Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Here is the other great straight line. Let's hope they aren't > parallel. We have indeed claimed to be in the business of > deleting recipes. That was a stupendously dumb thing. Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long time. The more time passes,

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Fred Bauder wrote: >> I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long >> enough >> to know that censorship is a dead issue. >> > > It is never too late to quit doing a dumb thing. Thanks for two straight lines in a good posting. That is the first one. > I might find gif

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Aryeh Gregor wrote: > Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't censored because it allows pictures > of penises is fooling himself. Wikipedia is absolutely censored from > images its editors find disgusting. Most of its editors find sexual > images just fine, and a large percentage view their suppressio

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Re : This from brion; On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: > > Sites like Flickr and Google image search keep this to a single toggle; > the default view is a "safe" search which excludes items which have been > marked as "adult" in nature, while making it easy to opt out of the

Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

fair enough, Pedro - I certainly don't want any weight, in terms of argument, placed on my opinion that this matters - I'd much rather stick to the substantive issues of the matter at hand it's more about discussing wether or not it's a problem that wmf hosts pic.s of topless chicks on the beac

Re: [Foundation-l] 2007 Form 990 Now Posted

True. Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/5/15 Veronique Kessler : > >> The account being referred to is our Moneybookers account; Moneybookers >> is a payment gateway like Paypal and we have had the account for a >> couple of years. Only a small fraction of donations come via >> Moneybookers but som

Re: [Foundation-l] 2007 Form 990 Now Posted

Hi, The donations in-kind refer to donated internet hosting costs and legal fees. In our 07-08 audit report, we discuss the volunteer contribution but did not attempt to quantify it in terms of a dollar value. We are investigating how best to reflect this in next year's audit report. I don't

Re: [Foundation-l] 2007 Form 990 Now Posted

2009/5/15 Veronique Kessler : > The account being referred to is our Moneybookers account; Moneybookers > is a payment gateway like Paypal and we have had the account for a > couple of years.  Only a small fraction of donations come via > Moneybookers but some folks prefer it over Paypal. Ok. Pres

Re: [Foundation-l] 2007 Form 990 Now Posted

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:00 AM, effe iets anders wrote: > A more general question for anyone who knows: Part III, question 1 mentions > whether the org. tried to influence politics. Does anyone know 1) what this > includes (only US politics or also foreign, also mission related lobbying > (free l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

While this may be true for Wikipedia (English Wikipedia?), it is certainly not true of Wikimedia project generally. For example, Wikibooks has a subproject Wikijunior which is an attempt to create high-quality children's books. Part of the defined scope here is that the books are appropriate for ch

Re: [Foundation-l] 2007 Form 990 Now Posted

The account being referred to is our Moneybookers account; Moneybookers is a payment gateway like Paypal and we have had the account for a couple of years. Only a small fraction of donations come via Moneybookers but some folks prefer it over Paypal. geni wrote: > 2009/5/13 Veronique Kessler :

Re: [Foundation-l] 2007 Form 990 Now Posted

2009/5/13 Thomas Dalton : > 2009/5/13 Robert Rohde : >> As it is, this is being released more than 10 months after the end of >> the fiscal year which is rather a lot. > > Indeed. Normally waiting a while for this kind of stuff doesn't > matter, but an organisation like WMF is moving so quickly tha

Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:06 PM, private musings wrote: > Re : Pedro - heh... I take your point - doesn't mean we shouldn't talk > about > the merits of the point at hand, though, no? If there's an improvement to > be > made, that's gonna be a good thing regardless of the opinion that it's also >

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Actually, I would argue that we shouldn't censor for principled reasons. Supposing it were the case that we could safely censor only sexual content with no slippery slope, we still shouldn't do so because it is wrong regardless what the practical consequences may or may not be. That said, a more ut

Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Re : Masti - I agree with your position that if the license seems suspect, and the contributor can't (or won't) provide something a bit more, then the image should be deleted - that's not the consensus on commons however, for what that's worth - these doubts have been raised, and the image remains.

