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

2012-06-18 Thread Tom Morris

On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 02:44, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:

 Every stupid bot could do this. There is no running out of the box
 solution at the moment, but the effort to set up something like this
 would be minimal compared to anything else.
 
 I would say that Citizendium failed because they did no automatic
 updating. What i have in mind is delayed mirror with update control. It
 is not meant to be edited by hand. It is a subset of the current content
 selected by the host (one or many users) of the page himself. It is
 essentially a whitelist for Wikipedia that only contains
 selected/checked content. That way a childrens Wiki could easily be
 created, by not including any unwanted content, while the effort stays
 minimal. (Not more effort then to create your own book from a list of
 already written articles)

{{sofixit}}


If all the people in favour of filters had spent their time building them 
rather than arguing about them, we would have had a wide array of different 
solutions, without any politics or drama.

That said, if people want to filter Wikipedia, a client-side solution rather 
than a filtered mirror is preferable. If a filtered mirror were to come into 
existence and become popular, this would mean that people would just filter all 
of main Wikipedia, which would prevent people from editing Wikipedia. A 
client-side solution means they are still looking at wikipedia.org just without 
naughty pics and doesn't interfere with editing. It also reduces the need for 
any servers. 

-- 
Tom Morris
http://tommorris.org/








___
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?

2012-06-18 Thread David Gerard
On 18 June 2012 08:00, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:

 {{sofixit}}
 If all the people in favour of filters had spent their time building them 
 rather than arguing about them, we would have had a wide array of different 
 solutions, without any politics or drama.


The problem there is the insistence of filter proponents (from board
down) that it *has* to be done on the sites themselves, with any
post-site solution being considered unsuitable. Why is not clear to me
either.


- 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?

2012-06-18 Thread Tobias Oelgarte

Am 18.06.2012 09:21, schrieb David Gerard:

On 18 June 2012 08:00, Tom Morrist...@tommorris.org  wrote:


{{sofixit}}
If all the people in favour of filters had spent their time building them 
rather than arguing about them, we would have had a wide array of different 
solutions, without any politics or drama.


The problem there is the insistence of filter proponents (from board
down) that it *has* to be done on the sites themselves, with any
post-site solution being considered unsuitable. Why is not clear to me
either.


- d.
I guess Tom misunderstood my comment. I wrote down a simple plan how an 
external solution could work and how to minimize the effort to maintain 
it. If there is a community (it might overlap with our community) that 
would run such a filter portal (or even multiple portals) then it 
should be even more sufficient as if we would implement filters inside 
Wikipedia itself. They could really block images and make a child-save 
zone after their own definition, while we could continue as usual 
without having the burden to avoid conflicts.


___
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?

2012-06-18 Thread Thomas Morton
On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 18 June 2012 12:29, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
 wrote:

  I guess Tom misunderstood my comment. I wrote down a simple plan how an
  external solution could work and how to minimize the effort to maintain
 it.
  If there is a community (it might overlap with our community) that would
 run
  such a filter portal (or even multiple portals) then it should be even
  more sufficient as if we would implement filters inside Wikipedia itself.
  They could really block images and make a child-save zone after their own
  definition, while we could continue as usual without having the burden to
  avoid conflicts.


 The Board acted according to the Harris report, which just said to do
 it on the site itself:


 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two

 It's still not clear to me (looking over part two or part one) why it
 has to be on the site itself and no post-site solution is acceptable.
 Presumably someone interested can dredge through part one and pick out
 the sentences that back this position as opposed to post-site
 filtering.


Utility; hiding a filter on a lower order site does not make it useful.
Incorporating it into the main site (prefferably client side) makes it the
most accessible for our community.

Tom
___
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?

2012-06-18 Thread David Gerard
On 18 June 2012 12:41, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
 On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:


 The Board acted according to the Harris report, which just said to do
 it on the site itself:
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two
 It's still not clear to me (looking over part two or part one) why it
 has to be on the site itself and no post-site solution is acceptable.
 Presumably someone interested can dredge through part one and pick out
 the sentences that back this position as opposed to post-site
 filtering.

 Utility; hiding a filter on a lower order site does not make it useful.
 Incorporating it into the main site (prefferably client side) makes it the
 most accessible for our community.


