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
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 boy to
the toy boutique, and the boy asks to stay outside on the sidewalk
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:
Erik suggested I post this to the list for further discussion.
Sincerely,
Laura Hale
*Introduction*
Fan History Wiki is a project dedicated to documenting the history of fan
communities, and to a lesser extent, documenting the history of online
communities, popular culture and the tools that
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
Why the heck not?
My only concern would be that the topic of fan history might be a bit
specialized by itself.
Why not call it Wikitribes and extend the concept to other
subcultures and microhistories of small communities?
I know of someone working with the oral history of Philadelphia jazz
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote:
Fan History would be a good fit for helping the Wikimedia Foundation in
terms of helping the Foundation meet some of its goals towards providing
information, helping establish credibility and gaining a more female
I don't think that the WMF acquiring FanHistory would make them a
competitor with Wikia, after all, Meta already has a propsosal for a
Wikitainment ( http://wmf4.me/EFf2D ) which goes to show that the WMF
community wants something like this. Why not merge that proposal and FH
into one. It would
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Jon Davis w...@konsoletek.com wrote:
I don't think that the WMF acquiring FanHistory would make them a
competitor with Wikia, after all, Meta already has a propsosal for a
Wikitainment ( http://wmf4.me/EFf2D ) which goes to show that the WMF
community wants
At first glance, my inclination would be recycle bin the proposal, but after
reading comments, I think there is some merit to the proposal. I would support
bringing this in and expanding it to cover group dynamics (Wikitribes). This
project could be valuable to sociology and psychology as it
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
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Sage Ross
ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
So the question is, what difference does it make for a wiki and its
community to be part of a non-profit set of projects versus an
ad-supported for-profit one? Quite a bit, I would say, in the
long-term strategic
+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
I apologise for top posting but I wish to respond to your post in full
while making the absolute show stopper clear. You wiki is not under a
free license nor can it's content be released under a free license
without an impractical degree of effort
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to
Hi all!
The Wikipedia Usability Initiative conducted an evaluative study of our
progress thus far in mid-October. Highlights are posted to the blog
here: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/11/18/ux-usability-study-take-two/
and if you really want the skinny, the full report is here:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Jon Davis w...@konsoletek.com wrote:
I don't think that the WMF acquiring FanHistory would make them a
competitor with Wikia, after all, Meta already has a propsosal for a
Wikitainment ( http://wmf4.me/EFf2D ) which goes to show that the WMF
community wants
Hi Parul,
The full report is fascinating. I can't wait to see the full videos once
they've been annotated by a few viewers!
Something I've been wrestling with recently, in working with ppl who have
the option to use mediwiki or other tools for collaborating on text and
ideas, is:
- what do
Rather than reply to multiple posts, I'm just going to reply to several
all at once.
As a cavaet, when I say our in the context of Fan History, I am
primarily talking from the perspective of our admin team. We have
probably five really regular contributors and about 10 people who drop
in
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote:
Users don't always appreciate being documented on another website,
because it takes control away from them and the site with which [they]
have participated:
We looked around for ways to increase our
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
Laura,
Thanks for your work on the proposal. I hadn't looked at fanhistory in any
detail before, and enjoyed discovering it's lifecycle through your blog.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:51 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
I may not have time to respond to your comments in detail, but I
30 matches
Mail list logo