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Obviously not; here we are discussing it. One wonders if we actually did learn any lessons during the Enlightenment... -Mike On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 10:04 -0400, The Cunctator wrote: > I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long enough > to know that censorship is a dead i

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

David Gerard hett schreven: > (c.f. the earlier proposal for a Victims of Soviet Repression wiki - > nice idea, but utterly unsuited to WMF through utter lack of > neutrality.) > does still work by the way. Marcus Buck User:Slomox

Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:16 PM, private musings wrote: > > I believe that this is an example of principle overriding pragmatism in a > way that has great potential to cause the project harm - both in reputation > and utility. If you're reading this and are a bit confuddled about the > parameters

Re: [Foundation-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

W dniu 15.05.2009 00:35, private musings pisze: > heh - you'd think, right? :-) yes > > Well the issue here is that the uploader has released this image, his or her > only contribution to commons, under a CC license - but I'm afraid I think > it's reasonable to doubt the validity of this releas

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Sage Ross : > No, I'm talking about something like actively including meta-data that > would make possible filtered.en.wikipedia.org or the like (as Robert > Rohde described), not imposing any limits on the way readers currently > view Wikipedia. So, put together something that uses th

Re: [Foundation-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

heh - you'd think, right? :-) Well the issue here is that the uploader has released this image, his or her only contribution to commons, under a CC license - but I'm afraid I think it's reasonable to doubt the validity of this release (I think the contributor is telling fibs). Unfortunately, to q

Re: [Foundation-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

W dniu 14.05.2009 06:03, private musings pisze: > g'day all, > > There's an interesting deletion discussion taking place here; > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sexuality_pearl_necklace_small.png > > concerning an image of a woman with sperm on her neck. To my m

[Foundation-l] pt:wiki policies

Dear Sirs, The day before yesterday (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discuss%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio/Arquivo/2009/05#NH), while discussing a private case, whose full details are confidential, I described a strictly hypothetical case as follows: Suppose a tetraplegi

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/5/14 Sage Ross : > >> I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement. >> Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't >> share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population >> c

Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Re : This having been discussed, and my opinions being vigorously shot down - well yes, both you and Mike are largely correct - which to my mind is actually cause for concern for the sensibly minded - it's also my opinion that there's many such folk out there - many of whom choose not to get involv

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:44, Sage Ross wrote: > > I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement. > Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't > share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population > community is long overdue. I agre

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

My two cents: I don't think we have external pressure to do this. Web filtering companies which filter by keyword are aware Wikipedia contains a lot of those naughty keywords. Anything they think they need to do about it they already do. OTRS hasn't been seeing parental complaints, we haven't se

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't censored because it allows pictures of penises is fooling himself. Wikipedia is absolutely censored from images its editors find disgusting. Most of its editors find sexual images just fine, and a large percentage view their suppression as harmful, "sex-negative"

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Chad : > Yes, the two big stumbling blocks for making mirrors are: > > 1) No recent good full dump of enwiki (last complete one was Jan '07) Why do you need a full dump? The most recent versions should be plenty. ___ foundation-l mailing list

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Birgitte SB wrote: > If there is a massive market for this, then why hasn't such a mirror already > been created? > > I am serious here.  Is there something that acting as a stumbling block to a > third-party creating a SafeForKidsPedia mirror?  Our content is su

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Chad wrote: > From: Chad > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons > and freely licensed sexual imagery > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:04 PM > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM, > David Ge

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM, David Goodman wrote: > Perhaps the problem is that the particular photograph sends a > sex-positive, not a clinical message. Why shouldn't it? It's not a > pathological state; it's not shameful. Using a clinical image > indicates there is something about it that ne

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Chad : > And? What's wrong with pleasing the parents? I would rather do that > and have children be able to access all the good content Wikipedia > has than have their parents just make Wikipedia off-limits because of > a small subset of the overall content. Nothing is wrong with it in p

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/5/14 Sage Ross : > >> I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement. >> Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't >> share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population >> c

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedians groups on LinkedIn?

Hi David, I do believe that you received recently the letter sent by Wikipedians group "owner" Klaas Van Buiten LinkedIn Groups Group: Wikipedians Subject: Announcement from Wikipedians Hi everybody, We have an overlap with a much larger group called Wikipedia Users Gro

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Sage Ross : > I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement. > Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't > share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population > community is long overdue. Schools Wikipedia, or similar dis

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Robert Rohde wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: >> IMHO any restriction that's not present in the default view isn't likely >> to accomplish much. The answer an objecting parent wants to "my daughter >> saw a lady with semen on her neck

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Fred is conflating guidelines on style with guidelines on content. Articles about food items are not banned. Articles about fiction are not banned. Fred is advocating banning a *class of articles.* On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > I'm sorry, but why is this even a discu

