Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Todd Allen]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Those photos are fine, and are found in reliable sources.

Alright, so we at least found a starting point we can agree on. I'll
say that's something.


>
>
> They do not. They do not even show a disrobed male. They are a far cry from
> the alternative we're discussing – and good job too.

I think they serve the purpose. I imagine in many cases, it would be
possible to do it like that, especially in articles on very general
topics.


>
>
>
> I know you could. :) Again, unprecedented in educational sources, and for
> good reason. Try finding a publisher who will let you edit a book on
> suicide for them with that editorial approach.

Books are very often image-light, given the publishing costs.
Wikipedia is not a book.


>
>
>
> The consummation of a marriage is tangentially relevant? *Tangentially?*

In terms of a full article on marriage, to take up a slot for an
image, when we can generally only fit 10 or so images into even a long
article? No, it would not make that cut. Again, photos of weddings,
married couples, etc., in different cultures, would be far more
instructive than a photo of consummation (especially given that
marriage consummation doesn't really look visually any different than
sex any other time). You're trying very hard to set up that straw man,
but it is a straw man.


>
>
> A number of reasons, one of them reader psychology. A normal human being
> would react with shock, concern and compassion for the people whose deaths
> they just witnessed, and would probably be put out of the mood to read the
> article.

Wait wait wait. Above, we discussed the war atrocity photos, and you
were perfectly fine with them. Do you not think such photos would
cause people to react with shock, concern, and compassion? They do for
me! But they appropriately illustrate the topic. Difficult subjects
may have difficult images accompanying them, but what would one really
expect to find?

And in this case, driver's education classes, literature on the topic,
and so on, routinely show photos of drunk driving crashes. Driver
safety material often shows photos of crashes. So you can't even use
the "that's not common practice" argument there. If we follow what you
assert to be common practice above, why wouldn't we follow it here?

Websites put together by competent educators don't feature such
> videos. I realise that what educational sources put together by qualified
> experts do is irrelevant to the average unqualified Wikipedian.
>

Seems this bunch of incompetent, untrained fools has put together one
of the most astonishing, comprehensive, and widely utilized
educational tools in the history of the world. Maybe it was time for a
little unconventional thinking. Wikipedia was not built by deferring
blindly to "experts," and I wouldn't say it's turned out too badly so
far.

>
> Sigh. I think this is roughly where we stopped two years ago. :)
>




-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> That was a highly theoretical scenario (and one you brought up for
> that reason, as I recall.) But in practice, we do have photos of
> victims at articles such as [[Rape of Nanking]] and [[Holocaust]].
> Some of those photos are extremely disturbing. That's because the
> articles are about extremely disturbing subjects.



Those photos are fine, and are found in reliable sources.



> > Many Wikipedians generally argue that because Wikipedia is not censored,
> it
> > should always be appropriate to show an image or video of what the
> article
> > is about. According to this reasoning, an ideal article about rape would
> > show a video of rape.
>
> It currently does. In this case, they're paintings rather than photos,
> but they certainly and graphically show the subject matter at hand.
>


They do not. They do not even show a disrobed male. They are a far cry from
the alternative we're discussing – and good job too.



>  An article on suicide would have embedded videos of
> > people killing themselves.
>
> For such a broad topic, I think we might want more general
> illustrations. But if we really did have such an image, of appropriate
> license and high quality, I could see considering it.



I know you could. :) Again, unprecedented in educational sources, and for
good reason. Try finding a publisher who will let you edit a book on
suicide for them with that editorial approach.



>  An article on marriage would show a video of a
> > marriage's consummation.
>
> No, it wouldn't. The consummation of a marriage is tangentially
> relevant. Photos of weddings and married couples in various cultures
> would be much more relevant. The meaning of "consummation" should be
> briefly touched on, but would not need anywhere near enough detail to
> be an illustrated section.



The consummation of a marriage is tangentially relevant? *Tangentially?*



>  An article on fatal car accidents would show a
> > video of a fatal car crash one.
>
> [[Vehicle accident]] currently includes photos of the aftermath of
> several car crashes, including a couple that look likely to have been
> fatal. If we had appropriately licensed video of a vehicle accident
> occurring, why on earth wouldn't we use it there?
>


A number of reasons, one of them reader psychology. A normal human being
would react with shock, concern and compassion for the people whose deaths
they just witnessed, and would probably be put out of the mood to read the
article. Websites put together by competent educators don't feature such
videos. I realise that what educational sources put together by qualified
experts do is irrelevant to the average unqualified Wikipedian.



>  An article on Russian roulette would show
> > someone playing it. And so forth.
>
> Given that it's illegal in many areas, I would not hold out a high
> likelihood of us seeing someone voluntarily release a video of it. But
> let us presume that someone did. Isn't that exactly what the article
> is about?
>


Sigh. I think this is roughly where we stopped two years ago. :)



> > This argument is not motivated by a desire to educate, or by educational
> > competence for that matter.
>
> Andreas, I realize we disagree on this in a lot of ways, but I think
> anyone who works on this project has a desire to educate. I think we
> can discuss this without questioning one another's motives or calling
> people incompetent.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Afripedia, a project to help the development of Wikipedia in French-speaking Africa

[Samuel Klein]

Adrienne,

This sounds fantastic.  And it is good to hear Kiwix is getting some
direct support.

What sorts of plug computers are you using? I take it most people will
be accessing WP via mobile phones.

You might also consider explicitly distributing books from wikibooks
and wikisource (if not other collections).
Either as they exist on the wiki, or as pdfs (which can be easier to read).

A similar project to set up book servers in communities where people
have laptops, thanks to Sameer Verma (cc:ed):
http://olpcsf.org/projects/pathagar-sheevaplug-edition