That's not from the Harris report. What was the justification in the report?


- 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?

2012-06-18 Thread Thomas Morton
On 18 June 2012 12:42, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 18 June 2012 12:41, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
  On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:


  The Board acted according to the Harris report, which just said to do
  it on the site itself:
 
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two
  It's still not clear to me (looking over part two or part one) why it
  has to be on the site itself and no post-site solution is acceptable.
  Presumably someone interested can dredge through part one and pick out
  the sentences that back this position as opposed to post-site
  filtering.

  Utility; hiding a filter on a lower order site does not make it useful.
  Incorporating it into the main site (prefferably client side) makes it
 the
  most accessible for our community.


 That's not from the Harris report. What was the justification in the
 report?


Because they were investigating solutions to problems *on* Wikipedia. Seems
rather obvious ;)

Or perhaps you didn't read parts in full, this for example:

For example, all of these sites, as WMF pages do, have internally-generated
 policies that determine what content is permitted on their sites at all.


Or

However, on every one of these sites, they also employ a series of
 user-controlled options (options designed by the site) that allow users to
 tailor their viewing experiences to their individual needs. Unique among
 these sites, at the moment, Wikimedia projects employ no such options.


I'm not sure where you are leading with this line of argument.. but it
seems to be down a black hole :)

Tom
___
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?

2012-06-18 Thread Tobias Oelgarte

Am 18.06.2012 13:52, schrieb Thomas Morton:

On 18 June 2012 08:00, Tom Morrist...@tommorris.org  wrote:


On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 02:44, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:


Every stupid bot could do this. There is no running out of the box
solution at the moment, but the effort to set up something like this
would be minimal compared to anything else.

I would say that Citizendium failed because they did no automatic
updating. What i have in mind is delayed mirror with update control. It
is not meant to be edited by hand. It is a subset of the current content
selected by the host (one or many users) of the page himself. It is
essentially a whitelist for Wikipedia that only contains
selected/checked content. That way a childrens Wiki could easily be
created, by not including any unwanted content, while the effort stays
minimal. (Not more effort then to create your own book from a list of
already written articles)

{{sofixit}}


If all the people in favour of filters had spent their time building them
rather than arguing about them, we would have had a wide array of different
solutions, without any politics or drama.

That said, if people want to filter Wikipedia, a client-side solution
rather than a filtered mirror is preferable. If a filtered mirror were to
come into existence and become popular, this would mean that people would
just filter all of main Wikipedia, which would prevent people from editing
Wikipedia. A client-side solution means they are still looking at
wikipedia.org just without naughty pics and doesn't interfere with
editing. It also reduces the need for any servers.


The technical solution is a fairly trivial part of the problem; a
client-side filter could probably be put together in a few days IMO.

The *hard* problem is convincing the not censored abusers that it's a
useful feature for our community.

Tom

It is not convincing since it interferes with the work of our editors 
that aren't interested in such a feature. If we tag images inside the 
project itself then we impose our judgment onto it, while ignoring or 
separating it from the context it is used in. The first proposal 
(referendum) mentioned various tagging options/categories that would 
have to be maintained by the community, despite existing and huge 
backlogs. Additionally we are a multi culture project with quite 
different view points and which accepts different view points (main 
difference between Flickr and Co). The result will be huge amount of 
discussions about whether to tag an image or not. This leads me to the 
simple conclusion that it isn't worth the effort, especially if the 
filter is advertised to make Wikipedia a save place for children, while 
everyone (including children) can disable it at any time.


Separate projects that only focus on one task (providing a whitelisted 
view, an automatically updated subset of Wikipedia) would not be a 
burden for the community or at least for everyone not interested in or 
against filtering. Additionally it could define it's own strict rules 
and could even hide images and articles entirely depending on it's goal.


But i have to add that the WMF should not be part of this projects. This 
projects define their own rules like Flickr and Co.


___
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?

2012-06-18 Thread Thomas Morton


  It is not convincing since it interferes with the work of our editors
 that aren't interested in such a feature.


Seems unlikely. Although please feel to expand on this with specifics.


