Craig, Phoebe, and Yaroslav, those are all very good points. Until
Google improves its image-recognition software, most photos appearing
in google images are triggered by text in the image description. It
should be easy to tag problematic image desriptions, especially when
more people than the
Hoi,
I am really interested in how you think this will work out when Commons is
going to use Wikidata. The planning is that in half a year the Wikidata
team will start work on implementing something for Commons. It will include
tagging. So for me a picture will be tagged and indicate who is in a
Well I was thinking of only tagging pictures that are controversial,
but of course you could tag everything, I suppose. It would be simpler
to tag categories, that way you have semi-automatic tagging of
pictures of the top-tier (the Obama-tier and above) without having any
problematic names in the
While I appreciate the lengthy discussion about the scope of the
resolution and about the ways it can be implemented in on-wiki
processes, I would like to raise a different question.
I note with some interest that Jimmy's vote is not recorded at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_151#Resolution:Media_about_living_people
Hope this helps.
Jee
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
wrote:
While I appreciate the lengthy discussion about the scope of the
resolution and about
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski
tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:
While I appreciate the lengthy discussion about the scope of the resolution
and about the ways it can be implemented in on-wiki processes, I would like
to raise a different question.
I note with some interest
Thanks for that link, Phoebe!
I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment the real BLP
problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users
swing their weight around
Maybe such Wikipedians have a problem with the BLP person in real
life, or is closely related to some
Hi Jane,
I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment the real BLP
problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users
swing their weight around
I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the
reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten
On 14 December 2013 00:30, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't make a comment; I requested information:
Please also provide a link to the consultation you carried out
with the community, before making this change. I seem to have
missed it.
Oddly, I seem to have
Well I don't see any problem with starting off by taking a survey
among OTRS users, or in trying to collect data to classify problems
that are reported. Once we know what the popular problems are, can
we better help stop the flow of unwanted trash-talking on BLP's.
I think the underbelly that we
Andy Mabbett wrote:
Indeed there have. But until a widely-advertised consultation is held
(advertised in the manner of the recent discussion on logos and
branding), we wont know the views of the community at large, rather
than those who have an axe to grind.
Your logic here is broken. There are
On 14 December 2013 15:55, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Andy Mabbett wrote:
until a widely-advertised consultation is held
(advertised in the manner of the recent discussion on logos and
branding), we wont know the views of the community at large, rather
than those who have an axe to
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin
cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
Hi Jane,
I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment the real BLP
problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users
swing their weight around
I think the problem is that if you
Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the
implications of this resolution? - John Vandenberg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Resolution:Media_about_living_people
Jee
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:24 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat,
And an application at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Contact_us/Problems#Suggested_change
Jee
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Jeevan Jose jkadav...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the
implications of this resolution? - John
Thanks Jee for those links. It strikes me as odd that on a
Commons:Contact us page there is no link to any explanation about how
it all works. In my (limited!) experience of helping BLP subjects, it
has helped them enormously just to talk about how Wikipedia works.
Sometimes they are certain that
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:55 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Your logic here is broken. There are certainly times to have widely
advertised discussions, but doing so is not free: they often require
creating and deploying banners (with an associated increased risk of
banner blindness),
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 8:54 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about
identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography. This
new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such
distinction for media,
On 14.12.2013 21:28, phoebe ayers wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 8:54 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi John,
I think this is an interesting point, but I'm not entirely sure I
follow don't we always worry about verifiability for images? We
certainly try to ensure that
On 15 December 2013 02:54, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin
cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
Hi Jane,
I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment the real BLP
problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms)
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 12 December 2013 19:40, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
With a nod to Andy's comment, as a
community I think we may want to review our progress in the last few
years on the BLP issue, and have a broad
Fæ wrote:
I hope this is a coincidence.
How naive of you, Fæ:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=6705202#Personal_and_Moral_Rights.3F
Tomasz
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
I would like to know where subjects can post their complaint besides on
the talk page, since putting complaints there is still a form of
publication and only serves to propagate the sensitive information that
subjects want removed. - Jane Darnell
Yes; we are working on it. See
Thanks Jee, I will try to keep my comments there
2013/12/12, Jeevan Jose jkadav...@gmail.com:
I would like to know where subjects can post their complaint besides on
the talk page, since putting complaints there is still a form of
publication and only serves to propagate the sensitive
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
(just for the record: I'm not particularly against this amendment, I
actually never assumed that files would be treated differently from texts
anyway in this kind of stuff. Just plain curiosity.)
Neither did the
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for this, but even with the amendments it sounds pretty weak.
The closing text just shows how helpless we are in helping subjects
when their article is under the watchful eye of some Wikipedia editor
who feels that
On 12/12/13, 8:40 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
BLPs remain one of our big challenges, and will continue to be so as
long as Wikipedia is popular. With a nod to Andy's comment, as a
community I think we may want to review our progress in the last few
years on the BLP issue, and have a broad community
On 12 December 2013 12:25, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
Undue or unsourced negative information about living people is one aspect of
that, and what most of the formal BLP-related policy, and the process around
things like OTRS, is intended to address. The flipside is undue or unsourced
On 12/12/13, 11:16 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12 December 2013 12:25, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
Between tendentious negative information and self-promoting positive
information, I worry that the overall quality level of our biographies of
living people ends up poor in a great many
On 12 December 2013 19:40, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
With a nod to Andy's comment, as a
community I think we may want to review our progress in the last few
years on the BLP issue, and have a broad community consultation about
where we are still falling short and ideas for
Hi everyone,
We'd like to draw your attention to our recent amendment of the 2009
Biographies of Living People resolution. We have amended that resolution to
refer to both text and media when considering articles or images of living
people:
Hi Maria,
thanks for sharing. To appreciate the resolution in its proper context, I
was wondering if you could share if there was a specific trigger to this
amendment?
Best,
Lodewijk
2013/12/11 María Sefidari kewlshr...@yahoo.es
Hi everyone,
We'd like to draw your attention to our recent
Il 11/dic/2013 21:07 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org ha scritto:
Hi Maria,
thanks for sharing. To appreciate the resolution in its proper context, I
was wondering if you could share if there was a specific trigger to this
amendment?
I completely second the question.
Cristian.
Thank you, Maria for passing this on, and to the Board of Trustees for
adding wording to the resolution that more clearly conveys that WMF
projects are creating content and acting as a repository for a broad range
of media that have the potential to cause harm to living people.
Sydney Poore
Lodewijk wrote:
thanks for sharing. To appreciate the resolution in its proper context, I
was wondering if you could share if there was a specific trigger to this
amendment?
How about
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=111671264oldid=102286853
(as rumour has it)?
I hope this is a coincidence. I have great difficulty believing that
the WMF board of trustees passed a resolution imagining that it would
appear to be a good thing that the *very first* action it is used for
is to justify the deletion of an artwork of one of its own members.
Whatever else is
11/dic/2013 21:07 Lodewijk lodewijk at effeietsanders.org ha escrito:
Hi Maria, thanks for sharing. To appreciate the resolution in its proper
context, I was wondering if you could share if there was a specific trigger
to this amendment?
I completely second the question. Cristian.
37 matches
Mail list logo
