The huge problem here seems to be that the argument is being framed in
terms of editorial judgement, but the means seems to the thinking
public aimed at sidestepping editorial judgement by supposedly giving
a viewing public more choice, but infact enabling gatekeepers when
they want to keep you
(Not because they actually do want it but don't have the resources.
Not because it is hard for an external body to do but might be easier
for the WMF to do. No, those aren't possible at all.)
Well, given that an image filter is a technically easy proposition, no, its
not because of lack of
On 09/30/11 11:15 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 19:59, Sue Gardnersgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
That's what I'm used to, as a Canadian -- it's normal for me to listen
to minorities and find ways to incorporate their perspectives into
mine.
Most importantly, you are a manger
On 09/30/11 10:59 AM, Sue Gardner wrote:
On 30 September 2011 09:15, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Riskerrisker...@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
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 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. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The strongest
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 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.
Tom Morris wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 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. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Hiya Bishakha
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
I have said, it is a matter of perspective how you view them. But if we go
by the assumption that editorial judgement is a separate thing,
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
If you want to make a valid counterargument, say that you are worried that
some censorious
ISPs and countries might use our category definitions as a starting point
for a bolt-on
censorship system that restricts access
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
We'd still be in good company, as all other major websites, including
Google, YouTube and Flickr, use equivalent systems, systems that are
widely accepted.
I'm going to simply copy and paste one of my earlier replies (from a
different thread):
Websites like Flickr (an
Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Saturday, 1 October, 2011, 13:42
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
We'd still be in good company, as all other major websites, including
David Gerard wrote:
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
MZMcBride wrote:
I'd forgotten all about Toby. That was largely a joke, wasn't it?
Do not try to define Toby. Toby might be a joke or he might be
serious. Toby might be watching over us right now or he might be a
bowl of porridge. Toby might be windmills or he might be giants.
Don't fight
David Levy wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
I'd forgotten all about Toby. That was largely a joke, wasn't it?
Do not try to define Toby. Toby might be a joke or he might be
serious. Toby might be watching over us right now or he might be a
bowl of porridge. Toby might be windmills or he might
On 09/30/11 9:41 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
I have never said, *ever*, led on I don't think girls should not be
educated about sexuality. I also grew up in a time when I had to find
sexual content by way of a pile of Playboys in my cousins bathroom,
watching MTV, and stealing my sisters copy of
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
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
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:56:02 -0700
From: phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@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
Message-ID
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 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 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 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 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
want, Stierch
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- 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
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
-online.de
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, 16:02
Am 30.09.2011 16:46, schrieb Risker:
My question to you is why anyone would want to participate in a discussion
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 censorship
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
: [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 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki
and, indeed, a little empathy.
Andreas
--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: 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.
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
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
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
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, 1
Keegan Peterzell wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
Both the Wikimedia Board and Wikimedia Foundation staff have treated the
image filter as a fait accompli. I think downplaying this reality is
predictable and lamentable in Sue's post.
Individuals and
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please
discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
conversation
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please
On 29 September 2011 07:40, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
- rather than address those opposed to the WMF
For anybody interested: I wrote a blog-post full of disagreement :-)
http://asinliberty.blogspot.com/2011/09/sorry-sue-gardner-but-image-filter.html
regards,
southpark
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:45 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 07:40, Keegan Peterzell
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:45 AM, 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*. Not mentioning it, and not
acknowledging why someone would do that, doesn't make it go away.
As you say, this
It makes some sense. If you come to the conclusion that your
constituency for a particularly important decision is a huge and
diverse array of people (i.e. the readers), and then further conclude
that opposition to your decision is coming from a very narrow and
homogenous slice of that array
Am 29.09.2011 17:00, schrieb Nathan:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:45 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against
any imposed filter is just *weird*. Not mentioning it, and not
acknowledging why someone would do that, doesn't
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please
discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
conversation
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally,
please
discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please
discuss the
On 29 September 2011 23:45, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
Pretty sound
On 29 September 2011 23:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 23:45, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be
being arbitrarily
On 29 September 2011 23:53, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Not dealing with pending comments promptly doesn't sound like
arbitrary filtering to me...
Note comments from others in this thread experiencing the same.
- d.
___
On 29 September 2011 23:55, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 23:53, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Not dealing with pending comments promptly doesn't sound like
arbitrary filtering to me...
Note comments from others in this thread experiencing the
On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
- rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and
that they
On 30 September 2011 00:28, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with
nothing more than chants of WP:NOTCENSORED!, the tone argument seems
quite valid.
Really, every single response to every single comment?
It suggests
This isn't just about the image filter. Try discussing whether or not
porn should be allowed on the Main page of Commons. Let me know if you
get any responses that don't cite [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. Somehow the
majority of the community there believes that there are only two
possible positions on
* Keegan Peterzell wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
I don't think this is contributing much to the discussion. The point in
the blog post is basically just that people should discuss how to make
articles better. Everybody agrees. That, in the sense of the
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please
discuss
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
