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
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 *Trustees* of?
>
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 *Trustees* of?
--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikim
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
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 dis
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 previou
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 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?
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
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 "co
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, [[kid
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
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
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 i
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 wel
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
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
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
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 uploade
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 hav
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 [[r
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 c
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).
__
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 i
>
> 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 sus
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
___
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, o
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
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
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
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
>
> S
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
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 concer
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
> Good for him. Care to summarize his argument? I don't particularly
> care to watch his video, or for him in general
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen 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
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen 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, ...
There is another a
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen 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 Wikip
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen 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?
Yes, actually, along with seve
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen 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 like
> it's my job t
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Andreas Kolbe 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 anyway. But it
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am 18.06.2012 16:31, schrieb Thomas Morton:
>
>> We don't have much data on what our readers want; but a not insignificant
>>
> portion of them, at least, are concerned with controversial images
>> (nudity,
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
> exaggerate
On 18/06/2012 7:52 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
The *hard* problem is convincing the "not censored" abusers that it's
a useful feature for our community.
You're begging the question that it /is/ a useful feature.
-- Coren / Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> Am 19.06.2012 01:39, schrieb Anthony:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
>> 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
soun
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
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
Am 19.06.2012 01:39, schrieb Anthony:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
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 t
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
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 i
Am 18.06.2012 16:31, schrieb Thomas Morton:
On 18 June 2012 15:16, Tobias Oelgartewrote:
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 predica
>> 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 filte
On 18 June 2012 15:16, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> 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 speci
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 pro
Am 18.06.2012 14:49, schrieb Anthony:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 00:40, schrieb Anthony:
Is there even a way to export an article,
including (recursively) all the templates it depends on?
Every stupid bot could do this. There is no "running out of t
>> 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
>
>
>> 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
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:21 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 18 June 2012 08:00, Tom Morris 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
Am 18.06.2012 13:52, schrieb Thomas Morton:
On 18 June 2012 08:00, Tom Morris 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 min
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> Am 18.06.2012 00:40, schrieb Anthony:
>> Is there even a way to export an article,
>> including (recursively) all the templates it depends on?
>
> Every stupid bot could do this. There is no "running out of the box"
> solution at the moment
On 18 June 2012 08:00, Tom Morris 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.
On 18 June 2012 12:42, David Gerard wrote:
> On 18 June 2012 12:41, Thomas Morton wrote:
> > On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard 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
On 18 June 2012 12:41, Thomas Morton wrote:
> On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard 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
On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard wrote:
> On 18 June 2012 12:29, Tobias Oelgarte
> 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 overl
On 18 June 2012 12:29, Tobias Oelgarte 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 por
Am 18.06.2012 09:21, schrieb David Gerard:
On 18 June 2012 08:00, Tom Morris 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.
Th
Am 18.06.2012 09:00, schrieb 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 th
On 18 June 2012 08:00, Tom Morris 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 f
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 the
Am 18.06.2012 00:40, schrieb Anthony:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
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 s
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
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 revision) or even
> entirely
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 fl
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 17:16, schrieb Anthony:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM, David Gerard 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, and forking of free
On 17 June 2012 14:14, David Gerard wrote:
> On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony 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 unsubstantia
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM, David Gerard 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, and forking of free
content is generally a last resort
On 17 June 2012 15:43, Andrew Gray 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 applies whether the hypothe
On 17 June 2012 14:53, David Gerard wrote:
> On 17 June 2012 14:50, Andrew Gray 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,
>>
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:14 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony 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" exi
On 17 June 2012 14:50, Andrew Gray 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 any specific model of wh
On 15 June 2012 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 think we had this conversation almost a year ago ;-)
http://lists.wikimedia.org
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:14 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony 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 unsu
On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony 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 3:11 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:
> Not that hard to
> understand, hence please avoid off-topic (see subject) paternalism.
I still don't understand how calling something "perfect" when you are
making an argument that it is the proper solution to a problem, is
sarcasm/ir
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
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, I think,
Am 17.06.2012 09:11, schrieb Federico Leva (Nemo):
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 p
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 c
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:48 PM, 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 whitelis
* 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). Additio
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 pa
> 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
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Tom Morris 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?
>
> Market failur
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
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 t
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 goa
Am 15.06.2012 23:22, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM, 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?
(IIRC the various netnannies f
Am 14.06.2012 22:40, schrieb Risker:
On 14 June 2012 16:19, David Gerard wrote:
On 14 June 2012 20:36, Andrew Gray 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 n
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 15 June 2012 13:15, Tobias Oelgarte
> 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 so
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 tel
On 15 June 2012 13:15, Tobias Oelgarte 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 APIs,
> but no real filter
Am 14.06.2012 19:31, schrieb geni:
On 14 June 2012 18:01, David Gerard 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 at that moment wh
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 14 June 2012 16:19, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> On 14 June 2012 20:36, Andrew Gray 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
>> > su
On 14 June 2012 16:19, David Gerard wrote:
> On 14 June 2012 20:36, Andrew Gray 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
On 14 June 2012 20:36, Andrew Gray 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 (to mean "you disagree
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
