Tim Starling wrote:
>
>
>> They are serving the interests of who? And who can revoke
>> the trust upon a specific trustee, or the entire board, in the event
>> it was misused?
>>
>
> As a non-membership non-profit corporation, federal law dictates that
> it must have a Board and that the Bo
That about sums it up.
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Marcus Buck wrote:
> I try to understand what happened, but I'm not sure whether the pieces
> that I found so far add up.
>
> * Larry Sanger is mad about Wikimedia. [apparent]
> * Larry Sanger notifies the FBI and tells them Wikimedia hosts
David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 02:20, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the
>> clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at
>> Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not
2010/5/10 Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva :
> I sincerely don't personally care much about Muhammad pictures, for
> example. If people decided to delete them, I would simply think they
> are too afraid of offending, but I wouldn't care that much. (I know
> that being very notable and encyclopedic, t
2010/5/10 Samuel Klein :
> Hello Elias,
>
> Welcome to the mailing list.
Hi! ^^
>> Are you a member of the Board of Trustees or something?
>> Could you inform me if the whole board has this kind of position?
>
> No, the whole Board does not have this position. (not to speak for
> others -- I am
On 05/10/2010 03:11 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> On 10/05/10 15:25, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
>
>> BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
>> of Trustees?
>>
> Jimmy Wales determined the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation when
> he created it. He a
Tim Starling hett schreven:
> On 10/05/10 15:25, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
>
>> BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
>> of Trustees?
>>
>
> Jimmy Wales determined the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation when
> he created it. He and Bomis donate
On 10/05/10 15:25, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
> BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
> of Trustees?
Jimmy Wales determined the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation when
he created it. He and Bomis donated the relevant assets, such as the
domain names, t
Hello Elias,
Welcome to the mailing list.
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva
wrote:
> 2010/5/9 Andreas Kolbe :
> (..)
>>> board to do things is to give guidance to the communities. But, this
>>> topic is already pending for years. Looking back into the archives of
>>
2010/5/9 Andreas Kolbe :
(..)
>> For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
>> effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
>> direction. Both Jimmy as well as me believe that the best way for the
>> board to do things is to give guidance to the comm
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:43 PM, THURNER rupert
wrote:
> i might be wrong, but wasn't it _very_ important to have a clear
> separation of concerns?
Whether or not this is legally important, it is socially essential.
> on the other hand, i consider jimbo trying it and proving that it
> finally fa
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 00:15, Ting Chen wrote:
> What I can say to your questions is that Jimmy informed the board about
> his intention and asked the board for support. Don't speaking for other
> board members, just speak for myself. I answered his mail with that I
> fully support his engagement.
Andrew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> Wedrna, later:
>>
>>> The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support
>>> is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the
>>> content, and allows humans or computers to filter it a
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 09:46:02PM -0400, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:22 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
> > Hooray for letting American prurience and Larry Sanger's oddities shape the
> > project.
>
> The tolerance of sexual imagery on Wikimedia is a byproduct of Western
> liberal pr
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 12:29 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 07:45, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> True. The resignations are deeply unfortunate, and I hope those who
>> have left will still contribute to the ensuing discussions - their
>> opinions are among those badly needed to find the right
On 9 May 2010 07:45, Samuel Klein wrote:
> True. The resignations are deeply unfortunate, and I hope those who
> have left will still contribute to the ensuing discussions - their
> opinions are among those badly needed to find the right way forward.
"deeply unfortunate" is, far too often, a co
On 9 May 2010 02:20, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the
> clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at
> Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not in
> use by any project*.
>
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 3:14 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:14 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>>> Wedrna, later:
The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support
is a descriptive one. That is, it des
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Wedrna, later:
>> The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support
>> is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the
>> content, and allows humans or computers to filter it accordingly.
>> The infrastructure would b
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:14 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>> Wedrna, later:
>>> The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support
>>> is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the
>>> content, and allows humans or com
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Wedrna, later:
>> The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support
>> is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the
>> content, and allows humans or computers to filter it accordingly.
>> The infrastructure would b
> Marcus wrote:
>> Creating a technical solution like that is the task of the foundation.
>> The _real_ task of the foundation.
Cimon wrote:
> "Lot of momentum around the idea", is currently most
> persistently promoted by the same precise individual
> who began the "ethical breaching experiment"
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 18:20, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the
> clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at
> Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not in
> use by any pro
> Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> --- On Sat, 8/5/10, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>>
>>> Then another idea is to keep on Commons only those pictures which are
>>> non-controversial and suggest local project to keep their controversial
>>> pictures local? For example en Wikipedia keeps fair use pictures local
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> --- On Sat, 8/5/10, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>
>> Then another idea is to keep on Commons only those pictures which are
>> non-controversial and suggest local project to keep their controversial
>> pictures local? For example en Wikipedia keeps fair use pictures locally
>>
Anthony wrote:
> Jimbo shouldn't be blamed for the actions of CommonsDelinkerBot. For those
> particular deletions in which he exercised poor judgment, sure. For
> wheel-warring over some of those instances, absolutely. But ultimately, his
> actions (as opposed to the actions which were caused
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:22 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
> Hooray for letting American prurience and Larry Sanger's oddities shape the
> project.
Wikimedia's goal is to bring knowledge to everyone on Earth, not just
Europeans. Europe is at the extreme left on the global social scale,
along with a ha
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:14 PM, David Levy wrote:
> This assumes that...
>
> This is not always feasible...
>
> And the point is that some solutions weaken the Wikimedia Commons
> and/or the sister projects that rely upon it.
>
> Depending on the language, that isn't always an easy task. A
the same result if you nominate a pornographic image for deletion.
