On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Bob the Wikipedian wrote:
>>Zooming out may work for individuals like you, but for folks like me,
>>it's actually a distraction, and I try to see what the tiny picture is,
>>staring at it until it makes sense. Yay for ADHD:-\
>
You
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Neutrality applies to content. I don't think it applies in the same way to
> *display options* or other gadget infrastructure.
Category tags = content.
Setting aside the matter of category tags, I disagree with the premise
that the neutrality principle is inapplicable to d
* Bob the Wikipedian wrote:
>Zooming out may work for individuals like you, but for folks like me,
>it's actually a distraction, and I try to see what the tiny picture is,
>staring at it until it makes sense. Yay for ADHD:-\
Zooming out is something that works for me pretty much everywhere w
Ideally, this would be as transparent as possible, so that should not be
an issue if all goes well.
Bob
On 10/11/2011 8:17 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> I'd wonder how they feel about adding some notice like "Seeing this
> image makes some people feel bad" to the image caption for all images
>
Zooming out may work for individuals like you, but for folks like me,
it's actually a distraction, and I try to see what the tiny picture is,
staring at it until it makes sense. Yay for ADHD:-\
Bob
On 10/11/2011 8:17 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * David Gerard wrote:
>> Not sure the blurri
Call be dumb, but is there a denomination of Islam that is disallowed
from looking at images of Muhammed?
Bob
On 10/11/2011 5:17 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> We need to look at mainstream issues (including Muhammad images).
___
foundation-l mailing list
* David Gerard wrote:
>Not sure the blurring system would do the job for a workplace. At a
>distance, the blurred penis still looks exactly like a penis ...
There are many alternatives to a blur effect. A much simpler effect
would be a Small Images option that shrinks all images to icon size.
The
> From: David Levy
> Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > I would use indicators like the number and intensity of complaints received.
> For profit-making organizations seeking to maximize revenues by
> catering to majorities, this is a sensible approach. For most WMF
> projects, conversely, neutrality is a
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I would use indicators like the number and intensity of complaints received.
For profit-making organizations seeking to maximize revenues by
catering to majorities, this is a sensible approach. For most WMF
projects, conversely, neutrality is a fundamental, non-negotiable
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:20:15PM +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:
> On 11 October 2011 21:51, Kim Bruning wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:55:46PM +0100, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> > > OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should
> > > meet most of the needs that
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2011, 22:40
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content -
Commons searches
> What you are all missing here is that commons is a service site, not a
> repository
> for the
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Thomas Morton
wrote:
>>
>> By modern day standards the image is more comical than titillating
>> *by our Finnish standards* --- but would be highly suspect in the US,
>> atleast
>> if the deletion debate for that image at commons is to be given credence
>> to...
>
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:55 PM, WereSpielChequers
wrote:
> OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should
> meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the
> objections that I'm aware of. Just as importantly it should actually work.
> http://m
>
> By modern day standards the image is more comical than titillating
> *by our Finnish standards* --- but would be highly suspect in the US,
> atleast
> if the deletion debate for that image at commons is to be given credence
> to...
It is a horrendously useless illustration of Pedophilia (fro
On 11 October 2011 21:51, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:55:46PM +0100, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> > OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should
> > meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the
> > objections that I'm awa
> From: David Levy
> Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > If we provide a filter, we have to be pragmatic, and restrict its
> > application
> > to media that significant demographics really might want to filter.
> Define "significant demographics." Do you have a numerical cut-off
> point in mind (below w
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:55:46PM +0100, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should
> meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the
> objections that I'm aware of. Just as importantly it should actually work.
> h
What you are all missing here is that commons is a service site, not a
repository
for the public to go into without knowing it caters to different
cultures than their
own. Period.
--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
___
foundation-l m
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> From: Tobias Oelgarte
>> > Someone on Meta has pointed out that Commons seems to list sexual image
>> > results for search terms like cucumber, electric toothbrushes or pearl
>> > necklace way higher than a corresponding Google search. S
> From: Tobias Oelgarte
> > Someone on Meta has pointed out that Commons seems to list sexual image
> > results for search terms like cucumber, electric toothbrushes or pearl
> > necklace way higher than a corresponding Google search. See
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> From: Fae
>> We could also just delete them, unless someone actually uses them in a
>> sensible way in an article. :-)
>>
>> sincerely,
>> Kim Bruning
>
> Not on Commons; being "objectionable" to some viewers and not being
> currentl
OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should
meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the
objections that I'm aware of. Just as importantly it should actually work.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter
WereSpielChequ
Here, in Spain, we are talking about Wikidocumentals. I.e, documentals
about wikipedia articles.
It will be easy: upload video cuts, and then all the GFDL work will fall
upon production work, you know: voice, dubbing, visual effects... mashup...
It's the same way to make a BBC documental about WW
MediaWiki serves more than the Wikimedia Foundation too. ~~Ebe123
On 11-10-11 4:42 PM, "Tobias Oelgarte"
wrote:
> Am 11.10.2011 17:42, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> From:
> Fae
>> We could also just delete them, unless someone
> actually uses them in a sensible way in an article. :-)
>>
>> sincerel
Am 11.10.2011 17:42, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> From: Fae
>> We could also just delete them, unless someone actually uses them in a
>> sensible way in an article. :-)
>>
>> sincerely,
>> Kim Bruning
> Not on Commons; being "objectionable" to some viewers and not being
> currently in use does
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> If we provide a filter, we have to be pragmatic, and restrict its application
> to media that significant demographics really might want to filter.
