Erik Moeller wrote:
[snip]
* We've suggested to Wikia a fair market rate based on the average of
the other options we obtained;
* After some negotiation, Wikia accepted. Weighing other pros and cons
of the space against other options, we decided to go with Wikia;
To clarify, did Wikia match
Naoko Komura wrote:
[snip]
[Wikia]'s asking price was more than X, but we said our offer
price would not be more than the price quoted by X. So,
[Wikia] evaluated if they can rent out space higher than our
offer price. As there was no higher bidder than us, [Wikia]
had agreed to offer the
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
If articles can be shared, surely talk pages can be shared too ?
Yes, but this eliminates the avoidance of interaction that David
Goodman cited as a benefit.
And if that's the case, what *is* the benefit? Why dedicate effort
and resources toward duplicating the normal
Nathan wrote:
This sounds like a very interesting idea to me. None of the potential
problems are obvious dealbreakers to me. It isn't outsourcing, the talkpage
can be shared as easily as anything else, we would really like to take
advantage of concentrated groups of expert users, and the more
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Maybe we could use that $20,000 that Philip Greenspun donated back in
2007 to purchase the Encarta illustrations (since it doesn't appear
that that money is ever going to be used otherwise).
$20,000 means practically nothing to Microsoft. It's far more likely
that they
April's fools alredy? *sigh*
Apparently. As I have no desire to have my time wasted by such abuse
of the mailing list, I've created a filter to delete any future
e-mails from Al Tally (with whom my interactions have been uniformly
negative).
___
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
Of course, wasting resources on april 1st is very sensical.
And who cares about purported reach to the whole world and all that fancy
words
let's bother them with our idiotic pranks becuase we are majority and
thereforewe have the right to do so
Very good attitude on
Andre Engels wrote:
If [allowing self-identified pedophiles to edit] brings the project in
disrepute, then so be it.
Fred Bauder replied:
It is our responsibility to avoid harm to the project.
By that logic, we ought to disallow public editing altogether. After
all, wikis (and Wikipedia
Bod Notbod wrote:
Let's just have Paedo-Wiki and be done with it.
We have wikis for over 200 languages. It would be wrong not to allow
paedos to express themselves.
I recognize your sarcasm, but not your point.
___
foundation-l mailing list
Bod Notbod wrote:
Well, I guess I just don't know where this conversation is going.
A paedophile might know a lot about the Spanish Civil War and could
usefully add stuff.
A murderer might know a lot about Pokemon.
A rapist might know a lot about physics.
It's not like we're going to
George William Herbert wrote:
We have one single class of editors who, as a class, for
non-wiki-behavioral reasons, we ban. This class' participation is
problematic both for our other users safety and for Wikipedia's
reputation and integrity of content.
Integrity of content? Please
John Vandenberg wrote:
What about a known paedophile who knows a lot about kiddie topics?
And edits the articles in accordance with policy?
Or a known murderer or rapist who edits biographies of potential
targets? i.e. people that live in the same locality.
Are the edits in accordance with
Newyorkbrad wrote:
There is also the fact that many users who go out of their way to describe
themselves as pedophiles may or may not actually be such at all, but are
simply trolling for reactions or to create controversy over whether they
should be blocked or not.
What about users who make
I wrote:
Are the edits in accordance with policy?
Anthony replied:
Which policy? If someone inserts a sentence into an article without
including a reliable source, have they broken policy?
I'll rephrase the question:
Are the edits discernible from those that we expect from a contributor
Anthony wrote:
Your understanding...that the user in question did not edit
inappropriately appears to be incorrect.
I'm referring to the rationale behind the ban (and unless I've missed
something, Ryan hasn't cited past on-wiki issues as a factor).
It appears that the user has not edited
Anthony wrote:
Then I'm merely clarifying for anyone else who read your comment literally.
Okay, but I don't see the relevance.
It appears that the user has not edited Wikipedia in a manner
advocating pedophilia
With over 10,000 edits, I can't be troubled to look hard enough to say
one
I wrote:
Obviously, not all of us are certain that this was the right thing.
Anthony replied:
Fortunately, that's not my problem.
