On 30 September 2011 01:56, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-letter.html
He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all
M. Williamson, 29/09/2011 22:45:
...and Nikerabbit removed it giving only the explanation: not here, per
Nikerabbit (would have already fixed the real issues if only somebody had
told me)
It seems like he's saying that someone should've let him know about the
autoselection issue, but he
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
Scott, the director of rights and reproductions a the NPG kindly wrote
directly back to me very quickly and said (quoting with permission):
We did, indeed, investigate immediately. I am expecting changes to be made,
On 09/29/2011 04:37 PM, Dirk Franke wrote:
For anybody interested: I wrote a blog-post full of disagreement :-)
http://asinliberty.blogspot.com/2011/09/sorry-sue-gardner-but-image-filter.html
So basically, we find that there are two different, somewhat
incompatible definitions of Wikipedia:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:45 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against
any imposed filter is just *weird*.
The intro and footer of Sue's post say: The purpose of this post is
not to talk specifically about the referendum
I'll go by pieces in your mail Erik.
*The intro and footer of Sue's post say: The purpose of this post is not to
talk specifically about the referendum results or the image hiding feature
(...) So it's perhaps not surprising that she doesn't mention the de.wp poll
regarding the filter in a
(not responding to anyone in particular) I'm one of the people who tried to
participate in the discussion without taking a strong standpoint
(intentionally - because I'm quite nuanced on the issue, and open for good
arguments of either side) and I have to fully agree with Ryan. I have yet
been
Re David's point that The trouble with responding on the blog is that
responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered. I can relate to that, it
isn't just an annoying delay, there are posts which have gone up with
timestamps long after my post. I don't know whether that was me not knowing
how to
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Overall, I think Sue's post was an effort to move the conversation
away from thinking of this issue purely in the terms of the debate as
it's taken place so far. I think that's a very worthwhile thing to do.
I would also
Erik Moeller wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:45 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against
any imposed filter is just *weird*.
The intro and footer of Sue's post say: The purpose of this post is
not to talk specifically
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Overall, I think Sue's post was an effort to move the conversation
away from thinking of this issue purely in the terms of the debate as
it's taken place so
Nathan wrote:
Erik, if you really want to change the focus of the debate, suggest to
Sue and the board that they make a commitment: that an image filter
won't be imposed on the projects against strong majority opposition in
the contributing community. Then you can move on to the hard work of
Sorry if this is *too* condensed, but here is one summary of this issue...
First attempt at labeling content was made by Uwe Kils, and his class
of students collectively logging as Vikings or something of the sort
tagged content not suitable for teenst. Jimbo banned them, but an
accomodation was
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:36 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Erik, if you really want to change the focus of the debate, suggest to
Sue and the board that they make a commitment: that an image filter
won't be imposed on the projects against strong majority opposition in
(As example: the only 2 girls who commented here - phoebe and me - are in
opposite sides. ...)
-*B?ria Lima*
Technically, you, Sarah Stierch, Phoebe, and Sue have all commented --
at least 4 women, not just 2.
--
Sumana Harihareswara
Volunteer Development Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 15:54, Sumana Harihareswara
suma...@wikimedia.org wrote:
(As example: the only 2 girls who commented here - phoebe and me - are in
opposite sides. ...)
-*B?ria Lima*
Technically, you, Sarah Stierch, Phoebe, and Sue have all commented --
at least 4 women, not just 2.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
(though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
(Brazil/Portugal) is against.
Hope we're not going to call this a poll. :)
Cheers
Bishakha
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
One more, but forgot her name and too lazy to search. German females
in discussion on German Wikipedia should be also checked.
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
(though, Sarah just
On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
(though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
(Brazil/Portugal) is against.
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
(though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
(Brazil/Portugal) is
Am 30.09.2011 16:24, schrieb Risker:
The implication of your post is if you're a woman from
the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the
discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such
posts in the future.
Weird. I've only seen a post where
On 30 September 2011 10:44, Oliver Koslowski o@t-online.de wrote:
Am 30.09.2011 16:24, schrieb Risker:
The implication of your post is if you're a woman from
the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the
discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain
Am 30.09.2011 16:46, schrieb Risker:
My question to you is why anyone would want to participate in a discussion
where their opinions are going to be classified by their sex or their
geographic location rather than their input.
