Tim Starling wrote:
They are serving the interests of who? And who can revoke
the trust upon a specific trustee, or the entire board, in the event
it was misused?
As a non-membership non-profit corporation, federal law dictates that
it must have a Board and that the Board has
That about sums it up.
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
I try to understand what happened, but I'm not sure whether the pieces
that I found so far add up.
* Larry Sanger is mad about Wikimedia. [apparent]
* Larry Sanger notifies the FBI and tells them
Hello Elias,
Welcome to the mailing list.
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva
tolkiend...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/5/9 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com:
(..)
board to do things is to give guidance to the communities. But, this
topic is already pending for years.
On 10/05/10 15:25, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
of Trustees?
Jimmy Wales determined the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation when
he created it. He and Bomis donated the relevant assets, such as the
domain names, to
Tim Starling hett schreven:
On 10/05/10 15:25, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
of Trustees?
Jimmy Wales determined the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation when
he created it. He and Bomis donated the
On 05/10/2010 03:11 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
On 10/05/10 15:25, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
of Trustees?
Jimmy Wales determined the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation when
he created it. He and Bomis
2010/5/10 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
Hello Elias,
Welcome to the mailing list.
Hi! ^^
Are you a member of the Board of Trustees or something?
Could you inform me if the whole board has this kind of position?
No, the whole Board does not have this position. (not to speak for
others
2010/5/10 Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva tolkiend...@gmail.com:
I sincerely don't personally care much about Muhammad pictures, for
example. If people decided to delete them, I would simply think they
are too afraid of offending, but I wouldn't care that much. (I know
that being very notable
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 18:20, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the
clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at
Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not in
Marcus wrote:
Creating a technical solution like that is the task of the foundation.
The _real_ task of the foundation.
Cimon wrote:
Lot of momentum around the idea, is currently most
persistently promoted by the same precise individual
who began the ethical breaching experiment project
I
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Wedrna, later:
The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support
is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the
content, and allows humans or computers to filter it accordingly.
The
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:14 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Wedrna, later:
The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support
is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the
content,
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Wedrna, later:
The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support
is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the
content, and allows humans or computers to filter it accordingly.
The
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 3:14 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:14 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Wedrna, later:
The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support
On 9 May 2010 02:20, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the
clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at
Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not in
use by
On 9 May 2010 07:45, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
True. The resignations are deeply unfortunate, and I hope those who
have left will still contribute to the ensuing discussions - their
opinions are among those badly needed to find the right way forward.
deeply unfortunate is, far
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 12:29 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 May 2010 07:45, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
True. The resignations are deeply unfortunate, and I hope those who
have left will still contribute to the ensuing discussions - their
opinions are among those
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 09:46:02PM -0400, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:22 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hooray for letting American prurience and Larry Sanger's oddities shape the
project.
The tolerance of sexual imagery on Wikimedia is a byproduct of Western
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 00:15, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
What I can say to your questions is that Jimmy informed the board about
his intention and asked the board for support. Don't speaking for other
board members, just speak for myself. I answered his mail with that I
fully support
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:43 PM, THURNER rupert
rupert.thur...@wikimedia.ch wrote:
i might be wrong, but wasn't it _very_ important to have a clear
separation of concerns?
Whether or not this is legally important, it is socially essential.
on the other hand, i consider jimbo trying it and
2010/5/9 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com:
(..)
For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
direction. Both Jimmy as well as me believe that the best way for the
board to do things is to give guidance
2010/5/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
[...]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%A9licien_Rops_-_Sainte-Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se.png
[...]
Hello Milos,
At first to the two points you pointed out:
* No, I didn't mention that sexually explicit content should be deleted
and I still think the criteria should not be if something is sexually
explicit. The criteria should be if it has educational value. This is
what I said in my
Marcus Buck wrote:
Ting Chen hett schreven:
For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
direction.
Not my definition of a soft push.
In my opinion it's not the task of board or
Ting Chen wrote:
It is certainly possible that Jimmy in doing his work had made some false
decisions. We all know that he do make failures. Maybe he didn't
researched the context of a particular image, maybe in some cases his
criteria was too narrow. One can discuss those on the case basis.
Hello David,
it depends. Please point to me what you mean so that I can give you my
opinion on the cases.
I personally disagree with some of the decisions the Commons community
made in the past, and I do think that in some cases Commons has a too
broad definition for educational, and
On 8 May 2010 11:17, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
it depends. Please point to me what you mean so that I can give you my
opinion on the cases.
