The argument against concealing or making it more difficult in any way
to access material is that it inevitably amounts to censorship. In my
youth, one could not receive publications--on any subject--through the
mail from the Communist countries without signing a form that one had
requested them; I
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> El 5/14/09 3:16 PM, private musings escribió:
>> - Commons currently hosts many pictures, taken in a public place, without
>> the apparent permission of the subject...
<
>> highly unlikely to me to be genuinely released under a fre
Nice thread.
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Aryeh Gregor
wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
>> I think this email really shows a misunderstanding of "Wikipedia is not
>> censored" is about; so I am starting a new thread to discuss the issue.
>
> Well, for my part, I
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Birgitte SB wrote:
> From: Birgitte SB
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not
> the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 2:17 PM
>
The affiliate question was mainly triggered by page 1, question H (and might
be especially interesting in later files of 990 with US chapters on their
way who might or might not be affiliates according to the IRS definition).
I noted that question H(c) has not been filled in. I assume that this is
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> From: Aryeh Gregor
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons
> and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 1:49 PM
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:40 P
El 5/14/09 3:16 PM, private musings escribió:
> - Commons currently hosts many pictures, taken in a public place, without
> the apparent permission of the subject, of various folk in various states
> of
> undress (think topless women at the beach as the best example) - I think
> th
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> From: Aryeh Gregor
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not
> the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 1:46 PM
>
El 5/14/09 4:14 PM, Mike.lifeguard escribió:
> 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 define
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> Well you now snipped it all, but someone suggested creating mirror under a
> different domain name for schools. I replied to that saying how I thought
> resources were best spent. Then you replied to me.
>
> If you weren't replying to me to
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> I think this email really shows a misunderstanding of "Wikipedia is not
> censored" is about; so I am starting a new thread to discuss the issue.
Well, for my part, I think the entire "Wikipedia is not censored"
policy completely misunderstan
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> From: Aryeh Gregor
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons
> and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 1:26 PM
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:33 A
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> Your really didn't address my question. Why do you think WMF resources are
> best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by
> sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for
> *any* of d
I'm with Simetrical on this one. One persons censorship is anothers
editorial decision, and by and large[1] the actual content on Wikimedia
projects is determined by the cultural sensitivities of the Wikimedia
community and not the ideals to which we aspire. The arguments we make are
by turns pragm
--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> From: Aryeh Gregor
> 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, 4:59 PM
> Anyone who thinks Wikipedia
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Have you any idea how california-centered that sounds?
>
> We all stood shoulder to shoulder against Uwe Kils and
> the Norwegian Vikings, and this is what we get?
>
> A more perniciously, smoother talked version of the same
> old spiel. One would be really excused at
Your really didn't address my question. Why do you think WMF resources are
best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by
sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for
*any* of different of audiences in the world that find various differe
2009/5/15 Thomas Dalton :
> Google has an hour of slow service and it's headline news. Imagine the
> donations we could get if our downtime (which, as David is fond of
> saying, is our most profitable product) got into the headlines!
Originally a Jimbo quote :-)
- d.
_
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8051262.stm
Google has an hour of slow service and it's headline news. Imagine the
donations we could get if our downtime (which, as David is fond of
saying, is our most profitable product) got into the headlines!
Perhaps we should take to issuing press releas
John Vandenberg wrote:
>> I have once made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_gallery_of_toucans
>> that was deleted. Let's say it was similar to
>> http://www.emeraldforestbirds.com/EmeraldGallery.htm and I believe you
>> will find such a gallery is encyclopedic.
>
> I have checked, and the dele
Hi David, All,
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> The obvious thing to do would be for a third party to offer a
> filtering service. So far there are no examples, suggesting there is
> negligible demand for such filtering in practice - many individuals
> have said they want fi
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Michael Peel wrote:
>> On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>>> Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to
>>> cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered.
>>>
>>> Commons has image
Michael Peel wrote:
> On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to
>> cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered.
>>
>> Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image
>> galleries.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>>
>> The challenge here isn't technical, but political/cultural; choosing how
>> to mark things and what to mark for a default view is quite simply
>> _difficult_ as there's such a huge variance in what people may find
>> objectionable.
>>
>>
effe iets anders wrote:
> 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 lo
On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Michael Peel wrote:
>> On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long
>>> time. The
>>> more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia
>>> have
>>> eve
Michael Peel wrote:
> On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>
>> Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long time. The
>> more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia
>> have
>> ever seen an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, dictionary definitions an
On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long time. The
> more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia
> have
> ever seen an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, dictionary definitions and
> image galleries are for
28 matches
Mail list logo