There's absolutely no harm in coming to a finding that, say, 80% of
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
(not responding to anyone in particular) I'm one of the people who tried to
participate in the discussion without taking a strong standpoint
(intentionally - because I'm quite nuanced on the issue, and open for good
On 30 September 2011 10:36, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
(though,
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hoping for a constructive discussion and more data on what our 'readers'
actually want and/or need...
Also, while we don't have reader data, we do have more than 20,000 answers
to the referendum or survey or whatever
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point, Nathan. The blog
post was about two basic issues:
*How Wiki[mp]edians are interacting with each other , and
*The role of editorial judgment in selecting which content
On 30 September 2011 17:17, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote:
As per Sue's report to the Board, which Erik referred to [1]:
The referendum did not directly ask whether respondents supported the idea
of the filter. It did ask this question:
*On a scale of 0 to 10, if 0 is strongly
Am 30.09.2011 17:06, schrieb Bishakha Datta:
...
**I am also dismayed at the use of the word 'censorship' in the context of a
software feature that does not ban or block any images. But somehow there
doesn't seem to be any other paradigm or language to turn to, and this is
what is used as
On 30 September 2011 13:40, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
First attempt at labeling content was made by Uwe Kils, and his class
of students collectively logging as Vikings or something of the sort
tagged content not suitable for teenst. Jimbo banned them, but an
--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28
On 9/28/11
I must confess I completely fail to understand how the discussions in this
thread, especially the last several dozens or so posts, advance our
mission.
Cheers
Yaroslav
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:23, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
One more, but forgot her name and too lazy to search. German females
in discussion on German Wikipedia should be also checked.
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
(though, Sarah just
I was on Commons and stumbled across a photograph of a man cumming onto a
cracker and then eating it. Turns out this is called a soggy biscuit. You
learn something new everyday.
In the heat of annoyance about WP:NOTCENSORED cries, I decided to add the
image of the guy eating his cum drenched
Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
As a member of one feminist organization, I understand dominant
position among feminists toward pornography. It's generally personal
(thus, not an ideological position), but as the main stream
pornography is male-centric
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about
in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to
others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing
On 30 September 2011 12:15, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
about
in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
to
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:29, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I think there is much that can be discussed on the range of topic areas
covered in this thread. But we must keep in mind that the views expressed
here are those of the individuals, and there is absolutely insufficient
information
On 30 September 2011 03:47, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Re David's point that The trouble with responding on the blog is that
responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered. I can relate to that, it
isn't just an annoying delay, there are posts which have gone up with
Hi Sarah
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
As a member of one feminist organization, I understand dominant
position among feminists toward pornography. It's generally
I do think that one needs to have spent some time in Germany to understand that
things *are* different there. Nudity is no big deal. To give some examples,
municipal
swimming pools may have times set aside for nude bathing. They may have mixed
saunas,
or changing rooms used by females, males,
On 30 September 2011 12:32, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:29, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I think there is much that can be discussed on the range of topic areas
covered in this thread. But we must keep in mind that the views expressed
here are
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
about
in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
to
On 30 September 2011 12:06, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:
Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:46, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you have any reason to believe that a statistically significant number
and percentage of female editors of the German Wikipedia are active
participants in this mailing list?
No, but there are German Wikipedians who could
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
I have no idea about your personal stance, but correct me if I am wrong.
Weren't you the one surprised to find an in your face photo
of a vagina on an article about Vagina? You know where you said it was
up-front and at the
Tobias, you be the judge whether I misunderstood my fellow Wikipedians'
comments. Here are some verbatim quotes, from different contributors:
How exactly would you propose to get an appropriately licensed video of a
rape? [...] I suppose, in the unlikely even that we were to get a video that
I would prefer to read these comments in context and not in snippets.
Can you point me to the corresponding discussion(s)?
-- Niabot
Am 30.09.2011 19:02, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
Tobias, you be the judge whether I misunderstood my fellow Wikipedians'
comments. Here are some verbatim quotes,
http://wikitrekk.blogspot.com/2011/09/out-of-blue.html
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
On Friday 30 September 2011 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha
Dattabishakhada...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Riskerrisker...@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhala aprabh...@gmail.comwrote:
On Friday 30 September 2011 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Dattabishakhada...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com
wrote:
On
On 30 September 2011 09:15, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about
in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to
others who
On Friday 30 September 2011 11:19 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabh...@gmail.comwrote:
On Friday 30 September 2011 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Dattabishakhada...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at
On 30 September 2011 18:24, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and
what not.