They've been named in this thread repeatedly.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
Hello Milos,
Milos Rancic wrote:
By my opinion, the only urgency which WMF should do is to support Erik
to fill a lawsuit against Larry Sanger ASAP. Also, if it is not
possible to sue Fox and Larry Sanger on the basis of spreading lies
about WMF in United States, I am sure that it is fully
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
By my opinion, the only urgency which WMF should do is to support Erik
to fill a lawsuit against Larry Sanger ASAP. Also, if it is not
possible to sue Fox and Larry Sanger on the basis of spreading lies
Ting Chen wrote:
it depends. Please point to me what you mean so that I can give you my
opinion on the cases.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALogtype=deletepage=File:F%E9licien%20Rops%20-%20Sainte-Th%E9r%E8se.png
David,
This is an excellent list of principles, which I strongly support.
Projects generally have standards of notability, which is equivalent
to significant informative or educational value, otherwise they fill
up with cruft. A lack of sufficient notability standards for media
not in use on
Marcus writes:
I try to understand what happened...
* Larry Sanger informs media about us alleging Wikimedia of hosting
porn. [unaffirmed]
He just made a lot of noise, and some media picked it up.
* The (conservative) TV station FOX reports about Wikimedia and
contacts many important
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
How can you call this 'affirmed'? Jimbo has made strong suggestions,
but it is the Commons community that must create and enforce its own
policies. The founder flag is an indication of respect, and provides
'crat rights
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
How can you call this 'affirmed'? Jimbo has made strong suggestions,
but it is the Commons community that must create and enforce its own
Samuel Klein wrote:
Marcus writes:
I try to understand what happened...
* Larry Sanger informs media about us alleging Wikimedia of hosting
porn. [unaffirmed]
He just made a lot of noise, and some media picked it up.
If you consider a false report to the FBI reasonably
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 08:33:49AM -0400, Samuel Klein wrote:
I don't think this is a technical issue at all. Considering how
flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited technical
power' on the projects -- just as
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
This isn't an ideal situation. We should have a situation in which
Jimmy's technical power derives from the authority of the board of
trustees
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This isn't an ideal situation. We should have a situation in which
Jimmy's technical power derives from the authority of the board of
trustees or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
This isn't an ideal situation. We should have a situation in which
Jimmy's technical power derives from the authority of the board of
trustees or from a community mandate, or we should have a situation in
Samuel Klein wrote:
I don't think this is a technical issue at all. Considering how
flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited
technical power' on the projects -- just as you and all of our
developers do, at a
I wrote:
Unlike those are are merely angry at him (and in some cases, lashing
out in a nonconstructive manner), I'm truly disheartened.
are are = who are
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:07 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
I don't think this is a technical issue at all. Considering how
flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited
technical
2010/5/8 David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com:
Samuel Klein wrote:
I don't think this is a technical issue at all. Considering how
flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited
technical power' on the projects -- just
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
difficuilt to revert.
So fix commons-delinker. Or shut it off altogether.
2010/5/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
difficuilt to revert.
So fix
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/5/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
pictures you can't see, and
On 9 May 2010 01:40, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
Or shut off the Commons. That would be the ultimate solution :-)
Huh? What would that solve?
Considering this to be an ill conceived joke, not because it could
For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
direction. Both Jimmy as well as me believe that the best way for the
board to do things is to give guidance to the communities. But, this
topic is
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
difficuilt to revert. On any other project if you delete something it
is just a local issue. But deleting a picture on Commons which
Svip wrote:
On 9 May 2010 01:40, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
Or shut off the Commons. That would be the ultimate solution :-)
Huh? What would that solve?
Considering this to be an ill
--- On Sat, 8/5/10, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
Then another idea is to keep on Commons only those pictures which are
non-controversial and suggest local project to keep their controversial
pictures local? For example en Wikipedia keeps fair use pictures locally
and it is OK. If
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
OMG. Red links would indicate to a human that there was a problem which
needed to be solved. Then that human could go about solving the problem
(which very well may involve more than just delinking
Anthony wrote:
OMG. Red links would indicate to a human that there was a problem which
needed to be solved. Then that human could go about solving the problem
(which very well may involve more than just delinking the image).
What, other than delinking or uploading the missing image
the same result if you nominate a pornographic image for deletion.
Andreas
--- On Sun, 9/5/10, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
From: Anthony wikim...@inbox.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:14 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
This assumes that...
This is not always feasible...
And the point is that some solutions weaken the Wikimedia Commons
and/or the sister projects that rely upon it.