 If we tag images inside the project itself then we impose our judgment
 onto it, while ignoring or separating it from the context it is used in.


And yet you allow that we use editorial judgement in articles. This is no
different, it gives a further tool for editorial decisions to be made.



 The first proposal (referendum) mentioned various tagging
 options/categories that would have to be maintained by the community,
 despite existing and huge backlogs.


 A reasonable argument; but almost everything adds to our backlog anyway.

Additionally we are a multi culture project with quite different view
 points and which accepts different view points (main difference between
 Flickr and Co).


This is an argument for an opt-in filter.


 The result will be huge amount of discussions about whether to tag an
 image or not.


Not if well designed. And at the moment we have big discussions about
whether to include images or not.


 This leads me to the simple conclusion that it isn't worth the effort,
 especially if the filter is advertised to make Wikipedia a save place for
 children, while everyone (including children) can disable it at any time.


Think of the children is not really an argument I ascribe to. And not
really one other proponents of the filter, by my observation, ascribe to
either.

It mostly seems to be brought up by opponents to try and invalidate
arguments.


 Separate projects that only focus on one task (providing a whitelisted
 view, an automatically updated subset of Wikipedia) would not be a burden
 for the community or at least for everyone not interested in or against
 filtering. Additionally it could define it's own strict rules and could
 even hide images and articles entirely depending on it's goal.


Please note we define community in significantly different ways. My
community includes a minority, us, who edit and maintain the project. And
also the vast majority who merely read and use the project.

Our goal as maintainers for this main community should be:
* Maximise the ability of individuals to access content by...
* Minimising the road blocks (social, political, etc.) to accessing content

A significant portion of the filter discussion is predicated on our
internal prejudices and POV - basically navel gazing - with a wide
rejection of the idea that a multi-cultural society exists.

A non-WMF filtering project would not be useful to our community due to the
chicken/egg seeding problem.

Tom
___
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?

2012-06-18 Thread Tobias Oelgarte

Am 18.06.2012 15:06, schrieb Thomas Morton:



  It is not convincing since it interferes with the work of our editors

that aren't interested in such a feature.


Seems unlikely. Although please feel to expand on this with specifics.
Any tagging by non neutral definitions would interfere with project. 
It's like to create categories named bad images, uninteresting 
topics or not for ethnic minority X.

If we tag images inside the project itself then we impose our judgment
onto it, while ignoring or separating it from the context it is used in.


And yet you allow that we use editorial judgement in articles. This is no
different, it gives a further tool for editorial decisions to be made.
Editorial judgment is based on how to wrap up a topic a nice way without 
making an own judgment about the topic. A hard job to do, but that is 
the goal.


If i would write the article pornography then i would have to think 
about what should be mentioned inside this article because it is 
important and which parts are not relevant enough or should be but in 
separate sections to elaborate them in further detail. This is entirely 
different to say pornography is good or evil or this pornographic 
practice is good or evil and thats why it should be mentioned or excluded.


There is a difference between the relevance of a topic and the attitude 
toward a topic. The whole image filter idea is based on the latter and 
not to be confused with editorial judgment.

The first proposal (referendum) mentioned various tagging
options/categories that would have to be maintained by the community,
despite existing and huge backlogs.


  A reasonable argument; but almost everything adds to our backlog anyway.
I would have nothing against additional work if i would see the 
benefits. But in this case i see some good points and i also see list of 
bad points. At best it might be a very tiny improvement which comes 
along with a huge load of additional work while other parts could be 
improved with little extra work and be a true improvement. If we had 
nothing better to do then i would say yes lets try it. But at the 
moment it is a plain No, other things have to come first.



Additionally we are a multi culture project with quite different view

points and which accepts different view points (main difference between
Flickr and Co).


This is an argument for an opt-in filter.
Don't confuse opt-in and opt-out if a filter is implemented on an 
external platform. There is no opt-in or opt-out for Wikipedia as long 
the WP isn't blocked and the filter is the only access to Wikipedia. 
contains some ironyWe have the long story that parents want their 
children to visit Wikipedia without coming across controversial content, 
which they apparently do everytime they search for something entirely 
unrelated./contains some irony In this case an opt-in (to view) filter 
makes actually sense. Otherwise it doesn't.