SJ

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Adrienne Alix
 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Wikimedia France is very happy to announce a great new project :
>
> A partnership has been formalized on last Friday between Wikimédia France,
> the Institut Français
> (the network of
> the french cultural institutes in the world) and the Agence
> Universitaire de la
> Francophonie(Association
> of Universities of the Francophonie) to support a common
> program about the development of Wikipedia in French-speaking Africa: this
> project is called "Afripedia".
>
> Afripedia is a project to support the "digital development" of Africa.
> While the most part of the contributions and contributors on Wikipedia are
> from the North, we want to make easier the offline reading of Wikipedia and
> the production of content about Africa and made by African contributors.
> The project entails projected workshops to help use the encyclopedia and
> produce content on the Wikimedia projects.
>
> Based on the offline technologies developped by
> Kiwix(and helped by
> Kiwix), the project will involve several phases:
>
> 1/ software development to produce offline versions of Wikipedia (and
> probably other Wikimedia projects like Wiktionary) regularly and easily,
> and then a download solution to get these offline versions easier, with no
> technical ability needed.
>
> 2/ Installation of these offline versions on flash drives, plugged on
> little computers extremely energy-efficient, without screen or keyboard.
> The computer spreads the content of the flash drive (=Wikipedia) with a
> wireless connection without internet (the content of the flash drive is
> available just by connecting to this wifi) [see [[Plug
> computer
> ]]
>
> 3/ Installation of the computers and flash drives and training of students
> and professors on the "Digital campus of Francophonie", a network of
> digital points supported by the Association of Universities of the
> Francophonie, to support the dissemination of Wikipedia content without the
> issues of irregular access to internet. One plug (with or without repeater)
> can provide Wikipedia for dozens of students !
>
> 4/ Training in contribution on Wikipedia (in French and local languages)
>
> 5/ After a first implementation (autumn 2012) in 20 points in 15 countries
> of West Africa, we will assess the project and extend it over a larger
> scale for 2013, if the results are good.
>
>
> As it is one of our missions, we consider producing free knowledge in
> French and in local languages and making it accesible in territories
> developping access to digital technology but having no active Wikimedia
> community yet, to be essential. So we will also support the forming of
> contributors communities in these countries.
>
> See also (in french) http://www.wikimedia.fr/afripedia
>
> ==
>
> The Institut Français is the operator for the French Ministry of Foreign
> Affairs in charge of the cultural action in foreign countries. Through its
> French Language Department, the Institut Français works towards the
> attractivity and spreading of French language across the world. It
> particularly takes care of the development of the teaching of French
> language and culture in secondary school and in universities.
> http://www.institutfrancais.com/
>
> The Agence universitaire de la Francophonie (Association of Universities of
> the Francophonie) groups 786 higher education and research institutions
> from 98 countries on the five continents, using French language as a
> language for teaching and research. Its mission is to contribute to the
> solidarity between French-speaking higher education establishments and to
> the development of a scientific arena in French, respecting the cultures
> and languages diversity.
> http://www.auf.org/
>
>
> --
> Adrienne Charmet-Alix
> Directrice des programmes - Wikimedia France
> Twitter : @AdrienneAlix
> adrienne.a...@wikimedia.fr | 07.62.92.42.01
> http://www.wikimedia.fr
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 426

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:
> I see a child, but i don't see sexual abuse. So i can't agree with you that
> it is an instance for child sexual abuse.

As I said, it is disputed.

> I should have written this question: Can you point me to examples of any of
> the previously mentioned abuses on Commons or Wikipedia that have no
> justification to be there?

I have no idea what the justification is for any particular image.  My
point was that Wikipedia contains plenty of images which were "taken
without the subject's genuine consent".

I am not the one who said that Wikipedia may not contain images which
were "taken without the subject's genuine consent".  That was brought
up by Todd Allen, and my purpose in showing that the images were in
Wikipedia was to show that this is *not* a valid criterion.

I do indeed think that the proper criterion, at least for the adult
version of Wikipedia, is whether or not the image is justified.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 22.06.2012 00:02, schrieb Anthony:

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
  wrote:

Am 21.06.2012 22:51, schrieb Anthony:


On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:

Can you point me to any examples of real "child abuse", "sexual abuse" or
of
"child sexual abuse"?

On Wikipedia?  On Commons?  Anywhere?

Do i really need to answer this question, depending on where we discuss?

Well, I still don't know the answer.

Of course Wikimedia related...

For "child sexual abuse", I was referring mainly to the Virgin Killer
image (and as I said, whether or not the image constitutes this is
disputed).

You call the Virgin Killer image "child sexual abuse"? Truly?

It depicts an instance of child sexual abuse, yes.
I see a child, but i don't see sexual abuse. So i can't agree with you 
that it is an instance for child sexual abuse.




Are that examples of images you find shocking or that should not be shown on
Wikipedia or hosted on Commons?

I was responding to your request to point you to examples.

I should have written this question: Can you point me to examples of any 
of the previously mentioned abuses on Commons or Wikipedia that have no 
justification to be there?




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose-driven motivation

[Kim Bruning]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 08:57:31PM -0700, Steven Walling wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 7:05 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> 
> > Hi.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM9p4o050EY
> >
> > Someone sent this to me earlier this week. It's a ten-minute cartoon video
> > that discusses purpose and motivation. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

More complete version. And what do you mean you haven't seen it 10
times already, and learned it off by heart? ;-)

There's a book too. Haven't read it yet 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive:_The_Surprising_Truth_About_What_Motivates_Us

sincerely,
Kim Bruning


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:
> Am 21.06.2012 22:51, schrieb Anthony:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
>>   wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you point me to any examples of real "child abuse", "sexual abuse" or
>>> of
>>> "child sexual abuse"?
>>
>> On Wikipedia?  On Commons?  Anywhere?
>
> Do i really need to answer this question, depending on where we discuss?

Well, I still don't know the answer.

>> For "child sexual abuse", I was referring mainly to the Virgin Killer
>> image (and as I said, whether or not the image constitutes this is
>> disputed).
>
> You call the Virgin Killer image "child sexual abuse"? Truly?

It depicts an instance of child sexual abuse, yes.

>> For "child abuse", see
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erichsen_Abused_San_or_Nama_child_prisoners_p._52_v2.jpg
>>
> I don't see any problem with this image. It documents child abuse as a fact
> without advocating it.

Okay, I don't understand your request.

I thought you wanted me to give you an examples of these images.

>> For "sexual abuse", a simple search came up with
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AG-10.jpg (which isn't on the
>> English Wikipedia except through image search, but is on other
>> language Wikipedias.
>
> I would be truly shocked if that image or another version of it isn't used.

"No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file."

7 other Wikipedias do use the image

(Ah, going to [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]] I see why.
The English Wikipedia is using the version of the image without the
blur/censorship.)

> Are that examples of images you find shocking or that should not be shown on
> Wikipedia or hosted on Commons?

I was responding to your request to point you to examples.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 21.06.2012 22:51, schrieb Anthony:

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
  wrote:

Can you point me to any examples of real "child abuse", "sexual abuse" or of
"child sexual abuse"?

On Wikipedia?  On Commons?  Anywhere?

Do i really need to answer this question, depending on where we discuss?


For "child sexual abuse", I was referring mainly to the Virgin Killer
image (and as I said, whether or not the image constitutes this is
disputed).

You call the Virgin Killer image "child sexual abuse"? Truly?


For "child abuse", see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erichsen_Abused_San_or_Nama_child_prisoners_p._52_v2.jpg

I don't see any problem with this image. It documents child abuse as a 
fact without advocating it.



For "sexual abuse", a simple search came up with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AG-10.jpg (which isn't on the
English Wikipedia except through image search, but is on other
language Wikipedias.

I would be truly shocked if that image or another version of it isn't used.

Are that examples of images you find shocking or that should not be 
shown on Wikipedia or hosted on Commons?




