Note that there have been two recent Buzzfeed articles about Commons and
Wikipedia, by Jack Stuef, who is a writer for The Onion:
1. The Epic Battle For Wikipedia's Autofellatio Page
In the underbelly of Wikipedia is an exhibitionist subculture dedicated to
one thing: Ensuring that their penis i
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am 13.03.2012 03:39, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
>
>>
>> No. I'm not accusing you for prudery, but for making wrong cited
> statements. Your assumption is that we have to sa
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 12 March 2012 20:24, Tobias Oelgarte
> wrote:
>
> > I'm tired to reply to this kind of comments since I said anything
> important
> > multiple times already. So I will keep it as that and only write the
> > following:
> > Sorry, but your
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Fae wrote:
> Strangely enough, searching Commons for "Male figure" rather than
> "Male human" shows me artwork from the National Museum of African Art
> and a Michelangelo Buonarroti sketch from the Louvre in top matches.
> No problem with wading through "100 dick
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Fae wrote:
>
>> Strangely enough, searching Commons for "Male figure" rather than
>> "Male human" shows me artwork from the National Museum of African Art
>>
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Fae wrote:
> Strangely enough, searching Commons for "Male figure" rather than
> "Male human" shows me artwork from the National Museum of African Art
> and a Michelangelo Buonarroti sketch from the Louvre in top matches.
> No problem with wading through "100 dick
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=20&redirs=0&profile=images&search=male+human
So unless I want to see 100 dicks and arseholes I am somehow against *
knowledge*?
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=20&redirs=0&profile=
The UK Parliament's Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions is due to
release its report shortly.
Evidence submitted to it over the past months is now available online on
the UK Parliament's website, at
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWe
Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following
Resolution:
---o0o---
The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed
content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We
also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
>
>> The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any
>> executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's
>> a stated policy that they are not responsible for t
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:31 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 March 2012 13:52, Nathan wrote:
>
> > So what you're saying is, you feel confident that everyone agrees with
> you,
> > and thus perfectly comfortable speaking on behalf of the entire
> community?
> > I see.
>
>
> I thought he was noting
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Neil Babbage wrote:
> If you ran a charity store committed to providing educational products
> free to all who needed them you wouldn't get many children as customers if
> you put hardcore sex products right by the entrance.
^^^ This. ^^^
__
s als
> "evidence of controversy", but maybe I am too much busy with writing
> Wikipedia articles.
>
> But good that you care about the hurtings of WMF. I believe that they will
> thank you every day for this.
>
>
> Juliana
>
>
> 2012/3/7 Andreas Kolbe
>
&g
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am 07.03.2012 23:41, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> Sorry to interrupt you. But as i can see, you constantly rage against
> sexuality in any form. I came to this little conclusion because i
tures.
> For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn bodies
> and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting
> "spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some
> mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related
> categories and images are also very popular among our readers and that the
> current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are s
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:32 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Anyway, there are surely more interesting things to talk about -- like
> search! Let's talk about search. I am 100% in favor of better commons
> search :)
>
Can you get a developer to provide us with some feedback on Niabot's
proposal?
http
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Just for the record, not sure where you got "voted twice"... There's
> been one vote on each resolution.
>
> And it was not raised as an electoral issue. I think that's a little
> unfair to people (including myself) who are trying to do their
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:32 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Yeah, 'cos that worked so well applied to de:wp.
>
> You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board,
> with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling?
Wait ... so you're saying that the two board memb
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:00 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
> Hi MZ and all --
>
> Project development was put on hold over the winter in favor of more
> pressing priorities, with the agreement of the Board. There is
> currently an open proposal on the table for the Board to vote on
> whether to contin
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:49 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>
> What happened with implementing software related to controversial content?
