Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

Hello Elias, Welcome to the mailing list. On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote: > 2010/5/9 Andreas Kolbe : > (..) >>> board to do things is to give guidance to the communities. But, this >>> topic is already pending for years. Looking back into the archives of >>

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

There is no general agreement here that any system of filtering for any purpose is ever necessary, and I think it is totally contrary to the entire general idea behind the the free culture movement. But people have liberty do do as they please with our content, and if someone wants to filter for

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

2010/5/9 Andreas Kolbe : (..) >> For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's >> effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a >> direction. Both Jimmy as well as me believe that the best way for the >> board to do things is to give guidance to the comm

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:43 PM, THURNER rupert wrote: > i might be wrong, but wasn't it _very_ important to have a clear > separation of concerns? Whether or not this is legally important, it is socially essential. > on the other hand, i consider jimbo trying it and proving that it > finally fa

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Hi Przykuta, On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Przykuta wrote: > > We need to talk as Wikimedia Community. There is no authority without > communication - face to face(s); keyboard to keyboard. < > Maybe the best way will be to start special IRC debate - about past, present > and future. (and aga

Re: [Foundation-l] Statement on appropriate educational content

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:39 PM, stevertigo wrote: For one, successful companies can get too > > big and lose focus: Drifting into "wiki" priorities instead of > "encyclopedia" priorities, for example, would be the albatross here. > That's not to say that we shouldn't further pursue the science of

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

Sue Gardner wrote: > Hi Derk-Jan, > > Thank you for starting this thread. > > There is obviously a range of options -- let's say, on a 10-point > scale, ranging from 0 (do nothing but enforce existing policy) to 10 > (completely purge everything that's potentially objectionable to > anyone, anywher

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Geoffrey Plourde writes: Wouldn't regulating content mean abdicating the role of webhost, which would > call Section 230 into question? > Mere removal of content posted by others does not create a Section 230 problem or a problem under equivalent provisions elsewhere in the law. A guideline or p

Re: [Foundation-l] [OT] Am I the only one...

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Aphaia wrote: > Is there any option to tell them commons has its own mailing list > instead of adding it to the foundation-l? > I think Austin touched upon this as well, but, yes, I would remind everyone that discussions are occurring now on Meta, Commons and the

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Derk-Jan Hartman wrote: >> This message is CC'ed to other people who might wish to comment on this >> potential approach >> --- >> >> > > > You asked for comments... Here is one we prepared earlier... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

I can think of other concerns. The main one is that of our competence to form judgements. On some things we can: though nudity would seem something obvious, deciding on the various degrees of it is not: I do not think we are likely to agree on whether any particular nude image is primarily sexua

Re: [Foundation-l] [OT] Am I the only one...

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Ryan Lomonaco wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:50 PM, K. Peachey wrote: > >> I do to, depending on how they are applied, for example I would much >> prefer on a case by case basis compared to everyone, since a few >> people are bring active and decent discussion

Re: [Foundation-l] Towards actual clean-up...

Hi, Le dimanche 9 mai 2010 17:33:42, David Goodman a écrit : > > A secondary purpose of Commons in for material to be used > elsewhere--have we any way for checking that? I'd even say that the > true success of Commons is when the material there is used elsewhere, > not just in Wikimedia proje

Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

Not knowing, but Commons has their own VPs (in many langs), IRC channel and mailing list. I don't see the good reason those particular things on the project are continued to discuss on this list. Cheers, On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Jimmy Wale

Re: [Foundation-l] [OT] Am I the only one...

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:50 PM, K. Peachey wrote: > I do to, depending on how they are applied, for example I would much > prefer on a case by case basis compared to everyone, since a few > people are bring active and decent discussion where as some people are > just trolling/omg censorship is ba

Re: [Foundation-l] Towards actual clean-up...