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> But in practice, we do have photos of
> victims at articles such as [[Rape of Nanking]] and [[Holocaust]].
> Some of those photos are extremely disturbing. That's because the
> articles are about extremely disturbing subjects.

So legal + no "consensus" to delete = keep.

Fortunately "consensus" doesn't mean consensus.  Unfortunately, it
means something closer to mob rule.

>>  An article on marriage would show a video of a
>> marriage's consummation.
>
> No, it wouldn't. The consummation of a marriage is tangentially
> relevant. Photos of weddings and married couples in various cultures
> would be much more relevant. The meaning of "consummation" should be
> briefly touched on, but would not need anywhere near enough detail to
> be an illustrated section.

Why not?  The consummation of a marriage certainly deserves a section
in an adult version of an encyclopedia article on marriage.  I don't
think there should be a photograph of a consummation in Wikipedia, but
then I don't think there should be an photograph of a rape in
Wikipedia either, even in an adult version.  (For one thing, neither
illustration would do anything to enhance one's knowledge of the
topic.)

But what if some people want a photo and some don't?  No "consensus",
so we leave the photo in, right?

>> An article on Russian roulette would show
>> someone playing it. And so forth.
>
> Given that it's illegal in many areas, I would not hold out a high
> likelihood of us seeing someone voluntarily release a video of it. But
> let us presume that someone did. Isn't that exactly what the article
> is about?

Yes, it's exactly what the article is about.

But the article being about something does not mean there should be a
video of it.

Again, I don't see what a video adds to ones understanding of the topic.

>> This argument is not motivated by a desire to educate, or by educational
>> competence for that matter.
>
> Andreas, I realize we disagree on this in a lot of ways, but I think
> anyone who works on this project has a desire to educate.

Well, no, not everyone who works on "this project" does.  But the
personal attack on you was inappropriate.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Todd Allen]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, first of all, why?
>>
>> Secondly, I'm not talking just about sexually explicit photos.
>> Wikipedia has photos of people being or about to be [[behead]]ed,
>> [[torture]]d, [[kidnap]]ped, [[assassination]]ed, etc.  I checked, and
>> there's no photograph of someone being [[rape]]d, just paintings, but
>> it's probably just a matter of time.
>
>
>
> Well, Todd has certainly said on-wiki in the past that he would not see a
> problem in Wikipedia using a video of rape to illustrate an article on the
> topic, provided it were appropriately licensed and did not raise privacy
> concerns (for example if the persons shown were no longer alive). He and I
> have discussed this at length before, together with Jimbo, but I don't
> think either of us has been able to change the other's mind. :)

That was a highly theoretical scenario (and one you brought up for
that reason, as I recall.) But in practice, we do have photos of
victims at articles such as [[Rape of Nanking]] and [[Holocaust]].
Some of those photos are extremely disturbing. That's because the
articles are about extremely disturbing subjects.

> Many Wikipedians generally argue that because Wikipedia is not censored, it
> should always be appropriate to show an image or video of what the article
> is about. According to this reasoning, an ideal article about rape would
> show a video of rape.

It currently does. In this case, they're paintings rather than photos,
but they certainly and graphically show the subject matter at hand.

 An article on suicide would have embedded videos of
> people killing themselves.

For such a broad topic, I think we might want more general
illustrations. But if we really did have such an image, of appropriate
license and high quality, I could see considering it.

 An article on marriage would show a video of a
> marriage's consummation.

No, it wouldn't. The consummation of a marriage is tangentially
relevant. Photos of weddings and married couples in various cultures
would be much more relevant. The meaning of "consummation" should be
briefly touched on, but would not need anywhere near enough detail to
be an illustrated section.

 An article on fatal car accidents would show a
> video of a fatal car crash one.

[[Vehicle accident]] currently includes photos of the aftermath of
several car crashes, including a couple that look likely to have been
fatal. If we had appropriately licensed video of a vehicle accident
occurring, why on earth wouldn't we use it there?

 An article on Russian roulette would show
> someone playing it. And so forth.

Given that it's illegal in many areas, I would not hold out a high
likelihood of us seeing someone voluntarily release a video of it. But
let us presume that someone did. Isn't that exactly what the article
is about?

> This argument is not motivated by a desire to educate, or by educational
> competence for that matter.

Andreas, I realize we disagree on this in a lot of ways, but I think
anyone who works on this project has a desire to educate. I think we
can discuss this without questioning one another's motives or calling
people incompetent.


> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:
> Can you point me to any examples of real "child abuse", "sexual abuse" or of
> "child sexual abuse"?

On Wikipedia?  On Commons?  Anywhere?

For "child sexual abuse", I was referring mainly to the Virgin Killer
image (and as I said, whether or not the image constitutes this is
disputed).

For "child abuse", see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erichsen_Abused_San_or_Nama_child_prisoners_p._52_v2.jpg

For "sexual abuse", a simple search came up with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AG-10.jpg (which isn't on the
English Wikipedia except through image search, but is on other
language Wikipedias.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 21.06.2012 22:24, schrieb Anthony:

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

Well, Todd has certainly said on-wiki in the past that he would not see a
problem in Wikipedia using a video of rape to illustrate an article on the
topic, provided it were appropriately licensed and did not raise privacy
concerns (for example if the persons shown were no longer alive).

So would the same argument would apply to child porn, if the child is
dead, and if it weren't illegal?

The current situation seems to be that photos of child abuse are legal
(and are allowed on Wikipedia), and photos of sexual abuse are legal
(and are allowed on Wikipedia), but photos of child sexual abuse are
illegal (and aren't on Wikipedia except for a few disputed cases).

Can you point me to any examples of real "child abuse", "sexual abuse" 
or of "child sexual abuse"?


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[David Gerard]

On 21 June 2012 20:38, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Well, Todd has certainly said on-wiki in the past that he would not see a
> problem in Wikipedia using a video of rape to illustrate an article on the
> topic, provided it were appropriately licensed and did not raise privacy
> concerns (for example if the persons shown were no longer alive). He and I


You've already been caught once today making a highly distorted claim
in this thread, so if you're going to make a claim like this you
really need to supply the diffs.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 21.06.2012 21:55, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:


This thread isn't about copyvios, and I don't want to get too far
afield, but I think it does kind of show the thought process here
sometimes. From my read of the discussions with that editor, as well
as the incident discussion you linked, he is being blocked not for the
deletion nominations themselves, but for making them disruptively,
both by targeting editors he disagrees with and by being abusive
during the process. As a parallel on Wikipedia, if someone has a
disagreement with another editor, and proceeds to nominate 10 of their
articles for deletion with the deletion rationale "Delete this crap by
that moron", that person could be sanctioned even if all 10 articles
really -do- need to be deleted. I don't know if that's really the
case, nor do I feel like reviewing his contributions in enough detail
to find out, but the block discussion is absolutely -not- talking
about what you said it was.



