>From the editor: Changes to ''The Signpost''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-09-19/From_the_editor
News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on:
success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
Last call for Feminist Economics subscriptions (see below)!
Sign-up sheet will be closed at 22:00 UTC Friday, Sep 23.
Jessie
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Slim Virgin wrote:
> Routledge has kindly offered three months free online access to
> Feminist Economics, a peer-reviewed academic jou
The Signpost – Volume 7, Issue 38 – 19 September 2011
>From the editor: Changes to The Signpost
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-09-19/From_the_editor
News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five
years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC of
On 9/19/11 11:24 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 01:45:18PM -0400, David Levy wrote:
>> Speaking of artwork, Fae mentioned the depictions of "nude female
>> breasts" contained therein. Do those count? What about photographs
>> of breasts taken in medical contexts? Are those equi
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 01:45:18PM -0400, David Levy wrote:
> Speaking of artwork, Fae mentioned the depictions of "nude female
> breasts" contained therein. Do those count? What about photographs
> of breasts taken in medical contexts? Are those equivalent to those
> taken in sexual contexts?
> http://schools-wikipedia.org/
Does not meet the criteria previously discussed, I immediately find
unrestricted depictions (and photographs) of bare breasted women and
close up photographs of dead bodies. They made the mistake of putting
culture before religious taboos and images that might scare
On 19 September 2011 18:57, Phil Nash wrote:
> Hasn't this already happened, albeit on a voluntary basis, and with free
> distribution?
> http://schools-wikipedia.org/
If that were sufficient for whatever purpose the Board is thinking of,
this proposal wouldn't have happened.
So we need a deta
On 19 September 2011 18:24, Fae wrote:
> Alternatively anyone who has "common sense" can take Wikipedia for
> free and hack it about in their own time and cash in by selling it to
> schools that would like to benefit from a *guaranteed* child friendly
> and religiously tolerant (out of date) vers
Fae wrote:
> On 19 September 2011 17:42, M. Williamson wrote:
>> A "dead human bodies" category that excludes mummies "because we're
>> not idiots" is, by definition, not neutral.
>
> I agree, sounds like the only solution is that we pour away a hefty
> chunk of those charitably donated WMF millio
Stephen Bain wrote:
> And once again, the labelling doesn't need to be perfect (nothing on a
> wiki is) if an option to hide all images by default is implemented
> (which at present there seems to be broad support for, from most
> quarters).
With such an option in place, why take on the task of l
Marcus Buck wrote:
> From what I understood the image filter will not have subjective
> criteria like "a little offensive", "very offensive", "pornography",
> but neutrally decidable criteria like "depicts nude female breasts",
> "depicts the face of Muhammad", "depicts mutilated dead body".
The
Am 19.09.2011 18:08, schrieb Stephen Bain:
>
> No. And of course artworks are being used as examples because they're
> going to present the corner cases. But all of these discussions seem
> to be proceeding on the basis that there are nothing but corner cases,
> when really (I would imagine) pretty
On 19 September 2011 17:42, M. Williamson wrote:
> A "dead human bodies" category that excludes mummies "because we're not
> idiots" is, by definition, not neutral.
I agree, sounds like the only solution is that we pour away a hefty
chunk of those charitably donated WMF millions in a few hundred
Am 19.09.2011 18:08, schrieb Stephen Bain:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
> wrote:
>> We discussed this already and came to the conclusion, that you would
>> need hundreds of these categories to filter out most of the
>> "objectionable content".
> And once again, the labellin
A "dead human bodies" category that excludes mummies "because we're not
idiots" is, by definition, not neutral.
2011/9/19 Stephen Bain
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
> wrote:
> >
> > We discussed this already and came to the conclusion, that you would
> > need hundreds of
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
>
> We discussed this already and came to the conclusion, that you would
> need hundreds of these categories to filter out most of the
> "objectionable content".
And once again, the labelling doesn't need to be perfect (nothing on a
wiki is
In short, the board asked for a train wreck, and got one.
--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> I'm struggling to recall an example in any of these threads that's not
> an artwork.
...
> Stephen Bain
Er, Egyptian mummies are real bodies that would need real photographs.
For a wealth of horrific examples that need to be censored, please
enjoy viewing http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categ
On 19 September 2011 16:14, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:56 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> How much is "mutilated"? A scratch? Ten scratches? A hundred
>> scratches? St Sebastian?
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sebastia.jpg
> I'm struggling to recall an example in any
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:56 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> How much is "mutilated"? A scratch? Ten scratches? A hundred
> scratches? St Sebastian?
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sebastia.jpg
I'm struggling to recall an example in any of these threads that's not
an artwork.
--
Stephen B
On 19 September 2011 15:50, Fae wrote:
> All of these would be problematic; if these were the default criteria
> for a school to enforce on their pupils when using school computers,
> one could imagine images of many 18th century paintings or depictions
> of gods being excluded due to "nude femal
> but neutrally decidable criteria like "depicts nude female breasts",
> "depicts the face of Muhammad", "depicts mutilated dead body".
...
> User:Slomox
All of these would be problematic; if these were the default criteria
for a school to enforce on their pupils when using school computers,
one c
Am 19.09.2011 15:33, schrieb m...@marcusbuck.org:
> Zitat von Tobias Oelgarte:
>
>> The second problem will be the categorization progress. We would
>> categorize the images for others, not our selfs, and we also have no
>> sources for argumentation. But there is another problem. We already
>> disc
> Zitat von Tobias Oelgarte :
>
>> The second problem will be the categorization progress. We would
>> categorize the images for others, not our selfs, and we also have no
>> sources for argumentation. But there is another problem. We already
>> discuss about the inclusion of images inside related
Re David Gerrard's inquiry about publicity plans.
I don't know if anyone has prepared a publicity plan for the image filter,
afterall we don't yet know if this can either be made to work or can get
consent for implementation.
But if it does go ahead this is how I'd suggest handling the publicity:
Zitat von Tobias Oelgarte :
> The second problem will be the categorization progress. We would
> categorize the images for others, not our selfs, and we also have no
> sources for argumentation. But there is another problem. We already
> discuss about the inclusion of images inside related article
Many contributers to the poll mentioned that the categorization by
sensitivities is already a big problem in itself. At first, as you
mentioned, it can be misused. Either by third parties which could use it
for aggressive filtering (completely hidden/cot out images) or directly
at the Wiki itse
I understand that the details (well, quite big and relevant details) of this
concept was the topic of the survey. So probably it has not been mapped out
yet (because it was/is unknown), but that would be the next step.
I also would like to make a sidenote: if the main argument of the German
Wikipe
On 19 September 2011 06:28, David Levy wrote:
> Additionally, if and when the WMF proudly announces the filters'
> introduction, the news media and general public won't accept "bad luck
> to those using the feature" as an excuse for its failure.
Oh, yes. The trouble with a magical category is n
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 19:59, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Wikinews needs to redefine its role. Scooping the big news stories of
> the day isn't it ... not as long as Wikipedia can begin developing a
> major article on something like the recent Virginia earthquake within
> minutes of the event. That a
30 matches
Mail list logo