I expected, in fact, a considerably lower figure, perhaps 25%, so it It seems to me that 50% being used is a very high proportion , indicating good selectivity. A secondary purpose of Commons in for material to be used elsewhere--have we any way for checking that? I'd even say that the true suc

Re: [Foundation-l] Statement on appropriate educational content

Ting Chen wrote: >> Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource has by themselves no educational >> value. They gain their educational value in the way that they provide >> repositories for the other WMF projects. Samuel Klein wrote: > Hold on, now.  These are all awesome educational projects in their own

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Wouldn't regulating content mean abdicating the role of webhost, which would call Section 230 into question? From: David Gerard To: susanpgard...@gmail.com; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 4:21:46 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexu

Re: [Foundation-l] Commons:Sexual content

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote: > Being educational should be just another word for being in scope, and > in scope are, in my opinion, in the first place those files that are > usable for the projects. That is the first thing that we should be > judging things by. I'v

Re: [Foundation-l] [OT] Am I the only one...

I do to, depending on how they are applied, for example I would much prefer on a case by case basis compared to everyone, since a few people are bring active and decent discussion where as some people are just trolling/omg censorship is bad type stuff. -Peachey ___

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Yeah. I don't remember exactly what Ting said, and even if I did, I wouldn't comment on it. But FWIW to your point, Ting's not in a chapters-selected seat; Ting was elected by the Wikimedia community. --Original Message-- From: David Gerard To: Sue Gardner GMail To: foundation-l@lists.w

[Foundation-l] Towards actual clean-up...

Many people have generally agreed that there are or have been a large number of redundant, low-quality penis pics on Commons. Towards understanding this better, I wrote a script to traverse [[:Category:Human genitalia]] and all of it's subcategories (it is refreshingly finite). In this category w

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner wrote: > My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the "scope of > Jimmy's authority" question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the > importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about > what's happened over the p

Re: [Foundation-l] On problems in commons

Well, the point is we should keep our content US-legal. >From the project scope of Commons, "Commons is not censored, and does quite legitimately include content which some users may consider objectionable or offensive. The policy of *"Commons is not censored"* means that a lawfully-hosted file, w

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Yeah, Pryzkuta, I know there are lots of debates happening everywhere; that's a good thing --- obviously talking about all this stuff is good, and people should use whatever mechanisms work for them. All the discussions are good, and everybody is bringing useful stuff to the table. Re Jimmy, my

Re: [Foundation-l] On problems in commons

Mikemoral wrote: > But Muhammad's image is not illegal in the US, so why remove them? That has > no point. Why do we have to remove content perfectly legal under US law? > Please educate me why. Who said that the images Jimmy deleted (and which started all this debate) were illegal in the US? If t

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 00:15, Ting Chen wrote: > What I can say to your questions is that Jimmy informed the board about > his intention and asked the board for support. Don't speaking for other > board members, just speak for myself. I answered his mail with that I > fully support his engagement.

[Foundation-l] On problems in commons

Well, I understand you, but I think you don´t understand me...First i write "the law"...If the laws of your country prohibit certain images, wikimedia cannot go in opposition to these laws ... they will be able to be more just or fewer jousts, but  does not correspond to us to decide on it. No

Re: [Foundation-l] On problems in commons

2010/5/9 marcos : > Please, read good. Common Sense. Do you think it´s of common sense delete > this?... > > Yes. If we are really to follow your POV. Muhammad pictures are far more offensive for muslim people than porno stuff. -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Poli

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

*That is why it was addressed to FOSI and cc'ed to some parties that might have clue about such systems. The copy to foundation-l was a courtesy message. You are welcome to discuss censorship and your opinion about it, but I would appreciate it even more if people actually talked about rating syste

Re: [Foundation-l] Commons:Sexual content

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote: > Okay, I've complained a lot, time to give something back. > > I think I've managed to create a sexual content policy that's > consistent with the core values of commons and previous decisions, > such as the artworks of Muhammed,  while dealing

Re: [Foundation-l] New project proposal: wiki-based troubleshooting

On 5 May 2010 16:34, Alex wrote: > On 5/4/2010 5:16 PM, Yao Ziyuan wrote: >> Thomas Dalton wrote: We definitely do not want to be giving medical advice to people. If you get that wrong, people die. Medical advice should be got by going to the doctors. Can you give another examp

Re: [Foundation-l] Regional Conference of Wikimedia Serbia 2010

Great! Best wishes for the event. Regards, Jyothis. Sent from my iPhone Http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jyothis On May 9, 2010, at 6:08 PM, Filip Maljkovic wrote: > Hello, > > Wikimedia Serbia is proud to announce the Fourth Regional Conference > of > Wikimedia Serbia. > > The conference wi

