Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Hubert]

???

Hubertl

Am 12.03.2012 16:43, schrieb Nathan:

The "bible belt" phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is
just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It's
best ignored, along with the people who use it.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Hubert]

Am 12.03.2012 18:02, schrieb Marc Riddell:

on 3/12/12 11:43 AM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote:


The "bible belt" phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is
just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It's
best ignored, along with the people who use it.


Nathan, how on earth do you equate the phrase "bible belt" with
anti-Americanism?

Marc Riddell


he forgot to say Antisemitism.
h.


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



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Hubert]

dear Anneke,

+1

and see the basic difference and the disaccordance in understanding and
meaning of violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence

hubertl.

Am 09.10.2011 16:35, schrieb Anneke Wolf:
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewalt
> 
> Anneke
> 
> Am 09.10.2011 um 16:12 schrieb Ting Chen:
> 
>> Hello Tobias,
>>
>> the text of the May resolution to this question is "... and that the
>> feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for  
>> both
>> logged-in and logged-out readers", and on the current board meeting we
>> decided to not ammend the original resolution.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Ting
>>
>> Am 09.10.2011 15:43, schrieb church.of.emacs.ml:
>>> Hi Ting,
>>>
>>> one simple question: Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to enable the
>>> image filter on _all_ projects, disregarding consensus by local
>>> communities of rejecting the image filter? (E.g. German Wikipedia)
>>>
>>> We are currently in a very unpleasant situation of uncertainty.  
>>> Tensions
>>> in the community are extremely high (too high, if you ask me, but
>>> Wikimedians are emotional people), speculations and rumors about what
>>> WMF is going to do prevail.
>>> A clear statement would help our discussion process.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tobias / User:Church of emacs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
>>> foundation-l
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Ting
>>
>> Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 
> 
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Hubert]

Am 09.10.2011 16:56, schrieb Thomas Dalton:
> On 9 October 2011 15:12, Ting Chen  wrote:
>> the text of the May resolution to this question is "... and that the
>> feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
>> logged-in and logged-out readers", and on the current board meeting we
>> decided to not ammend the original resolution.
> 
> So you do intend to force this on projects that don't want it? Do you
> really think that's going to work? If the WMF picks a fight with the
> community on something the community feel very strongly about (which
> this certainly seems to be), the WMF will lose horribly and the
> fall-out for the whole movement will be very bad indeed.

hi Thomas, I would say, it is a perfect example of one of the Parkinsons
law. They did´nt diskuss how it may work and how many man-hour it will
need to achieve the escape of maybe hundreds of today hard working editors.

And how much money it will really need. Because, implementing this
software is just a fractional amount of overall costs.

“The time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion
to the sum involved.”

Because the wars in Commons, which Categories at least will fit
violence, will be unmanageable.

I don´t want to confront myself with fundamental christian groups in
categorising cruzification and holy cross as to become a to be hidden
category because of atrocious violence or not.

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

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Hubert]

very strong support!

hubertl.

Am 09.10.2011 22:29, schrieb Tobias Oelgarte:
> That means it will be pushed in no matter if wanted/needed or in respect 
> to the local communities? I think that will push over the line of 
> acceptability.
> 
> I also want to remember you that the "referendum"/referendumm
> 
> 1. asked the wrong question(s)
> 2. did not mention any of the possible issues beforehand (biased 
> formulation)
> 3. left much room for possible implementations
> 
> !!! IM STILL WAITING FOR RESULTS PER PROJECT !!!
> Im very, very disappointed to see that this data is still not released. 
> I requested it a dozen times. Every time i got rejected that it will be 
> released later on and that we should stay patient. How many weeks ago 
> this request was made? I did not count anymore...
> 
> Seriously pissed off greetings from
> Tobias Oelgarte / user:niabot
> 
> Am 09.10.2011 16:12, schrieb Ting Chen:
>> Hello Tobias,
>>
>> the text of the May resolution to this question is "... and that the
>> feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
>> logged-in and logged-out readers", and on the current board meeting we
>> decided to not ammend the original resolution.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Ting
>>
>> Am 09.10.2011 15:43, schrieb church.of.emacs.ml:
>>> Hi Ting,
>>>
>>> one simple question: Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to enable the
>>> image filter on _all_ projects, disregarding consensus by local
>>> communities of rejecting the image filter? (E.g. German Wikipedia)
>>>
>>> We are currently in a very unpleasant situation of uncertainty. Tensions
>>> in the community are extremely high (too high, if you ask me, but
>>> Wikimedians are emotional people), speculations and rumors about what
>>> WMF is going to do prevail.
>>> A clear statement would help our discussion process.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tobias / User:Church of emacs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> 
> 
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Hubert]