Notability is different from copyright. Copyright is fundamental. When
editors in Wikipedia have pointed out multiple copyright violations or
plagiarisms by administrators (we have had examples, up to and including
arbitrators), they have not been subject to threats, blocks and bans. I
don't think this sort of thing would fly in the English Wikipedia – not
with copyright violations.

Non-notable articles, perhaps, especially if the nomination were
accompanied by abuse. But I am honestly not aware of Pieter ever having
nominated a file with the reasoning "Delete this crap by that moron". These
are your words. And I *am* aware of admins continuously picking on him and
ganging up on him. This is not the first time this situation has arisen.

If a file is a copyright violation, it is a copyright violation.

I don't tend to interfere with that issue. But from what i noticed you 
put Pieter in a very different light as i would put him. Knowing that 
you are unhappy with Commons, even dragging it down to a personal level, 
it isn't really surprising to me to read a comment like this.


I have to agree with Todds view that Pieter used deletion requests 
against opponents on Commons in a very unconvincing fashion, only 
hunting for pictures of this users. I also agree on the fact that a 
(un)justified deletion request is a separate issue from "stalking" 
opponents and making deletions requests purely to annoy them.



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> Well, Todd has certainly said on-wiki in the past that he would not see a
> problem in Wikipedia using a video of rape to illustrate an article on the
> topic, provided it were appropriately licensed and did not raise privacy
> concerns (for example if the persons shown were no longer alive).

So would the same argument would apply to child porn, if the child is
dead, and if it weren't illegal?

The current situation seems to be that photos of child abuse are legal
(and are allowed on Wikipedia), and photos of sexual abuse are legal
(and are allowed on Wikipedia), but photos of child sexual abuse are
illegal (and aren't on Wikipedia except for a few disputed cases).

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> This thread isn't about copyvios, and I don't want to get too far
> afield, but I think it does kind of show the thought process here
> sometimes. From my read of the discussions with that editor, as well
> as the incident discussion you linked, he is being blocked not for the
> deletion nominations themselves, but for making them disruptively,
> both by targeting editors he disagrees with and by being abusive
> during the process. As a parallel on Wikipedia, if someone has a
> disagreement with another editor, and proceeds to nominate 10 of their
> articles for deletion with the deletion rationale "Delete this crap by
> that moron", that person could be sanctioned even if all 10 articles
> really -do- need to be deleted. I don't know if that's really the
> case, nor do I feel like reviewing his contributions in enough detail
> to find out, but the block discussion is absolutely -not- talking
> about what you said it was.



Notability is different from copyright. Copyright is fundamental. When
editors in Wikipedia have pointed out multiple copyright violations or
plagiarisms by administrators (we have had examples, up to and including
arbitrators), they have not been subject to threats, blocks and bans. I
don't think this sort of thing would fly in the English Wikipedia – not
with copyright violations.

Non-notable articles, perhaps, especially if the nomination were
accompanied by abuse. But I am honestly not aware of Pieter ever having
nominated a file with the reasoning "Delete this crap by that moron". These
are your words. And I *am* aware of admins continuously picking on him and
ganging up on him. This is not the first time this situation has arisen.

If a file is a copyright violation, it is a copyright violation.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony  wrote:

>
> Well, first of all, why?
>
> Secondly, I'm not talking just about sexually explicit photos.
> Wikipedia has photos of people being or about to be [[behead]]ed,
> [[torture]]d, [[kidnap]]ped, [[assassination]]ed, etc.  I checked, and
> there's no photograph of someone being [[rape]]d, just paintings, but
> it's probably just a matter of time.



Well, Todd has certainly said on-wiki in the past that he would not see a
problem in Wikipedia using a video of rape to illustrate an article on the
topic, provided it were appropriately licensed and did not raise privacy
concerns (for example if the persons shown were no longer alive). He and I
have discussed this at length before, together with Jimbo, but I don't
think either of us has been able to change the other's mind. :)

Many Wikipedians generally argue that because Wikipedia is not censored, it
should always be appropriate to show an image or video of what the article
is about. According to this reasoning, an ideal article about rape would
show a video of rape. An article on suicide would have embedded videos of
people killing themselves. An article on marriage would show a video of a
marriage's consummation. An article on fatal car accidents would show a
video of a fatal car crash one. An article on Russian roulette would show
someone playing it. And so forth.

This argument is not motivated by a desire to educate, or by educational
competence for that matter.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Todd Allen]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>
>> Many images on Wikipedia have been taken without the subject's genuine
>> consent.  So surely that isn't the issue.
>
>
>
> Many are transferred to Commons from Flickr without the uploader's consent
> which, in the case of sexually explicit photos taken in a private location,
> should always be sought before doing the transfer.
>
> Unfortunately, that's another rule more honoured in the breach than in the
> observance on Commons. (Note that even if the image doesn't show a face,
> the Commons page always includes a link to the person's Flickr stream, thus
> identifying them.)
>
> Incidentally, a Commons copyright specialist is currently being banned for
> nominating admins' copyright violations for deletion, even though the vast
> majority of his deletions have always turned out to be correct ... the
> administrators are feeling "harassed" by having their copyright violations
> nominated and say he's doing it because he doesn't like them, and that it's
> bad for community relations.
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Pieter_Kuiper
>
> You couldn't make this stuff up. Not unless you were William Golding, that
> is.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

This thread isn't about copyvios, and I don't want to get too far
afield, but I think it does kind of show the thought process here
sometimes. From my read of the discussions with that editor, as well
as the incident discussion you linked, he is being blocked not for the
deletion nominations themselves, but for making them disruptively,
both by targeting editors he disagrees with and by being abusive
during the process. As a parallel on Wikipedia, if someone has a
disagreement with another editor, and proceeds to nominate 10 of their
articles for deletion with the deletion rationale "Delete this crap by
that moron", that person could be sanctioned even if all 10 articles
really -do- need to be deleted. I don't know if that's really the
case, nor do I feel like reviewing his contributions in enough detail
to find out, but the block discussion is absolutely -not- talking
about what you said it was.

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Yann Forget]

2012/6/21 Andreas Kolbe :
> Incidentally, a Commons copyright specialist is currently being banned for
> nominating admins' copyright violations for deletion, even though the vast
> majority of his deletions have always turned out to be correct ... the
> administrators are feeling "harassed" by having their copyright violations
> nominated and say he's doing it because he doesn't like them, and that it's
> bad for community relations.
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Pieter_Kuiper
>
> You couldn't make this stuff up. Not unless you were William Golding, that
> is.

When it goes so far even remotely connected to the reality, I
understand that it gets difficult to reach an agreement about
practical and down-to-earth issues, like nudity images.

Yann

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> Secondly, I'm not talking just about sexually explicit photos.
> Wikipedia has photos of people being or about to be [[behead]]ed,
> [[torture]]d, [[kidnap]]ped, [[assassination]]ed, etc.  I checked, and
> there's no photograph of someone being [[rape]]d, just paintings, but
> it's probably just a matter of time.

