For what's it's worth, Jimbo has now limited the powers of the Founder
flag.
Emily
On May 9, 2010, at 7:58 PM, AGK wrote:
What a thoroughly unpleasant business.
AGK
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:58 AM, AGK wiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
What a thoroughly unpleasant business.
There is now a BBC news story linked from their main news page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10104946.stm
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l
We are planning to run a central notice letting all users know that the
changes are on the way. This will let us capture the majority of users
who aren't on either the lists or on the other places we've posted the
message (Village Pump and Admin's Noticeboard).
Howie
On 5/9/10 5:00 AM,
-- Forwarded message --
From: Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:32 PM
Subject: Open Wikimedia meeting on IRC: Wednesday, 1900 UTC in #wikimedia
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Commons
It's obvious some of Jimbo's idea is ill-considered. But what bothers me is
the responses that this violates some kind of blanket policy. Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia, and we may not remove useful information for any reason.
Wikipedia is not censored, we are not allowed to have exceptions.
I
On 10 May 2010 23:14, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
I suggest that this is a piss-poor way to create Wikipedia policy. There's
a substantial contingent of policy wonks who take any blanket policy statement
as gospel and use it as an excuse to avoid even *trying* to figure out if
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
I suggest that this is a piss-poor way to create Wikipedia policy. There's
a substantial contingent of policy wonks who take any blanket policy statement
as gospel and use it as an excuse to avoid even *trying* to figure
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:21 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 May 2010 23:14, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
I suggest that this is a piss-poor way to create Wikipedia policy. There's
a substantial contingent of policy wonks who take any blanket policy
statement
as
On 10 May 2010 23:39, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
The problem there is the name. If you call it censorship (which it
isn't) then people oppose it. If you don't call it censorship, people
will still wave the not censored banner. The idea of Wikipedia not
See also the talk
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:49 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 May 2010 23:39, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
The problem there is the name. If you call it censorship (which it
isn't) then people oppose it. If you don't call it censorship, people
will still wave
On 10 May 2010 23:53, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On the talk page, I mostly see people calling it out for the
censorship stalking horse it was.
You can tag a goat a very special sort of chicken, but people will
see through that.
So you are saying anything labelled content
Howie Fung hf...@wikimedia.org wrote:
We are planning to run a central notice letting all users know that the
changes are on the way. This will let us capture the majority of users
who aren't on either the lists or on the other places we've posted the
message (Village Pump and Admin's
Actually, I should quote from the current page, not the one from 2 years ago!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IMAGE#Offensive_images
Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's
encyclopedic mission. Wikipedia is not censored. However, images that
can be
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
OK. Would you like to try writing something that would be suitable for
use as image content guidelines, or at least being
* Explicit sexual content
* Explicit medical content
* Images of identifiable people
* Images depicting death
* Images
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
But when it comes to the human body and physiological functions, it is
possible (and in my opinion, better) to limit the number of images to
the best pictures and those that *really* improve an article, rather
than accept everything and hope the
On 11 May 2010 00:12, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Can you explain why Wikipedia and Wikimedia tends to avoid having
explicit guidelines on such matters?
It's a gross NPOV violation.
My position is that a single sentence (Do not place shocking or
explicit pictures into an
On Mon, 10 May 2010, David Gerard wrote:
On the talk page, I mostly see people calling it out for the
censorship stalking horse it was.
You can tag a goat a very special sort of chicken, but people will
see through that.
Well, it is a form of censorship, but just removing someone's private
17 matches
Mail list logo