David, did you read the german article completely?
have you compared the contents of which part of the concept of violence
and more attention is paid to what portion of the term violence in en:
wp did not occur?

Gewalt ist nicht unbedingt in gleicher Form Gewalt.

to say it simply: hitting someones head, to shoot s.o. is in en: WP the
primary part of the article (this is very simplifying, indeed). The
German article is a far greater degree of philosophical and sociological
issues of violence.

This difference alone makes it clear that a single definition of what
violence is or may be, and how it manifests itself in images, can not
even enter.

Quite frankly, I do not want that maybe people who are socialized to a
far greater degree in a culture of violence than other cultures can be
categorized by images of tens of thousands to impose his concept of
violence.

Even though we are all Wikipedians, even within the German Wikipedia,
there are significant cultural differences.

And violence is - contrary to religion and sexuality - just the smaller
problem.
h

Am 10.10.2011 12:22, schrieb David Gerard:
> On 10 October 2011 11:17, Hubert  wrote:
>> Am 09.10.2011 16:35, schrieb Anneke Wolf:
> 
>>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewalt
> 
>> dear Anneke,
>> +1
>> and see the basic difference and the disaccordance in understanding and
>> meaning of violence.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
> 
> 
> I don't understand what point is being made here.
> 
> 
> - d.
> 
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Hubert]

Dear Andreas,

This is, what I wanted to express. But it is not only a quite different
etymology, it is also a definition of gender-related positions to be
interpreted and applied.

But what we care about minorities - as I always say - as long as they
representing only women, children, homosexuals and cyclists.

Based on needs of minorities, the majority always knows better what has
to be good for them.

In our case it´s a little bit different, this seems, that an ivory tower
conference knows exactly how the community will solve the problem - what
should categorized as violence-, sexuality- and religious-related.

Meanwhile, I prefer the following solution:

Everyone, who will not understand and perceive the world so as it is,
should unsubscribe his internet connection - just like his newspaper
subscription, radio and television and - of course - any advertising on
streets. And this individuals should deny any public schools for their
children.

And I mean this not in a depreciatory way. Maybe, this may be a better
world.

I just hope, they will even throw the bible then.

h.

Am 10.10.2011 20:37, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> Hubert, 
> 
> The fact is that the English word "violence" has a quite different etymology, 
> and a much narrower meaning, than the German word "Gewalt", which 
> historically also means "control", or even "administrative competence".
> 
> The scope of the English article is indeed appropriate to the English word 
> "violence", because that word lacks several shades of meaning that the German 
> word "Gewalt" has.
> 
> Andreas 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Hubert 
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
> Sent: Monday, 10 October 2011, 18:58
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
> 
> David, did you read the german article completely?
> have you compared the contents of which part of the concept of violence
> and more attention is paid to what portion of the term violence in en:
> wp did not occur?
> 
> Gewalt ist nicht unbedingt in gleicher Form Gewalt.
> 
> to say it simply: hitting someones head, to shoot s.o. is in en: WP the
> primary part of the article (this is very simplifying, indeed). The
> German article is a far greater degree of philosophical and sociological
> issues of violence.
> 
> This difference alone makes it clear that a single definition of what
> violence is or may be, and how it manifests itself in images, can not
> even enter.
> 
> Quite frankly, I do not want that maybe people who are socialized to a
> far greater degree in a culture of violence than other cultures can be
> categorized by images of tens of thousands to impose his concept of
> violence.
> 
> Even though we are all Wikipedians, even within the German Wikipedia,
> there are significant cultural differences.
> 
> And violence is - contrary to religion and sexuality - just the smaller
> problem.
> h
> 
> Am 10.10.2011 12:22, schrieb David Gerard:
>> On 10 October 2011 11:17, Hubert  wrote:
>>> Am 09.10.2011 16:35, schrieb Anneke Wolf:
>>
>>>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewalt
>>
>>> dear Anneke,
>>> +1
>>> and see the basic difference and the disaccordance in understanding and
>>> meaning of violence.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
>>
>>
>> I don't understand what point is being made here.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> 
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Hubert]