> There was quite a bit of hubbub at some point, then Wikimedia pulled back a
> little (and Sue visited Germany to give some assurances)... what's the
> current status o
From: David Levy
> > The New York Times (recipient of more Pulitzer Prizes than any other
> > news organization) uses "Stuff My Dad Says." So does the Los Angeles
> > Times, which states that the subject's actual name is "unsuitable for
> > a family publication."
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com
From: Tobias Oelgarte
>
>Am 18.10.2011 11:43, schrieb Thomas Morton:
>> It is this fallacious logic that underpins our crazy politics of
>> "neutrality" which we attempt to enforce on people (when in practice we lack
>> neutrality almost as much as the next man!).
>... and that is exactly what m
> You view them as standalone pieces of information, entirely distinct
> from those conveyed textually. You believe that their inclusion
> constitutes undue weight unless reliable sources utilize the same or
> similar illustrations (despite their publication of text establishing
> the images' accu
ppropriately named subcategories. This is generally
already established practice. Doing both would reduce the problem somewhat, at
least in cases where there is a category that matches the search term.
Regards,
Andreas
[1]
>
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversial_content
dreas
>
>From: Thyge
>To: Andreas Kolbe ; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
>Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011, 2:59
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
>
>2011/10/17 Andreas Kolbe :
>> Commons featured
>
>From: Bjoern Hoehrmann
>To: Andreas Kolbe ; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
>Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011, 2:15
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
>
>* Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>Personality conflicts aside
Personality conflicts aside, we're noting that non-sexual search terms in
Commons can prominently return sexual images of varying explicitness, from mild
nudity to hardcore, and that this is different from entering a sexual search
term and finding that Google fails to filter some results.
I pos
> From: David Levy
> It most certainly is a matter of interpretation. If the English
> Wikipedia community shared yours, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion.
> In this context, you view images as entities independent from the
> people and things depicted therein
I view images as *conten
ilter I may be a
>little biased.
>
>WereSpielChequers
That's okay. :) Your proposal is very clever; my main concerns are that it
would be a lot of work for casual users to get it to work, and that it does not
comply with the requirement, highlighted both in the board resolution a
An editor on the German Wikipedia has proposed an alternative approach to the
personal image filter -- I provided a translation here
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#.C3.9Cbersetzung
---o0o---
1. There is no central
categorisation of all images in different filter cat
y editor window, and then copy that down to the
place where I want to insert a reply, so I can start an unindented line. That's
what I did here; I just forgot to delete it before I posted.
Cheers,
Andreas
>________
>From: Andreas Kolbe
>To: Wikimedia Fou
ra-Orthodox Jewish newspapers and magazines
>> > that refuse to publish photographs of women. If this were a mainstream
>> > policy, would that make it "neutral"?
>
>Andreas Kolbe replied:
>
>> NPOV policy as written would require us to do the same, yes.
Having thought about the very divisive image filter discussions here, on de:WP,
Meta, and elsewhere, including the August referendum and the more recent editor
poll in the German Wikipedia, I would like to draw the Board's and other
editors' attention to some fundamental differences between the
> From: David Levy
> > > In an earlier reply, I cited ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspapers and
> > > magazines
> > > that refuse to publish photographs of women. If this were a mainstream
> > > policy, would that make it "neutral"?
> Please answer the above question.
NPOV policy as written woul
From: David Levy
>
>> You assume here that there is any kind of neutrality in Wikipedia that is
>> not defined by reliable sources.
>>
>> There isn't.
>
>Again, you're conflating two separate concepts.
>
>In most cases, we can objectively determine, based on information from
>reliable sources, tha
> From:David Levy
> Setting aside the matter of category tags, I disagree with the premise
> that the neutrality principle is inapplicable to display options.
> When an on-wiki gadget is used to selectively suppress material deemed
> "objectionable," that's a content issue (despite not affecting
> 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, conv
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
> 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 num
> 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-
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
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
an opt-in or opt-out." People who change to a
different tier of connection within the same service will not be obliged to
change the setting. BT said that new customers will be offered a package of
parental control systems, provided by the security company McAfee.
