Jussi, I'm not finding the post you are replying too, what's the context here?
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
The core problem here is that the Board is not alive and well.
The Board of Trustees is dead in their shoes. What precisely
are they
Reply-To:
References: CAHRTtW_LoeHFcPb6vUmw7BwOqJECuvSR1-gqNWcC7kmZ=nf...@mail.gmail.com
In-Reply-To:
CAHRTtW_LoeHFcPb6vUmw7BwOqJECuvSR1-gqNWcC7kmZ=nf...@mail.gmail.com
Andreas Kolbe
As Seth Finkelstein pointed out the other day, there is opposition to
pornography both from the right, on a
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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
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
2012/6/21 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com:
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
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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
2012/6/21 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com:
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
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com 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
Am 21.06.2012 21:55, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Todd Allentoddmal...@gmail.com 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
On 21 June 2012 20:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com 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
Am 21.06.2012 22:24, schrieb Anthony:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andreas Kolbejayen...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com 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
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com 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.
Am 21.06.2012 22:51, schrieb Anthony:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com 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
Am 22.06.2012 00:02, schrieb Anthony:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 21.06.2012 22:51, schrieb Anthony:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:
Can you point me to any examples of
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com 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
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
My middle one can very
briefly go online alone to a few sites I've already agreed
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, actually, along with several other educational ones, some with
children's games, her school website, etc. The chances that she would
randomly stumble across a sexual image on Wikipedia are -vanishingly-
slim, ...
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, actually, along with several other educational ones, some with
children's games, her school website, etc. The chances that she would
randomly
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
{{sofixit}}, just like any area with NPOV/undue weight issues.
The next day someone will fix it back. - Douglas Hofstadter
Good for him. Care to summarize his argument? I don't particularly
care to watch his video, or for
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 15:06, schrieb Thomas Morton:
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
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 15:06, schrieb Thomas Morton:
I don't think that we need this argument since the filter can't replace
parents
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
My middle one can very
briefly go online alone to a few sites I've already agreed to, and I
check up on her a lot.
Is Wikipedia one of those few sites?
But the whole point is, that's -my- job, not anyone else's, just
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
My middle one can very
briefly go online alone to a few sites I've already agreed to, and I
check up on her a lot.
Is Wikipedia one of those few sites?
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
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
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
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.
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:
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Anthony, 17/06/2012 05:05:
I still would have been confused. Still am, actually. Did this
paragraph have a serious point at all? I hope so, because Wikipedia's
porn problem is a serious issue.
The point was, I think, that no software is perfect (not even parents'
brain) and that parents
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony, 17/06/2012 05:05:
I still would have been confused. Still am, actually. Did this
paragraph have a serious point at all? I hope so, because Wikipedia's
porn problem is a serious issue.
The point was,
On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
No software is perfect. No solution is perfect. But don't let the
perfect be the enemy of the good.
You're assuming that a good exists for this function. This
assumption is entirely unsubstantiated.
- d.
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
No software is perfect. No solution is perfect. But don't let the
perfect be the enemy of the good.
You're assuming that a good exists for this function. This
On 15 June 2012 13:21, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't recall seeing any, but did anyone actually explain why the
market had not provided a filtering solution for Wikipedia, if there's
actually a demand for one?
I think we had this conversation almost a year ago ;-)
On 17 June 2012 14:50, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
In short: the almost complete absence of anyone doing *anything*
clever in terms of reusing and repurposing our content strongly
suggests that there are practical barriers to doing so in general,
rather than the flaws with
On 17 June 2012 14:53, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 June 2012 14:50, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
In short: the almost complete absence of anyone doing *anything*
clever in terms of reusing and repurposing our content strongly
suggests that there are practical
On 17 June 2012 15:43, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
As there are no major and well-used forks at all, we can't reasonably
draw inferences of the desirability of a specific project from its
non-existence - we simply don't have the information to make that
conclusion. This
On 17 June 2012 14:14, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
No software is perfect. No solution is perfect. But don't let the
perfect be the enemy of the good.