The result will be huge amount of discussions about whether to tag an
image or not.


Not if well designed. And at the moment we have big discussions about
whether to include images or not.
We have such discussions. But I'm afraid that most of them do not circle 
around the benefits of the image for the article, but the latter part 
that i mentioned above (editorial judgment vs attitude judgment).


Believe me or believe me not. If we introduce such tagging then the 
discussions will only be about personal attitude towards an image, 
ignoring the context, it's educational benefits entirely.

This leads me to the simple conclusion that it isn't worth the effort,
especially if the filter is advertised to make Wikipedia a save place for
children, while everyone (including children) can disable it at any time.


Think of the children is not really an argument I ascribe to. And not
really one other proponents of the filter, by my observation, ascribe to
either.

It mostly seems to be brought up by opponents to try and invalidate
arguments.
I don't think that we need this argument since the filter can't replace 
parents anyway. But it is a constant part of the discussions with 
various exaggerated examples that can be seen in bold at Jimmys talk 
page even right at this moment. For example:


Wikipedia helps me teach my children about the world in a safe, clean 
and trustworthy manner. Free from bias, banter, commercial interests and 
risky content.[1]


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#UK_law

Separate projects that only focus on one task (providing a whitelisted
view, an automatically updated subset of Wikipedia) would not be a burden
for the community or at least for everyone not interested in or against
filtering. Additionally it could define it's own strict rules and could
even hide images and articles entirely depending on it's goal.


Please note we define community in significantly different ways. My
community includes a minority, us, who edit and maintain the project. And
also the vast majority who merely read 

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

2012-06-18 Thread Thomas Morton
On 18 June 2012 15:16, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:

 Am 18.06.2012 15:06, schrieb Thomas Morton:


   It is not convincing since it interferes with the work of our editors

 that aren't interested in such a feature.


 Seems unlikely. Although please feel to expand on this with specifics.

 Any tagging by non neutral definitions would interfere with project. It's
 like to create categories named bad images, uninteresting topics or
 not for ethnic minority X.


Of course; but that is predicated on a bad process design. Solution; design
an appropriate process.



  If we tag images inside the project itself then we impose our judgment
 onto it, while ignoring or separating it from the context it is used in.


 And yet you allow that we use editorial judgement in articles. This is no
 different, it gives a further tool for editorial decisions to be made.

 Editorial judgment is based on how to wrap up a topic a nice way without
 making an own judgment about the topic. A hard job to do, but that is the
 goal.

 If i would write the article pornography then i would have to think
 about what should be mentioned inside this article because it is important
 and which parts are not relevant enough or should be but in separate
 sections to elaborate them in further detail. This is entirely different to
 say pornography is good or evil or this pornographic practice is good or
 evil and thats why it should be mentioned or excluded.

 There is a difference between the relevance of a topic and the attitude
 toward a topic. The whole image filter idea is based on the latter and not
 to be confused with editorial judgment.


Pornography articles, as it stands, have a community-implemented filter
as it is. Which is the tradition that articles are illustrated with
graphics, not photographs. So the example is a poor one; because we already
have a poor man's filter :)

Similarly the decision does this image represent hardcore porn, softcore
porn, nudity or none of the above is an editorial one. Bad design process
would introduce POV issues - but we are plagued with them anyway. If
anything this gives us an opportunity to design and trial a process without
those issues (or at least minimising them).



  The first proposal (referendum) mentioned various tagging
 options/categories that would have to be maintained by the community,
 despite existing and huge backlogs.


  A reasonable argument; but almost everything adds to our backlog anyway.

 I would have nothing against additional work if i would see the benefits.
 But in this case i see some good points and i also see list of bad points.
 At best it might be a very tiny improvement which comes along with a huge
 load of additional work while other parts could be improved with little
 extra work and be a true improvement. If we had nothing better to do then i
 would say yes lets try it. But at the moment it is a plain No, other
 things have to come first.


  Additionally we are a multi culture project with quite different view

 points and which accepts different view points (main difference between
 Flickr and Co).


 This is an argument for an opt-in filter.

