I continue to be inspired by the quality of discourse in this debate.
Noein, I appreciate all of the points you make below, but want to call
out one in particular:
> My current vision is that there are several main obstacles to a free
> interaction, for example:
> - - illiteracy
> - - no internet
around
knowledge-creation -- all things we should be thinking hard about. We
can learn quite a bit from one another before stumbling over
licensing.
Sam
[1] Hudong's 'learn, create, collaborate' is a good slogan.
>> From: David Goodman
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sex
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/05/2010 13:01, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I don't know that reaching everybody was ever a stated goal. Being
> theoretically available to everybody is a different matter...
Ah, that's the part that is not clear to me. If you talk about the
intrinsi
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Noein wrote:
> Thank you for this deep analysis. While claiming that we should not
> compromise any of the principles, you didn't address directly the
> possibility that we won't reach everybody if we don't compromise.
> Reaching every human is a (currently and ap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thank you for this deep analysis. While claiming that we should not
compromise any of the principles, you didn't address directly the
possibility that we won't reach everybody if we don't compromise.
Reaching every human is a (currently and apparently)
2010/5/12 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
(...)
> Which brings to mind a question. Is there useful
> content on Citizendium that might be ported over
> to Wikipedia?
their best stuff is supposed to be here,
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Approved_Articles
--
Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva
Kat Walsh wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 4:53 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> On 12 May 2010 21:50, David Goodman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Even more than what Ray says:
>>>
>> +1 to this entire email.
>>
>
> Ditto.
>
> Another principle to state related to this (that I've been trying
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 4:53 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 12 May 2010 21:50, David Goodman wrote:
>
>> Even more than what Ray says:
>
>
> +1 to this entire email.
Ditto.
Another principle to state related to this (that I've been trying to
think about how to expand upon): no resource that is
c
This post by David does prove that it is possible to argue, with intellectual
integrity, that there are more important things at stake than getting Commons
into schools.
Andreas
--- On Wed, 12/5/10, David Goodman wrote:
> From: David Goodman
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imag
On 12 May 2010 21:50, David Goodman wrote:
> Even more than what Ray says:
+1 to this entire email.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Even more than what Ray says:
if we do not offer comprehensive free uncensored but reliable
information, who will? Other sites may feel they have to censor;
other uncensored sites may and mostly do have little standards of
reliability. Some uncensored reliable sites are likely to require some
Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Milos Rancic wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
>>>
Let me know if I'm missing anything important.
>>> Actually, yes. In spite of multicultural nature
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> those words are synonyms. Anyhow, it is good to know that "sacral" is
> at leas ambiguous.
"sacral" -> "sacred"
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://l
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> Let me know if I'm missing anything important.
>>>
>> Actually, yes. In spite of multicultural nature of Wikimedia, this
>> process shouldn't be formulated as
On 5/11/10 7:40 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>> Yeah. I don't remember exactly what Ting said, and even if I did, I wouldn't
>> comment on it. But FWIW to your point, Ting's not in a chapters-selected
>> seat; Ting was elected by the Wikimedia community.
>>
>>
> His seat doesn't
Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
>
>> Let me know if I'm missing anything important.
>>
> Actually, yes. In spite of multicultural nature of Wikimedia, this
> process shouldn't be formulated as purely related to sexual content,
> but as related to c
Sue Gardner wrote:
> Yeah. I don't remember exactly what Ting said, and even if I did, I wouldn't
> comment on it. But FWIW to your point, Ting's not in a chapters-selected
> seat; Ting was elected by the Wikimedia community.
>
>
His seat doesn't come up for re-election until next year, but I
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>
>> 1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy's actions over the
>> past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving.
>> That's mostly happened here and on meta.
>>
>>
>>
> What made that one easier to resolve is tha
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> What I am missing is that Iran has blocked the whole Wikimedia domain as
> Commons is included in that domain. I understand that the reason is there
> being too much sexual explicit content. As a consequence this important
> free resource is no longer available to t
Sue Gardner wrote:
> 1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy's actions over the
> past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving.
> That's mostly happened here and on meta.
>
>
What made that one easier to resolve is that the problem could be easily
defined, and
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> > I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to
> categorically
> > block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article
> > pages? Presumably, t
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> > Obviously, this notion is too cute to actually be helpful, but I thought
> I'd
> > share it.
>
> It has an enormously cute strawman answer: If you don't want to see
> images which aren't used inline in another wiki, don't look at comm
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to categorically
> block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article
> pages? Presumably, those Commons images that are found in articles are
> relevant and ap
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
> And what about choosing "Would you like to see uncategorized images?"
