Sue Gardner wrote:
> Sorry to top-post.
>
> Google and Flickr actually handle this quite differently though, I
> think, Andreas. Going from memory -- I think that Google defaults to
> a "moderate" setting, but allows users to easily switch to an
> unfiltered setting. As long as they allow cookies
010 14:19:01
> To: ; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing
> List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions forPotentially-Objectionable
> Content
>
> Hi Sue--
> Thank you so so much for that reply, it was really really appreciated.
>
>> I also wanted to say
,
Sue
-Original Message-
From: Alec Conroy
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:19:01
To: ; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing
List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions forPotentially-Objectionable
Content
Hi Sue--
Thank you so so much for that reply, it was really really appreciated.
&g
Sorry to top-post.
Google and Flickr actually handle this quite differently though, I think,
Andreas. Going from memory -- I think that Google defaults to a "moderate"
setting, but allows users to easily switch to an unfiltered setting. As long as
they allow cookies, users don't need to be reg
Hi Sue--
Thank you so so much for that reply, it was really really appreciated.
> I also wanted to say -- you know in your post where you speculate about why
> this is
> happening now, is it because of the fundraising, has someone offered board
> members jobs,
> etc. (I know you were mostly non
Alec, thanks for making that post. I know people have had these discussions for
a long time (I've read lots of them), but I really appreciate you writing a
long explanation of what you think.
The "no censorship" people don't tend to want to lay out their full position --
because they already ha
On 7/22/10 4:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> And so far, it's worked. Your words appear to presume people have
> somehow failed to actually think about this stuff over the past ten
> years.
>
So far it's worked because we've been lucky. Here's an example of a bad
situation just waiting to happen:
On 23 July 2010 00:06, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> Actually I think there is one issue that has still not been well
> discussed, and which I think it should be possible to build consensus
> around (but maybe I'm naive): The issue of context for controversial
> images. For example, although it may be pe
Actually I think there is one issue that has still not been well
discussed, and which I think it should be possible to build consensus
around (but maybe I'm naive): The issue of context for controversial
images. For example, although it may be perfectly fine to include an
image of nude bondage
