I wrote:
I believe that we should focus on the criteria behind reliable sources'
illustrative decisions, *not* the decisions themselves.
Andreas Kolbe replied:
Ah well, that *is* second-guessing the source, because unless the author
tells you, you have no way of knowing *why* they didn't
Am 19.10.2011 23:19, schrieb Philippe Beaudette:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
I ask Sue and Philippe again: WHERE ARE THE PROMISED RESULTS - BY PROJECT?!
First, there's a bit of a framing difference here. We did not initially
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
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,
outweighs any cost, however large and substantive.
Agreed. I'm not arguing
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,
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 important factor that we should weigh
when we're contemplating the addition of a
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 Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but that is not proof of what we as a community understand the
principle to mean, it means the board is on crack.
That's not a helpful contribution to this discussion.
--
Andrew Garrett
Wikimedia
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but that is not proof of what we as a community understand the
principle to mean, it means the board is on crack.
That's not
On 19 October 2011 10:07, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but that is not proof of what we as a community understand the
principle to mean, it means the board is on crack.
That's not a
Am 19.10.2011 11:07, schrieb Andrew Garrett:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but that is not proof of what we as a community understand the
principle to mean, it means the board is on crack.
That's not a helpful contribution to this
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 as
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
* Andreas K. wrote:
I see our vision and mission as entirely service-focused. We are not doing
this for our own amusement:
You are talking about the Wikimedia Foundation while I was talking about
Wikipedians. I certainly do this for my own amusement, not to satisfy.
That's a fascinating piece of
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
I ask Sue and Philippe again: WHERE ARE THE PROMISED RESULTS - BY PROJECT?!
First, there's a bit of a framing difference here. We did not initially
promise results by project. Even now, I've never
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 dispute the premise that the English Wikipedia has failed
in this
On Tuesday, October 18, 2011, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 17 Oct 2011, at 09:19, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com javascript:; wrote:
I have no problem with any kind of controversial content. Showing
progress of fisting on the mainpage? No problem for me. Reading your
comments?
Sorry to take a tangential point from Tom's email, but is the random
article tool truly random or does it direct to only stable articles or
some other sub-set of article space?
Thanks
Fae
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Am 18.10.2011 09:57, schrieb Tom Morris:
On Tuesday, October 18, 2011, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 17 Oct 2011, at 09:19, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comjavascript:; wrote:
I have no problem with any kind of controversial content. Showing
progress of fisting on the mainpage? No
And that is a mature and sensible attitude.
Some people do not share your view and are unable to ignore what to
them are rude or offensive things.
Are they wrong?
Should they be doing what you (and I) do?
Tom
The question is, if we should support them to not even try to start
On 18 October 2011 11:56, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:
I don't assume that. I say that they should have the opportunity to
change if they like to.
Absolutely - we do not disagree on this.
That controversial content is hidden or that we
provide a button to hide
Am 18.10.2011 14:00, schrieb Thomas Morton:
On 18 October 2011 11:56, Tobias
Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:
That controversial content is hidden or that we
provide a button to hide controversial content is prejudicial.
I disagree on this, though. There is a balance between
That comes down to the two layers of judgment involved in this proposal.
At first we give them the option to view anything and we give them the
option to view not anything. The problem is that we have to define what
not anything is. This imposes our judgment to the reader. That means,
that
From: Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
Am 18.10.2011 11:43, schrieb Thomas Morton:
It is this fallacious logic that underpins our crazy politics of
neutrality which we attempt to enforce on people (when in practice we lack
neutrality almost as much as the next man!).
... and
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 in the past, with long
discussions about contentious cases like the goatse image, or
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
Am 18.10.2011 17:23, schrieb Thomas Morton:
That comes down to the two layers of judgment involved in this proposal.
At first we give them the option to view anything and we give them the
option to view not anything. The problem is that we have to define what
not anything is. This imposes our
Am 18.10.2011 19:04, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
From: Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
Am 18.10.2011 11:43, schrieb Thomas Morton:
It is this fallacious logic that underpins our crazy politics of
neutrality which we attempt to enforce on people (when in practice we lack
neutrality
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
The English Wikipedia community, like any other, has always contained a
wide spectrum of opinion on such matters.
Of course. But consensus != unanimity.
Your interpretation of the English Wikipedia's neutrality policy
contradicts that under which the site operates.
This is only no problem, as long we don't represent default settings, aka
categories, which introduce our judgment to the readership. Only the
fact that our judgment is visible, is already enough to manipulate the
reader in what to see as objectionable or not. This scenario is very
much
From: David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com
The New York Times (recipient of more Pulitzer Prizes than any other
news organization) uses Stuff My Dad Says. So does the Los Angeles
Times, which states that the subject's actual name is unsuitable for
a family publication.
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
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 name, Shit my dad says.
