Re: [Foundation-l] Private Wiki

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:33 AM, David Gerard wrote: > I've found a shared Google Doc surprisingly usable in practice. (Even > shows changes in slightly-behind-real-time!) Lacks history, though. > Google Docs generally do have history, although I don't find it as useful as MediaWiki's history fu

Re: [Foundation-l] Nazi Goatse part 94 (was Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content)

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Mike.lifeguard wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> If you go against the mission statement, and the expectation with it >> that more information is better than less information - even if the >> information i

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter wikimania scholarships Was: Money, politics and corruption

Yar, hence the problem. Still, it's nice of individual chapters to provide grants, although I'm not sure how widely they're advertised. On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > which, considering most governments, requires at least 18 months > notice. Most conference schedu

Re: [Foundation-l] Nazi Goatse part 94 (was Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, David Gerard wrote: > If you go against the mission statement, and the expectation with it > that more information is better than less information - even if the > information is horrible and shocking - the community will not acce

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter wikimania scholarships Was: Money, politics and corruption

which, considering most governments, requires at least 18 months notice. Most conference scheduling is a 12~14 month window. Paperwork at its best. But, really, good for Hungary to provide the grant even if it's too little/too late. On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: > Ye

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter wikimania scholarships Was: Money, politics and corruption

Yeah, I see your point - it's a timing thing. It only works if you've got enough notice in advance, which requires your budget to be set up and the organisers of Wikimania to be completely on the ball. On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Bence Damokos wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Olive

[Foundation-l] [New user interface] Facebook Flops in ACSI E-Business Report

Funny, we said that Monobook was too old and someone says that this gave us an advantage over Facebook et al.: «Compare that to Wikipedia, which is a non-profit that has had the same user interface for years, and it’s clear that while innovation is critical, sometimes consumers prefer evolution

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions forPotentially-Objectionable Content

On 7/22/10 4:17 PM, David Gerard wrote: > And so far, it's worked. Your words appear to presume people have > somehow failed to actually think about this stuff over the past ten > years. > So far it's worked because we've been lucky. Here's an example of a bad situation just waiting to happen:

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

Excirial wrote: > *If I were to make an account with the user name CumInYourCornflakes or > HitlerMyHero there'd be someone all over the account within minutes, > blocking banning, and deleting.* > > Hem, is that "information"? I would have trouble calling that "Raw data", > let alone information

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions forPotentially-Objectionable Content

On 23 July 2010 00:06, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > Actually I think there is one issue that has still not been well > discussed, and which I think it should be possible to build consensus > around (but maybe I'm naive): The issue of context for controversial > images. For example, although it may be pe

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions forPotentially-Objectionable Content

Actually I think there is one issue that has still not been well discussed, and which I think it should be possible to build consensus around (but maybe I'm naive): The issue of context for controversial images. For example, although it may be perfectly fine to include an image of nude bondage

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

*If I were to make an account with the user name CumInYourCornflakes or HitlerMyHero there'd be someone all over the account within minutes, blocking banning, and deleting.* Hem, is that "information"? I would have trouble calling that "Raw data", let alone information. Keep in mind that there ar

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

David Gerard wrote: > On 22 July 2010 21:01, teun spaans wrote: > >> I think I am completely factual. After I wrote this, I went to the >> questionlist and found the cry "we dont censor" in one of the >> reactions. Which proves my point, I think. You yourself use that term >> in your email. > >

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

David Gerard wrote: > On 22 July 2010 16:32, R M Harris wrote: > >> May I just reply to thank Excirial for the excellent suggestions >> re:formatting contained in his thoughtful reply (I'll look them over >> carefully) and just to note a couple of things. I'm well aware of the >> long-standing

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

> R M Harris > .. but the time has come, I think, to actively begin a discussion > within the communities about some of the questions which I've > encountered, specifically around Commons and images within Commons. ... > I look forward to the comments of any of you who wish to join the > discussion

Re: [Foundation-l] RecentChangesCamp, Canberra

Hi Laura, In a conference like Wikimania, WMF usually gives out scholarships to a number of Wikipedia editors. Will that be the case for this upcoming event? Yours Abbas Mahmoud. > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:20:40 +1000 > From: la...@fanhistory.com > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subjec

[Foundation-l] RecentChangesCamp, Canberra

*RecentChangesCamp* is an open conference on online collaborative practices centered around wikis. RCC follows an open space

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

On 22 July 2010 21:01, teun spaans wrote: > I think I am completely factual. After I wrote this, I went to the > questionlist and found the cry "we dont censor" in one of the > reactions. Which proves my point, I think. You yourself use that term > in your email. Well, we don't. You appear to b