Depending on the language, that isn't always
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:22 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hooray for letting American prurience and Larry Sanger's oddities shape the
project.
Wikimedia's goal is to bring knowledge to everyone on Earth, not just
Europeans. Europe is at the extreme left on the global social
Anthony wrote:
Jimbo shouldn't be blamed for the actions of CommonsDelinkerBot. For those
particular deletions in which he exercised poor judgment, sure. For
wheel-warring over some of those instances, absolutely. But ultimately, his
actions (as opposed to the actions which were caused by
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
--- On Sat, 8/5/10, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
Then another idea is to keep on Commons only those pictures which are
non-controversial and suggest local project to keep their controversial
pictures local? For example en Wikipedia keeps fair use pictures
As some of you may know, Jimbo has recently used his standing in the
community to dictate that Commons should not host porn. [1][2][3] He
has interpreted this to include a wide swath of images both
photographic and illustrative, and both contemporary and historical.
In principle, I agree that
Hi,
I would like to point you to:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-May/08.html
Jan-Bart de Vreede
Vice Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation
On 7 mei 2010, at 21:23, Robert Rohde wrote:
As some of you may know, Jimbo has recently used his
I found out about this from Larry Sanger's mailing list. Larry has
reported the child pornography images on Commons to the FBI, as is the
duty of any citizen, and has apparently appeared on Fox News with respect
to the subject.
I certainly have noticed occasional questionable images, the explicit
On 7 May 2010 20:30, Jan-Bart de Vreede janb...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi,
I would like to point you to:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-May/08.html
My interpretation of that is that Jimmy's unilateral deletions are not
done with the support of the rest of the
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 May 2010 20:30, Jan-Bart de Vreede janb...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi,
I would like to point you to:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-May/08.html
My interpretation of that is
Hi,
Speaking for myself I can state that Jimmy is a part of the community and that
the board statement is in support of both his and the other administrators who
have taken the initiative to clean up commons.
Also, I would refer you to Jimmy's talk page on commons, as there is an active
On 7 May 2010 20:45, Jan-Bart de Vreede janb...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi,
Speaking for myself I can state that Jimmy is a part of the community and
that the board statement is in support of both his and the other
administrators who have taken the initiative to clean up commons.
Also, I
HI,
Before calling it a night I would like to point out the final paragraph of the
statement.
In saying this, we don't intend to create new policy, but rather to reaffirm
and support policy that already exists. We encourage Wikimedia editors to
scrutinize potentially offensive materials with
On 7 May 2010 20:56, Jan-Bart de Vreede janb...@wikimedia.org wrote:
HI,
Before calling it a night I would like to point out the final paragraph of
the statement.
In saying this, we don't intend to create new policy, but rather to reaffirm
and support policy that already exists. We
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede
janb...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Speaking for myself I can state that Jimmy is a part of the community and
that the board statement is in support of both his and the other
administrators who have taken the initiative to clean up commons.
Also,
The primary reason that several weeks back I became involved in the Common's
discussions about sexually explicit content is my work with the strategic
planning process for WMF. During the strategic plannings discussions, I
became acutely aware of the problems with the lack of diversity among WMF
I try to understand what happened, but I'm not sure whether the pieces
that I found so far add up.
* Larry Sanger is mad about Wikimedia. [apparent]
* Larry Sanger notifies the FBI and tells them Wikimedia hosts child
porn. [affirmed]
* The FBI is rather unimpressed and does not take swift
Hooray for letting American prurience and Larry Sanger's oddities shape the
project. To be expected, though.
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote:
The primary reason that several weeks back I became involved in the
Common's
discussions about sexually
This is nuts. Literally, nothing has changed. Stuff on Wikimedia
sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
of the project and the foundation. We don't host articles about my
her breasts or his penis, and we don't need to host images of them
either. Arguing otherwise
On 7 May 2010 21:42, Amory Meltzer amorymelt...@gmail.com wrote:
This is nuts. Literally, nothing has changed. Stuff on Wikimedia
sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
of the project and the foundation. We don't host articles about my
her breasts or his
Hoi,
There is a board message about this that is completely in line with what
Jimmy mentioned. When you consider that because of many of those images that
should have remained private the whole Wikmedia domain has been blogged, we
really have to consider how we deal with this issue.