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: > IMHO any restriction that's not present in the default view isn't likely > to accomplish much. The answer an objecting parent wants to "my daughter > saw a lady with semen on her neck on your website" is *not* "you should > have told her to l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

El 5/14/09 11:50 PM, David Gerard escribió: > 2009/5/14 Oldak Quill: > >> I post the suggestion above about tagging articles that may be >> considered inappropriate by some, because it is better to give people >> tools to block content if they choose to, than to delete content on >> that basis. > >

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 David Gerard : > 2009/5/14 Oldak Quill : > >> I post the suggestion above about tagging articles that may be >> considered inappropriate by some, because it is better to give people >> tools to block content if they choose to, than to delete content on >> that basis. > > > I note that pro

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/5/14 Chad : >> Or for enwiki to stop thinking themselves such fantastic editors >> and accept the notion that not all material is suitable for all ages. > > I don't accept that notion. I fail to see how children are harmed by > such imag

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Chad : > Or for enwiki to stop thinking themselves such fantastic editors > and accept the notion that not all material is suitable for all ages. I don't accept that notion. I fail to see how children are harmed by such images. If we were to implement any kind of censorship it would be t

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/5/14 David Gerard : >> 2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton : > >>> So is my cookbook censored because it doesn't include a description of >>> the Peloponnesian War? Of course not. It's not a matter of censorship, >>> it's a matter of scope. If you wi

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 David Gerard : > 2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton : >> So is my cookbook censored because it doesn't include a description of >> the Peloponnesian War? Of course not. It's not a matter of censorship, >> it's a matter of scope. If you wish to argue that pearl necklaces >> aren't encyclopaedic, the

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton : > So is my cookbook censored because it doesn't include a description of > the Peloponnesian War? Of course not. It's not a matter of censorship, > it's a matter of scope. If you wish to argue that pearl necklaces > aren't encyclopaedic, then that is another question enti

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 David Gerard : > (In practice, those considering Wikipedia unsuitable for mass > consumption write their own encyclopedia site, e.g. Conservapedia or > Christopedia.) Or - how could I forget, the example of an actually good selection of Wikipedia that's proving very popular indeed with

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Oldak Quill : > I post the suggestion above about tagging articles that may be > considered inappropriate by some, because it is better to give people > tools to block content if they choose to, than to delete content on > that basis. I note that proposals to do blocking-oriented filte

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder : >> I'm sorry, but why is this even a discussion? Wikipedia is not censored. > > Wikipedia is censored with respect to a myriad of different sorts of > content. In fact it is routinely censored, consider articles for > deletion, just for a start then move on to recipes, dicti

[Foundation-l] Wikipedians groups on LinkedIn?

There was a "Wikipedians" group which was apparently started for "networking" (which in practice seemed to mean spam blasts), per http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/04/16/wikipedians-on-linkedin/ But there's at least a couple more groups which are sincere and were just put together by Wikipedian

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

> I'm sorry, but why is this even a discussion? Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is censored with respect to a myriad of different sorts of content. In fact it is routinely censored, consider articles for deletion, just for a start then move on to recipes, dictionary definitions, fiction, to s

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Brion Vibber : > IMHO any restriction that's not present in the default view isn't likely > to accomplish much. The answer an objecting parent wants to "my daughter > saw a lady with semen on her neck on your website" is *not* "you should > have told her to log in and check 'no sexual ima

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: pt:wiki policies

Foundation-l list admin wrote: >> -- Forwarded message -- >> From: Virgilio A. P. Machado >> Date: Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:29 AM >> Subject: pt:wiki policies >> To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> >> Dear Sirs, >> >> Yesterday ( >> http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedi

[Foundation-l] Fwd: pt:wiki policies

-- Forwarded message -- From: Virgilio A. P. Machado Date: Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:29 AM Subject: pt:wiki policies To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org Dear Sirs, Yesterday ( http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discuss%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio#NH ),

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Invades La Plata Natural History Museum

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Hay (Husky) wrote: > It's nice to see initatives like this spring up all over the world! > > Next month Wikimedia Nederland (together with Creative Commons NL) > will organize a month-long 'wiki loves art' project in which 15 > museums participate. > > -- Hay Hoor

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

I'm sorry, but why is this even a discussion? Wikipedia is not censored. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Perhaps the problem is that the particular photograph sends a sex-positive, not a clinical message. Why shouldn't it? It's not a pathological state; it's not shameful. Using a clinical image indicates there is something about it that needs to be shown in a specially restrained manner. The picture