It is, however, the subject of a discussion in which you've opted to
participate.
___
foundation-l mailing list
Fred Bauder wrote:
An appeal is not futile. For one thing the policy might be changed or it
might be decided the policy which exists does not apply in this case.
Again, I wish to read this policy. Where is it published? And how
was it established? Did the ArbCom itself author it?
If a
I wrote:
Again, I wish to read this policy. Where is it published? And how was
it established? Did the ArbCom itself author it?
Fred Bauder replied:
It was authored by the Arbitration Committee and posted on the
Administrators' Noticeboard several years ago.
Please provide a link.
Anthony wrote:
The subject is Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy.
Obviously, the discussion's scope has expanded.
I've opted to participate to dispel the notion, suggested by you, that a
perfectly productive editor was blocked simply because the editor
happened to be a pedophile.
Anthony wrote:
This is a hypothetical which I don't believe will ever arise in
reality,
What is?
A perfectly productive pedophile editor.
What do you mean by perfectly productive? We don't ban editors for
being less than perfect in their contributions.
Are you suggesting that it's
I wrote:
Are you suggesting that it's unlikely that a pedophile could edit with
the degree of productivity that that we ordinarily demand of editors
in good standing?
Anthony replied:
No. I'm am saying that the ordinary demands are far far too low, though.
Please elaborate.
Okay, so
George William Herbert wrote:
It is not clear that anyone has raised any issues which are appropriate
or necessary for the Foundation to deal with.
If the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has created a policy
prohibiting editing by all known pedophiles, I believe that it has
Beth wrote:
If we allow self-identified pedophiles to edit our projects, particularly
those who insist on proclaiming this proclivity on-wiki - we are
permitting even facilitating pedophile advocacy.
What about those who do *not* issue such proclamations on-wiki?
Bad editors are often allowed to edit for years before they finally get
indefinitely banned. I'm not getting into specific details, that's far
outside the scope of this thread. Even this comment is pushing it.
I agree that we often wait far too long to ban disruptive editors, and
I also
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
When a group of people are to come up with a communal opinion, particularly
when this opinion is intended in order to judge a situation, a behaviour,
you can no longer dismiss this formed group opinion as just personal and
dismiss it as such. Obviously you can,
I think it is germane, because it means the choice we have is to ban a
pedophile from the start, before s/he gets a chance to cause any damage,
or to wait far too long to ban the pedophile, after much damage has
already been done. If the banning process were much simpler, efficient,
and
George William Herbert wrote:
There's a known and ancedotally (but not known to be statistically)
significant trend of pedophiles attracting victims online.
Also, apparently, of them coordinating amongst themselves to pass tips
about possible victims in specific areas.
I'm well aware. In
Anthony wrote:
Right, because the only two possible solutions are to ban everyone and
to ban no one.
Obviously not. Likewise, we have more possible outcomes than banning
all known pedophiles and banning no known pedophiles.
Also, please address my point that banning self-identified
George William Herbert wrote:
Wikipedia's strong culture of pseudonymity and anonymity makes protecting
anyone, or detecting anyone, a nearly lost cause if they have any clue
and sense of privacy. Unlike real life, we can't make guarantees with
anything approaching a straight face.
However
Anthony wrote:
Also, please address my point that banning self-identified
pedophiles from editing merely entourages pedophile editors to
*not* identify themselves as such (thereby increasing the
likelihood that problematic activities will be overlooked).
If that were true,
Anthony wrote:
Then my response is quite simple. Blocking some pedophiles before they can
cause trouble is better than blocking none of them before they can cause
trouble.
And what do you believe is likely to occur when these pedophiles are
blocked before they can cause trouble?
We have no
.
Errors are understandable, but Jimmy deliberately cast aside the
reasoned views of the community's most trusted users by continually
wheel-warring with a generic deletion summary (an extraordinarily
disrespectful method). Does this have your full support as well?
David Levy
%3ALogtype=deletepage=File%3AFranz+von+Bayros+016.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALogtype=deletepage=File%3AWiki-fisting.png
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https
Sydney Poore wrote:
The clean up project initiated by Jimmy on Commons has brought much needed
attention to a long standing problem.