No photo on the [[child abuse]] article either.  Is this for pragmatic
reasons (no free photo available), or reasons of principle?

If someone added a photo of child abuse on the [[child abuse]]
article, and if it did not have any copyright issues, would it be kept
unless there was a "consensus" to delete it?

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>
>> Many images on Wikipedia have been taken without the subject's genuine
>> consent.  So surely that isn't the issue.
>
> Many are transferred to Commons from Flickr without the uploader's consent
> which, in the case of sexually explicit photos taken in a private location,
> should always be sought before doing the transfer.

Well, first of all, why?

Secondly, I'm not talking just about sexually explicit photos.
Wikipedia has photos of people being or about to be [[behead]]ed,
[[torture]]d, [[kidnap]]ped, [[assassination]]ed, etc.  I checked, and
there's no photograph of someone being [[rape]]d, just paintings, but
it's probably just a matter of time.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Yann Forget]

2012/6/21 Andreas Kolbe :
> Incidentally, a Commons copyright specialist is currently being banned for

"copyright specialist"?
Is this supposed to be a joke? A 4th degree sargasm? An alien way of
defining a "specialist"? Or anything else?

Yann

(cut nonsense rethoric about the PK affair).

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> Many images on Wikipedia have been taken without the subject's genuine
> consent.  So surely that isn't the issue.



Many are transferred to Commons from Flickr without the uploader's consent
which, in the case of sexually explicit photos taken in a private location,
should always be sought before doing the transfer.

Unfortunately, that's another rule more honoured in the breach than in the
observance on Commons. (Note that even if the image doesn't show a face,
the Commons page always includes a link to the person's Flickr stream, thus
identifying them.)

Incidentally, a Commons copyright specialist is currently being banned for
nominating admins' copyright violations for deletion, even though the vast
majority of his deletions have always turned out to be correct ... the
administrators are feeling "harassed" by having their copyright violations
nominated and say he's doing it because he doesn't like them, and that it's
bad for community relations.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Pieter_Kuiper

You couldn't make this stuff up. Not unless you were William Golding, that
is.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Afripedia, a project to help the development of Wikipedia in French-speaking Africa

[Hubert]

wow, really fantastic! Sounds like pioneer-work!

hubertl

Am 20.06.2012 22:43, schrieb Adrienne Alix:
> [Apologize for cross posting... ]
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Wikimedia France is very happy to announce a great new project :
> 
> A partnership has been formalized on last Friday between Wikimédia
> France, the Institut Français
>  (the network of
> the french cultural institutes in the world) and the Agence
> Universitaire de la Francophonie
> 
> (Association of Universities of the Francophonie) to support a common
> program about the development of Wikipedia in French-speaking Africa:
> this project is called "Afripedia".
> 
> Afripedia is a project to support the "digital development" of Africa.
> While the most part of the contributions and contributors on Wikipedia
> are from the North, we want to make easier the offline reading of
> Wikipedia and the production of content about Africa and made by African
> contributors. The project entails projected workshops to help use the
> encyclopedia and produce content on the Wikimedia projects.
> 
> Based on the offline technologies developped by Kiwix
>  (and helped by Kiwix), the
> project will involve several phases:
> 
> 1/ software development to produce offline versions of Wikipedia (and
> probably other Wikimedia projects like Wiktionary) regularly and easily,
> and then a download solution to get these offline versions easier, with
> no technical ability needed.
> 
> 2/ Installation of these offline versions on flash drives, plugged on
> little computers extremely energy-efficient, without screen or keyboard.
> The computer spreads the content of the flash drive (=Wikipedia) with a
> wireless connection without internet (the content of the flash drive is
> available just by connecting to this wifi) [see [[Plug computer
> ]]
> 
> 3/ Installation of the computers and flash drives and training of
> students and professors on the "Digital campus of Francophonie", a
> network of digital points supported by the Association of Universities
> of the Francophonie, to support the dissemination of Wikipedia content
> without the issues of irregular access to internet. One plug (with or
> without repeater) can provide Wikipedia for dozens of students !
> 
> 4/ Training in contribution on Wikipedia (in French and local languages)
> 
> 5/ After a first implementation (autumn 2012) in 20 points in 15
> countries of West Africa, we will assess the project and extend it over
> a larger scale for 2013, if the results are good.
> 
> 
> As it is one of our missions, we consider producing free knowledge in
> French and in local languages and making it accesible in territories
> developping access to digital technology but having no active Wikimedia
> community yet, to be essential. So we will also support the forming of
> contributors communities in these countries.
> 
> See also (in french) http://www.wikimedia.fr/afripedia
> 
> ==
> Â 
> The Institut Français is the operator for the French Ministry of
> Foreign Affairs in charge of the cultural action in foreign countries.
> Through its French Language Department, the Institut Français works
> towards the attractivity and spreading of French language across the
> world. It particularly takes care of the development of the teaching of
> French language and culture in secondary school and in universities.
> http://www.institutfrancais.com/
> Â 
> The Agence universitaire de la Francophonie (Association of Universities
> of the Francophonie) groups 786 higher education and research
> institutions from 98 countries on the five continents, using French
> language as a language for teaching and research. Its mission is to
> contribute to the solidarity between French-speaking higher education
> establishments and to the development of a scientific arena in French,
> respecting the cultures and languages diversity.
> http://www.auf.org/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Adrienne Charmet-Alix
> Directrice des programmes - Wikimedia France
> Twitter : @AdrienneAlix
> adrienne.a...@wikimedia.fr  |
> 07.62.92.42.01
> http://www.wikimedia.fr
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately 
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. 
> For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ___
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Andreas Kolbe]

>
> Child porn is illegal, that's been upheld by the Supreme Court
> repeatedly, end of discussion. If 2257 were similarly upheld to apply
> even in circumstances of educational/artistic work, I suppose we'd
> similarly have to follow it like it or not, but it is untested in such
> areas, and I suspect the SC would find it massively overbroad,
> especially as it relates to subjects not identifiable at all.
>


2257 is also about child porn, because without age records there is often
no way of telling whether a cropped shot belongs to a minor or an adult,
and no way for the reader to tell whether they are looking at a picture or
video of a minor or not.

US-based adult sites use compliance statements for equivalent material.
They seem to be more responsible and law-abiding than the Wikimedia
community, which presents its material on a top-5 website.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> Many images on Wikipedia have been taken without the subject's genuine
> consent.  So surely that isn't the issue.

In case you need an example,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LeonardGSiffleet.jpg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>> Heh.  Sorry, I have to laugh any time I hear a...person heavily versed
>> in Wikipedia-speak...use the word consensus.
>
> That's the way the project works. You or I can love it, or hate it, or
> rail against it, but that's the reality.

Sometimes I, and sometimes others, are going to write about the
results of it, okay?