Am 10.10.2011 21:16, schrieb Sue Gardner:
> On 10 October 2011 11:56, Möller, Carsten  wrote:
>> Sue wrote:
>>> It is asking me to do something.
>>> But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
>>> been discussed over the past several months, and which the Germans
>>> voted against.
>>
>> I may translate:
>> As the German community has voted against filters,
>> I was ordered to circumvent this vote by making some adjustments to the 
>> wording.
>>
>> That will not work. The vote was very clear agaist all image filters.
>> The referendum was a farce, as we clearly see.
>>
>> Sorry, somebody is playing games with us.
> 
> 
> Truly, Carsten, nobody is playing games with you. The Board's
> discussion was sincere and thoughtful.
Maybe, but for me, it is absolutely unserious, to start an survey
without the basic question:

1. Filter or not?
2. who will do the work and manage the war inside Commons, when unknown
persons and groups, up to this point entirely unknown, called from the
strangest organizations, will start the crusade to improve the world!

> 
> This is how the system is supposed to work. The Board identified a
> problem; the staff hacked together a proposed solution, and we asked
> the community what it thought. Now, we're responding to the input and
> we're going to iterate. This is how it's supposed to work: we mutually
> influence each other.
sounds good, but you did´nt act like that! This is just theory!

> 
> I'm not saying it isn't messy and awkward and flawed in many respects:
> it absolutely is. But nobody is playing games with you. The Board is
> sincere. It is taking seriously the German community, and the others
> who have thoughtfully opposed the filter.
> 
I just read from the board: The decision is fixed, there will be a
filter worldwide, no exceptions allowed.

thanks

h

80.000 edits in the last seven years. Spending thousands of hours to
support the project. And not only by editing!

> The right thing to do now is to accept the olive branch, and work with
> the Wikimedia Foundation to figure out a good solution. You want to
> train the Wikimedia Foundation that listening to you is the path to a
> successful outcome :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> Sue
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Sue Gardner
> Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 
> 415 839 6885 office
> 415 816 9967 cell
> 
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
> 
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> 
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Hubert]

+1

h

Am 11.10.2011 03:20, schrieb Bjoern Hoehrmann:
> * Sue Gardner wrote:
>> This is how the system is supposed to work. The Board identified a
>> problem; the staff hacked together a proposed solution, and we asked
>> the community what it thought. Now, we're responding to the input and
>> we're going to iterate. This is how it's supposed to work: we mutually
>> influence each other.
> 
> The Board asked you to develop this feature in consultation with the
> community. The manner in which you chose to do that has led to parts
> of the community discussing the best way to split from the community.
> 
>> I'm not saying it isn't messy and awkward and flawed in many respects:
>> it absolutely is. But nobody is playing games with you. The Board is
>> sincere. It is taking seriously the German community, and the others
>> who have thoughtfully opposed the filter.
> 
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-June/066624.html
> 
>   The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the Board of Trustees,
>   will be holding a vote to determine whether members of the community
>   support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image filter
> 
> Funny correlation: all polls about the image filter that explained the
> pros and cons to voters found voters overwhelmingly opposed to it.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] category free image filtering

[Hubert]

And after this procedure, we all expect, that some readers may become
edtitors?