And to Hell with the toes (i.e. valued contributors who retired in
disgust) stepped on along the way?
David Levy
in the type of behavior exhibited by Mr.
Wales, the resultant action would be swift and severe.
I've defended Jimbo in the past and even turned to him for guidance.
Unlike those are are merely angry at him (and in some cases, lashing
out in a nonconstructive manner), I'm truly disheartened.
David Levy
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: https
Mike Godwin wrote:
All metaphors are at least somewhat misleading, and some metaphors are
deeply misleading.
At least no one is comparing Jimbo with Nazis or Hitler yet.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
transclusion
removals, distrust in the Wikimedia Commons and resignations from
Wikimedia projects? Less so.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
which don't involve speaking English at all.
See above.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
an identifiable account (thereby
making the removals easier to detect and revert).
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
. And until we purge our servers of every graphic image,
we knowingly retain our self-acknowledged state of indecency.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion that
Fox News was correct?
I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw
upon encountering Jimbo's remarks first-hand, with or without reading
Fox's subsequent reports on the matter.
David Levy
majority of persons
to do.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
?
Should we really panic as the Board and Mr. Wales did? (ok, not panic,
but feel the gravity and urgency of the situation?)
What's especially damaging isn't the absurd reporting from Fox News,
but our founder's proclamation that the reports are accurate.
David Levy
Mike Godwin wrote:
Do you mean the vast majority of persons in Earth's population? I don't
imagine much of Earth's population is even aware of the story, much less
Jimmy's actions.
Of course not. I mean the vast majority of persons encountering
Jimbo's statements.
David Levy
at windmills in this instance.
The feature's name is a legitimate concern, and I see no attempt to
erect any hurdles. (On the contrary, Rob unambiguously noted that
time is of the essence.)
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l
locked down no
later than Friday, May 28 is not compelling evidence).
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions/Terminology
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Sorry, the correct page is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions/Terminology
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman
sure they aren't breaking them) before
editing.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
(and could be mistaken for a a
reference to that concept).
What is your opinion of the proposed name Revision Review?
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
(as evidenced by
the disturbing edits already widely reported), this will be quite
injurious to Wikipedia's reputation.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
on the name drawing the most support, and that's fine. But please
don't suggest that we're wasting our time by doing what Rob asked of
us.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman
is of the essence, the
community is welcome to propose alternatives, and he created a
discussion page section for that purpose.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
compromise can be devised, but in the meantime, the
only appropriate solution is to display the interwiki links by
default. It's unfortunate that this fix was reverted, let alone in
the name of usability.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
, assuming that the interwiki links benefit a relatively small
percentage of users (still a non-negligible number in absolute terms),
I've yet to see evidence that displaying them by default is
problematic. Like David Gerard, I desire access to the data behind
this decision.
David Levy
proposal is to go with something simple for now, and then continue
to explore options for greater customization.
Or you could simply restore the one-line code modification that
provided the default behavior requested by the community (pending
evidence that an alternative setup is beneficial).
David
(and quickly undone).
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
).
The disparity is attributable to the fact that most Vector users were
participants in an opt-in, English-language beta test.
For the record, I agree with everything else that you wrote.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
currently preferred by the community, we
should switch to it.
Erik Möller has outlined a sensible course of action.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation
that additional data is needed, and I
applaud this response.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
[...]
Likewise links to or hosting of classified documents, or offensive
images, is inappropriate
[...]
Images of unveiled women are regarded as offensive by many. Should
we prohibit linking to or hosting them?
--
David Levy
-or proposition?
Even if the wp.org domain name is worth acquiring (most likely at a
substantial cost, as Waldir Pimenta noted), why does this mean that
the Wikimedia Foundation should decline Thomas Wang's generous
donation of the enwp.org domain name?
—David Levy
trustee Samuel Klein,
is discussed here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Categories#general_image_filter_vs._category_system
or
http://goo.gl/t6ly5
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
._category_system
or
http://goo.gl/t6ly5
Because we seek to accommodate a global audience (comprising people
whose beliefs are extremely diverse), I unreservedly oppose any
implementation necessitating the designation of certain image types
(and not others) as potentially objectionable or similar.