That is just completely untrue. The image filter will allow people to
choose
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 19:59, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I just want to point out quickly that I am not American, and my
position on all these issues is actually a very Canadian one. Ray and
Risker and other Canadians will recognize this.
Canada doesn't really feel itself to
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Achal Prabhala aprabh...@gmail.comwrote:
On Friday 30 September 2011 11:19 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabh...@gmail.com
wrote:
How about an encyclopedia? Anywhere?
Are you suggesting a rating system for an
On Friday 30 September 2011 11:47 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabh...@gmail.comwrote:
On Friday 30 September 2011 11:19 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabh...@gmail.com
wrote:
How about an encyclopedia?
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 30 September 2011 18:24, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see
and
On 30 September 2011 19:41, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Then, there also Kim's challenge to break such a filtering system.
Kim doesn't need to do a damn thing. There are enough *actual* trolls
on the Internet to mess with it just for the lulz.
- d.
http://www.berlios.de/
Is there anything we could do to help? Is this too far outside our area?
I recall how useful and helpful BerliOS was back in the olden days
when it was Wikipedia's downtime backup and news source ... before
Wikipedia going down knocked over BerliOS too.
- d.
On 9/30/2011 8:53 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
As mentioned in some of the previous posts, I think that it is
much more feminist to defend right of girls to be sexually educated,
even if it would mean secretly browsing Wikipedia articles on
sexuality, than to insist on comfort of adult females in
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
That is just completely untrue. The image filter will allow people to
choose what to see and what not to see. We won't be making the
decisions...
Actually, we will be. Depending upon how such a system is implemented,
On 30 September 2011 20:04, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
On this score, it seems likely that we are failing to live up to one of
our core principles, that of neutrality. I think we need significantly
better editorial judgment applied to many of these articles to address
it. That
This is work for ARCHIVE TEAM http://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=BerliOS
2011/9/30 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
http://www.berlios.de/
Is there anything we could do to help? Is this too far outside our area?
I recall how useful and helpful BerliOS was back in the olden days
when it
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 21:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.berlios.de/
Is there anything we could do to help? Is this too far outside our area?
I recall how useful and helpful BerliOS was back in the olden days
when it was Wikipedia's downtime backup and news source ...
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2011 18:24, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and
what
André Engels wrote:
We will be putting certain categories/tags/classifications on images,
but it will still be the readers themselves who decide whether or not
they see the tagged images.
But _we_ will need to determine the categories/tags/classifications to
use and the images to which
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and
what not.
Theo: they are different things, and given the premium on accuracy
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 21:12, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2011 20:04, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
On this score, it seems likely that we are failing to live up to one of
our core principles, that of neutrality. I think we need significantly
better
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
I wanted to say the same. Hm. I'll talk with others from my
organization and see is it possible to mobilize a couple of European
feminist organizations to work on those articles.
These are the types of discussions we
I wrote:
And for a hypothetical nudity category, we'll have to decide what
constitutes nudity. This will trigger endless debate, and whatever
definition prevails will fail to jibe that held by a large number of
readers.
The above should read jibe _with_ that held by a large number of
Hi,
A while ago I made a bookmarklet that blurs images in articles on the
english Wikipedia and reveals them when the user hovers over the image.
I now had a chance to test this as a skin.js extension.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlurredImages/vector.js
Hiya Bishakha
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:12:37PM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
(though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
(Brazil/Portugal) is against.
This is not entirely true. At least one other .us female is against.
(To
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:10:37PM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
No, we won't be. We will be putting certain categories/tags/classifications
on images, but it will still be the readers themselves who decide whether or
not they see the tagged images.
Well, those tags would be public, so *anyone*
--- On Sat, 1/10/11, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Saturday, 1 October, 2011,
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:36:43PM +0530, Bishakha Datta wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
**I am also dismayed at the use of the word 'censorship' in the context of a
software feature that does not ban or block any images. But somehow there
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
Hi,
A while ago I made a bookmarklet that blurs images in articles on
the english Wikipedia and reveals them when the user hovers over the
image. I now had a chance to test this as a skin.js extension.
For a start, users would have to opt in to this, which may not
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:47:43PM +0530, Bishakha Datta wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
24,023 people responded to that question, with 23,754 selecting a number on
the scale. The result was mildly in favour of the filter, with an average
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 02:46:52AM +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
Hi,
A while ago I made a bookmarklet that blurs images in articles on the
english Wikipedia and reveals them when the user hovers over the image.
I now had a chance to test this as a skin.js extension.
Constructive
82 matches
Mail list logo
