On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> Am 22.10.2011 23:23, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
> > On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:16 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> >> "Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In
> >> contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the W
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 22:56 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
> the use case this does not serve?
Are you even trying to pretend to be serious? Use case: me reading an
article.
It is my impression that you are pushing for this hide/sh
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 22:27 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> On 22 October 2011 22:23, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> > I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good
> > opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that
> > a large majority of German Wikipedia editor
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wrote:
>>
>>> On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work
>>> carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the
Am 23.10.2011 01:49, schrieb WereSpielChequers:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> Do youhave any problems with this category free proposal
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter
>
> WereSpelChequers
The idea isn't bad. But it is based on the premise that there are enough
users of the filter
Am 23.10.2011 02:00, schrieb Erik Moeller:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
> wrote:
>> Isn't that the same as putting some images inside the category
>> "inappropriate content"? Will it not leave the impression to the reader
>> that "we" think that this is something not anybody
Am 23.10.2011 01:57, schrieb Billinghurst:
> On 22 Oct 2011 at 15:36, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>>> On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte
>>> And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
>>> the use case this does not s
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work
>> carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the
>> one on the derivative (which "extends only to the ma
On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wrote:
> On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work
> carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the
> one on the derivative (which "extends only to the material contributed
> by the author of such work, as distingu
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:13 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23 October 2011 00:19, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> I am *amazed* that it took a whole month for someone to mention it on
>> [[:en:Talk:Mickey Mouse]], and another half an hour before someone
>> (me) replaced the image in the article itself ..
On 23 October 2011 00:19, David Gerard wrote:
> I am *amazed* that it took a whole month for someone to mention it on
> [[:en:Talk:Mickey Mouse]], and another half an hour before someone
> (me) replaced the image in the article itself ...
And I've just done a version without the text or flag:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> Isn't that the same as putting some images inside the category
> "inappropriate content"? Will it not leave the impression to the reader
> that "we" think that this is something not anybody should see? Can it be
> easily used by providers t
On 22 Oct 2011 at 15:36, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte
> > And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
> > the use case this does not serve?
>
> A show/hide all images function is l
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 23:51:14 +0200
> From: Tobias Oelgarte
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking
>about a fork
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <4ea33ad2.6070...@googlemail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO
On Oct 22, 2011 4:17 PM, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:11:53 -0700, Steven Walling
> wrote:
> > This is pretty damn cool.
> >
> > I see that pretty much every project except nl wikipedia could now use
> this
> > illustration...
>
> What is the problem with the Dutch Wiki
On 23 October 2011 00:11, Steven Walling wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2011 4:05 PM, "David Gerard" wrote:
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_%28Mickey_Mouse%29%22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif
>> Holy shit.
> This is pretty damn cool.
I am *am
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:11:53 -0700, Steven Walling
wrote:
> This is pretty damn cool.
>
> I see that pretty much every project except nl wikipedia could now use
this
> illustration...
What is the problem with the Dutch Wikipedia? From what I see, the file is
in use there.
Cheers
Yaroslav
_
Am 23.10.2011 00:13, schrieb Erik Moeller:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
> wrote:
>> What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and
>> the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?
> 1) Add a "collapsible" [*] parameter to the File: syntax, e.g.
This is pretty damn cool.
I see that pretty much every project except nl wikipedia could now use this
illustration...
On Oct 22, 2011 4:05 PM, "David Gerard" wrote:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_%28Mickey_Mouse%29%22_-_NA
This is pretty damn cool.
I see that pretty much every project except nl wikipedia could now use this
illustration...
On Oct 22, 2011 4:05 PM, "David Gerard" wrote:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_%28Mickey_Mouse%29%22_-_NA
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_%28Mickey_Mouse%29%22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif
Holy shit.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wi
On 22 October 2011 23:36, Erik Moeller wrote:
> A show/hide all images function is likely too drastic to serve some of
> these use cases well. So for example, if you're at work, you might not
> want to have autofellatio on your screen by accident, but you'd be
> annoyed at having to un-hide a fab
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte
> And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
> the use case this does not serve?
Clearly Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia found a "show/hide all" solution
inadequate. Are folks fro
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and
> the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?
1) Add a "collapsible" [*] parameter to the File: syntax, e.g.
[[File:Lemonparty.jpg|collapsible]].
2) When presen
On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and
> the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?
And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
the use case this does not serve?