 Don't confuse opt-in and opt-out if a filter is implemented on an external
 platform. There is no opt-in or opt-out for Wikipedia as long the WP isn't
 blocked and the filter is the only access to Wikipedia. contains some
 ironyWe have the long story that parents want their children to visit
 Wikipedia without coming across controversial content, which they
 apparently do everytime they search for something entirely
 unrelated./contains some irony In this case an opt-in (to view) filter
 makes actually sense. Otherwise it doesn't.


We may be confusing opt in/out between us. The filter I would like to see
is optional to enable (and then stays enabled) and gives a robust method of
customising the level and type of filtering.



  The result will be huge amount of discussions about whether to tag an
 image or not.


 Not if well designed. And at the moment we have big discussions about
 whether to include images or not.

 We have such discussions. But I'm afraid that most of them do not circle
 around the benefits of the image for the article, but the latter part that
 i mentioned above (editorial judgment vs attitude judgment).


Filtering images would resolve most of these issues.



 Believe me or believe me not. If we introduce such tagging then the
 discussions will only be about personal attitude towards an image, ignoring
 the context, it's educational benefits entirely.


We successfully tag images as pornographic, apparently without drama,
already. So I find this scenario unlikely.



  This leads me to the simple conclusion that it isn't worth the effort,
 especially if the filter is advertised to make Wikipedia a save place for
 children, while everyone (including children) can disable it at any time.

  Think of the children is not really an argument I ascribe to. And not
 really 

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

2012-06-18 Thread James Salsman
 If all the people in favour of filters had spent their time building them
 rather than arguing about them, we would have had a wide array of different
 solutions, without any politics or drama.

 That said, if people want to filter Wikipedia, a client-side solution
 rather than a filtered mirror is preferable

 The technical solution is a fairly trivial part of the problem; a
 client-side filter could probably be put together in a few days IMO.

 The *hard* problem is convincing the not censored abusers that it's a
 useful feature for our community.

I'm not so sure about that.  Submitting a patch to
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Bad_Image_List adding a user
preference to add one or more URLs with arbitrary media files to block
instead of using only the centralized list would not require the
approval of the community, just the developers.

Line 17 of 
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/BadImage/BadImage.class.php?revision=67467view=markup
performs image censorship in the centralized, top-down way that the
community already rejected, so a patch to add a distributed filter
list would actually be in line with community decisions.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [cc-community] CC 4.0 and the GNU GPL

2012-06-18 Thread Kat Walsh
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
 Forwarding this from the CC-licenses list.  The WMF should explore
 what impact, if any, one-way CC-BY-SA to GPL compatibility would have
 on WMF projects.  Is anyone at the WMF talking to CC/FSF about this?

I've been paying attention to the license revision process since it
began, trying to flag any issues I thought were relevant to us--and
now I have just started working at Creative Commons as part of their
legal team. I will definitely be thinking about the impact on WMF
projects and trying to make sure people are aware of anything
important!

Cheers,
Kat


 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Christopher Allan Webber cweb...@creativecommons.org
 Date: Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:51 PM
 Subject: [cc-community] CC 4.0 and the GNU GPL
 To: cc-commun...@lists.ibiblio.org


 Hi all... to revive a thread that's been quiet publicly (but not
 privately) for some time:

 Brett Smith br...@fsf.org writes:
 How receptive generally might be the FSF to working on GPL
 compatibility?  (Is the case made for compatibility rationale
 compelling enough?)

 Very receptive.  Some of the toughest questions I deal with in my job
 pertain to license interactions in cases like you describe, where a
 piece of software is under the GPL and associated materials under
 another, often CC BY or CC BY-SA.  Being able to simplify the answers to
 those questions would be very worthwhile.

 There haven't been any updates on this in a while, but I wanted to
 inform that there is work being done to try and move this forward.
 Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation (with the assistance
 of the Software Freedom Law Center as counsel) are working together
 and are doing our best to explore this as a serious possibility.

 As license stewards of CC licenses and the GNU GPL respectively, we wanted
 to make clear that both Creative Commons and the Free Software
 Foundation think this is an important issue and worth persuing.  Both
 of our organiztions agree that license interoperability, especially
 amongst copyleft licenses, is an important goal.

