New RFC on image filter, for wikisource, being setup on meta. Please
help set it up, and please contribute! :-)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Image_filter_on_Wikisource
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
___
foundation-l mailin
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 00:51, David Levy wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>
>> Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be
>> easily assumed that at least 10% of ~$10M given by US citizens and
>> corporations want to have a kind of "family friendly" Wikipedia. Thus,
>> $1M/yea
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 00:51, David Levy wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>
>> There are around 300M of readers and less than 30k of the extended
>> pool of editors, which brings number of 0,01%. Thus, not just
>> irrelevant, but much less than the margin of statistical error.
>
> You appear to have
Milos Rancic wrote:
> Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be
> easily assumed that at least 10% of ~$10M given by US citizens and
> corporations want to have a kind of "family friendly" Wikipedia. Thus,
> $1M/year is fair price for creating something which would please
Milos Rancic wrote:
> There are around 300M of readers and less than 30k of the extended
> pool of editors, which brings number of 0,01%. Thus, not just
> irrelevant, but much less than the margin of statistical error.
You appear to have ignored my points regarding non-editors'
unfamiliarity with
On 23 September 2011 21:44, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 16:27, Fae wrote:
>> Such "school" and "safesearch" variations already exist. Why waste
>> donor's money creating more?
>
> Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be
> easily assumed that at least
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:35:18PM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 19:26, Kim Bruning wrote:
> > "Dear Press: a self-described 13 YO joined Wikiproject Pornography.
> > Wikipedians support him. webcitation.org/61v0ykxJe
> > webcitation.org/61v1FfW3K"
> > ? ? ? ?- http://twitt
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 16:27, Fae wrote:
> Such "school" and "safesearch" variations already exist. Why waste
> donor's money creating more?
Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be
easily assumed that at least 10% of ~$10M given by US citizens and
corporations want to
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 21:20, Milos Rancic wrote:
> There are around 300M of readers and less than 30k of the extended
> poll of editors, which brings number of 0,01%. Thus, not just
poll => pool
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikime
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 19:26, Kim Bruning wrote:
> "Dear Press: a self-described 13 YO joined Wikiproject Pornography.
> Wikipedians support him. webcitation.org/61v0ykxJe
> webcitation.org/61v1FfW3K"
> - http://twitter.com/#!/lsanger/status/117299089439334400
Who cares what Sanger said,
Am 23.09.2011 19:26, schrieb Kim Bruning:
> "Dear Press: a self-described 13 YO joined Wikiproject Pornography.
> Wikipedians support him. webcitation.org/61v0ykxJe
> webcitation.org/61v1FfW3K"
> - http://twitter.com/#!/lsanger/status/117299089439334400
>
>
> The on-wiki argument is that the
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 20:42, David Levy wrote:
> I find it odd that some are inclined to discount the German
> Wikipedia's poll on the basis that it reflects the views of editors
> (as opposed to readers as a whole). Setting aside the general
> public's ignorance of the WMF projects' core princ
Marcus Buck wrote:
> The majority of people probably think that an optional opt-in filter is
> a thing that does no harm to non-users and has advantages for those who
> choose to use it. (Ask your gramma whether "You can hide pictures if you
> don't want to see them" sounds like a threatening thin
"Dear Press: a self-described 13 YO joined Wikiproject Pornography. Wikipedians
support him. webcitation.org/61v0ykxJe
webcitation.org/61v1FfW3K"
- http://twitter.com/#!/lsanger/status/117299089439334400
The on-wiki argument is that there are many areas in that project that don't
actua
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:43:14AM +1000, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> >
> > The survey was not a poll or referendum, and did not address the
> > fundamental question of whether this feature is wanted.
> >
> > The only actual poll I am aware of which
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 18:43, Stephen Bain wrote:
> My point is that the dewiki poll being worded in a manner that is
> pleasing to people who have critiqued the Foundation-wide survey does
> not render it representative, when it was participated in by at most
> one eightieth of the members of th
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>
> The survey was not a poll or referendum, and did not address the
> fundamental question of whether this feature is wanted.
>
> The only actual poll I am aware of which asked this question was on
> de.wikipedia.
My point is that the dewiki p
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 05:02:42PM +0200, Marcus Buck wrote:
>
> Zitat von Kim Bruning :
>
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 02:03:00PM +0200, m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
>
> The arguments that the filter could aid in censorship for evil
> governments or organizations seems a bit overinflated looking
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 17:20, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23 September 2011 16:17, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> Obviously, majority of those who have small number of edits --
>> who represent specific part of readers, those who have opinion toward
>> Wikipedia articles, but who don't want to spend their
On 23 September 2011 16:17, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Obviously, majority of those who have small number of edits --
> who represent specific part of readers, those who have opinion toward
> Wikipedia articles, but who don't want to spend their time on editing
> Wikipedia -- they are in favor.