>> So, the only reason kiddie porn isn't allowed (*) is that it's illegal?
>
> Child porn is illegal, that's been upheld by the Supreme Court
> repeatedly, end of discussion.

Well, moreover, it's illegal almost everywhere.  So yeah, putting it
on Wikipedia wouldn't be pragmatic.

But I'm just wondering if there's a principled reason for the ban in
addition to the pragmatic one.

> But even in a hypothetical (and highly unlikely) world where child
> porn was legal, a privacy issue exists there that does not exist in
> adult nude or sexual images, since children are incapable of giving
> real consent to participation in such a thing due to lack of maturity,
> whereas adults can and often do give informed consent to participation
> in photographed or filmed nudity or sexuality. I think that, too,
> would allow us to draw a distinction between sexual images of children
> and those of adults, since those of a child would be -by definition-
> taken without the subject's genuine consent.

Many images on Wikipedia have been taken without the subject's genuine
consent.  So surely that isn't the issue.

>> What if it's a picture of the penis of the political candidate?
>
> I can -conceive- of a case where that would be appropriate

So, commons is fine, I guess.

> In every case I know
> of, though, a candidate penis photo would be just as irrelevant as a
> macro photo of a few hairs on the candidate's head.

Convent pornography, cock and ball torture, and hogtie bondage,
though.  These are things that are relevant.

Or is it okay if, instead of putting the penis picture on [[Candidate
Whatever]], we put it in [[Candidate Whatever's Penis]]?

>> You seem to think there's a clear line to be drawn that everyone
>> agrees upon.  But clearly there isn't.  Some people think the line
>> should be drawn in one place, and some people think it should be drawn
>> in another.
>
> That goes back up to the above. When disagreement happens, we discuss
> it and come to consensus, if we can.

And what is "consensus"?

> If no consensus can be reached
> for an exception in a particular circumstance, standing policy (in
> this case, NOTCENSORED) serves as a fallback/baseline, and we go with
> that.

So, things are included (under NOTCENSORED), unless there is consensus
to not include it?

> Did you have another suggestion for a better process?

Yes, but first let me get a complete description of the current
process (starting with answers to the above questions).

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Todd Allen]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
 On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>> {{sofixit}}, just like any area with NPOV/undue weight issues.
>
> "The next day someone will fix it back." - Douglas Hofstadter

 Such is the nature of this project. If no one ever did anything
 because of that possibility, no one would ever do anything at all.
>>>
>>> Well, it's not just that it's possible, it's that I judge the
>>> probability to be very high.
>>
>> Then, if your proposed change is opposed by a significant number of
>> people, it would tend to indicate it has not gained consensus.
>
> Heh.  Sorry, I have to laugh any time I hear a...person heavily versed
> in Wikipedia-speak...use the word consensus.

That's the way the project works. You or I can love it, or hate it, or
rail against it, but that's the reality. If you'd like to propose a
different mechanism, you can. But I think that the consensus
mechanism, for all its faults, has produced a very remarkable end
product.

Any system we use is going to be imperfect. Perhaps consensus is the
least imperfect one.


>> That,
>> too, is the nature of the beast, when working on a project like this.
>> I think we've all had an idea we strongly believe to be right fail to
>> gain the consensus that would be needed to implement it.
>
> Certainly.  And when this happens, sometimes we write about it, and
> then someone says "so fix it", and we say "the next day someone will
> fix it back".
>
> You seem to be making the assumption that Wikipedia's notion of
> "consensus" is the proper way to write an encyclopedia.  I by no means
> am accepting that assumption.

What would you propose as a superior mechanism, then? That's not a
rhetorical or sarcastic question-maybe we could do better. But you
haven't said how.

>>> But a policy against porn or near-porn involving kids *is* censorship,
>>> is it not?
>>>
>>
>> I suppose in the most technical sense it is, but that's a question of
>> very settled and tested law, unlike 2257.
>
> So, the only reason kiddie porn isn't allowed (*) is that it's illegal?
>
> (*) Notwithstanding Virgin Killer, and perhaps a few other examples, anyway.

Child porn is illegal, that's been upheld by the Supreme Court
repeatedly, end of discussion. If 2257 were similarly upheld to apply
even in circumstances of educational/artistic work, I suppose we'd
similarly have to follow it like it or not, but it is untested in such
areas, and I suspect the SC would find it massively overbroad,
especially as it relates to subjects not identifiable at all.

But even in a hypothetical (and highly unlikely) world where child
porn was legal, a privacy issue exists there that does not exist in
adult nude or sexual images, since children are incapable of giving
real consent to participation in such a thing due to lack of maturity,
whereas adults can and often do give informed consent to participation
in photographed or filmed nudity or sexuality. I think that, too,
would allow us to draw a distinction between sexual images of children
and those of adults, since those of a child would be -by definition-
taken without the subject's genuine consent.

>> In a very technical sense, forbidding penis vandalism is
>> censorship, but I think most of us know the difference. Putting a
>> picture of a penis on the article about a political candidate or
>> sports team is unacceptable, putting a picture of a penis on the
>> "Penis" article is much more likely to be done in good faith.
>
> What if it's a picture of the penis of the political candidate?

I can -conceive- of a case where that would be appropriate, such as if
the candidate were a member of a hypothetical "Porn Party" and freely
released such an image, and that release resulted in substantial
source coverage of that particular image.  In that case, we of course
should show it, since the article will have a section with reliably
sourced commentary on it. But since no such thing really exists, such
an image would be of little to no relevance to the article. In that
case, we're not disallowing it because it's a penis, we're disallowing
it because it's irrelevant. But if somehow it were extremely relevant
to the article, I'd see no problem including it. In every case I know
of, though, a candidate penis photo would be just as irrelevant as a
macro photo of a few hairs on the candidate's head.

> You seem to think there's a clear line to be drawn that everyone
> agrees upon.  But clearly there isn't.  Some people think the line
> should be drawn in one place, and some people think it should be drawn
> in another.

That goes back up to the above. When disagreement happens, we discuss
it and come to consensus, if we can. If no consensus can be reached
for 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
 On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> {{sofixit}}, just like any area with NPOV/undue weight issues.

 "The next day someone will fix it back." - Douglas Hofstadter
>>>
>>> Such is the nature of this project. If no one ever did anything
>>> because of that possibility, no one would ever do anything at all.
>>
>> Well, it's not just that it's possible, it's that I judge the
>> probability to be very high.
>
> Then, if your proposed change is opposed by a significant number of
> people, it would tend to indicate it has not gained consensus.

Heh.  Sorry, I have to laugh any time I hear a...person heavily versed
in Wikipedia-speak...use the word consensus.

> That,
> too, is the nature of the beast, when working on a project like this.
> I think we've all had an idea we strongly believe to be right fail to
> gain the consensus that would be needed to implement it.