Good Luck!

I hope and expect, that wikipedia could help, that people become more
educated.
The more educated people are, the less important this filters will be.

this should be our goal.

not patronizing readers in advance.

h.

Am 23.10.2011 20:58, schrieb WereSpielChequers:
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:36:37 +0200
>> From: Tobias Oelgarte 
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] category free image filtering
>> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Message-ID: <4ea42675.9070...@googlemail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> Am 23.10.2011 15:46, schrieb WereSpielChequers:
>>> --
>>>
 Message: 3
 Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 02:57:51 +0200
 From: Tobias Oelgarte
 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] category free image filtering
 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Message-ID:<4ea3668f.5010...@googlemail.com>
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

 Am 23.10.2011 01:49, schrieb WereSpielChequers:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> Do youhave any problems with this category free proposal
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter
>
> WereSpelChequers
 The idea isn't bad. But it is based on the premise that there are enough
 users of the filter to build such correlations. It requires enough input
 to work properly and therefore enough users of the feature, that have
 longer lists. But how often does an average logged in user find such an
 image and handle accordingly? That would be relatively seldom, resulting
 in a very short own list, by relatively few users, which makes it hard
 to start the system (warm up time).

 Since i love to find ways on how to exploit systems there is one simple
 thing on my mind. Just login to put a picture of penis/bondage/... on
 the list and than add another one of the football team you don't like.
 Repeat this step often enough and the system will believe that all users
 that don't like to see a penis would also not like to see images of that
 football team.

 Another way would be: "I find everything offensive." This would hurt the
 system, since correlations would be much harder to find.

 If we assume good faith, then it would probably work. But as soon we
 have spammers of this kind, it will lay in ruins, considering the amount
 of users and corresponding relatively short lists (in average).

 Just my thoughts on this idea.

 Greetings
 nya~


>>> Hi Tobias,
>>>
>>> Yes if it turned out that almost no-one used this then only the "Hide all
>>> image - recommended for users with slow internet connections" and the
>> "Never
>>> show me this image again" options would be effective. My suspicion is
>> that
>>> even if globally there were only a few thousand users then it would start
>> to
>>> be effective on the most contentious images in popular articles in the
>> most
>>> widely read versions of wikipedia (and I suspect that many of the same
>> image
>>> will be used on other language versions). The more people using it the
>> more
>>> effective it would be, and the more varied phobias and cultural taboos it
>>> could cater for.  We have hundreds of millions of readers, if we offer
>> them
>>> a free image filter then I suspect that lots will signup, but in a sense
>> it
>>> doesn't matter how many do so - one of the advantages to this system is
>> that
>>> when people complain about images they find offensive we will simply be
>> able
>>> to respond with instructions as to how they can enable the image filter
>> on
>>> their account.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty confident that huge numbers, perhaps millions with slow
>> internet
>>> connections would use the hide all images option, and that enabling them
>> to
>>> do so would be an uncontentious way to further our mission by making our
>>> various products much more available in certain parts of the global
>> south.
>>> As far as I'm concerned this is by far the most important part of the
>>> feature and the one that I'm most confident will be used, though it may
>>> cease to be of use in the future when and if the rest of the world has
>> North
>>> American Internet speeds.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how spammers would try to use this,  but I accept that
>> vandals
>>> will try various techniques from liking penises to finding pigs and
>>> particular politicians equally objectionable. Those who simply use this
>> to
>>> "like" picture of Mohammed would not be a problem, the system should
>> easily
>>> be able to work out that things they liked would be disliked by another
>>> group of users. The much more clever approach of disliking both a
>> particular
>>> type of porn and members of a particular football team is harder to cater
>>> for, but I'm hoping that it could be coded to recognise not just where
>>

Re: [Foundation-l] just wondering, are we going to take down en.wikipedia.org?

