I'm assuming that this is the Peter Damian who is also
knol.google.com/k/edward-buckner/edward-buckner/2u2a5qlvdgh8h/1#
since he signs as "Edward", rather than a troll seeking to impersonate the
banned Wikipedia editor of the same name, for nefarious purposes. In either
case, I have little conf
- Original Message -
From: "geni"
On 23 October 2011 09:16, Peter Damian wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I am writing a book on the history of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia
> movement, focusing on its 'history of ideas'. Would any Wikipedians be
> prepared to be interviewed for this? Obviously
It's Lisa Gruwell, MZ. Last I heard, she has been waiting to hear back
from a couple of foundations about recent agreements.
Thanks,
Sue
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely shar
So cool! Thank you, WMF reports team! I look forward to hearing how
the experiment works :)
Phoebe
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Tilman Bayer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as mentioned in last week's announcement of the September 2011
> Wikimedia Foundation report, this time we published a separate
> "Hig
* Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>Who is this "we" you are talking about? No one is going to force anyone
>to categorize images. If some people want to categorize images, and if
>their effort turns out to be in vain, again that is Their Problem and
>not Your Problem.
When your filtering or categorization
On 23 October 2011 09:16, Peter Damian wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I am writing a book on the history of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement,
> focusing on its 'history of ideas'. Would any Wikipedians be prepared to be
> interviewed for this? Obviously long-standing Wikipedians would be a focus
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?
>
> Clearly Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia found a "show/hide all" solut
* Erik Moeller wrote:
>With that said, I also think it's important to remember that Sue has
>explicitly affirmed that the development of any technical solution
>would be done in partnership with the community, including people
>who've expressed strong opposition to what's been discussed to date.
T
On 23 October 2011 17:59, David Gerard wrote:
> It's a very tricky one.
Yes and no.
However regardless of its complexity (which isn't that bad compared to
some) it is how most real work copyright cases that people actually
care about work. Rather than single the single copyright we might
recogni
And after this procedure, we all expect, that some readers may become
edtitors?
Good Luck!
I hope and expect, that wikipedia could help, that people become more
educated.
The more educated people are, the less important this filters will be.
this should be our goal.
not patronizing readers in a
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:36:37 +0200
> From: Tobias Oelgarte
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] category free image filtering
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <4ea42675.9070...@googlemail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Am 23.10
MZMcBride wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>> Oh. I can speak to this, at least a little. The Wikimedia Foundation has a
>> policy of publishing our grant applications when the grantmaking institution
>> is okay with it. We don't do a lot of grant applications, and of the ones we
>> do, I am guesstimati
Erik Moeller wrote:
> With that said, I also think it's important to remember that Sue has
> explicitly affirmed that the development of any technical solution
> would be done in partnership with the community, including people
> who've expressed strong opposition to what's been discussed to date.
David Gerard wrote:
> On 22 October 2011 23:36, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> With that said, the mobile site already has a generic "Disable images"
>> view and something similar would definitely make sense on the main
>> site as well.
>
> I just tried it. It lacks the "click to show" feature. Add that
Am 23.10.2011 19:32, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
> On 23.10.2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be
allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a
censorship tool.
>>> Who the hell are you to for
Peter Damian wrote:
> I am writing a book on the history of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement,
> focusing on its 'history of ideas'. Would any Wikipedians be prepared to be
> interviewed for this? Obviously long-standing Wikipedians would be a focus
> but I am interested in anyone who is invol
On 23.10.2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>
>>> The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be
>>> allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a
>>> censorship tool.
>> Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to use a piece of
>> software?
On 23/10/11 16:24, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> A neutral all-or-nothing image filter would not have such side effects
>> (and would also neatly help low bandwidth usage).
> It would also make the project useless. I don't want to see the 0.01%
> (
Am 23.10.2011 17:24, schrieb Andrew Garrett:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> A neutral all-or-nothing image filter would not have such side effects
>> (and would also neatly help low bandwidth usage).
> It would also make the project useless. I don't want to see the 0.01%
Am 23.10.2011 17:19, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
> On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 10:31 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>> Am 23.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
>>> On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is
inten
On 23 October 2011 13:12, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the
> underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole
> concept of derivative works.
The deletion discussion was reopened by Anthony and is still in
prog
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Fae wrote:
> > A cookie-based "hide all images"/"show all images" toggle clearly
> > visible in the toolbar at the top of pages. together with
> > ...
> > I'd be interested in any arguments that might be made against such a
> > proposal.