____
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
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.
>
From: Bob the Wikipedian
The question arises, however, of where to draw the rather thick gray
line. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, take for instance the
famous Renaissance paintings; often innocent at first glance, but
perhaps one of the subjects is nude. Perhaps in the background
From: MZMcBride
Personally, from the technical side, I don't think there's any way to make
per-category filtering work. What happens when a category is deleted? Or a
category is renamed (which is effectively deleting the old category name
currently)? And are we
From: David Gerard
> On 10 October 2011 18:37, Kim Bruning wrote:
> > I think that having the image blurring system, combined with an option to
> > unblur,
> > would get us very far towards the stated board directive, and I don't think
> > many in the community would object, and we could reach
Hubert,
The fact is that the English word "violence" has a quite different etymology,
and a much narrower meaning, than the German word "Gewalt", which historically
also means "control", or even "administrative competence".
The scope of the English article is indeed appropriate to the English
From: Sue Gardner
Yes, I hear you. The Board didn't specifically discuss yesterday what
to do if there is no acceptable solution. So I don't think they can
make a statement like this: it hasn't been discussed. I hear what
you're saying here, but my hope is that
From: "Möller, Carsten"
To: "foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org"
Sent: Monday, 10 October 2011, 18:01
Subject: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
> Andreas Kolbe jayen466 at yahoo.com
> Mon Oct 10 11:16:2
From: Hubert
Because the wars in Commons, which Categories at least will fit
violence, will be unmanageable.
I don´t want to confront myself with fundamental christian groups in
categorising cruzification and holy cross as to become a to be hidden
category be
From: Ting Chen
Hello Fae,
thank you very much for pointing this out. Yes, I think you indeed hit
the nail. We discussed this problem on our meeting and Sue provided some
plans on how to work on this problem. I am normally reluctant to comment
what the staff is doing or what they are planning
Taking a step back, to look at the bigger picture -- one thing that has always
struck me
as odd is how different our approach to text and illustrations is.
For text, we are incredibly "censorious", insisting that any material presented
to the reader
must reflect what is found in reliable s
--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Andrea Zanni wrote:
From: Andrea Zanni
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does
the proposed law say?
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 22:44
> Given that a Wikipedia biography is usually the fi
at 2:05 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:49, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the
>> proposed law,
>> the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on
>> the page (wh
--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Jalo wrote:
From: Jalo
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does
the proposed law say?
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 12:40
>
> the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, una
Note changes to the statement on Italian Wikipedia:
http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AComunicato_4_ottobre_2011&action=historysubmit&diff=43934772&oldid=43934752
(Edit summary translation: In short, the law doesn't say that)
http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedi
: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does
the proposed law say?
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Date: Tuesday, 4 October, 2011, 22:42
http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf
Page 24.
On 4 October 2011 22:40, Andreas Ko
I would echo Risker's question: What exactly does the proposed new law say?
Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is received,
and *replaced* with the BLP subject's statement?
Or is it that BLP subjects have the right to ask for a correction to be posted
on the page,
: David Levy
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Saturday, 1 October, 2011, 13:42
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> We'd still be in good company, as all other major websites, including
> Google
--- On Sat, 1/10/11, Theo10011 wrote:
From: Theo10011
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Date: Saturday, 1 October, 2011, 1:58
> We're not suggesting that as far as I know. Nothing is bein
rote:
From: Tobias Oelgarte
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 17:06
Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> --- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
I do think that one needs to have spent some time in Germany to understand that
things *are* different there. Nudity is no big deal. To give some examples,
municipal
swimming pools may have times set aside for nude bathing. They may have mixed
saunas,
or changing rooms used by females, males,
--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldari
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28
On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> This post appea
ld we take that risk?
Currently we are promoting free access to information and knowledge. If
a filter like this has a 50:50 chance to improve or worsen things, then
we might raise the question: Is it worth the effort or should we search
for better solutions?