>
> And the same for "cultural censorship": Is your culture brave enough
> to gamble would you be horrified by seeing a penis or Muhammad or not?
>
I'm not sure I under
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to categorically
> block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article
> pages? Presumably, those Commons images that are found in articles are
> relevant and ap
David Goodman writes:
I have been taking an extreme anticensorship position, but I would
> consider this acceptable. People certainly do have the right as
> individuals to select what they want to see. It is not censorship,
> just a display option Such display options could be expanded--I
> wo
Most browsers have the ability to not automatically download images,
but display only the ones that one clicks on--a very useful option for
slow connections and those using screen readers. For some sites with
distracting advertising, I enable it myself before I go there.
But David Gerard's sug
I have been taking an extreme anticensorship position, but I would
consider this acceptable. People certainly do have the right as
individuals to select what they want to see. It is not censorship,
just a display option Such display options could be expanded--I
would suggest an option to initia
On 10 May 2010 19:18, David Gerard wrote:
> Create a tool (e.g. a JavaScript gadget) that allows a logged-in user
> to block images from Commons or local categories they don't want to
> see images from. Then it's each individual's discretion as to what
> they want not to see, and uses the existing
On 10 May 2010 19:14, Noein wrote:
> I don't understand exactly your thoughts. What happens to someone who
> wants to navigate Wikipedia or use Commons but doesn't want to reach
> offending (according to his/her personal sensibility) pages? If this
> person wants a protecting tool, what is your a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/05/2010 07:56, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
> 2010/5/10 Marcus Buck :
>> J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven:
>>> I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
>>> country, why should Wikimedia decide t
If we follow sexual taboos, which ones do we follow? Some Moslem and
non-Moslem groups object to the depiction of any part of the anatomy,
some to depiction or exposure of certain parts only. Some extend it to
males. Some object to the portray of certain objects in an irreverent
manner--there have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I put my impressions of the moment on this discussion page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Censorship#Some_reflexions_following_the_censorship_polemic_of_May_2010
On 09/05/2010 20:04, Sue Gardner wrote:
> Yeah, Pryzkuta, I know there are lots o
2010/5/10 Marcus Buck :
> J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven:
>> I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
>> country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures
>> but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France
2010/5/10 Milos Rancic
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:17 AM, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov
> wrote:
> > I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a
> Muslim
> > country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad
> pictures
> > but that it is perfectly OK to sh
J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven:
> I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
> country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures
> but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France
> wherever. I think the worl
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:17 AM, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov
wrote:
> I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
> country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures
> but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France
>
2010/5/10 Milos Rancic
>
> 3) We should allow voluntary/default censorship on cultural basis, as
> the most of our readers are not registered. (Based on IP address of
> reader. Thus, pictures of Muhammad should be shown by default for
> someone from Germany, but shouldn't be shown by default to
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> Let me know if I'm missing anything important.
Actually, yes. In spite of multicultural nature of Wikimedia, this
process shouldn't be formulated as purely related to sexual content,
but as related to cultural taboos or to "offensive imagery"
Hi Przykuta,
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Przykuta wrote:
>
> We need to talk as Wikimedia Community. There is no authority without
> communication - face to face(s); keyboard to keyboard.
<
> Maybe the best way will be to start special IRC debate - about past, present
> and future. (and aga
Geoffrey Plourde writes:
Wouldn't regulating content mean abdicating the role of webhost, which would
> call Section 230 into question?
>
Mere removal of content posted by others does not create a Section 230
problem or a problem under equivalent provisions elsewhere in the law. A
guideline or p
ion-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is
happening
On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner wrote:
> My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the "scope of
> Jimmy's authority" question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the
> import
o: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is
happening
Sent: 9 May 2010 4:21 PM
On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner wrote:
> My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the "scope of
> Jimmy's authori
On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner wrote:
> My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the "scope of
> Jimmy's authority" question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the
> importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about
> what's happened over the p
Yeah, Pryzkuta, I know there are lots of debates happening everywhere; that's a
good thing --- obviously talking about all this stuff is good, and people
should use whatever mechanisms work for them. All the discussions are good, and
everybody is bringing useful stuff to the table.
Re Jimmy, my
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia. AFAIK it's not
> taking place on-wiki anywhere.
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/195663
After Greg's, David Gerard's and Mike's arguments, I think that it is
clear tha
Hoi,
What I am missing is that Iran has blocked the whole Wikimedia domain as
Commons is included in that domain. I understand that the reason is there
being too much sexual explicit content. As a consequence this important
free resource is no longer available to the students of Iran as a resource
47 matches
Mail list logo