>
> How about the fact th
> From: Erik Moeller
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l]
>
>
> The literal translation of what was being voted on:
>
> "Pers?nliche Bildfilter
> (Filter, die illustrierende Dateien anhand von
> Kategorien der Wikipedia verbergen und vom Leser an- und abgeschaltet
> werden k?nnen, vgl. de
> Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:58:03 -0700
> From: Erik Moeller
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l]
>
> The vote in German Wikipedia, and most of the discussions to
> date, have focused on the specific ideas and mock-ups that
> were presented as part of the referendum.
Erik,
You are wrong. The vot
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> A neutral all-or-nothing image filter would not have such side effects
> (and would also neatly help low bandwidth usage).
It would also make the project useless. I don't want to see the 0.01%
(yes, rhetorical statistics again) images of medi
On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 10:31 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> Am 23.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
> > On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> >> Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is
> >> intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and
On 23 October 2011 15:36, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> One open problem is the so called "logic/brain of the system". Until we
> have an exact description on how it will exactly work, we know neither
> it's strong points nor it's weak spots. Until i see an algorithm that is
> able to solve this task,
Am 23.10.2011 15:46, schrieb WereSpielChequers:
> --
>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 02:57:51 +0200
>> From: Tobias Oelgarte
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] category free image filtering
>> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Message-ID:<4ea3668f.5010...@goo
--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 02:57:51 +0200
> From: Tobias Oelgarte
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] category free image filtering
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <4ea3668f.5010...@googlemail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-
very often in italian history, italian politicians use to postpone votings.
This is tactics: when people gets angry for a law proposal, they delay its
approval saying "we trust you", with the hope that later people wouldnt
notice the law proposal. About this law this has already happened: it was
or
Reopened
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_(Mickey_Mouse)%22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif#File:.22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam.22_.28Mickey_Mouse.29.22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif)
Though I agr
I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the
underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole
concept of derivative works.
The deletion discussion on commons seems to have been closed prematurely.
There was hardly any discussion at all. I'm not su
On 23 October 2011 12:38, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23 October 2011 12:30, Fae wrote:
...
>> PS "clear failure" looks like an opinion, not a statement of fact.
>> Presumably this relates to an official position of the WMF?
>
> An opinion held by several staff on the matter, including the
> Executi
On 23 October 2011 12:30, Fae wrote:
> PS "clear failure" looks like an opinion, not a statement of fact.
> Presumably this relates to an official position of the WMF?
An opinion held by several staff on the matter, including the
Executive Director. I consider this significant, you may not.
-
On 23 October 2011 12:02, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23 October 2011 11:50, Fae wrote:
> The Foundation considers de:wp's careful and thoughtful decision to
> put [[:de:vulva]] on the front page of de:wp with a picture was a
> clear failure of community judgement sufficient to justify the
> imposi
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:26 PM, emijrp wrote:
> So, the law was finally rejected or it was not voted yet?
>
It hasn't been voted yet.
Cruccone
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mai
On 23 October 2011 11:50, Fae wrote:
> How about the fact that newspaper websites regularly include shocking
> images of violence and death on their main pages and have few
> complaints as they rely on editorial control rather than built-in
> software tricks? This is a solution looking for a prob
> A cookie-based "hide all images"/"show all images" toggle clearly
> visible in the toolbar at the top of pages. together with
> ...
> I'd be interested in any arguments that might be made against such a
> proposal.
How about the fact that newspaper websites regularly include shocking
images of v
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Peter Damian
wrote:
> A general question: is there a Wikipedian ideology? What is it? In
> particular, how does the current ideology, if there is one, compare with the
> ideology which inspired its founding fathers. And mothers - many of the
> founding editors o
On 22/10/11 22:56, David Gerard wrote:
> 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
>
So, the law was finally rejected or it was not voted yet?
2011/10/6 Chris Keating
> >
> > Not so easy. Yesterday an amendment has been officially proposed, not
> > approved. It will be discussed into the parliament camera, then into the
> > parliament senate. Only if both will accept it without
>
> A general question: is there a Wikipedian ideology? What is it?
Hmm. "Ideologie und Utopie." Don't forget about Mannheim ;)
Przykuta
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman
On 23 October 2011 10:01, teun spaans wrote:
> I completely agree :)
So you can address my answer, even as Nikola didn't quite.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/lis
On 23 October 2011 09:16, Peter Damian wrote:
> Edward
Is "Edward" Peter Damian, or someone else?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I completely agree :)
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> 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, pers
Am 23.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
> On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>> Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is
>> intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you
> No, it is intended to let people discriminate
Greetings,
I am writing a book on the history of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement,
focusing on its 'history of ideas'. Would any Wikipedians be prepared to be
interviewed for this? Obviously long-standing Wikipedians would be a focus but
I am interested in anyone who is involved in the mo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Am 23.10.2011 08:30, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
> 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.
>
>
49 matches
Mail list logo