Greetings Tobias
Am 23.09.2011 12
September, 2011, 11:53
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
search" from google pages.
[3] Many Anti-Virus software includes googles "safe search"
functionality http://forum.kaspersky.com/lofiversion/index.php/t145285.html
...
Am 23.09.2011 02:46, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> Are you aware of any "providers" that use other site
e:
From: Tobias Oelgarte
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 23 September, 2011, 0:26
Am 23.09.2011 01:21, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> And where would the problem be? If a user prefers to go to a Bowdlerised site
> like th
--- On Thu, 22/9/11, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
From: Tobias Oelgarte
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Thursday, 22 September, 2011, 23:06
Am 22.09.2011 23:55, schrieb Andrew Gray:
> On 21 September 2011 14:14, Jussi-Ville Hei
--- On Wed, 7/9/11, David Gerard wrote:
The closest we could come to a neutral filtering system is an easily
accessible on/off switch for images.
Actually, that is really not a bad idea.
If a user wants to read about bukkake or fisting, rather than seeing it
displayed in graphic detail on their
Well, Peter, it's got over 2,000 in-bound links, from user and user talk pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-08-01/In_the_news
We should really look at making such links nofollow; only mainspace links
should be dofollow, and that should exclude nav templates and t
; tries to take into account the schedules of 10 very busy
> people, at
> least a handful of whom are traveling at any given time, as
> well as
> allow for enough time to seriously debate each resolution
> and take
> care with the wording.
>
> So that, in a nutshe
ted and discussed at the Board
Meeting in Berlin, in late March.
How did that go? Any further developments?
Best,
Andreas
--- On Sun, 20/2/11, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> From: Andreas Kolbe
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content --
> update
> To
Pete Forsyth made what I think is an interesting point on the Gendergap list.
Reproduced below, with his permission.
> --- On Mon, 16/5/11, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
>> From: Pete Forsyth
>> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia
>> Commons
>> To: "Increasing fema
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> From: Andreas Kolbe
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] [Foundation-l] Commons as an art gallery?
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" ,
> "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" ,
> "Increasing female participation i
/5/11, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> From: Andreas Kolbe
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Commons as an art gallery?
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" ,
> "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" ,
> "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects"
>
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Béria Lima wrote:
> I would like to question something:
>
> Why you people are not discussing that in commons? Because
> here people
> can give opinions, in Gendergap mailing list too, but the
> people who can
> actually change the policy are the commons editors.
>
> So, is
/16/11 5:40 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> This is really a Foundation topic though. Are projects' main pages there to
> showcase Wikimedians' fine art?
No. This is a non-issue.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_pu
There is a long thread on the Commons and Gendergap lists about today's
featured image on Commons:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-May/
It's an original piece of art by a Wikimedian, "in the style of" erotic
manga:
htt
--- On Tue, 15/3/11, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> From: Ray Saintonge
> On 03/14/11 5:41 AM, Andreas Kolbe
> wrote:
> > So that would mean exporting all BLPs to a completely
> separate project, like
> > Commons, which hosts and edits these BLPs, which are
> then available
--- On Tue, 15/3/11, David Goodman wrote:
> From: David Goodman
> I've been involved with open
> access journals as a professional
> activity from the start of the movement, long before I
> joined
> Wikipedia. There has been only limited success.
> Though there are
> almost ten thousand open
--- On Mon, 14/3/11, Andre Engels wrote:
> From: Andre Engels
> In the end, A got a long-term block -
> not for POV
> editing, not for doing original research, not for
> misrepresenting his
> sources - he could have gone on with all those without
> strong
> consequences. But he made the mistake
--- On Mon, 14/3/11, HW wrote:
> From: HW
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Sad for a wikimedian leaving on zhwiki
> To: "foundation mailing list"
> Date: Monday, 14 March, 2011, 12:41
> Dear all,
>
> I am just so sad for a wikimedian leaving which active on
> zhwiki & commons.