David Levy
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
in this manner is
remotely realistic?
What about images depicting miscegenation (another concept to which
many people strongly object)? Are we to have such a category?
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https
such a category?
I'd say if there are people actually wanting to use such a filter, then yes,
I would think we might well get one.
I admire your consistency, but I regard this approach as stupendously
infeasible.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
for any of this. We can accommodate _everyone_ via a
vastly simpler, fully neutral setup. If you haven't already, please
see the relevant discussion:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Categories#general_image_filter_vs._category_system
or
http://goo.gl/t6ly5
David Levy
on an individual,
case-by-case basis:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Categories#general_image_filter_vs._category_system
or
http://goo.gl/t6ly5
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe
decide to hide all images by default.
Or we could simply provide that functionality alone, thereby enabling
the same scenario.
This doesn't have to be difficult.
Indeed.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
. Should the
WMF provide en.[insert belief system].wikipedia.org so they can edit
it and leave the rest of us alone?
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
fundamentalists will have to cooperate! That would be the place for
epic battles of dumbness. We'll have in-house circus!
You're comfortable with the Wikimedia Foundation hosting/funding an
in-house circus?
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l
require evidence of viability before permitting the
creation of WMF projects or offshoots thereof. Thus far, the
available evidence paints a picture in which the stated goal seems as
realistic as the aforementioned magical flying unicorn pony that shits
rainbows.
David Levy
/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Categories#general_image_filter_vs._category_system
or
http://goo.gl/t6ly5
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
of images (with thousands more uploaded
every day) to tag them accordingly? That's merely a single example.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
to function.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-based filter
system, irrespective of its popularity among readers, could not
function without the support of editors.
And you seem to suggest that *any* on-wiki poll is inherently irrelevant.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l
the premise that it's reasonable to base fund allocations
on popular opinion, with donors' views carrying extra (all?) weight.
Our mission is to disseminate information to the world, not to
please donors by catering to their preferences.
David Levy
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
of readers.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
, Google.
Are you suggesting that a comparable situation is likely to arise at a
WMF website?
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
about Toby. Let Toby be there. Toby loves us. Toby
hates us. Toby always wins.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
cited as problematic, I believe
that something along these lines would be both feasible and generally
acceptable to editors.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
the system to all its
delight. Please come up with something more realistic.
Please elaborate (ideally without hurling insults).
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman
). Is it possible that you misread/misinterpreted it? If
not, please explain how it would enable such an exploit.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation
under which they're considered potentially objectionable,
so someone wishing to censor images of x is far less likely to find
Category:x.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
if you like the image browsers
Sorry, I don't know what you mean.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
of implementation discussed here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Categories#general_image_filter_vs._category_system
or
http://goo.gl/t6ly5
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
who are genuinely shocked to see that we have the kind of media
we have on those pages, and are unprepared for them.
Such users could opt to block images by default, whitelisting only the
articles or specific images whose captions indicate content that they
wish to view.
David Levy
the user's blacklists, and a country or ISP could then equally
generate its own blacklists and apply them across the board to all users.
They'd have to identify specific images/categories to block, which
they can do *now* (and simply intercept and suppress the data
themselves).
David Levy
is a photograph of
y (corroborated by information from reliable sources) is a statement
of fact.
And as noted earlier, this is tangential to the image filter discussion.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe
is to
neutrally reflect the real-world balance, *including* any presumed biases. I
agree with that.
Yes, our content reflects the biases' existence. It does *not* affirm
their correctness.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
this proves controversial.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
are content too, just like text.
Precisely. And unless an image introduces information that isn't
verifiable via our reliable sources' text, there's no material
distinction.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
, other inclusion criteria.)
Due weight and neutrality are established by reliable sources.
And these are the sources through which the images' accuracy and
relevance are verified.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
as the popular press, but they're
the most reputable ones available on the subject. Should we deem
their censorship sacrosanct and adopt it as our own?
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https
. Why shouldn't we follow the example set by the most
reliable sources?
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ones cited in
the English Wikipedia's article.
Of course, I agree that we needn't emulate the style in which they
present information. That's my point.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