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the d iscussion is happening

> 1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy's actions over the > past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving. > That's mostly happened here and on meta. > Sue - everywhere - mailing lists, IRC channels, village pumps... We need to talk as Wikimedia Community. T

[Foundation-l] Regional Conference of Wikimedia Serbia 2010

Hello, Wikimedia Serbia is proud to announce the Fourth Regional Conference of Wikimedia Serbia. The conference will be held on 5th and 6th June in Belgrade, in the Belgrade Youth Center. We are hoping to have as many Wikimedia guests as possible. Conference is not regional in the strict sense

Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion

Mike.lifeguard writes: > I think you'll find that whenever you want to have something done that > should actually be done there will be no problem convincing > community members to do it... I think this will make folks > much more comfortable in accepting your guidance. Just so. Thank you, Jimbo.

Re: [Foundation-l] Where things stand now

On 5/8/2010 9:08 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > Much of the cleanup is done, although there was so much hardcore > pornography on commons that there's still some left in nooks and crannies. > > I'm taking the day off from deleting, both today and tomorrow, but I do > encourage people to continue de

[Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

Jimmy Wales wrote: > My purpose here is for us to stop chattering about this aspect of things > - which I don't care about.  People seem to want to fight me on it, > perhaps expecting me to dig in my heels.  Everyone loves a good fight, > even me, but this is not a fight that we need to have. Wh

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > This *HAS* been suggested before, and soundly defeated. > Nothing has changed in this respect. I would heartfeltly ask > that folks just quit trying to stuff this down the throat of a > community that simply does not content labeling. I don't see why the negative e

Re: [Foundation-l] New project proposal: wiki-based troubleshooting

On 5/4/2010 5:16 PM, Yao Ziyuan wrote: > Thomas Dalton wrote: >>> >>> We definitely do not want to be giving medical advice to people. If >>> you get that wrong, people die. Medical advice should be got by going >>> to the doctors. Can you give another example of what your idea could > > Yes, medi

[Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] English Wikipedia: Upcoming Changes to the User Interface

Everyone, As many of you already know, the Wikimedia Foundation's User Experience team has been running a beta program focused on improving the user interface for over six months now. More details may be found here [a], but

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

Hi Derk-Jan, Thank you for starting this thread. There is obviously a range of options -- let's say, on a 10-point scale, ranging from 0 (do nothing but enforce existing policy) to 10 (completely purge everything that's potentially objectionable to anyone, anywhere). Somewhere on that continuum

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner wrote: > [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia.  AFAIK it's not > taking place on-wiki anywhere. > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/195663 After Greg's, David Gerard's and Mike's arguments, I think that it is clear tha

Re: [Foundation-l] On problems in commons

*Please, read good. Common Sense. Do you think it´s of common sense delete this?...* Common sense is not Common. In the Islamic world depictions of Muhammad are considered to be highly offensive, akin to western views on child pornogra

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Hoi, What I am missing is that Iran has blocked the whole Wikimedia domain as Commons is included in that domain. I understand that the reason is there being too much sexual explicit content. As a consequence this important free resource is no longer available to the students of Iran as a resource

[Foundation-l] Commons:Sexual content

Okay, I've complained a lot, time to give something back. I think I've managed to create a sexual content policy that's consistent with the core values of commons and previous decisions, such as the artworks of Muhammed, while dealing with the problems and assuring that any sexual content that re

[Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Hi folks, I'm aiming to stay on top of this whole conversation -- which is not easy: there is an awful lot of text being generated :-) So for myself and others --including new board members who may not be super-fluent in terms of following where and how we discuss things--, I'm going to recap her

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

This message was an attempt to gain information and spur discussion about the system in general, it's limits and effectiveness, not wether or not we should actually do it. I was trying to gather more information so that we can have an informed debate if it ever got to discussing about the possib

Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Joan Goma wrote: > The founder’s flag give to a single man a huge power. I can’t trust on > almost anybody to hold that power. Every steward holds that power. If I remember well, I think that stewards had a couple of more permissions than founder. ___

Re: [Foundation-l] Appropriate surprise (Commons stuff)