>
> User:JerryofWong, a
--- On Mon, 14/3/11, David Gerard wrote:
> From: David Gerard
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Monday, 14 March, 2011, 13:53
> On 14 March 2011 13:46, Andreas Kolbe
>
> wrote:
>
--- On Mon, 14/3/11, Dror Kamir wrote:
> From: Dror Kamir
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Monday, 14 March, 2011, 13:27
> First of all, I am not talking just
> about BLP. This is part of the
> problem. I am also concer
--- On Mon, 14/3/11, John Vandenberg wrote:
> From: John Vandenberg
> > John, how would your proposal be realized,
> technically?
> This is explained in the first email in this thread.
Okay. Upon rereading I find you stated:
> I recommend breaking enWP apart by finding easy chunks and moving
--- On Mon, 14/3/11, John Vandenberg wrote:
> From: John Vandenberg
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Monday, 14 March, 2011, 10:33
> > Thoughts?
>
> The intention of this proposal, and this thread, is _not_
> to imp
--- On Sat, 26/2/11, John Vandenberg wrote:
> From: John Vandenberg
> Was: Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness
> (was: Missing Wikipedians: An Essay)
> Was: Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness
>
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Ryan Kaldari
> wrote:
> > On 2/25/11 3:11 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> >
-- On Wed, 9/3/11, SlimVirgin wrote:
> The nearest university to me will give access to databases
> for $150 a
> year, but they make non-students and staff travel to the
> university
> itself to do it; no logging in from home, and that turns
> into a
> serious hassle over time (travelling there,
--- On Wed, 9/3/11, Stephanie Daugherty wrote:
> From: Stephanie Daugherty
> I object to this strongly. The FA, and DYK processes are
> absolutely
> useless as a measure of an editor's worth to the project.
> There's
> plenty of wikignomes and other mostly unrecognized editors
> that will
> be a
--- On Tue, 8/3/11, George Herbert wrote:
> From: George Herbert
> We should have no illusion that the WMF or open content
> movement will
> zero out the production of copyrighted and
> not-freely-licensed content
> - most authors of books, most movie studios, most musicians
> depend on
> revenue
--- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder wrote:
> From: Fred Bauder
> Fred Bauder
> I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and
> databases
> such as those ProQuest sells. Not sure how that would fit
> into our
> budget.
I would like to second that as well -- this is a very important wa
ct: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content --
> update
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Cc: "Andreas Kolbe"
> Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 19:35
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM,
> Andreas Kolbe
> wrote:
> > C
Could Phoebe, Jan-Bart or Kat please give us an update on the activities of
the working group looking into the recommendations resulting from the 2010
Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content?
Have any conclusions been drawn, and are there any plans or discussions about
implementing any of the
Thanks, interesting. Go to
http://www.wiki4enterprise.org/index.php?title=Editor&action=edit
for example, and click on [Rich Editor] (above the button bar at the top of
the edit window). This gives you a WYSIWIYG display in the edit window.
Users can toggle between the two types of display.
A
me or a few do, we decide first whether it meets our
> inclusion
> criteria, then how to represent it if an article is viable.
> NPOV is not an
> inclusion policy.
>
> (*Reductio ad absurdum *version: - many articles are kept
> with just a
> handful (<5) sources; this implie
Perhaps we should write a guideline that editors should please wait with
the Wikileaks articles until there is secondary-source coverage, and that
they should sum up *that coverage* rather than the original document.
If Wikisource should decide they can host the original documents, it is
always p
--- On Sun, 12/12/10, David Moran wrote:
> From: David Moran
> Taking the nonexistence of an article
> on a particular subject as positive
> evidence of an editorial judgment by our "best sources" is
> an unsupportable
> argument. Wikipedia is not here to index articles
> published in the NYT a
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
