Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

ng to non-belief to honour parent's concerns as to what their children are exposed to? It is a very slippery slope. I post the suggestion above about tagging articles that may be considered inappropriate by some, because it is better to give people tools to block content if they choo

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

we have never done anything about Wikipedia Review (to my knowledge) - which is the right approach. This is especially odd since Wikimedia Foundation has just announced it is selling branding to Orange. Why can't a non-commerical, unaffiliated website use the name "Wikipedia" in commen

Re: [Foundation-l] Open Knowledge Foundation

_ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Oldak Quill (oldakqu...@gmail.com) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual images of questionable provenance

utral or unbiased. These are legitimate topics that need to be illustrated and demonstrated as much as any other topic. -- Oldak Quill ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l