Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.

2012-06-27 Thread Tim Starling
On 27/06/12 06:46, Nathan wrote: It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for political reasons. Actually, the SOPA blackout notice was developed and deployed by WMF staff.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.

2012-06-27 Thread Philippe Beaudette
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Actually, the SOPA blackout notice was developed and deployed by WMF staff. Point of clarification: Developed and deployed, yes - but at the request of the English Wikipedia community, in the form of the RFC that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.

2012-06-27 Thread David Richfield
This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a long time. Almost all of these tropes are untouched: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexualHarassmentAndRapeTropes?from=Main.RapeTropes - it seems they just had a problem with Google withdrawing ad revenue because they

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.

2012-06-27 Thread David Richfield
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 June 2012 16:02, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote: This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a long time.  Almost all of these tropes are untouched:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.

2012-06-27 Thread David Gerard
On 27 June 2012 16:30, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, they moved fast!  I read the blog post and then went to check, and found the supposedly deleted articles up, less than a full day after the original mailing list email, so I assumed there had to be some mistake.  How

Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

2012-06-27 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Further to Jimbo's championing O'Dwyer, here is the court document from O'Dwyer's January extradition trial: [snip] It looks like these – rather than NPOV – are the values that Wikipedia has been co-opted to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

2012-06-27 Thread Tom Morris
On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 17:56, Nathan wrote: Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand? The whole point about deliberate obfuscation is that it's supposed to blur that line. ;-) -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

2012-06-27 Thread Andreas Kolbe
Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand? I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory Wikipedia founder label.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

2012-06-27 Thread Phil Nash
- Original Message - From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:48 PM Subject: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer Further to Jimbo's championing O'Dwyer, here is the court document from O'Dwyer's January

Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

2012-06-27 Thread Tom Morris
On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 18:05, Andreas Kolbe wrote: I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory Wikipedia founder label.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

2012-06-27 Thread Thomas Morton
Jimmy's platform is Wikipedia. The media struggle to seperate the two (note the connect back to SOPA in this case) Not that I agree entirely with Andreas. But certainly I think the community could have a view on this. Tom Morton On 27 Jun 2012, at 18:01, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

2012-06-27 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 18:05, Andreas Kolbe wrote: I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Input on new models

2012-06-27 Thread Samuel Klein
Dominic - A fair point; this shoudl be clarified explicitly in the description of AffCom work. The discussion in DC will touch on both, but is mostly about getting AffCom underway. SJ On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdev...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

2012-06-27 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 June 2012 18:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: And hell, there really are two points of view about copyright, I understand you've not really studied the subject but there are far more than that. Let's just

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.

2012-06-27 Thread Mike Dupont
Well you think i should delete them from the speedydeletion wikia? http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/index.php?search=rapefulltext=Search mike On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been

Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

2012-06-27 Thread Thomas Morton
On 27 June 2012 21:25, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 June 2012 18:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: And hell, there really are two points of view about copyright, I understand you've not really

Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

2012-06-27 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: On the topic of Jimmy; Wikipedia is his calling card, it opens doors. I think he hasn't done enough in many situations to distance his own views from us; which is unfortunate. But not necessarily deliberate :)

Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

2012-06-27 Thread geni
On 27 June 2012 21:25, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Let's just start with the notion that there might be more than just *one* view. ;) Why start there? Again I understand you haven't really studied copyright but quite a few wikipedians have. So everything from copyright maximalist

Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

2012-06-27 Thread geni
On 27 June 2012 22:05, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: attributed to the Wikipedia founder, then there really is no discernible difference between his view and Wikipedia's, or Google's. wikipedia doesn't really have views in the conventional sense. The amorphous blob that is the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

2012-06-27 Thread Jay Walsh
It would be interesting to see the community develop its own high profile media contacts so this view can be communicated to the world! If Jimmy can write this in The Guardian (a paper which really seems to like him a lot), ---o0o--- Together, we won the battle against Sopa and

[Wikimedia-l] Board visitors resolution passed

2012-06-27 Thread phoebe ayers
All, FYI The Board of Trustees passed a resolution extending and making permanent the Board Visitors visitors program, which we tried out for a one-year trial in 2011. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_Visitors_%282012%29 The language is the same as that in the resolution

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board visitors resolution passed

2012-06-27 Thread Thomas Dalton
In what sense do these visitors have a one-year term when they are actually just attending one meeting? And why doesn't the board just allow anyone that wants to come along to observe their meetings? On 27 June 2012 23:58, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: All, FYI The Board of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board visitors resolution passed

2012-06-27 Thread phoebe ayers
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: In what sense do these visitors have a one-year term when they are actually just attending one meeting? In the sense that someone could attend any of the meetings happening within that year, as agreed on by the board

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board visitors resolution passed

2012-06-27 Thread Michael Peel
On 28 Jun 2012, at 00:03, Thomas Dalton wrote: In what sense do these visitors have a one-year term when they are actually just attending one meeting? And why doesn't the board just allow anyone that wants to come along to observe their meetings? +1. Compare and contrast with WMUK board

Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

2012-06-27 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote: It would be interesting to see the community develop its own high profile media contacts so this view can be communicated to the world! If Jimmy can write this in The Guardian (a paper which really seems

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.

2012-06-27 Thread Anthony
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 27/06/2012 12:10 AM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kim Bruningk...@bruning.xs4all.nl  wrote: The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality. Figuratively speaking, or do you think it