Certainly.  And when this happens, sometimes we write about it, and
then someone says "so fix it", and we say "the next day someone will
fix it back".

You seem to be making the assumption that Wikipedia's notion of
"consensus" is the proper way to write an encyclopedia.  I by no means
am accepting that assumption.

>> But a policy against porn or near-porn involving kids *is* censorship,
>> is it not?
>>
>
> I suppose in the most technical sense it is, but that's a question of
> very settled and tested law, unlike 2257.

So, the only reason kiddie porn isn't allowed (*) is that it's illegal?

(*) Notwithstanding Virgin Killer, and perhaps a few other examples, anyway.

> In a very technical sense, forbidding penis vandalism is
> censorship, but I think most of us know the difference. Putting a
> picture of a penis on the article about a political candidate or
> sports team is unacceptable, putting a picture of a penis on the
> "Penis" article is much more likely to be done in good faith.

What if it's a picture of the penis of the political candidate?

You seem to think there's a clear line to be drawn that everyone
agrees upon.  But clearly there isn't.  Some people think the line
should be drawn in one place, and some people think it should be drawn
in another.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Todd Allen]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
 {{sofixit}}, just like any area with NPOV/undue weight issues.
>>>
>>> "The next day someone will fix it back." - Douglas Hofstadter
>>
>> Such is the nature of this project. If no one ever did anything
>> because of that possibility, no one would ever do anything at all.
>
> Well, it's not just that it's possible, it's that I judge the
> probability to be very high.

Then, if your proposed change is opposed by a significant number of
people, it would tend to indicate it has not gained consensus. That,
too, is the nature of the beast, when working on a project like this.
I think we've all had an idea we strongly believe to be right fail to
gain the consensus that would be needed to implement it.


>> Rather, many of us believe that it
>> would be irresponsible to implement censorship on an uncensored,
>> comprehensive educational project.
>>
 I have no
 problem with developing best practices, and certainly I don't think
 anyone will argue that we should host or retain porn or near-porn
 involving kids
>>>
>>> Certainly some people will argue this.  I believe that, fortunately,
>>> most of them are banned, though.
>>
>> Uh...wow. One would hope so. I don't believe that's very common,
>> though. Certainly no one I've heard arguing against censorship is in
>> favor of that.
>
> But a policy against porn or near-porn involving kids *is* censorship,
> is it not?
>

I suppose in the most technical sense it is, but that's a question of
very settled and tested law, unlike 2257. That's more like forbidding
copyvios--copyright law, while complex, is fairly stable and well
tested. In a very technical sense, forbidding penis vandalism is
censorship, but I think most of us know the difference. Putting a
picture of a penis on the article about a political candidate or
sports team is unacceptable, putting a picture of a penis on the
"Penis" article is much more likely to be done in good faith.

> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>> {{sofixit}}, just like any area with NPOV/undue weight issues.
>>
>> "The next day someone will fix it back." - Douglas Hofstadter
>
> Such is the nature of this project. If no one ever did anything
> because of that possibility, no one would ever do anything at all.

Well, it's not just that it's possible, it's that I judge the
probability to be very high.

> Rather, many of us believe that it
> would be irresponsible to implement censorship on an uncensored,
> comprehensive educational project.
>
>>> I have no
>>> problem with developing best practices, and certainly I don't think
>>> anyone will argue that we should host or retain porn or near-porn
>>> involving kids
>>
>> Certainly some people will argue this.  I believe that, fortunately,
>> most of them are banned, though.
>
> Uh...wow. One would hope so. I don't believe that's very common,
> though. Certainly no one I've heard arguing against censorship is in
> favor of that.

But a policy against porn or near-porn involving kids *is* censorship,
is it not?

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Office hour: Wikipedia Education Program

[Rob Schnautz]

Just a reminder that this will be happening in a few minutes.

Rob

From: Rob Schnautz 
Subject: Office hour: Wikipedia Education Program

The Wikimedia Foundation staff for the Wikipedia Education Program (Frank 
Schulenburg, Annie Lin, LiAnna Davis, Jami Mathewson, and I) will be hosting a 
scheduled public office hour in the #wikimedia-office IRC channel.

Date: Thursday, 21 June 2012
Time: 16:00 – 17:00 UTC (noon-1 p.m. EDT, 9-10 a.m. PDT) (click here for local 
time)
Topic: Wikipedia Education Program

This will be a general question and answer session. We have several exciting 
new developments coming up: a transition from staff-led programs to 
volunteer-led programs in North America, and a new piece of software for 
Wikipedia that will help us manage the program better. We also are happy to 
answer general questions you may have about the program.

If you have questions or concerns about the programs, or are simply curious, 
this is a great opportunity to gain better insight into these programs. If you 
are unable to attend, a link to the chat log will be posted at 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours for public viewing following 
the session.

Details on how to join the session are included below. We look forward to 
chatting with you!

Rob Schnautz
Online Communications Contractor
Global Development
Wikimedia Foundation
---
If you haven't used IRC before, it may be easiest to use a web client; this 
means you don't have to install any software on your computer. Just click here 
to join in, and then choose a username when prompted: 
http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikimedia-office You may be prompted to 
click through a security warning. It's fine.
For more information about IRC software you can install on your computer, go to 
the Wikipedia entry on IRC or the Meta page on Wikimedia IRC. If using 
dedicated software, connect to the channel #wikimedia-officeconnect on the 
freenode network.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endangered languages, a new project by Google

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Samuel Klein, 21/06/2012 16:07:

Brilliant.  The WM language committee and/or lenguasoriginarias might
want to apply to join the Alliance for Linguistic Diversity.

http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/about/#about_alliance


Are they actually doing something or is this only a showcase-site/forum?

Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Input on new models

[Samuel Klein]

Forwarding on behalf of Bence.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Bence Damokos 
Date: Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:41 PM
Subject: [Movementroles] Input on new models

Hi all,

Currently, the Chapters/Affiliations Committee is considering the
procedural elements needed for processing applications for the new
types of affiliates, the actual substance of the process largely
depend on the requirements and definition we use.