The sources to which I referred are the most reputable
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
Am 18.10.2011 23:20, schrieb Andreas K.:
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
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
* 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 as possible?
Many Wikipedians would disagree that they or Wikipedia as a whole is a
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 dispute the premise that the English Wikipedia has failed
in this respect.
As
Andreas Kolbe 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 as possible?
It depends on the context. There's nothing inherently bad about
Am 16.10.2011 21:27, schrieb ???:
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.uk wrote:
Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for
Note: This foundation-l post is cross-posted to commons-l, since this
discussion may be of interest there as well.
From: Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
It is a in house made problem, as i explained at brainstorming [1].
To put it short: It is a self made problem, based on
Re
I claim that you are talking total crap. It is not *that* difficult to
get the
categories of an image and reject based on which categories the image
is in are. There are enough people out there busily categorizing all the
images already that any org that may wish to could block images
You view them as standalone pieces of information, entirely distinct
from those conveyed textually. You believe that their inclusion
constitutes undue weight unless reliable sources utilize the same or
similar illustrations (despite their publication of text establishing
the images' accuracy
On 17 Oct 2011, at 09:19, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 16.10.2011 21:27, schrieb ???:
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.uk
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
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
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
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
From: Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, 16 October 2011, 20:31
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
If the entire premise of an email comes down to I'm
* 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
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net
To: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011, 2:15
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
* Andreas Kolbe wrote
From: Thyge ltl.pri...@gmail.com
To: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011, 2:59
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
2011/10/17 Andreas
From: David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com
It most certainly is a matter of interpretation. If the English
Wikipedia community shared yours, we wouldn't be having this
discussion.
In this context, you view images as entities independent from the
people and things depicted therein
I view
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
NPOV policy as written would require us to do the same, yes.
The community obviously doesn't share your interpretation of said policy.
It's not a question of interpretation; it is the very letter of the policy.
It most certainly is a matter of interpretation. If the
Hello,
To me, this shows that the search engine is badly configured, or has a
major problem.
So fix it instead of creating a filter, which would have unwanted side effects.
Having a good search engine would be within the WMF mission,
creating a filter is not.
Regards,
Yann
2011/10/12 Andreas
of meaning that the German
word Gewalt has.
Andreas
From: Hubert hubert.la...@gmx.at
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, 10 October 2011, 18:58
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community
Am 10.10.2011 21:16, schrieb Sue Gardner:
On 10 October 2011 11:56, Möller, Carsten c.moel...@wmco.de wrote:
Sue wrote:
It is asking me to do something.
But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
been discussed over the past several months, and which the Germans
voted
+1
h
Am 11.10.2011 03:20, schrieb Bjoern Hoehrmann:
* Sue Gardner wrote:
This is how the system is supposed to work. The Board identified a
problem; the staff hacked together a proposed solution, and we asked
the community what it thought. Now, we're responding to the input and
we're going
Am 13.10.2011 09:54, schrieb Hubert:
Meanwhile, I prefer the following solution:
Everyone, who will not understand and perceive the world so as it is,
should unsubscribe his internet connection - just like his newspaper
subscription, radio and television and - of course - any advertising on
David Levy wrote:
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Again, I think you are being too philosophical, and lack pragmatism.
We already have bad image lists like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list
If you remain wedded to an abstract philosophical approach, such lists
are not neutral.
I wrote:
Apart from the name (which the MediaWiki developers inexplicably
refused to change), the bad image list is entirely compliant with the
principle of neutrality (barring abuse by a particular project, which
I haven't observed).
MZMcBride replied:
Not inexplicably:
From: David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com
In an earlier reply, I cited ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspapers and
magazines
that refuse to publish photographs of women. If this were a mainstream
policy, would that make it neutral?
Please answer the above question.
NPOV policy as
I wrote:
In an earlier reply, I cited ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspapers and magazines
that refuse to publish photographs of women. If this were a mainstream
policy, would that make it neutral?
Andreas Kolbe replied:
NPOV policy as written would require us to do the same, yes.
The
bla
From: David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011, 3:52
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
I wrote:
In an earlier reply, I cited ultra-Orthodox Jewish
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011, 5:45
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
bla
From: David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011, 3:52
From:David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com
Setting aside the matter of category tags, I disagree with the premise
that the neutrality principle is inapplicable to display options.
When an on-wiki gadget is used to selectively suppress material deemed
objectionable, that's a content issue
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Again, I think you are being too philosophical, and lack pragmatism.
We already have bad image lists like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list
If you remain wedded to an abstract philosophical approach, such lists
are not neutral. But they answer a
On 12 October 2011 14:09, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
We already have bad image lists like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list
If you remain wedded to an abstract philosophical approach, such lists
are not neutral. But they answer a real
Secondly, it ignores the fact that an encyclopedia, at least in intention,
does not deal in opinions at all, but rather in facts
Not at all!