The first
On 7 May 2010 21:56, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
There is a board message about this that is completely in line with what
Jimmy mentioned. When you consider that because of many of those images that
should have remained private the whole Wikmedia domain has been
On 7 May 2010 21:56, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
There is a board message about this that is completely in line with what
Jimmy mentioned. When you consider that because of many of those images that
should have remained private the whole Wikmedia domain has been
It still works, it's just harder. And I'm totally with you on the
second point. Jimmy got a needed process started. Could he have
started it a different, less dramatic way? Probably. Would that have
been better? Probably. As effective? Probably not. If you're
looking to masturbate,
Amory Meltzer hett schreven:
This is nuts. Literally, nothing has changed. Stuff on Wikimedia
sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
of the project and the foundation. We don't host articles about my
her breasts or his penis, and we don't need to host images
Hoi,
We apparently disagree on this. The ban of the complete Wikimedia domain
from Iran happened some time ago and nothing was considered. This issue has
been raised several times and the amount of content that is inappropriate
because it adds nothing to what is already there is high.
Let me be
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Amory Meltzer amorymelt...@gmail.comwrote:
This is nuts. Literally, nothing has changed. Stuff on Wikimedia
sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
of the project and the foundation. We don't host articles about my
her breasts
It's another time we have a problem which would hypothetically fall
into the scope of some global arbcom, but since it does not exist,
I'm still not sure there's the correct way to handle such situations.
I hope that Jimbo and Board will be able to make things settle down.
Petition [1] seems to be
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't actually see what the problem is necessarily in deleting it.
It's called editorial judgment, and as I have been telling people for
years and years on Wikipedia, editorial judgment =/= censorship. You
may write
What I can say to your questions is that Jimmy informed the board about
his intention and asked the board for support. Don't speaking for other
board members, just speak for myself. I answered his mail with that I
fully support his engagement.
Personally, I think that the board is responsible
Doing something good in the worst possible way. Is this not completely par
for the course for Wikimedia? Few people should be surprised.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 06:21:38PM -0400, MZMcBride wrote:
Doing something good in the worst possible way. Is this not completely par
for the course for Wikimedia? Few people should be surprised.
MZMcBride: You could re-state that in a more positive way:
We are happy that some initiative is
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
What I can say to your questions is that Jimmy informed the board about
his intention and asked the board for support. Don't speaking for other
board members, just speak for myself. I answered his mail with that I
fully
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 15:15, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
direction.
The problem is that what Jimmy is doing on Commons isn't a soft push.
It's a
Hoi,
There has been a need to address these things. Let us be clear, there is no
need for speedy deletions, there is time to have the ordinary deletion
process. Let us be equally clear that there is no room for business as usual
because not only have things gone bad and bans like the current
Ting Chen hett schreven:
For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
direction.
Not my definition of a soft push.
In my opinion it's not the task of board or foundation to push the
community in any
When I heard that Jimmy had taken an axe to explicit images on commons,
I thought it was good news as I've been frustrated and disappointed by
my own inability to convince the commons community that some things,
like the bulk copying of erotic imagery from flickr— hundreds of
images with little to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This, my friends, beyond the porn debate, is an important lesson about
the vulnerability of wikipedia.
You just have to threaten or convince Mr. Wales to control or shutdown
the entire project. The whole community is powerless.
When this crisis is
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:18 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there anyone who disagrees that we need to hold to the policies:
2. that no WMF project contain material that it can not legally contain.
Legally contain according to what laws?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A technical and sincerely genuine question about this list. Is somebody,
some bot or some site synthesizing our emailed discussion, or is
everything vanishing as soon as it is spoken?
In this last case, shouldn't we keep an organized trace of the
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/thread.html
Everything is archived.
~Amory
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
By in my first few clicks on Jimmy's deletion log I instantly found
several hundred year old works of art by artists who have articles in
almost every major language Wikipedia.
I confess I found a certain poignancy in reading the article
on one of the victims.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
By in my first few clicks on Jimmy's deletion log I instantly found
several hundred year old works of art by artists who have articles in
almost every major language Wikipedia.
I confess I found a certain poignancy in reading the
Marcus Buck wrote:
Amory Meltzer hett schreven:
This is nuts. Literally, nothing has changed. Stuff on Wikimedia
sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
of the project and the foundation. We don't host articles about my
her breasts or his penis, and we
Fred Bauder wrote:
Yes, Category:Women facing left
A caricature of a Catholic saint using a dildo but used on Wikipedias in
3 languages to illustrate the article dildo. I'm not a student of
Teresa of Ávila but it seems rather unlikely she did a lot of wanton
stuff with dildos. Not that there
98 matches
Mail list logo
