Also, it's probably worth pointing out that most of the people here
ultimately seem to be urging a re-examination of Flickr-licensed images in
general, not so much specifically sexual ones.
FMF
On 12/10/08, David Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think it's helpful or useful
Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a dumping
ground for all media that happens to be free.
What's the difference?
FMF
On 1/29/09, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Two comments:
Thomas Dalton hett schreven:
Topless sunbathing is a legitimate topic for
just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't
mean we should.
For what reason, specifically?
FMF
On 1/29/09, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
wrote:
voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
On
I am aware of.
FMF
On 1/29/09, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com
wrote:
just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't
mean we should.
For what reason, specifically?
FMF
On 1/29/09
I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the
idea that sexual images equal harm.
FMF
On 1/29/09, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
To some of those people, and to others, trying to place
Well wow.
FMF
2009/3/31 shi zhao shiz...@gmail.com
Oh, M$
2009/3/31 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
Encarta is dead [1]. Anyone willing to talk with Microsoft about
getting materials for Wikipedia?
[1] - http://encarta.msn.com/guide_page_FAQ/FAQ.html
*No, there will be no edit wars at all! There will be no quarrels, no
uncertainties, no cybermobbing*
Oh, I can't wait to see THIS.
DM
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.comwrote:
Hello,
A couple of days ago I have contacted our project manager in San
This one's been discussed ad nauseam already, and I think the community's
discussions pretty unambiguously tend towards keep.
FMF
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
My opinion on this is clear: Commons should welcome both photographs
and pictures.
While not exactly science, having gone to more than one Wikipedia picnic to
break bread with my fellow contributors ... the conclusions seem pretty
accurate to me.
DM
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
I concur with Phil. That thing is more press
The New York City public library system--and I would imagine most municipal
library systems in general--is filled with underage interns (or pages, or
whatever they're called now) who play a not insignificant role in curating
collections that contain material every bit as explicit as those examples
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:
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
Getting back to the content of the article: I get that inclusionism vs
deletionism is a tired way to talk about divisions between camps of editors,
and that everyone rolls their eyes when you start talking about it, but
yeah, it's real. Every single person I know who was once a producing
I actually like this idea, a LOT. The main page basically poses Wikipedia
as a warehouse of content, which is fine, it is that, but also does little
to pose Wikipedia as a collaborative project. Yeah, new visitors can
technically TRY to edit our main page articles now, but generally the stuff
*For the later, I suppose there is nothing we can do, however this
seems to ruin the whole business model, doesn't it?
*
Well, that's because Wikimedia isn't a business model.
DM
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Istvan Soos istvan.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm evaluating our legal options
I think this is a great idea actually. Probably a good place to start would
be the WikiProject: Sex page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality
Commons would probably be (or should be) interested as well.
Cheers
DM
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Jiří
*I think that's fairly naive, actually. I'd rather suspect the story Fox
(which seems to be your main concern) will go with is We were right all
along, they *were* hosting kiddie porn! Just look, they deleted it all
after we exposed their filthy secret.
*What you're saying is that Fox News would
*He can participate in discussions and make a decision as godking, but
then why does he
need to carry the decision out himself?
*
I'm not sure I see what the distinction would be. You want him to write
policy by fiat, but not to actually click the save button himself?
*The problem is that until someone sits up and notices the serious errors
that
are propagated through Wikipedia (and which are now becoming part of the
folk wisdom of the internet), no one will be bothered.
*
I think my problem with suggestions like this is that the assumption at the
heart of all
:
On 29 August 2010 17:19, David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com wrote:
I think my problem with suggestions like this is that the assumption at
the
heart of all of them--that experts with degrees are preferable as
information authorities to nonexperts without--is deeply problematic, and
I'm
Taking the nonexistence of an article on a particular subject as positive
evidence of an editorial judgment by our best sources is an unsupportable
argument. Wikipedia is not here to index articles published in the NYT and
Washington Post. A reputable secondary source is a reputable secondary
Personally, I am a Wikipedian who prefers the creation of new articles to
the maintenance of old ones. I'd guess I've created several hundred. It's
not that I don't see the value in improving existing articles, I simply find
it more rewarding to make new ones. And efficient - being a person who
22 matches
Mail list logo