Thanks, Greg. This is very useful perspective and great background for those of us without Commons experience. -stu On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > I thought it might be useful to here if I shared some of my > experiences with commons. > > > Like many people I've had t

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

*That's true. But at the moment we have nothing to defend or excuse ourselves with. If we had decent tagging we could at least say: "You don't want your pupils to see nude people? Add rule XYZ to your school's proxy servers and Wikipedia will be clean. You can even choose which content should be a

Re: [Foundation-l] On problems in commons

But Muhammad's image is not illegal in the US, so why remove them? That has no point. Why do we have to remove content perfectly legal under US law? Please educate me why. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Peter Coombe wrote: > We already remove images of children which are considered to be > illeg

Re: [Foundation-l] On problems in commons

We already remove images of children which are considered to be illegal under US law, and I see no one arguing that we do otherwise. The recent kerfuffle has been over the broader category of sexual images. But if we are take account of all religious and moral sensitivities, where will it end? The

Re: [Foundation-l] On problems in commons

Please, read good. Common Sense. Do you think it´s of common sense delete this?... --- El dom, 9/5/10, Peter Coombe escribió: De: Peter Coombe Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] On problems in commons Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" Fecha: domingo, 9 de mayo, 2010 22:51 On 9 May 2010 21:2

Re: [Foundation-l] On problems in commons

On 9 May 2010 21:29, marcos wrote: > I want to write here a couple of reflections: > > First: Not everything what can be known is worth being known > > Second:  there have to be a few limits in the free knowledge. These limits > are the Law and the common sense. Though the common sense is the

Re: [Foundation-l] pediapress in English... and in hardcover?

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Mike.lifeguard wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: >> Lost in the recent email flood: pediapress is fully working for >> English. >> >> http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/06/wikipedia-and-pediapress-now-

Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > My purpose here is for us to stop chattering about this aspect of > things - which I don't care about. People seem to want to fight me > on it, perhaps expecting me to dig in my heels. Everyone loves a >

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

David Gerard hett schreven: > On 9 May 2010 21:17, Marcus Buck wrote: > > >> The tags applied should be clear and fact-based. So instead of tagging a >> page as "containing pornography", which is entirely subjective, we >> should rather tag the page as "contains a depiction of an erect penis" >

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

Perhaps a warning system before viewing a potentially offensive image may help? I believe IMSLP.org has a disclaimer message before someone opens a PDF score for copyright. It's entirely possible for Wikimedia to do so. It's not entirely censorship, just a notice, such as "This image/file may cont

Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion

The founder’s flag give to a single man a huge power. I can’t trust on almost anybody to hold that power. But In less than two days Jimbo has resigned of this power. By doing this he has proven that he is one of the sparse people we can trust. Wikimedia movement is a complex system. Capacity to ta

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

On 9 May 2010 21:28, Mikemoral wrote: > By why censor Commons? Should educational material be freely viewed and, > of course, be made free to read, use, etc. Well, yes. The apparent reason is that Fox News is making trouble. Categorisation, labeling, etc. won't fix that - only removing the mat

[Foundation-l] On problems in commons

I want to write here a couple of reflections: First: Not everything what can be known is worth being known Second:  there have to be a few limits in the free knowledge. These limits are the Law and the common sense. Though the common sense is the least common of the senses Third:Even we pr

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

By why censor Commons? Should educational material be freely viewed and, of course, be made free to read, use, etc. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:23 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 9 May 2010 21:17, Marcus Buck wrote: > > > The tags applied should be clear and fact-based. So instead of tagging a > > pa

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

On 9 May 2010 21:17, Marcus Buck wrote: > The tags applied should be clear and fact-based. So instead of tagging a > page as "containing pornography", which is entirely subjective, we > should rather tag the page as "contains a depiction of an erect penis" > or "contains a depiction of oral inter

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

David Goodman hett schreven: > This is the first step towards censorship, and we should not take it. > It's not. We already are censored right now. Jimbo, board and foundation have expressed that they do not accept the status quo (the status quo being that Commons is largely uncensored) and th

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

Greg Maxwell writes: At the same time, and I think we'll hear a similar message from the > EFF and the ALA, I am opposed to these organized "content labelling > systems". These systems are primary censorship systems and are > overwhelmingly used to subject third parties, often adults, to > restr

