out to depend on the
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
I would freaking LOVE to see the study who proves 90% of the population
(btw, which population? USA, Americas, Europe, Asia, World, Wikipedians?)
are offended by ANYTHING.
If you show me, I myself change course in College
Am 19.10.2011 11:07, schrieb Andrew Garrett:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but that is not proof of what we as a community understand the
principle to mean, it means the board is on crack.
That's not a helpful contribution to this
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
..
Yes, I'm being rhetorical. Surely you understand what I'm trying to
say and that 90% is not intended to be interpreted literally.
Just in case, I'll recap without using statistics for rhetorical
purposes: My
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:40:18 +0100, Thomas Dalton
thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15360864
I'm not sure of the details of this case, but it looks like it would
be worth us keeping an eye on it since it could potentially have
repercussions for us.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
..
Yes, I'm being rhetorical. Surely you understand what I'm trying to
say and that 90% is not intended to be interpreted literally.
Just
If I may be so blunt. What part of non-negotiable don't people quite
grasp?
Sorry, you're claiming this as non-negotiable in favour of your view? What's
that discussion about censorship again?
Apologies for being so bluntly critical but of all your rather odd emails
today this one had me
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
If I may be so blunt. What part of non-negotiable don't people quite grasp?
I'm not sure I understand. Could you tell me what you think is non-negotiable?
--
Andrew Garrett
Wikimedia Foundation
Andrew Garrett wrote:
My point is about quick wins. We can attack a large portion
(that may or may not be exactly 90%) of the problem by offering
readers the opportunity to hide a small number of categories that
people commonly don't want to see.
The simplest solutions can often have the
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:10 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Andrew Garrett wrote:
My point is about quick wins. We can attack a large portion
(that may or may not be exactly 90%) of the problem by offering
readers the opportunity to hide a small number of categories that
people
On 19 October 2011 14:14, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, let's make sure that in any implementation of an image filter
that does go ahead, we've thought through and addressed each of those
consequences. You won't find any argument from me on that.
--
Andrew Garrett
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:10 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Andrew Garrett wrote:
My point is about quick wins. We can attack a large portion
(that may or may not be exactly 90%) of the problem by offering
readers the opportunity to hide a small number of categories that
people
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:16 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 October 2011 14:14, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, let's make sure that in any implementation of an image filter
that does go ahead, we've thought through and addressed each of those
I'm more worried about lack of user requirements gathering, vague
problem definition, and over-engineering coupled with an expectation
for 'the community' to build a dataset that they appear reluctant to
build.
Second this concern - particularly the comment r.e. problem definition.
This
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:37 AM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
So how many times is the button pressed each day? If it gets pressed 4
million times a day, and there is only one porn page, then at least one
person will have recieved porn. If there are 100 porn pages then 100
people
Why is it that after reading such a message, I only get more curious who
this actress is ;)
No dia 19 de Outubro de 2011 14:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter
pute...@mccme.ruescreveu:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:40:18 +0100, Thomas Dalton
thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
en.wp.s...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:37 AM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
So how many times is the button pressed each day? If it gets pressed 4
million times a day, and there is only one porn page, then at least one
person will have recieved porn. If there are 100
problematic to who?
_
*Béria Lima*
http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 19
That there is a pornography project would be empirical evidence to the
contrary. That a random page load can load pages with CBT images, genital
piercings, or ejaculate leaking from or flowing over various body parts is
also problematic.
Well, strictly speaking that isn't pornography -
unless the birth year is referenced to IMDB and as a result of the
case it will be hidden
No, that situation is already covered by policy and this legal case
makes no difference. IMBD should never be the single source for
biographical information. See
--
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:16:47 +0100
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
Just a reminder this is happening now in #wikimedia-office.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.org
Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:16 AM
Subject: Office hours with Chief Community Officer Zack Exley, Weds. Oct.
19th
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Forwarding on behalf of the Organizers.
Theo
---
Hiya,
We are please to announce that
On 19/10/2011 15:24, Béria Lima wrote:
problematic to who?
Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity
that would shame a tree stump.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
The offical 2011 Fundraiser page is
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011 and don't forget to check
the discussion page for more places to discuss the fundraiser. As for a
time-line, the fundraiser is scheduled to start within the first two weeks
of November. I will see about adding some
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
That there is a pornography project would be empirical evidence to the
contrary. That a random page load can load pages with CBT images, genital
piercings, or ejaculate leaking from or flowing over various
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 19/10/2011 15:24, Béria Lima wrote:
problematic to who?
Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity
that would shame a tree stump.
___
You've
Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity
that would shame a tree stump.
The word empathy was the one Sue Gardner chose to use too. I would
rather see something like respect instead. Any of us might lack
empathy with someone from a very different cultural background
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* Andreas K. wrote:
Satisfying most users is a laudable aim for any service provider, whether
revenue is involved or not. Why should we not aim to satisfy most our
users,
or appeal to as many potential users as
On 19/10/2011 18:17, Nathan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, ???wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 19/10/2011 15:24, Béria Lima wrote:
problematic to who?
Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity
that would shame a tree stump.
Did I miss anything?
Yes, could you clarify who were you trying to launch a personal attack
on, or were you trying to offend everyone from a certain culture by
showing how much you disrespect them?
Thanks,
Fae
___
foundation-l mailing list
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:11 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
But if we use a *different* style, it should still be traceable to an
educational or scholarly standard, rather than one we have made up, or
inherited from 4chan. Would you agree?
Yes, and I
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011 and don't forget to check
the discussion page for more places to discuss the fundraiser. As for a
time-line, the fundraiser is scheduled to start within the first two weeks
of November. I will see about adding some sort of time-line to the
(apologies for the cross posting)
This is just a quick note to alert you that we'll be having an IRC
Office Hours on Friday, October 22 at 02:00 UTC to discuss the India
Education Program [1].
The team working on the India Education Program will be present to
answer any questions about the
On 19/10/2011 18:52, Fae wrote:
Did I miss anything?
Yes, could you clarify who were you trying to launch a personal attack
on, or were you trying to offend everyone from a certain culture by
showing how much you disrespect them?
Disrespect? That is odd in odd word to use in a discussion
/me does.
And here is why: 70% of the problem with a image stands in WHO IS SEEING IT.
I'm from Brazil and in my country we even have 1 week festival - worldwide
famous - for have several (like hundreds to thousands) of semi naked girls
and boys dancing Samba.
And here is the catch. You know
I might be from one of the most restrictive cultures, ethnicity and
background than most people on this list. I assumed, it was people from my
part of the world, that the board and WMF was trying to be considerate of.
In all of this, I can't help but wonder where would it stop, there are
probably
* Andreas K. wrote:
I see our vision and mission as entirely service-focused. We are not doing
this for our own amusement:
You are talking about the Wikimedia Foundation while I was talking about
Wikipedians. I certainly do this for my own amusement, not to satisfy.
That's a fascinating piece of
Correction, that should read Friday, October 21 -- the time listed on
the Meta page is correct.
Thanks to those of you who pointed out my mistake. :)
LiAnna
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:14 AM, LiAnna Davis lda...@wikimedia.org wrote:
(apologies for the cross posting)
This is just a quick note
On 19/10/2011 20:04, Béria Lima wrote:
/me does.
And here is why: 70% of the problem with a image stands in WHO IS SEEING IT.
I'm from Brazil and in my country we even have 1 week festival - worldwide
famous - for have several (like hundreds to thousands) of semi naked girls
and boys
Today, the Canadian Supreme Court found that an online writer who used
external hyperlinks could not be held liable for the contents of the
hyperlinked materials:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1072362--supreme-court-ruling-big-victory-for-internet-freedom?bn=1
Justice Rosalie
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
I ask Sue and Philippe again: WHERE ARE THE PROMISED RESULTS - BY PROJECT?!
First, there's a bit of a framing difference here. We did not initially
promise results by project. Even now, I've never
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
But if we use a *different* style, it should still be traceable to an
educational or scholarly standard, rather than one we have made up, or
inherited from 4chan. Would you agree?
Yes, and I dispute the premise that the English Wikipedia has failed
in this
54 matches
Mail list logo