Er,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 14:03, wrote:
> After some thinking I come to the conclusion that this whole
> discussion is a social phenomenon.
>
> You probably know how some topics when mentioned in newspaper articles
> or blogs spur wild arguments in the comments sections. When the
> article mentions
Zitat von Kim Bruning :
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 02:03:00PM +0200, m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
>> I think the same is happening here. The majority of people probably
>> think that an optional opt-in filter is a thing that does no harm to
>> non-users and has advantages for those who choose to us
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 04:22:15PM +0200, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> On 23/09/11 16:08, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 23 September 2011 14:57, Stephen Bain wrote:
> >> The dewiki poll had 300 participants, the one on meta over 23,000.
> >
> > There was a poll on meta which asked "do you want the filte
Such "school" and "safesearch" variations already exist. Why waste
donor's money creating more?
I find it significant that the WMF has been unable to tell us how much
the exercise has cost so far apart from informal vague claims that it
was "tiny" or a couple of week's of someone's time. Projects
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:01:54AM -0400, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> I'm not the only one, and again, I'M PUTTING MY TRUST, in WMF to make the
> decision. That's what I make donations to the foundation every month for.
> That's why I donate my time to contributing to Wikimedia projects.
Meh, they're n
On 23/09/11 16:08, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23 September 2011 14:57, Stephen Bain wrote:
>> The dewiki poll had 300 participants, the one on meta over 23,000.
>
> There was a poll on meta which asked "do you want the filter"? I'd
> love a link to it.
Surely, if a significant percentage of the 23,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:19:48PM +0100, B?ria Lima wrote:
> +1
> On 21 September 2011 08:11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> > +1
Please, enough with the plussing!
This isn't G+ or /. . It is not
conducive to a consensus debate. :-/
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
--
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:18:21AM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Extension Babel is now deployed.
>
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Babel
>
> Thank you Roan.
Oh noes! The start of the userboxen debacle is now internalized in
teh codes! ;-)
OTOH, babel boxes actually were/are useful
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:57:01PM +1000, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> >
> > However, poll data suggests otherwise (taking the de.wikipedia
> > sample). AFAIK it's a minority that want filters, with a majority
> > that doesn't.
>
> The dewiki poll ha
On 23 September 2011 14:57, Stephen Bain wrote:
> The dewiki poll had 300 participants, the one on meta over 23,000.
There was a poll on meta which asked "do you want the filter"? I'd
love a link to it.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>
> However, poll data suggests otherwise (taking the de.wikipedia
> sample). AFAIK it's a minority that want filters, with a majority
> that doesn't.
The dewiki poll had 300 participants, the one on meta over 23,000.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.b
Am 23.09.2011 14:03, schrieb m...@marcusbuck.org:
> I think the same is happening here. The majority of people probably
> think that an optional opt-in filter is a thing that does no harm to
> non-users and has advantages for those who choose to use it. (Ask your
> gramma whether "You can hide pict
On 23 September 2011 14:01, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> And all the data in the world right now is not going to change the way I
> feel, and this stuff just frustrates me.
I too heartily endorse MPOV as a foundational Wikimedia principle.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MPOV
- d.
Am 23.09.2011 15:01, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
> All that I'm saying is that I THINK the majority of the people on this
> mailing list are bored and tired of the conversation and it's the same 10
> people who seem to be arguing it and I think that many people on this list
> probably have no strong opi
All that I'm saying is that I THINK the majority of the people on this
mailing list are bored and tired of the conversation and it's the same 10
people who seem to be arguing it and I think that many people on this list
probably have no strong opinion, or fairly mainstream beliefs, about the
filter
You may need to add additional points:
5. A country or ISP does not unblock Wikipedia because he doesn't think
that it's a usable alternative for a full block, even if he could filter
the images based on the filter. (It already works, why step down...)
6. A country or ISP that only hides certai
Please don't do the rhetorical trick that a mass of users would support
some point of view without actual proof. ("You've just posted what many
of us think and feel.")