The board have n
Am 22.10.2011 23:44, schrieb Erik Moeller:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
> wrote:
>> No one said it would be evil. But since we already have working
>> solutions for this projects, why do we need another, now global,
>> solution, based on categories? Thats when it becomes hai
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> No one said it would be evil. But since we already have working
> solutions for this projects, why do we need another, now global,
> solution, based on categories? Thats when it becomes hairy.
The Board of Trustees didn't pass a resolution
Am 22.10.2011 23:23, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
> On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:16 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
>> "Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In
>> contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
>> Foundation, personal image filters should not be intro
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Dirk Franke
> wrote:
> > And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to
> think
> > and say it loud.
>
> Thanks for the update, Dirk. I think it's good that people are
> seriously discu
On 22 October 2011 22:23, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good
> opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that
> a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But
> even if 99.99% of editors are
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:16 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> "Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In
> contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
> Foundation, personal image filters should not be introduced in
> German-speaking wikipedia and categories
Am 22.10.2011 22:31, schrieb Erik Moeller:
>
> What am I proposing, Jussi-Ville? So far, the only material proposal
> I've made as part of this debate is here:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/069077.html
>
> And, I don't think you're being accurate, historically
Am 22.10.2011 22:21, schrieb Erik Moeller:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:16 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> This would appear to indicate the opposition is to *any* personal
>> image filter per the Board resolution, and the category-based proposal
>> additionally as an example of such rather than as the
Am 22.10.2011 22:16, schrieb David Gerard:
> Unless nuances of the translation are inaccurate - is this the case?
> Do you see wiggle room in the original German phrasing?
There is no room for interpretation. It clearly says that no category
based filtering of any illustrative media will be accepte
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> There has always been a consensus that what you are
> proposing is evil and against what we as a non-profit free content
> site stand for.
What am I proposing, Jussi-Ville? So far, the only material proposal
I've made as part of this
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:16 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> This would appear to indicate the opposition is to *any* personal
> image filter per the Board resolution, and the category-based proposal
> additionally as an example of such rather than as the main topic of
> the vote. I think that says "sho
On 22 October 2011 20:58, Erik Moeller wrote:
> If not, would
> you be interested in organizing some community discussion on whether
> there are solutions within the scope of the resolution that the dewiki
> community would find acceptable, or whether the prevailing view is
> that the resolution
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Dirk Franke
> wrote:
>> And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think
>> and say it loud.
>
> Thanks for the update, Dirk. I think it's good that people are
> seriously discussin
Why should we open a brain storming section to think about something
that is seen as unacceptable in the first way? What is left is a simple
"No Images/All Images" solution. Anything else could not be justified.
You would have to respect this points:
* categorization should not be influenced by
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Dirk Franke
wrote:
> And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think
> and say it loud.
Thanks for the update, Dirk. I think it's good that people are
seriously discussing what it would mean to fork and how it would be
done. Forking the
If something is useful or not, shouldn't be the question. Alt least the
WMF seams to see it that way, because it is very doubtful that the image
filter is useful for the project, for its goals, growth and development.
I would invite the Board to view the movie "Schoolbreak Special: The Day
They
Lets just disable the filter for the german wikipedia and make the decisions
wiki per wiki. Ebe123
On 11-10-22 3:52 PM, "emijrp" wrote:
> So, we are going to have virtually two cloned German Wikipedias, one with
> image filter extension enabled and other disabled. Not very useful, but it
> is
So, we are going to have virtually two cloned German Wikipedias, one with
image filter extension enabled and other disabled. Not very useful, but it
is your choice.
I hope you enable the Semantic MediaWiki extension in the new fork.
Good luck.
2011/10/22 Dirk Franke
> Dear Mailinglists,
>
> th
Dear Mailinglists,
the cultural homogenous group of Germans tends to discuss in German. So to
give you a short update on what is happening:
A White Bag protest movement against the image filter is forming.
And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think
and say it loud
Considering many uprisings in the world against corrupt governments, now is a
good time to introduce a new wiki reference that could revolutionize politics
and government.
This new reference is called WikiArguments. It combines the collaborative power
behind Wikipedia with the branch of mathema
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> wrote:
>> This is very very meta. But in my own defence, I haven't posted
>> anything for over a year. Mourning my dearly departed mother. I have
>> said before that monthly limits ar
46 matches
Mail list logo