[Hubert]

We have the ability to strike back with our means

Lockout of all the IP addresses of companies, institutions, members of
Congress. All to the Blacklist of our site.

This includes all educational institutions and religious groups who
profess not an implicit model of an open knowledge society.

Then they can even try to force open access to knowledge. How absurd it
is then, will prove to be accurate by this procedure.

Do not strike the en: WP .. This is pointless, because the Foundation
also runs here long ago a course that goes against our original intentions.

Hubertl

Am 27.10.2011 15:43, schrieb Domas Mituzas:
> Hi!
> 
> we recently did some practice on italian wikipedia, are we going to protest 
> IP legislation in US by taking down English Wikipedia?
> 
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/disastrous-ip-legislation-back-%E2%80%93-and-it%E2%80%99s-worse-ever
> 
> Domas
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered, foolish software initiatives backed by WMF

[Hubert]

One problem is that the word "Love" is used quite differently in the
German language. Even in Great Britain.

Love as a term is used in English in a fully inflated notion of flooding.

I have no idea what lovers say to each other in the U.S. when it comes
to really love.

Maybe they just grunt at each other only.

Please teach me U.S.-american social behavior.

The expression "Wikilove" will trigger only incomprehension and headshaking.

h.

Am 29.10.2011 00:16, schrieb Erik Moeller:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Teofilo  wrote:
>> Now we are seeing the appearance of a feedback tool on the English
>> Wikipedia ? How long are the non-English Wikipedias going to be free
>> from this new stupid tool which has nothing to do with writing an
>> encyclopaedia ?
> 
> In addition to English Wikipedia, WikiLove has been enabled on Arabic
> Wikipedia, Hebrew Wikipedia, Hindi Wikipedia, Hungarian Wikipedia,
> Macedonian Wikipedia, Malayalam Wikipedia, Norwegian Wikipedia,
> Portuguese Wikipedia, Swedish Wikipedia, Oriya Wikipedia, Chinese
> Wikipedia, MediaWiki.org and Commons.
> 
> So, WikiLove is spreading. Maybe one day it will even come to German
> Wikipedia. I'm guessing 2020. ;-)
> 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

[Hubert]

thank you!

h

Am 29.10.2011 13:31, schrieb FT2:
> Having checked the original blog
> post,
> I think it's either a rare exception of poorly chosen wording, or shows a
> judgment within WMF that I can't agree with.
> 
> I remember when the director of featured articles on enwiki scrupulously
> treated all topics equal - whether shocking, controversial, mundane, or
> taboo -- because the job of the front page of an *encyclopedia* is to
> showcase high quality knowledge, not present value judgments on it.
> 
> Value judgments on topics are the role of members of the public and end
> users, who legitimately hold views that they like math and hate politics,
> love politics but hate pornography, love porn but oppose images of religious
> figures, as they individually choose.  The job of *encyclopedists* however
> is to treat these all as knowledge and not to color or pre-filter them by
> considering some topics more "worthy" than others or less "suitable" to be
> included as knowledge or showcased as high quality writing.
> 
> Does that include front page exposure? In the view of the previous en:wp
> Director of Featured Articles, definitely yes. His rationale at the time
> this came up on en:wp was that to do otherwise is to be ashamed apologists
> of content that our community has created.  He also observed that making the
> point publicly of our utter neutrality had value in itself.  If de:wiki (or
> any project) put [[vulva]] on its front page, and the article was of high
> enough quality to do so - and it would have been heavily scrutinized before
> as a controversial topic - then at that point it's a topic like any other
> and it goes there on its own merits.
> 
> *It is core to our ethos* that we are neutral in our views on topics,
> whether mundane, obscure or emotive to some people. We could not honestly
> claim neutrality if we signal via our content nomination process that some
> topics are not as "valid" as others or are more "shameful" or less
> "acceptable" to learn about, or to be made visible.
> 
> In this case, [[vulva]] is of more than academic interest to 1/2 the human
> race as a normal lifelong body part --- one that is often strikingly lacking
> in information (cultural taboos on women's education and sexual knowledge
> are still very common globally and cause untold harm!)
> 
> Should this be outweighed in the balance by the fact that the other (usually
> male!) half of humanity sees in it a source of purile humor or an "ONOES!
> THE CHILDREN". especially when fully half of those under-16 children
> have one of the said body parts and have as much right to it being treated
> as valid knowledge as they would treat an eyeball, an arm, a cancer or a
> method of DNA sequencing... and without us signalling it as "shameful" to
> learn about by virtue of exclusion from equal handling.
> 
> I know which of these stances I respect more.
> 
> FT2
> 
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:02 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> 
>> The Foundation considers de:wp's careful and thoughtful decision to
>> put [[:de:vulva]] on the front page of de:wp with a picture was a
>> clear failure of community judgement sufficient to justify the
>> imposition of a filter from outside.
>>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Ideas for newbie recruitment