The chat was of course dominated by the word "German". It's the one and
only poll that states the opposite to the view of the b
As I see it, if the personal image filter categories can be exploited by
censors to restrict image access permanently and irrevocably, this could result
in the following scenarios:
1. A country or ISP that currently does not censor access to Wikipedia switches
to access without the categorised i
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:38:18AM +0100, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Wikipedia was also briefly blocked in Pakistan, because of the Mohammed
> cartoon controversy. So there might be a scenario where countries like Saudi
> Arabia and Pakistan figure out how to block access to adult images and images
Am 23.09.2011 14:03, schrieb m...@marcusbuck.org:
> After some thinking I come to the conclusion that this whole
> discussion is a social phenomenon.
>
> You probably know how some topics when mentioned in newspaper articles
> or blogs spur wild arguments in the comments sections. When the
> articl
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:27:41AM +0100, Fae wrote:
> How odd, checking Tobias' list, I tried
> http://www.safesearchkids.com/wikipedia-for-kids.html to look for
> "penis" and it recommended [[File:Male erect penis.jpg]] as the second
> match. I was expecting it to restrict me to the more rounded
+1
You've just posted what many of us think and feel. I read the transcript for
office hours with Sue from yesterday and it was the same thing. 45 minutes of
image filter skepticism and more. I'm glad I couldn't attend it, seemed like a
painful and unintellectual experience to sit through.
And
On 21/09/2011 19:05, Andre Engels wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Tobias Oelgarte<
> tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I still can't the a rational difference between images included in
>> articles by the will of the community and text passages included by the
>> will of the
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 02:03:00PM +0200, m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
> After some thinking I come to the conclusion that this whole
> discussion is a social phenomenon.
>
>
> I think the same is happening here. The majority of people probably
> think that an optional opt-in filter is a thing
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 04:43:08PM +0200, emijrp wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> I have written an essay (my first one)[1] about the idea "There is a
> deadline". It is opposite to the old essay (from 2006) which holds that
> there is no deadline.
Wow, excellent text. The only downside to stating that there
After some thinking I come to the conclusion that this whole
discussion is a social phenomenon.
You probably know how some topics when mentioned in newspaper articles
or blogs spur wild arguments in the comments sections. When the
article mentions climate change commentators contest the vali
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:20:06PM +0100, Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 22 September 2011 12:19, WereSpielChequers
> wrote:
>
> > One of the objections is that we don't want a Flickr style system which
> > involves images being deleted, accounts being suspended and the burden of
> > filtering being put
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 04:50:03AM -0700, Robert Rohde wrote:
>
> I have had the impression that the oh-my-god-think-of-the-children
> crowd was at least 95% of the reason we were discussing this entire
> endeavor.
So how about the folks who don't want to see kids exposed to
filters? (serious que
Thanks. It was surprising the info wasn't in these articles already.
Do we know what the current status of Wikipedia is in Saudi Arabia? Blocked or
accessible?
There also seems to be some confusion about whether or not Wikipedia is blocked
in China:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_
On 23 September 2011 11:38, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Wikipedia was also briefly blocked in Pakistan, because of the Mohammed
> cartoon controversy. So there might be a scenario where countries like Saudi
> Arabia and Pakistan figure out how to block access to adult images and images
> of Mohamme
I gave you a simple example on how easy it would be to use our
categorization to implement a filter based upon those categories.
The sources on that this actually happens are not rare if we look at
china or Iran. The problem are many local providers over which you will
seldom find a report. Man
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> ...
> I believe Saudi Arabia has sporadically blocked access to Wikipedia, and
> blocks access to porn sites at the Internet service provider level:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Saudi_Arabia
> http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/20
Tobias,
That is not quite what I thought we were talking about, because these are
set-ups made on an individual computer, rather than restrictions at the
internet service provider level.
For example, I would not have a problem with it if schools figured out a way to
prevent access to controversi
Am 23.09.2011 10:27, schrieb Fae:
> How odd, checking Tobias' list, I tried
> http://www.safesearchkids.com/wikipedia-for-kids.html to look for
> "penis" and it recommended [[File:Male erect penis.jpg]] as the second
> match. I was expecting it to restrict me to the more rounded and
> educational e
How odd, checking Tobias' list, I tried
http://www.safesearchkids.com/wikipedia-for-kids.html to look for
"penis" and it recommended [[File:Male erect penis.jpg]] as the second
match. I was expecting it to restrict me to the more rounded and
educational encyclopaedia entries, not straight to the mo
Yes we are aware of such pages. Just search for "google safe version"
and so on. At first you will find plugins from Google for browsers
itself, that can be used to enable the filter as an default option. If
you scroll down a bit, then you will find other pages that are using
Google to perform
56 matches
Mail list logo