Re: [Foundation-l] Threading

Adam Cuerden, 08/05/2010 23:30: > If someone will tell me how to get messages to thread if you're in > digest mode - I've been making honest efforts to try and get threading > - I will happily use whatever technique is suggested. Check archives and click the e-mail address of the person you're r

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

On 9 May 2010 20:46, David Goodman wrote: > This is the first step towards censorship, and we should not take it. Indeed. The initial impetus for this headless chicken moment was the *existence* of the material on Wikimedia Commons, not that it wasn't adequately classified. It's already classi

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

This is the first step towards censorship, and we should not take it. We have no experience or expertise to determine what content is suitable for particular users, or how content can be classified as such.Further, doing so is contrary to the basic principle that we do not perform original resear

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's sysadmin flag

Den 09. mai 2010 19:59, skrev Jimmy Wales: > I don't think I have the ability to change that, but I'll email the > stewards and ask them to sort out any remaining details. > Sysadmins have the ability to change all rights on all wikis (not just from meta), but I have removed that group from y

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman > wrote: > > This message is CC'ed to other people who might wish to comment on this > potential approach > > --- > > > > Dear reader at FOSI, > > > > As a member of the Wikipedia community

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman wrote: > This message is CC'ed to other people who might wish to comment on this > potential approach > --- > > Dear reader at FOSI, > > As a member of the Wikipedia community and the community that develops the > software on which Wikipedia runs,

Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > We are engaged in a process that will lead to some > much-needed changes at Commons, including the continued deletion of some > of the things that we used to host. > Where? Behind the scenes? On one of the internal mailing lists? ___

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo hasn't actually given up anything

Alec, Please don't continue with assumptions of bad faith. --Jimbo On 5/9/10 1:19 PM, Alec Conroy wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Kim Bruning wrote: >> I was just about to post about the need to assure the commons community >> that there would be no repeat performance. > That need is s

Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

On 5/9/10 3:41 PM, Anthony wrote: > Sure, he tricked the press into thinking the images were permanently > removed, then when the story blew over, you added them back. Everything > went perfectly according to plan. > > Right Jimmy? Of course not. We are engaged in a process that will lead to som

Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion

On 9 May 2010 18:56, Jimmy Wales wrote: > On 5/9/10 4:18 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> I notice you have kept "protect" and "undelete". Is that intentional? >> If so, can you explain your thinking behind that decision? > > I just removed undelete, manage global groups, and edit membership to > globa

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's sysadmin flag

On 5/9/10 4:10 PM, Woojin Kim wrote: > I noticed Jimbo has also sysadmin flag recently. The change was about 2 > months ago on enwikiversity.[1] The reason was "need to view deleted > revisions", but sysadmin group does hold no rights about deleted revisions. > Instead they have globalgroup[permiss

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales founder flag.

On 5/9/10 4:27 PM, Carl Lindstrom wrote: > Jimbo has allegedly removed some of his rights on Commons but he > still has his founder flags and can restore all his rights if and > when he pleases. No, actually, I can't. > Again, I may sound melodramatic but I > gues just like Wikipedia too much to

Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion

On 5/9/10 4:18 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > I notice you have kept "protect" and "undelete". Is that intentional? > If so, can you explain your thinking behind that decision? I just removed undelete, manage global groups, and edit membership to global groups. I did that before I saw your note, so

Re: [Foundation-l] [OT] Am I the only one...

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Chad wrote: > ...who hopes posting limits will be enforced this month? > > -Chad > > Yes. I received a ridiculous amount of messages about the same silly topic. move along people.. user:alnokta ___ foundation-l mailing

[Foundation-l] Jimmy, Commons, and the discussion on Foundation-l

Hi guys, As everyone can see, the list is a-flurry with discussion about Jimmy's recent actions on Commons. (And whatever other topics people want to spin the situation into.) I'm not commenting on the topic itself, but I would like to urge everyone to direct their comments to the appropriate di

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

Robert Rohde wrote: > Personally, I tend to see ICRA labeling as just another kind of > categorization, albeit one with definitions that were defined > elsewhere. > This is precisely and completely absolutely wrong. Labeling is enabling censorship. Labeling images is the worst kind of enablement

Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion

On 9 May 2010, at 17:57, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > >> I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do >> things from the "Founder" flag. I even removed my ability to edit >> semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'vie

Re: [Foundation-l] [OT] Am I the only one...

