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 contained a
wide spectrum of opinion on such matters. We have seen this
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
You said that we should learn from Google and other top websites, but at
the same time you want to introduce objective criteria, which neither of
this websites did?
What I mean is that we should not
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:30 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I don't consider press sources the most reliable sources, or in general a
good
model to follow. Even among press sources, there are many (incl. Reuters)
who call the Twitter feed by its proper
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:17 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Now, given that we are a top-10 website, why should it not make sense to
look at what other large websites like Google, Bing, and Yahoo allow the
user to filter, and what media Flickr and
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 1:17 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
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
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
* I know flagged rev's petered out and is in limbo at the moment - but
opposition to it was not really built on the issue of censorship.
Note that this is only true in the English Wikipedia. Flagged revisions
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
As a person from a more nordic and perhaps even ruder than brazilian
culture, We did confront a teacher who was in her retirement age with
images worse than genital piercings. And, yes, she not only blushed
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 October 2011 16:02, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Not everybody uses the Internet in the same way. Many younger users are
fairly inured to porn and gore, having seen it all before. But a lot of
the
people
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:29 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, but *not* when it comes to images' basic illustrative
properties. Again, I elaborated in the text quoted below.
This process can be applied to images depicting almost any subject,
even if others decline to
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
I find something very odd in that statement. But first, What professional
standards? I always assumed, Wikipedia was the amateur alternative to the
professionals, the same white, grey, male academicians that skew the
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I never assumed that, and it is not consistent with basic Wikipedia
policies
that have existed for almost as long as Wikipedia has existed
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:19 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Whether to add a media file to an article or not is always a
cost/benefit not is always a cost/benefit question. It does not make
sense to argue that any benefit, however small and superficial,
:18 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.netwrote:
* Andreas K. wrote:
I wasn't actually saying that à propos the image filter, more in relation
to
the general point about editorial judgment.
Cultures differ, and like attracts like. You know our demographics.
They're
still far from ideal
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.netwrote:
* Andreas K. wrote:
Sounds good. I was going by last year's United Nations University survey,
http://www.wikipediasurvey.org/docs/Wikipedia_Overview_15March2010-FINAL.pdf
which is older, but had a much larger
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* Andreas K. wrote:
The median and quartiles are on page 7 of the report:
---o0o---
Valid responses were received from respondents between 10 – 85 years.
Overall, the average age of the Wikipedians
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:13 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that we should consider ourselves *bound*
by
others' decisions either. But I do think that the presence or absence of
precedents in reliable sources is an
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Dirk Franke
dirkingofra...@googlemail.com wrote:
And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to
think
and say it loud.
Thanks for the update, Dirk. I think it's
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
A cookie-based hide all images/show all images toggle clearly
visible in the toolbar at the top of pages. together with
...
I'd be interested in any arguments that might be made against such a
proposal.
How about the
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
There was a 30 post per person monthly soft limit on foundation-l.
My apologies; I was unaware of this soft limit.
Happy to abide by it :) and I hope others will too! And, so, this should be
my last
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:55 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 October 2011 17:52, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
For those interested, there is a current request for arbitration on
English
Wikipedia related to the board resolution on controversial content, which
We are currently discussing an evolving image filter proposal on the Meta
brainstorming page* that would give users the option of creating personal
filter lists (PFL). The structure and interactivity of these personal
filter lists would be comparable to those of editors' personal watchlists.
The
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:09 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Andreas K. wrote:
The way this would work is that each project page would have an Enable
image filtering entry in the side bar. Clicking on this would add a
Hide
button to each image displayed on the page. Clicking
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 13:28, Alasdair w...@ajbpearce.co.uk wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 13:42, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
With the tiny (actually big) problem that such lists are public and can
be directly feed
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:21 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, the issue is not dead.
That's correct; nobody from WMF has said otherwise. What's dead is the
idea of a category-based image
There was a lengthy discussion recently on en:WP at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#FAC_spends_too_much_time_on_trivial_topics
about the fact that many featured articles – at least on en:WP – are about
niche topics, while so-called vital articles (VA),
This is a question for Phoebe and/or another board member:
The board resolution on controversial content
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content includes
the following paragraph –
*We urge the Commons community to continue to practice rigorous active
curation of
A Wikimedian has just started a Facebook page Stop pornography on
Wikipedia
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-pornography-on-Wikipedia/307245972661745
following an earlier post by her to [[User talk:Jimbo Wales]] in Wikipedia:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ruwrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:35:10 +, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com
wrote:
A Wikimedian has just started a Facebook page Stop pornography on
Wikipedia
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-pornography-on-Wikipedia
, and in
this case I am a firm believer that the status quo is far better than what
this woman (and many image filter proposals) is proposing.
2012/2/2 Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru
wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:35:10 +, Andreas
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Philippe Beaudette
phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I'm not really sure where you get that, MZ. Politics and lobbying were not
mentioned at all.
What was mentioned was advocacy... advocacy for the community, in varying
roles and flavors.
So to clear it up:
32 matches
Mail list logo