[Hubert]

hi David, what you wrote fits exactly my experience!

Today, my opinion is, that we must focus our efforts on a small portion
of Internet users. It is not that WE just do something very great,
everyone is doing something! In very different ways. Maybe even Facebook
users are doing something useful, but I can not judge.

In Austria, with our heritäge cultural monuments-project we started
different approach to animate new and old user. This project started in
the very beginning with maybe 5-6 active users and is now being carried
out with 220 Wikipedians only in Austria. With varying intensity, but
that's normal. We won estimated 30-50 new Wikipedians, also many who
have been inactive for quite some time.

Crucial was, that we started with a clear communication structure with
newsletter and a portal page from the very beginning. And personal meetings.

And what I found most important,  was the effort to welcome the
contribution of EVERY new wikipedian to welcome his/her contribution
accordingly. Saying: Thank You for your contribution! No automated
greetings with an hello-template, but a very personal one. Maybe
WikiLove as its best, but very, very consequently.

In the course of this project, 2,400 articles (lists) are created and
edited with a total of 36,000 listed properties. These lists
are directly connected to another 4000-5000 other articles and about
20,000 images.
At this time, we realised with this particular project only one third -
maybe just ten percent - what we have set ourselves as a target. This
means that we still have years to work on it. It is difficult to
estimate how many new articles we will still get from this project in
the future.

This project culminated in September wiht the WLM-project in which
Austria has achieved a very excellent result, getting 12.500 pictures.
And another 20 to 30 new user. Some of them prefer to work without
registration. I don´t like it, but I have to accept it.

Our policy was: The best, the most significant, the most important
contribution is the edit of an new user.

I think that every single project requires a communications manager who
is also directly familiar with the project. Part of this communication
efforts may also need the support of newcomers.

The mentor program is, in my view, too inflexible and too static. And
also too impersonal. Very few people will accept an request of
prerequisite tutoring.

The best of all: During the whole period we had no conflicts between us
and no article-vandalism within this thematic area.

h.

Am 31.10.2011 12:29, schrieb David Gerard:
> I’ve been into Wikipedia for several years, and all my friends know
> this. I *still* find myself having to explain to them in small words
> that that “edit” link really does include them fixing typos when they
> see one.
> 
> So my suggestion: tiny tiny steps like this: things people can do that
> have a strong probability of sticking.
> 
> Anyone else got ideas based on their (admittedly anecdotal) experience?
> 
> [inspired by Oliver Keyes' blog post: http://quominus.org/archives/524 ]
> 
> 
> - d.
> 
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Community consensus for software changes (Re: Show community consensus for Wikilove)

[Hubert]

Am 31.10.2011 18:34, schrieb Erik Moeller:

> 
> The partnership between WMF and the community is founded on mutual
> trust. If you don't trust WMF, you can - and probably should -
> contribute your effort elsewhere, because WMF may - and probably will
> - do things you won't like.
> 
> HTH,
> Erik

If that is the case, would it not be be simpler, if the government
simply dissolved the people and elected another?