I would appreciate if you could take a look at a number of wiki pages
I have started [based on the similar pages for chapters and the
conclusions of this group] and provide feedback (which could range
from "seems good" to suggestions and actual edits for changes). My aim
is not to restart any debates that we have already concluded, rather
to make sure that the documents created reflect the final consensus
and nothing is left out and nothing controversial is added.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Thematic_Organizations (if
anyone can create a new map that shows the Amical regions, that would
be appreciated, as well)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_thematic_organization_creation_guide
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requirements_for_future_thematic_organizations
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_User_Groups
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_user_group_creation_guide
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requirements_for_future_user_groups


Thank you,
Best,
Bence

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endangered languages, a new project by Google

[shi zhao]

license under the cc-by-3.0, see  http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/tos/

Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/
My blog: http://shizhao.org
twitter: https://twitter.com/shizhao

[[zh:User:Shizhao]]



2012/6/21 Samuel Klein 

> Brilliant.  The WM language committee and/or lenguasoriginarias might
> want to apply to join the Alliance for Linguistic Diversity.
>
> http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/about/#about_alliance
>
> SJ
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:06 AM, emijrp  wrote:
> > A new project by Google to protect endangered languages around the world:
> > http://www.endangeredlanguages.com
> >
> > English blog post:
> >
> http://googleblog.blogspot.com.es/2012/06/endangered-languages-project-supporting.html
> > Spanish translation:
> >
> http://googleespana.blogspot.com.es/2012/06/la-conservacion-de-las-lenguas-en.html
> >
> > Remember, there is a deadline
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_a_deadline
> >
> > : )
> >
> > --
> > Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
> > Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
> > Projects: AVBOT  |
> > StatMediaWiki
> > | WikiEvidens  |
> > WikiPapers
> > | WikiTeam 
> > Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein  identi.ca:sj   w:user:sj  +1 617
> 529 4266
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endangered languages, a new project by Google

[Samuel Klein]

Brilliant.  The WM language committee and/or lenguasoriginarias might
want to apply to join the Alliance for Linguistic Diversity.

http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/about/#about_alliance

SJ

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:06 AM, emijrp  wrote:
> A new project by Google to protect endangered languages around the world:
> http://www.endangeredlanguages.com
>
> English blog post:
> http://googleblog.blogspot.com.es/2012/06/endangered-languages-project-supporting.html
> Spanish translation:
> http://googleespana.blogspot.com.es/2012/06/la-conservacion-de-las-lenguas-en.html
>
> Remember, there is a deadline
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_a_deadline
>
> : )
>
> --
> Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
> Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
> Projects: AVBOT  |
> StatMediaWiki
> | WikiEvidens  |
> WikiPapers
> | WikiTeam 
> Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimapia switches to CC-BY-SA !

[Samuel Klein]

Forwarding good news via the India list.  SJ

-- Forwarded message --
From: Arjuna Rao Chavala 
Date: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:50 AM
Subject: [Wikimediaindia-l] Wikimapia switches to CC-BY-SA
To: "Discussion list on Indian language projects of Wikimedia."



Check out:
http://wikimapia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=9878#p194763

A welcome change!
Hope this will increase the quality of maps in Wiki Projects.



Regards
Arjuna

___
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
wikimediaindi...@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Todd Allen]

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>> {{sofixit}}, just like any area with NPOV/undue weight issues.
>
> "The next day someone will fix it back." - Douglas Hofstadter

Such is the nature of this project. If no one ever did anything
because of that possibility, no one would ever do anything at all.

>
>> Good for him. Care to summarize his argument? I don't particularly
>> care to watch his video, or for him in general after the
>> OHNOESVIRGINKILLERIMAGE!!! hysteria a while back.
>
> Yeah, it's pretty bad.
>
>> You are, of course, starting from the presumption that the way you
>> want to do it -is- the "responsible" way, or what have you.
>
> As opposed to what, assuming that the way we want to do it is the
> irresponsible way?
>
> If I thought the way I wanted to do something was irresponsible, I
> wouldn't want to do it that way any more!

I perhaps wasn't clear. My problem was in the phrasing of "We should
do this the responsible way," followed by a description of the way
Andreas wanted to do it. The trouble is, that's essentially starting
from the premise that there's agreement on both sides on what the
responsible way -is-, and one side is arguing to be irresponsible.
That is, of course, not the case. Rather, many of us believe that it
would be irresponsible to implement censorship on an uncensored,
comprehensive educational project.

>
>> I have no
>> problem with developing best practices, and certainly I don't think
>> anyone will argue that we should host or retain porn or near-porn
>> involving kids
>
> Certainly some people will argue this.  I believe that, fortunately,
> most of them are banned, though.

Uh...wow. One would hope so. I don't believe that's very common,
though. Certainly no one I've heard arguing against censorship is in
favor of that.

>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Seth Finkelstein]

Reply-To: 
References: 
In-Reply-To: 


> Andreas Kolbe
> As Seth Finkelstein pointed out the other day, there is opposition to
> pornography both from the right, on a family values basis, and from the
> left, from feminists countering male bias. These are quite separate, but
> equally valid concerns.

Thanks for the mention. It's good to know that someone, somewhere,
reads what I write. But, just to clarify, let me stress I was being
merely *descriptive* there, rather than *prescriptive*. The context was
I had suggested that the Wikipedia _Signpost_ cover Larry Sanger's
recent material. Someone replied mentioning the antiporn-feminist view
(and opposing it). This originated from a gendergap list discussion,
but I didn't know that at the time, and so I was confused about why
Larry Sanger was being taken to be making those types of objections.
Hence I replied:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions&diff=prev&oldid=495437291

"I don't think Sanger is making any sort of (my gloss) 
"gender feminist" critique, but rather taking the standard
(again, simplifying) "family values" type position. While someone
involved in the topic might have such a view, and certainly there have
been alliances of convenience, I don't see it as being a part of what
he wrote in specific and what's he's attempting to do (except again as
an alliance). He probably would object to the following
characterization, but I'd say he's taking the older right-wing
anti-porn stance, rather than the newer left-wing anti-porn stance."

This was not meant as my endorsing both sides. It was more along
the lines of Tom Lehrer's song "National Brotherhood Week":

"Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Hindus hate the Muslims
And everybody hates the Jews"

As in:

"Oh, the Fundamentalists hate the Feminists
And the Feminists hate the Fundamentalists
And the Wingnuts hate the Moonbats
And everybody hates the porn"

There's many different issues which get lumped together. I do think
Larry Sanger raises *some* valid points, and it bothers me immensely
when he gets treated in the style of kill-the-apostate. But I don't
agree with everything he says or tries to do, and I feel I need to
repeatedly made that clear, since I get flack from some people who
want to use me as an available scapegoat for their dislike of critics.

Metaphorically, I've shed a lot of my blood in defense of
civil-liberties on the Internet (my regret over how this harmed my
life sometimes discomfits people). Anyway, these days, I don't feel
any desire to argue ideological pornography theories (it's not going
to matter here anyway). But I'm interested in how this all turns out
in terms of the various factions at odds with each other.

-- 
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  http://sethf.com
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Endangered languages, a new project by Google

[emijrp]

A new project by Google to protect endangered languages around the world:
http://www.endangeredlanguages.com

English blog post:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com.es/2012/06/endangered-languages-project-supporting.html
Spanish translation:
http://googleespana.blogspot.com.es/2012/06/la-conservacion-de-las-lenguas-en.html

Remember, there is a deadline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_a_deadline

: )

-- 
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
Projects: AVBOT  |
StatMediaWiki
| WikiEvidens  |
WikiPapers
| WikiTeam 
Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l