You've confused a fact with factual. What we record is factual - but it
might be a fact, or it might be an opinion. When relating opinions we
reflect
From: David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com
You assume here that there is any kind of neutrality in Wikipedia that is
not defined by reliable sources.
There isn't.
Again, you're conflating two separate concepts.
In most cases, we can objectively determine, based on information from
reliable
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
You've confused a fact with factual.
I've confused the adjective form with the noun form of fact? I'm quite
sure that I have.
*The judge convicted Abby of killing Betty, saying that the overwhelming
It contains facts about opinions - it does not itself express an opinion.
It
is both factual, and a fact.
It expresses the *opinion* of the judge that Abbey killed Betty :) We
include it because the global *opinion* is that judges are in a position to
make such statements with authority. And
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Well, you need to be clear that you're using the word neutral here with a
different meaning than the one ascribed to it in NPOV policy.
Neutrality is not abstractly defined: like notability or verifiability, it
has a very specific meaning within Wikipedia policy. That
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Julius Redzinski
julius.redzin...@hotmail.de wrote:
On such a decision the Board should have before making any decision researched
really what raeders expect and want and this with empathy for different
regions and
the understanding that germany maybe has
If the members of de.wikipedia.org are *unaffected by explicit sexual
images* because there are already ahead as they practice bondage or
BDSM, it doesn't mean that all person of the world are so evolute in
sexual matters.
I find these sorts of comments personally offensive, likely to disrupt
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
If I search Commons for electric toothbrushes, the second search result is
an image of a woman masturbating with an electric toothbrush:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchsearch=electric+
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 07:19:00AM +0530, Theo10011 wrote:
...,a viable alternative to not relying blindly on the categorization
system, would be implementing a new image reviewer flag on en.wp and maybe
in commons. This method would create a list of reviewed images that can be
considered
...,a viable alternative to not relying blindly on the categorization
system, would be implementing a new image reviewer flag on en.wp and maybe
in commons. This method would create a list of reviewed images that can be
considered objectionable, that could be filtered/black-listed.
We could
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:53:55PM -0400, Risker wrote:
Kim, I am getting the impression you are being deliberately obtuse.
No, I'm being exhaustive. I wanted to ensure that there is no hair
of a possibility that I might have missed a good faith avenue.
(I wouldn't have asked this question
From: Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk
We could also just delete them, unless someone actually uses them in a
sensible way in an article. :-)
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
Not on Commons; being objectionable to some viewers and not being
currently in use does not make a potentially educational
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
If I search Commons for electric toothbrushes, the second search result is
an image of a woman masturbating with an electric toothbrush:
David,
You asked for a reply to your earlier questions.
As has been mentioned numerous times, deeming certain subjects (and
not others) potentially objectionable is inherently subjective and
non-neutral.
Unveiled women, pork consumption, miscegenation and homosexuality are
considered
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 18:19, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
If we provide a filter, we have to be pragmatic, and restrict its application
to media that significant demographics really might want to filter.
That should be designed well and maintained, too. I am really
frustrated by
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
If the members of de.wikipedia.org are *unaffected by explicit sexual
images* because there are already ahead as they practice bondage or
BDSM, it doesn't mean that all person of the world are so evolute in
sexual matters.
I
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
If we provide a filter, we have to be pragmatic, and restrict its application
to media that significant demographics really might want to filter.
Define significant demographics. Do you have a numerical cut-off
point in mind (below which we're to convey you're a small
Am 11.10.2011 17:42, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
From: Faef...@wikimedia.org.uk
We could also just delete them, unless someone actually uses them in a
sensible way in an article. :-)
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
Not on Commons; being objectionable to some viewers and not being
currently in
MediaWiki serves more than the Wikimedia Foundation too. ~~Ebe123
On 11-10-11 4:42 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 17:42, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
From:
Faef...@wikimedia.org.uk
We could also just delete them, unless someone
actually uses them in a
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk
We could also just delete them, unless someone actually uses them in a
sensible way in an article. :-)
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
Not on Commons; being objectionable to some viewers
From: Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
Someone on Meta has pointed out that Commons seems to list sexual image
results for search terms like cucumber, electric toothbrushes or pearl
necklace way higher than a corresponding Google search. See
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
Someone on Meta has pointed out that Commons seems to list sexual image
results for search terms like cucumber, electric toothbrushes or pearl
necklace way higher
What you are all missing here is that commons is a service site, not a
repository
for the public to go into without knowing it caters to different
cultures than their
own. Period.
--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
___
foundation-l
From: David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
If we provide a filter, we have to be pragmatic, and restrict its
application
to media that significant demographics really might want to filter.
Define significant demographics. Do you have a numerical cut-off
point in
1 - 100 of 211 matches
Mail list logo