Hubertl.


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Finnish MP FAIL!!!

[Hubert]

thats fine, and in the future, with spoken wikipedia articles,  we don´t 
need any real parliament with living persons any more. We will accept, 
that only at the end of this automatic sessions the licence will be 
presented.

Grants to WMF are appreciated.



h



Am 19.11.2011 09:39, schrieb Jussi-Ville Heiskanen:
> Not sure if this is appropriate for this list, but just for lulz. A
> finnish member of
> parliament just got caught for his speech being a word for word piece of
> snippets from a Finnish Wikipedia article. No intervening binding lines, just
> the Wikipedia text. Way to go!!!
>

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

Re: [Foundation-l] "Singing Wikipedia"

[Hubert]

I love it, even when I don´t understand one word!

Great Idea!

h

Am 04.12.2011 02:04, schrieb Tomasz Ganicz:
> Hi,
>
> Copernicus Sience Center from Warsaw:
>
> http://www.kopernik.org.pl/en/
>
> Has just started a wbesite called "singing Wikipedia"
>
> http://www.famelab.org.pl/
>
> The idea is that anyone can propose any article from Polish Wikipedia
> to be read by one of several Polish celebrities (actors, TV
> journalist, singers etc). They are usually doing this in a funny way.
> Most funny reads are recorder and made available to general public and
> placed in YouTube:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL938BB67F93980477
>
> Wikimedia Polska had nothing in common with this except they asked us
> about legal issues (licence, use of logo etc.). After explanation they
> decided not to use logo of Wikipedia and use only the name in ctiation
> context. I personally believe that it is really good promotion for us
> :-)
>
> The website is 100% non-commercial. The main idea behind is just to
> attract people to science and generally knowledge.
>
> My favorite "singing" is "Seplenienie" ("Lisp") by Borys Szyc:
>
> http://www.famelab.org.pl/#seplenienie
>
> which in fact could be used as a good ilustration of this article :-)
>
>

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

[Foundation-l] I don´t believe in feedback tools

[Hubert]

Feedbacks and Experts for websites are evil.

1. It costs a lot of money
2. Nobody will analyse it really
3. the type of questioning determines the results
4. It is only good for people who want to take no responsibility for 
their own work.
5. last but not least, no one will implement the findings resulting from 
such feedback to change something that is already finished.

What can you learn from this?

1. Do it right from the beginning.
2. Ask your mother if she has understand your work, namely that what you 
wanted to achieve
3. If you can´t do #1, then try another job

Feedbacks and experts are the plague of the century.

h

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

Re: [Foundation-l] A fundraiser for editors

[Hubert]

I fully agree!
h

Am 02.01.2012 17:53, schrieb James Heilman:
> The fundraiser for money has been working exceedingly well with our
> number of donors increasing 10 fold since 2008. What we need now is a
> fundraiser for editors. I meet well educated professionals who use
> Wikipedia but have no ideas that they can edit it. We need to run a
> banner with the same energy we use to raise money to raise editor
> numbers. This idea has been trialed to a limited extent here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Invitation_to_edit but the
> effort did not have sufficient data crunching behind it to determine
> if it works.
>

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Resolution:Developing Scenarios for future of fundraising

[Hubert]

Thank you for your information:

But I´m not able to enter the refering link.