 At the moment, the general plan is to try to explore both CC BY and CC
 BY-SA one-way compatibility with the GNU GPL, aiming for direct
 compatibility of terms (think Apache 2.0 and GNU GPL compatibility) with
 CC BY, and compatibility between CC BY-SA and the GNU GPL via optional
 relicensing (think MPL 2.0 and GNU GPL compatibility).  We are still
 exploring possibilities, however.

 Thanks for your interest, we will try to keep this conversation
 updated as we move along.
  - Chris
 ___
 List info and archives at 
 http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
 Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

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



-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: k...@wikimedia.org, 
k...@mindspillage.org
(G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-18 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

Nathan, 13/06/2012 20:37:

In my view, no. I think we need to balance the risk argument for
anonymity (dissidents, whistleblowers, people editing topics they wouldn't
want to be publicly associated with, etc.) with the benefits of partial
anonymity. Among these benefits I'd cite the many news items regarding the
discovery of fishy editing patterns from Congressional offices, corporate
offices, government agencies, political candidates, etc.  We're an
organization with competing aims: we'd like to be as transparent as
possible, and by and large believe in the value of radical transparency,
but we also want to protect our users from undue harm.


I'm quite surprised that only Nathan seems to be voicing this concern.
For many years when people criticized the lack of responsibility in 
Wikipedia's authors we've repeated that every word and comma is 
attributed to a person, either by pen name or IP, and that there's no 
need of a real name policy. The most important feature of MediaWiki is a 
[user] tracking feature: the diffs, the history, the contributions 
page; everything is transparent.
This is not needed to please some big brother fans but rather for the 
wiki (the community) to work; replacing IPs with unusable 
non-identifying strings would be a bad thing and it's not obvious at all 
that improving privacy is the prevalent aim here. In fact, the main 
problem with how IPv6 addresses are exposed in MediaWiki is that the 
bytes of information random users have to digest and remember to 
identify users are just too much and in a user-unfriendly format (even 
for the standard sysop). On the other hand, IPv6 will improve 
identification in a very good way; ISP are already heavily using NAT, 
and quite often hundreds or thousands of users in my city have been 
blocked on it.wiki by blocking just a single IPv4 address, not to 
mention community drama around dubious CheckUser results.
That said, we've used domains before IPs and it's surely possible to 
invent something new, although I don't have enough imagination to find a 
solution.


Nemo

___
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

2012-06-18 Thread Rob Schnautz
Just a reminder about the office hours coming up on Thursday this week. The 
topic for this session has been expanded to include all Foundation-run 
Wikipedia Education Program initiatives, which take place in the U.S., Canada, 
Brazil, Egypt, and India.

Like all IRC office hours, the format will be an open question-and-answer 
session, so come with questions, and we’ll come with answers! Questions do not 
have to be limited to the upcoming changes (e.g. transition away from staff-led 
programs in North America, rollout of new software on Wikipedia to help support 
the program)—we’d be happy to answer general questions you have about the 
program as well.

Please refer to the information at the bottom of this email for instructions on 
how to join.

Thank you,

Rob Schnautz
Online Communications Contractor
Global Development
Wikimedia Foundation


From: Rob Schnautz 
Sent: Tuesday, 12 June 2012 2:42 PM
To: Wikipedia Ambassadors ; English Wikipedia ; Wikimedia 
Cc: Frank Schulenburg ; Annie L. Lin ; LiAnna Davis ; Jami Mathewson 
Subject: Office hour: Wikipedia Education Programs in Canada and U.S.

In anticipation of some major changes that are coming up in the U.S. and Canada 
Education Programs, 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)

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] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?

2012-06-18 Thread Anthony
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Am 18.06.2012 14:49, schrieb Anthony:
 Have you ever tried to do this?  It's not as easy as you are making it
 sound, at least it wasn't as of a few years ago, because Mediawiki is
 tightly coupled to the specific database structure it uses.

 You don't need to interact with the database of Wikipedia itself. You can
 use the MediaWiki API which is quite stable and enough for this task. I
 don't speak about a complete mirror, i speak about a filtered _view_ for
 Wikipedia. You type in http://www.mysavewiki.com/Banana; and the server
 delivers the recently approved and cached version of the article from
 Wikipedia if Banana is whitelisted.