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

Hi Excirial, I think I am completely factual. After I wrote this, I went to the questionlist and found the cry "we dont censor" in one of the reactions. Which proves my point, I think. You yourself use that term in your email. Personally i find labeling your opponents view as "censorship " a way o

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

On 22 July 2010 20:10, Excirial wrote: > I would, however, strongly support a system that gives users > a choice to censor if they wish. It should be possible to categorize commons > in such a way that certain images can be blocked. For example, a user might > choose to block "images of Muhammad

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

*You have my sympathy to - no matter what the outcome is, some if not many people will label it censorship, directly or indirectly. "We dont censor" has been an standard argument so far in any attempt to regulate upload of images or discussion of features that some people obviously want.* Come com

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

You have my sympathy to - no matter what the outcome is, some if not many people will label it censorship, directly or indirectly. "We dont censor" has been an standard argument so far in any attempt to regulate upload of images or discussion of features that some people obviously want. kind regar

[Foundation-l] Chapter wikimania scholarships Was: Money, politics and corruption

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: > Perhaps in future (for say, Haifa) it would be an idea if any chapter-based > scholarships were put on hold until after the Foundation makes its choices? > That way the systems could mesh, with people who don't quite meet the > Foundation requ

[Foundation-l] Nazi Goatse part 94 (was Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content)

Robert emailed me asking for an opinion, privately or publicly. At the risk of another cycle ... I can reiterate my basic argument, as father of a three-year-old and stepfather of two teenagers. The Wikimedia communities are sufficiently painstaking in making sure everything is educational and in

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

On 22 July 2010 16:32, R M Harris wrote: > May I just reply to thank Excirial for the excellent suggestions > re:formatting contained in his thoughtful reply (I'll look them over > carefully) and just to note a couple of things. I'm well aware of the > long-standing debates on these issues in

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

May I just reply to thank Excirial for the excellent suggestions re:formatting contained in his thoughtful reply (I'll look them over carefully) and just to note a couple of things. I'm well aware of the long-standing debates on these issues in the past, and I respect the fatigue with which man

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

*Thoughts on this so far* 1) I have to admit that my first thought upon reading this is "Oh no, not AGAIN", mainly due to the fact that this topic seems to be a never-ending debate which keeps flaring up at times. This debate is not only present on community-wide discussions, but also on deletion d

Re: [Foundation-l] Private Wiki

wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > For wiki-style collaboration I usually use either PBWiki (or pbworks, > whatever, it's all the sme company) or sites.google.com > > Both allow for FREE, private, multi-user, instant, online collaboration > using a free online smart editing engine. Same as Wikipedia. >

Re: [Foundation-l] Private Wiki

I've found a shared Google Doc surprisingly usable in practice. (Even shows changes in slightly-behind-real-time!) Lacks history, though. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailm

Re: [Foundation-l] Private Wiki

For wiki-style collaboration I usually use either PBWiki (or pbworks, whatever, it's all the sme company) or sites.google.com Both allow for FREE, private, multi-user, instant, online collaboration using a free online smart editing engine. Same as Wikipedia. And the results of that collaborati

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:04 PM, David Gerard wrote: > Looking at the contributors so far, I'm not sure that discussion is > recoverable to any form of usefulness. 1. Checked and agreed. 2. I am not going to discuss with well known censorship trolls. 3. If this would be the main path of discussio

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

On 22 July 2010 12:59, R M Harris wrote: > I’ve posted a series of questions for discussion on the Meta page that hosts > the study > (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content.) > Please feel free to visit the page and contribute to the > discussion. L

[Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

Hello. It’s Robert Harris once again. It’s been just over a month since I began working on the study commissioned by the Wikimedia Board on Potentially Objectionable Content on WMF projects. During that time, I’ve spoken to many people inside and outside Wikimedia, but the time has come, I think

Re: [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: [Wiki-research-l] UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

On 22/07/10 12:04, Neil Harris wrote: > On 21/07/10 22:38, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > >> Дана Monday 19 July 2010 22:20:15 Brian J Mingus написа: >> >> >>> Feel free to provide your feedback on this idea, in addition to your own >>> ideas, in this thread, or to me personally. I am especial

Re: [Foundation-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: [Wiki-research-l] UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

On 21/07/10 22:38, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > Дана Monday 19 July 2010 22:20:15 Brian J Mingus написа: > >> Feel free to provide your feedback on this idea, in addition to your own >> ideas, in this thread, or to me personally. I am especially interested in >> the potential benefits to the WMF p