http://board.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_fundraising/Guiding_Principles

hubertl

Am 18.01.2012 09:25, schrieb Ting Chen:
> Hello dear community,
>
> the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation passed the following
> resolution with seven approves and three abstains:
>
>
> Following consultation with the Wikimedia community on meta, the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is now releasing the guiding
> principles below, which are intended to govern Wikimedia fundraising and
> funds dissemination practices.
>
> We now ask the Executive Director to develop for the Board a
> recommendation for fundraising and funds dissemination practices that
> will align as well as possible with the guiding principles while
> consulting appropriately with stakeholders and interested parties. The
> Board asks that the recommendation be ready to be shared with the Board
> for discussion at the February 2012 Board meeting.
>
>  Guidelines for Fundraising Scenarios 
>
> * Consistency with mission, vision and values. All Wikimedia fundraising
> activities must be conducted in a manner that's consistent with our
> overall mission, vision and values. They must not create unnecessary
> legal exposure for the projects, or otherwise unduly interfere with our
> ability to achieve our mission.
> * Minimal cost and minimal disruption. All Wikimedia fundraising
> activities must aim to raise the maximum possible amount of money from
> donors while minimizing administrative costs as much as possible (in
> order to reserve the largest amount of money possible for programmatic
> activity), while causing minimal disruption and annoyance for users of
> the projects.
> * Transparency: All Wikimedia fundraising activities must be truthful
> with prospective donors. We need to tell people what we intend to use
> their money for, before they donate. And we need to report in a timely
> fashion on how it was actually spent.
> * Responsibility: All Wikimedia fundraising activities must ensure funds
> received are safe from fraud or misuse as determined by existing
> third-party standards for appropriate financial controls, and must
> adhere to relevant laws and regulations.
> * Internationalism: Our movement is international in scope, and our
> fundraising practices must support the easiest possible transfer of
> money internationally in support of the movement's priorities.
> * Independence: We prefer a fundraising model in which we are supported
> primarily via the many-small-donors model, because this is the model
> that best supports our independence.
> * Flexibility: We do not need to adhere to a single monolithic model for
> fundraising: multiple donation streams are fine.
> * Sustainable donor relations: We must safeguard donor privacy and avoid
> slowing the "donate now" flow.
> * Good faith: The Wikimedia movement assumes that all movement
> participants are acting in good faith, with regards to each other's
> actions and intentions.
>
>  Guidelines for Funds Distribution Scenarios 
>
> * Protect the core: Core activities that ensure the continuity of the
> projects need to be funded first.
> * Impact: Funds should be distributed in ways that support mission work,
> agnostic with regard to where the money was raised.
> * Transparency and stability: Decisions about funds distribution must be
> made transparently, in accordance with published guidelines and
> processes. The model must enable each entity to carry out financial
> planning to support efforts to be sustainable.
> * Decentralization: Funds must be distributed in ways that support
> decentralized programmatic activities for furthering our mission.
> * Responsibility and accountability: Funds must be distributed in ways
> that enable the Wikimedia movement to confidently assure donors that
> their donations will be safeguarded appropriately, and that spending
> will be in line with our mission and with the messages used to attract
> donors.
> * Collaboration and openness: Funds must be distributed in ways that are
> collaborative and open, and which respect the diverse and international
> nature of the Wikimedia movement.
>
> == Reference Links ==
> * http://board.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_fundraising/Guiding_Principles
> * [[m:Draft Guiding principles with regards to funds distribution|Draft
> Guiding principles with regards to funds distribution]]
> * [[m:Draft Guiding principles with regards to fundraising|Draft Guiding
> principles with regards to fundraising]]
>
>
> Greetings
>

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Resolution:Developing Scenarios for future of fundraising

[Hubert]

Am 18.01.2012 12:48, schrieb Pronoein:
> Le 18/01/2012 05:25, Ting Chen a écrit :
>> Hello dear community,
>>
>> the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation passed the following
>> resolution with seven approves and three abstains:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>> * Minimal cost and minimal disruption. All Wikimedia fundraising
>> activities must aim to raise the maximum possible amount of money from
>> donors while minimizing administrative costs as much as possible (in
>> order to reserve the largest amount of money possible for programmatic
>> activity), while causing minimal disruption and annoyance for users of
>> the projects.
>>
>
> Why does the Board of Trustees think that WMF should raise the «maximum
> possible amount of money»?
> Why not ask for what is needed and nothing more?
>

read further on:

"while minimizing administrative costs as much as possible"

hubertl

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

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