2009/5/18 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
I think if there was demand for this within the editing community, it would
already exist. The problem, then, is not what to do for the editors who
might like a safe option but for the readers who don't have an account
and
can't set preferences or add .js
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
What I'd like to see is a preferences framework that allows people to
subscribe to a set of opt-in viewing/reading options similar to how we
currently can add JS widgets. If any of them become so massively
popular and
Nathan wrote:
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
What I'd like to see is a preferences framework that allows people to
subscribe to a set of opt-in viewing/reading options similar to how we
currently can add JS widgets. If any of them become so
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
There is certainly a way to design such a feature to address the concerns you
list. I believe the real problem with such a feature is in content
selection. There are always the boderline cases and who puts in the work
--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons
and freely licensed sexual imagery
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
I'm with Simetrical on this one. One persons censorship is anothers
editorial decision, and by and large[1] the actual content on Wikimedia
projects is determined by the cultural sensitivities of the Wikimedia
community and not the ideals to which we aspire. The arguments we make are
by turns
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think this email really shows a misunderstanding of Wikipedia is not
censored is about; so I am starting a new thread to discuss the issue.
Well, for my part, I think the entire Wikipedia is not censored
policy
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not
the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
To: Wikimedia Foundation
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not
the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
The argument against concealing or making it more difficult in any way
to access material is that it inevitably amounts to censorship. In my
youth, one could not receive publications--on any subject--through the
mail from the Communist countries without signing a form that one had
requested them;
10 matches
Mail list logo