I certainly hope limits are enforced. 120-ish messages in the time I was asleep. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Steven Walling wrote: > You are definitely not alone in that regard. > > Steven > > On Sunday, May 9, 2010, Chad wrote: > > ...who hopes posting limits will be enforced this month? >

Re: [Foundation-l] [OT] Am I the only one...

You are definitely not alone in that regard. Steven On Sunday, May 9, 2010, Chad wrote: > ...who hopes posting limits will be enforced this month? > > -Chad > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://l

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

I am afraid we will never be able to label our content properly. There will be no chance to keep NPOV regardless how implemented labels will be. Our content is free. If somebody needs labeled content he can label it himself in his own copy of Wikimedia projects. It is a bad idea. Let's not do i

Re: [Foundation-l] Final thoughts on Jimbo

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Pedro Sanchez wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Alec Conroy > wrote: > > > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Adam Cuerden wrote: > > > I think it's time to back away from this issue. Jimbo may, > > > technically, be able to restore his powers, however, if

Re: [Foundation-l] What the board is responsible of (was Re: Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions)

Florence Devouard hett schreven: > To be fair, I am *extremely* disturbed by the above statement. > > Since when is the board DEFINING the scope and basic rules of the > projects ? > > As a reminder, the WMF was created two years after Wikipedia. The scope, > the basic rules did not need WMF to b

Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do > things from the "Founder" flag. I even removed my ability to edit > semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.) > The community recognizes that y

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

Personally, I tend to see ICRA labeling as just another kind of categorization, albeit one with definitions that were defined elsewhere. If there are people in the community willing to sort content into the ICRA categories and maintain those associations, then I see no problem with Wikimedia suppo

Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

On 05/09/2010 05:36 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: >> At least by local community standards, the event depicted was indeed not >> pornographic. San Francisco's long history as a home to both artists and >> people with different takes on sex and gender means that a lot of local >> art works with sex an

Re: [Foundation-l] Final thoughts on Jimbo

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Pedro Sanchez wrote: > Even if jimbo is removed from all flags, there are people with > shell access that can do (right now) much more than jimbo can with the > founder flag. Agreed-- there are lots of people who 'might' do something bad, but they still have the p

Re: [Foundation-l] Where things stand now

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > And I deleted some things that I assumed would be undeleted after a > discussion. I wanted us to take an approach that involved first > deleting a lot of borderline things, and then bringing them back after > careful case by case discussions.

Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

Jimmy Wales wrote: > I understand that and apologize for it.  There was a crisis situation > and I took action which ended up averting the crisis.  In the process I > stepped on some toes, and for that I am sorry. The apology is a positive step. The claim that you averted a crisis is not. I hav

Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

John Vandenberg wrote: > Err, that happened days ago on Jimbo's talk page and, less directly, here: > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TheDJ&oldid=38893008 I was [humorously] referring to this mailing list's current threads. There are forums in which such a comparison is comm

Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion

On May 9, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Kim Bruning wrote: > On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:46:50AM +0100, Jimmy Wales wrote: >> >> In the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real >> philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I >> acted, I've just now removed virtual

Re: [Foundation-l] Final thoughts on Jimbo

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Alec Conroy wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Adam Cuerden wrote: > > I think it's time to back away from this issue. Jimbo may, > > technically, be able to restore his powers, however, if he decided to > > use them in order to make another controversia

Re: [Foundation-l] Final thoughts on Jimbo

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Adam Cuerden wrote: > I think it's time to back away from this issue.  Jimbo may, > technically, be able to restore his powers, however, if he decided to > use them in order to  make another controversial action, they wouldn't > last five minutes. You may well be

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

In our sphere, we librarians also decided this issue some time ago: Labeling is censorship. Those who wish to censor have their own purposes, and have the ability to devise their own methods. We have metadata on our objects, both titles and categories. We have the responsibility to provide informat

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/05/2010 10:24, Derk-Jan Hartman wrote: > This message is CC'ed to other people who might wish to comment on this > potential approach > --- > > Dear reader at FOSI, > > As a member of the Wikipedia community and the community that develops the

  1   2   >