In the last weeks i hold myself back and watched over the comments at
multiple places to see what is the current development. At first i have
to point out that I'm very disappointed by the current progress. Sue
called for a more general discussion. Ting stated again, like in
Nürnberg, that it
On 11/10/2011 15:33, Kim Bruning wrote:
flame on Therefore you cannot claim that I am stating nonsense.
The inverse is true: you do not possess the information to support
your position, as you now admit. In future, before you set out to
make claims of bad faith in others, it would be wise
On 11/10/2011 00:47, MZMcBride wrote:
Risker wrote:
Given the number of people who insist that any categorization
system seems to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the
current system, which is obviously necessary in order for people to
find types of images, does not have
[Cross-posting this to Translators-l, WikiEN-l and Foundation-l, because
there is a considerable amount of overlap, as you'll see. Volunteers from
several Wikipedias may be needed, and the Foundation could eventually be
involved if the project becomes an annual one. I apologize in advance to
those
Am 16.10.2011 12:53, schrieb ???:
On 11/10/2011 15:33, Kim Bruning wrote:
flame on Therefore you cannot claim that I am stating nonsense.
The inverse is true: you do not possess the information to support
your position, as you now admit. In future, before you set out to
make claims
Ça va être bien! It will be good! Je vais faire du bénévolat pour ceci. I
will volunteer. Étienne (Ebe123)
On 11-10-16 8:21 AM, Maria Fanucchi marialado...@gmail.com wrote:
[Cross-posting this to Translators-l, WikiEN-l and Foundation-l, because
there is a considerable amount of overlap,
On 16/10/2011 12:37, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 16.10.2011 12:53, schrieb ???:
On 11/10/2011 15:33, Kim Bruning wrote:
flame on Therefore you cannot claim that I am stating nonsense.
The inverse is true: you do not possess the information to support
your position, as you now admit.
On 16 October 2011 14:40, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for
Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was
complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs lacking in
empathy.
- d.
I wrote:
In this context, you view images as entities independent from the people and
things depicted therein (and believe that our use of illustrations not
included in other publications constitutes undue weight).
Andreas Kolbe replied:
I view images as *content*, subject to the same
On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for
Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was
complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs
I think the good people over at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom
coordination]] might be able to help you set this up and render assistance.
Sounds like a wonderful project, good luck!
-kc-
- Original Message -
From: Maria Fanucchi marialado...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Translators
Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for
Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was
complaining about
On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.ukwrote:
Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for
Presumably this is the sort of
If the entire premise of an email comes down to I'm taunting you, that's
an indication it probably shouldn't be sent.
Dan Rosenthal
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:27 PM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
On
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:57 AM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.ukwrote:
Don't be an arsehole you
Personality conflicts aside, we're noting that non-sexual search terms in
Commons can prominently return sexual images of varying explicitness, from mild
nudity to hardcore, and that this is different from entering a sexual search
term and finding that Google fails to filter some results.
I
* Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Personality conflicts aside, we're noting that non-sexual search terms
in Commons can prominently return sexual images of varying explicitness,
from mild nudity to hardcore, and that this is different from entering a
sexual search term and finding that Google fails to filter
Commons featured prominently in the Harris study, as well as the board
resolution on controversial content.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content
Andreas
For reference, the resolution said:
* We ask the Executive Director, in consultation with the community, to
develop and implement a personal image hiding feature that will enable readers
to easily hide images hosted ***on the projects*** that they do not wish to
view, either when
19 matches
Mail list logo