You're assuming that a good exists for this function. This
assumption
Am 17.06.2012 17:16, schrieb Anthony:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
So I think my question - if this is so obviously the
right thing, then where are the existing attempts? - still stands as
relevant.
The fact that it is the right thing isn't obvious,
Andrew Gray, 17/06/2012 15:50:
In short: the almost complete absence of anyone doing *anything*
clever in terms of reusing and repurposing our content strongly
suggests that there are practical barriers to doing so in general,
rather than the flaws with any specific model of what it is they want
Am 17.06.2012 21:41, schrieb Federico Leva (Nemo):
Andrew Gray, 17/06/2012 15:50:
In short: the almost complete absence of anyone doing *anything*
clever in terms of reusing and repurposing our content strongly
suggests that there are practical barriers to doing so in general,
rather than the
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
It didn't even need to be complete fork. A whitelist copy would most likely
already be sufficient for your needs. It would automatically update any
article on a white list after a quick review (like sighted
Am 18.06.2012 00:40, schrieb Anthony:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
It didn't even need to be complete fork. A whitelist copy would most likely
already be sufficient for your needs. It would automatically update any
article on a white
Am 15.06.2012 23:22, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't recall seeing any, but did anyone actually explain why the
market had not provided a filtering solution for Wikipedia, if there's
actually a demand for one?
(IIRC the
On Saturday, 16 June 2012 at 20:21, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
That means they already found a solution to their problem that includes
the whole web at once. As you might have noticed it isn't perfect. I
guess that it could be easily improved over time. But the image filter
had an different goal.
Am 16.06.2012 23:36, schrieb Tom Morris:
On Saturday, 16 June 2012 at 20:21, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
That means they already found a solution to their problem that includes
the whole web at once. As you might have noticed it isn't perfect. I
guess that it could be easily improved over time. But
On Saturday, 16 June 2012 at 23:51, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 16.06.2012 23:36, schrieb Tom Morris:
On Saturday, 16 June 2012 at 20:21, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
That means they already found a solution to their problem that includes
the whole web at once. As you might have noticed it
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Friday, 15 June 2012 at 13:21, David Gerard wrote:
I don't recall seeing any, but did anyone actually explain why the
market had not provided a filtering solution for Wikipedia, if there's
actually a demand for one?
I have never seen a censorware that works
flawlessly (not even china can do this right). Either it allows to much
(incomplete blacklist) or it is unnecessary limited (incomplete whitelist
producing angry mob). Additionally it has to suite the view of the parents
and match the age of the
Am 17.06.2012 01:21, schrieb Anthony:
I have never seen a censorware that works
flawlessly (not even china can do this right). Either it allows to much
(incomplete blacklist) or it is unnecessary limited (incomplete whitelist
producing angry mob). Additionally it has to suite the view of the
* Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 01:21, schrieb Anthony:
I have never seen a censorware that works
flawlessly (not even china can do this right). Either it allows to much
(incomplete blacklist) or it is unnecessary limited (incomplete whitelist
producing angry mob). Additionally it has
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 01:21, schrieb Anthony:
I have never seen a censorware that works
flawlessly (not even china can do this right). Either it allows to much
(incomplete blacklist) or it is unnecessary limited
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 June 2012 16:19, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 June 2012 20:36, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Least surprise is one way to try and get around this problem of not
relying on the
Am 14.06.2012 19:31, schrieb geni:
On 14 June 2012 18:01, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but this is called editorial judgement
No its called censorship. Or at least it will be called censorship by
enough people to make any debate not worth the effort.
It is called censorship right
On 15 June 2012 13:15, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
I argued at some time that if there was a strong need for such a filter that
there would already services in place that would filter the content or
images. So far i have seen some very week approaches using the Google
On Friday, 15 June 2012 at 13:21, David Gerard wrote:
I don't recall seeing any, but did anyone actually explain why the
market had not provided a filtering solution for Wikipedia, if there's
actually a demand for one?
Market failures do sometimes exist.