Define "significant demographics." Do you have a numerical cut-off
point in mind (below which we're to convey "you're a small
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Fae wrote:
>> If the members of de.wikipedia.org are *unaffected by explicit sexual
>> images* because there are already ahead as they practice bondage or
>> BDSM, it doesn't mean that all person of the world are so evolute in
>> sexual matters.
>
> I find these s
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 18:19, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> If we provide a filter, we have to be pragmatic, and restrict its application
> to media that significant demographics really might want to filter.
That should be designed well and maintained, too. I am really
frustrated by Google's insisting
David,
You asked for a reply to your earlier questions.
> As has been mentioned numerous times, deeming certain subjects (and
> not others) "potentially objectionable" is inherently subjective and
> non-neutral.
> Unveiled women, pork consumption, miscegenation and homosexuality are
> considered
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> If I search Commons for "electric toothbrushes", the second search result is
> an image of a woman masturbating with an electric toothbrush:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=electric+toothbrushes&fulltext=Search&redirs=1&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns
From: Fae
> We could also just delete them, unless someone actually uses them in a
> sensible way in an article. :-)
>
> sincerely,
> Kim Bruning
Not on Commons; being "objectionable" to some viewers and not being
currently in use does not make a potentially educational image out of
scope
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:53:55PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> Kim, I am getting the impression you are being deliberately obtuse.
No, I'm being exhaustive. I wanted to ensure that there is no hair
of a possibility that I might have missed a good faith avenue.
(I wouldn't have asked this question i
>> "...,a viable alternative to not relying blindly on the categorization
>> system, would be implementing a new "image reviewer" flag on en.wp and maybe
>> in commons. This method would create a list of reviewed images that can be
>> considered objectionable, that could be filtered/black-listed.
>
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 07:19:00AM +0530, Theo10011 wrote:
>
> "...,a viable alternative to not relying blindly on the categorization
> system, would be implementing a new "image reviewer" flag on en.wp and maybe
> in commons. This method would create a list of reviewed images that can be
> consid
Teofilo did open a bug, I tried to explain that the mwEmbed player
gadget is not identical to the mwEmbed player in the extension. The
Extension has a bit better handling of license i.e by default shows the
credit page on menu click and on clip end. The extension also does a bit
better job of parsi
On 11 October 2011 15:08, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Also in today's Guardian:
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/11/david-cameron-porn-filter-isps?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
>
>
> ISPs moved quickly to insist that the provisions will only apply to people
> taking out completely new contra
Also in today's Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/11/david-cameron-porn-filter-isps?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
ISPs moved quickly to insist that the provisions will only apply to people
taking out completely new contracts, who will be offered the choice of a
connection with "pa
>
> --
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:17:21 -0700
> From: Ray Saintonge
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial
>Content
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Message-ID: <4e939921.1010...@telus.net>
> Con
In the news today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8818827/Parents-to-be-urged-to-report-sexual-imagery-aimed-at-children.html
"The Prime Minister will unveil Parentport, an online complaints site targeted
at mothers and fathers who have concerns about their children being exposed to
If the video player actually worked for anything, it would be a problem. But
it doesn't and therefore it isn't.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
> I assume that you, before sending this email to a mailing list that is not
> exactly technical in nature, have submitted bug reports a
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> If I search Commons for "electric toothbrushes", the second search result is
> an image of a woman masturbating with an electric toothbrush:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=electric+
> toothbrushes&fulltext=Search&redirs=1&ns0=1&ns6=1
From: David Levy
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> The way it is supposed to work is by creating categories that simply describe
> media content. A bit like alt.texts, I guess. Examples might be:
>
> Images of people engaged in sexual intercourse.
>
> Videos of people masturbating.
>
> Images of genitals.
I assume that you, before sending this email to a mailing list that is not
exactly technical in nature, have submitted bug reports about this on
bugzilla so that the technical magicians can actually fix it? I'm confident
they would appreciate any constructive input.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
No dia
I have learnt this morning that the "Timedmedia" extension "is not yet
installed on wikimedia sites, but its meant to replace the existing
player" (1).
As I was uploading videos, and needed some specific tools, I happened
the other day to use the mwEmbed gadget on Wikimedia Commons which
seems to
> If the members of de.wikipedia.org are *unaffected by explicit sexual
> images* because there are already ahead as they practice bondage or
> BDSM, it doesn't mean that all person of the world are so evolute in
> sexual matters.
I find these sorts of comments personally offensive, likely to disr
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Julius Redzinski
> wrote:
>> On such a decision the Board should have before making any decision
>> researched
>> really what raeders expect and want and this with empathy for different
>> regions and
>>
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Julius Redzinski
wrote:
> On such a decision the Board should have before making any decision researched
> really what raeders expect and want and this with empathy for different
> regions and
> the understanding that germany maybe has different needs than the ara
47 matches
Mail list logo