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

El 5/14/09 7:31 PM, Thomas Dalton escribió: > 2009/5/14 Robert Rohde: >> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton >> wrote: >>> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder: I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedi

Re: [Foundation-l] Collecting or spreading information (was: Wikipedia is not the karma sutra)

You could spread someone else's knowledge, no problem. And conflicts there always are. If the collection of some content hinders the general spreading, such as with the sexual images might be the case (but that is just an example, you could just as well use images of the prophet Muhamed as example

Re: [Foundation-l] Collecting or spreading information (was: Wikipedia is not the karma sutra)

2009/5/14 effe iets anders : > Here we have an interesting discussion topic. So what /is/ the main focus of > Wikimedia? Is it about collecting together free knowledge, or is it about > spreading it? I think it is clear that we need to do both. You can't spread information you don't have and there

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Common courtesy, maybe? From: Fred Bauder To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:24:12 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery > 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

*An article such as Pearl necklace (sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia. * I assume her family cautioned her against using the internet entirely, then? FMF On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:

Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

This one's been discussed ad nauseam already, and I think the community's discussions pretty unambiguously tend towards keep. FMF On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > My opinion on this is clear: Commons should welcome both photographs > and pictures. Whether a project shows

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder : >> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder : >>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not >>> a >>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the >>> Karma Sutra. >> >> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Robert Rohde : > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder : >>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a >>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the >>> Karma Sutra. >> >> What about pi

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder : >> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a >> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the >> Karma Sutra. > > What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder : >> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not >> a >> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the >> Karma Sutra. > > What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights > violations? Articles about ev

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

> I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long > enough > to know that censorship is a dead issue. It is never too late to quit doing a dumb thing. I might find gifting someone with a nice pearl necklace a fine thing to do, but unlike comprehensive information about sexuali

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder : > I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a > manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the > Karma Sutra. What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights violations? Articles about evolution? etc.

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

> Fred Bauder wrote: >>> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs: KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma) >>> very best, >>> oscar >>> >> >> Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the >> right thing. >> > > From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms > around like t

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > As there are people who care about this, would you please tone down a bit? > It does not matter what you believe or do not believe, you should respect > other people. Going on a tangent like this is not appropriate. > Thanks, > Your thanks may be misplaced. It

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long enough to know that censorship is a dead issue. On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > As there are people who care about this, would you please tone down a bit? > It does not matter what you believe or

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Hoi, As there are people who care about this, would you please tone down a bit? It does not matter what you believe or do not believe, you should respect other people. Going on a tangent like this is not appropriate. Thanks, GerardM 2009/5/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > Fred Bauder wrote: > >>

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Fred Bauder wrote: >> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs: KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma) >> very best, >> oscar >> > > Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the > right thing. > From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms around like there is

Re: [Foundation-l] Collecting or spreading information (was: Wikipedia is not the karma sutra)

2009/5/14 Ivan Lanin > > > > * Are we the only one able to perform a certain task? Are we the single > (and > > therefore important) link in a chain from knowledge to receiver? > > No, we are not the one. The government should actually do that. But, > we are an important alternative *collector*

Re: [Foundation-l] Collecting or spreading information (was: Wikipedia is not the karma sutra)

These questions are very good. While perhaps not really related to the original discussion, I just want to share my thought and experience in Indonesian context. On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:34 PM, effe iets anders wrote: > But which of the two is more important to us, and which takes preference?

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder : >> This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of >> sexual activity.  A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than >> any drawing could be. >> >> >> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > The image is an

Re: [Foundation-l] 2007 Form 990 Now Posted

Hi Veronique, thanks for posting this. In Part VI, question 82b, it is mentioned that 333,125 USD was donated in kind. Can you confirm that this does not include the volunteer contributions to Wikipedia? (assume not, or at least hope that it's not valued that low ;-) ) A more general question for

[Foundation-l] Collecting or spreading information (was: Wikipedia is not the karma sutra)

Here we have an interesting discussion topic. So what /is/ the main focus of Wikimedia? Is it about collecting together free knowledge, or is it about spreading it? If it would only be about spreading, I think we have at least chosen the wrong shape, because a page full of links would then be more

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs: KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma) > very best, > oscar Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the right thing. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubsc

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs: KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma) very best, oscar On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of > > sexual activity. A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than > > any d

[Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

> This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of > sexual activity. A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than > any drawing could be. > > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG The image is an excellent illustration of its subj