Also, because as far as I can tell,
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 June 2012 13:15, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I argued at some time that if there was a strong need for such a filter
that
there would already services in place that would filter the
On 13 June 2012 21:30, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I was looking over old discussions, and wondered: who originally came
up with the notion that the principle of least surprise should apply
to educational content? If it existed before Wikimedia, who introduced
it to the image filter
On 14 June 2012 12:52, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you miss the point of a concept. The idea is not that say
[[Marriage]] shouldn't contain information about homosexual marriages,
heterosexual marriages, marriages of convenience or polygamous
marriages but that it probably shouldn't
On 14 June 2012 14:45, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
As I have noted already, this idealised version is not how it was used
when it was introduced to the discussion and is not how it's been used
in the most recent round of it.
Looking at the timing of the phrase appeared in the email
On 14 June 2012 18:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but this is called editorial judgement
No its called censorship. Or at least it will be called censorship by
enough people to make any debate not worth the effort.
rather than something that can be imposed by filtering.
True for
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:31 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 June 2012 18:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but this is called editorial judgement
No its called censorship. Or at least it will be called censorship by
enough people to make any debate not worth the effort.
On 14 June 2012 18:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 June 2012 17:22, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Shocking images in [[Nanking Massacre]] are pretty much expected.
[[People's Republic of China–Japan relations]] not so much. [[Agent
orange]] is a more boarderline case but these
On 14 June 2012 20:36, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Least surprise is one way to try and get around this problem of not
relying on the community's own judgement in all edge cases; I'm not
sure it's the best one, but I'm not sure leaving it out is any better.
The present usage
On 14 June 2012 16:19, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 June 2012 20:36, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Least surprise is one way to try and get around this problem of not
relying on the community's own judgement in all edge cases; I'm not
sure it's the best one,
Not sure, but I think it's the principle of least /astonishment/ - which
may be an important difference...
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Disclaimer viewable at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On 13 June
On 13 June 2012 21:32, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Not sure, but I think it's the principle of least /astonishment/ - which
may be an important difference...
Pretty sure it doesn't for educational purposes. I think my objection
stands in its entirety.
(I note that
On 13 June 2012 21:44, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
My understanding of this line of argument was that images would be displayed
where you would expect them to be displayed (e.g. the article on penis or
vagina would naturally include a picture of a penis or vagina),
I
Earliest I have it on a Wikimedia list is from WikiEn-L on 2/11/08 from Ian
Woollard (written as principle of least surprise), in the context of a
Muhammad images thread started by Jimbo -- but my logs only go back to the
summer of 07.
On-wiki, I see it being used in naming convention arguments
On 13 June 2012 21:56, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Earliest I have it on a Wikimedia list is from WikiEn-L on 2/11/08 from Ian
Woollard (written as principle of least surprise), in the context of a
Muhammad images thread started by Jimbo -- but my logs only go back to the
summer of 07.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Michael Peel
michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
My understanding of this line of argument was that images would be displayed
where you would expect them to be displayed (e.g. the article on penis or
vagina would naturally include a picture of a penis or
I can't say who came up with it. The point I first became aware of it was
the posts, and consultation reports series, on Meta. It may well have
predated that though, in which case I couldn't say.
Advanced search in old enwp and meta dumps, or mailing lists would be a way
to explore before that.
David Gerard, 13/06/2012 23:02:
On-wiki, I see it being used in naming convention arguments for years, as
early as April 2005.
Yeah, that's arguably a user interface issue (with arguments being
somewhat alleviated by a forest of redirects). I see it's been
commonly used around user interface
On 13 June 2012 22:02, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 June 2012 21:56, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Earliest I have it on a Wikimedia list is from WikiEn-L on 2/11/08 from Ian
Woollard (written as principle of least surprise), in the context of a
Muhammad images thread started
* Michael Peel wrote:
My understanding of this line of argument was that images would be
displayed where you would expect them to be displayed (e.g. the article
on penis or vagina would naturally include a picture of a penis or
vagina), but wouldn't be immediately displayed where you wouldn't
88 matches
Mail list logo