Are you talking about remote loading
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Remote_loading)?
 That's a good way to get your IP address banned.

___
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?

2012-06-18 Thread Tobias Oelgarte

Am 19.06.2012 01:39, schrieb Anthony:

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  wrote:

Am 18.06.2012 14:49, schrieb Anthony:

Have you ever tried to do this?  It's not as easy as you are making it
sound, at least it wasn't as of a few years ago, because Mediawiki is
tightly coupled to the specific database structure it uses.

You don't need to interact with the database of Wikipedia itself. You can
use the MediaWiki API which is quite stable and enough for this task. I
don't speak about a complete mirror, i speak about a filtered _view_ for
Wikipedia. You type in http://www.mysavewiki.com/Banana; and the server
delivers the recently approved and cached version of the article from
Wikipedia if Banana is whitelisted.

Are you talking about remote loading
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Remote_loading)?
  That's a good way to get your IP address banned.
No. I don't talk about remote loading. I talk about caching. The server 
hosts the current version itself and only fetches it for an manual 
update. To inform the host that a new version of page exists it could 
listen to the recent changes on the IRC channel. If it would do remote 
loading then you would also accept temporary vandalism which isn't 
desired like remote loading itself isn't desired.


___
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?

2012-06-18 Thread Anthony
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Am 18.06.2012 14:49, schrieb Anthony:
 And considering the heavy use of templates which are
 Wikipedia-specific, presumably you're going to allow for *some*
 hand-editing.

 That would be something else than i had in mind and would extend the
 functionality of the filter (the proposed one) by far. I intended flagged
 revisions together with white listing for a some kind of special audience,
 and not a fork like Wiki that modifies the content (partially) itself.

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help
improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2007)

Are you going to include that template or not?  If so, where are you
going to link improve this article to?

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Still wikipediocentric

2012-06-18 Thread Amir E. Aharoni
A belated reply...

Some new recent developments:

A labs environment was set up:
http://en.wikisource.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page

In the San Francisco hackathon work was done on this:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Hackathon_January_2012/ProofRead

I plan to work on it more in the Washington DC hackathon (Wikimania).



2012/1/15 Luiz Augusto lugu...@gmail.com:
 Dear all,

 I was the [[:m:User:555]], mainly active on the last years of my volunteers
 actions on Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource. I've left the Wikimedia
 projects mainly because the lack of energy from my side to keep trying to
 get free time to work in projects fully neglected by the Wikimedia staff,
 developers team and some volunteers in the core of the Foundaction acts.

 A friend told me about the http://labs.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/ . I've
 checked http://labs.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special:SiteMatrixand...
 surprise! no Wikisource wikis with blue color links! I asked myself
 random things about the [[bug:21653]] lasted for 26 months until gets
 PARTIALLY fixed and decided to check some 'Recent changes' pages and found
 this:

 http://pt.wikisource.org/w/index.php?diff=prevoldid=233269

 Come on guys! What is the point to run a bot spamming on all wikis if the
 tests are only to the Wikipedias? Attempt of a 'politically correct' action
 to these worse guys from others projects get's 'socially included'? Like in
 the real life, those worse guys aren't in need of assistencialism [1]
 actions...

 Well, I don't expect any change on the Wikipediocentric actions in short,
 medium or long time (in fact the Foundation and some local chapters are
 trying to make things for the Wikimedia Commons project, but only because
 that project is the central media source for Wikipedias), this was only a
 mutter.

 Despite my apparently hatred on this message, I really hope that the 3-4
 extensions only enabled on Wikisources wikis don't get's any aditional bugs
 than the current ones in the new version of MediaWiki in the same intensity
 that your guys hopes that focusing in a project that only describes the
 knowledge in an encyclopedic way fully meets the
 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement

 [1] - wow, a concept from social sciences yet not defined neither on
 en.wikpedia or en.wiktionary? O_O

 As on all of my previous messages, sorry for my limited English skills.
 Best regards,

 [[:m:User:555|Lugusto]]
 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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