Andreas
--- On Sun, 9/5/10, Anthony wrote:
From: Anthony
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Date: Sunday, 9 May, 2010, 1:32
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at
Anthony wrote:
> > > OMG. Red links would indicate to a human that there was a problem which
> > > needed to be solved. Then that human could go about solving the problem
> > > (which very well may involve more than just delinking the image).
> > What, other than delinking or uploading the miss
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, David Levy wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > OMG. Red links would indicate to a human that there was a problem which
> > needed to be solved. Then that human could go about solving the problem
> > (which very well may involve more than just delinking the image).
>
> Wh
--- On Sat, 8/5/10, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> Then another idea is to keep on Commons only those pictures which are
> non-controversial and suggest local project to keep their controversial
> pictures local? For example en Wikipedia keeps fair use pictures locally
> and it is OK. If for example nud
Svip wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 01:40, Anthony wrote:
>
>
>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Or shut off the Commons. That would be the ultimate solution :-)
>>>
>> Huh? What would that solve?
>>
>
> Considering this to be an ill conceived joke, not
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
> pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
> difficuilt to revert. On any other project if you delete something it
> is just a local issue. But deleting a picture on Commons whi
> For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
> effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
> direction. Both Jimmy as well as me believe that the best way for the
> board to do things is to give guidance to the communities. But, this
> topic is
On 9 May 2010 01:40, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>
>> Or shut off the Commons. That would be the ultimate solution :-)
>
> Huh? What would that solve?
Considering this to be an ill conceived joke, not because it could
appear 'controversial', but becaus
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2010/5/8 Anthony :
> > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Tomasz Ganicz
> wrote:
> >
> >> Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
> >> pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
> >> diffi
2010/5/8 Anthony :
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>
>> Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
>> pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
>> difficuilt to revert.
>
>
> So fix commons-delinker. Or shut it off altog
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
> pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
> difficuilt to revert.
So fix commons-delinker. Or shut it off altogether.
__
2010/5/8 David Levy :
> Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> I don't think this is a technical issue at all. Considering how
>> flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
>> appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited
>> technical power' on the projects -- just as you and a
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:07 PM, David Levy wrote:
> Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> I don't think this is a technical issue at all. Considering how
>> flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
>> appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited
>> technical power' on the
I wrote:
> Unlike those are are merely angry at him (and in some cases, lashing
> out in a nonconstructive manner), I'm truly disheartened.
"are are" = "who are"
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: ht
Samuel Klein wrote:
> I don't think this is a technical issue at all. Considering how
> flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
> appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited
> technical power' on the projects -- just as you and all of our
> developers do, at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>> This isn't an ideal situation. We should have a situation in which
>> Jimmy's technical power derives from the authority of the board of
>> trustees or from a community mandate, or we should have a situatio
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
>> This isn't an ideal situation. We should have a situation in which
>> Jimmy's technical power derives from the authority of the board of
>> trustees or from a community mandate, or we s
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Andrew Garrett
> wrote:
> > This isn't an ideal situation. We should have a situation in which
> > Jimmy's technical power derives from the authority of the board of
> > trustees or from a community mandate, or
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 08:33:49AM -0400, Samuel Klein wrote:
> I don't think this is a technical issue at all. Considering how
> flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
> appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited technical
> power' on the projects -- just
Samuel Klein wrote:
> Marcus writes:
>
>
>> I try to understand what happened...
>>
>>
>> * Larry Sanger informs media about us alleging Wikimedia of hosting
>>
> porn. [unaffirmed]
>
> He just made a lot of noise, and some media picked it up.
>
>
If you consider a false report to the FB
Hello,
2010/5/8 Samuel Klein :
(...)
>> This isn't an ideal situation. We should have a situation in which
>> Jimmy's technical power derives from the authority of the board of
>> trustees or from a community mandate, or we should have a situation in
>> which Jimmy does not have unlimited technica
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>> How can you call this 'affirmed'? Jimbo has made strong suggestions,
>> but it is the Commons community that must create and enforce its own
>> policies. The founder flag is an indica
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> How can you call this 'affirmed'? Jimbo has made strong suggestions,
> but it is the Commons community that must create and enforce its own
> policies. The founder flag is an indication of respect, and provides
> 'crat rights on all projects
Marcus writes:
> I try to understand what happened...
>
>
> * Larry Sanger informs media about us alleging Wikimedia of hosting
porn. [unaffirmed]
He just made a lot of noise, and some media picked it up.
> * The (conservative) TV station FOX reports about Wikimedia and
> contacts many important
David,
This is an excellent list of principles, which I strongly support.
Projects generally have standards of notability, which is equivalent
to "significant" informative or educational value, otherwise they fill
up with cruft. A lack of sufficient notability standards for media
not in use on a
Ting Chen wrote:
> it depends. Please point to me what you mean so that I can give you my
> opinion on the cases.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=File:F%E9licien%20Rops%20-%20Sainte-Th%E9r%E8se.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speci
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Ting Chen wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> By my opinion, the only urgency which WMF should do is to support Erik
>> to fill a lawsuit against Larry Sanger ASAP. Also, if it is not
>> possible to sue Fox and Larry Sanger on the basis of spreading lies
>> about WMF in
Hello Milos,
Milos Rancic wrote:
> By my opinion, the only urgency which WMF should do is to support Erik
> to fill a lawsuit against Larry Sanger ASAP. Also, if it is not
> possible to sue Fox and Larry Sanger on the basis of spreading lies
> about WMF in United States, I am sure that it is fully
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
> Hello Milos,
>
> At first to the two points you pointed out:
> * No, I didn't mention that sexually explicit content should be deleted
> and I still think the criteria should not be if something is sexually
> explicit. The criteria should be if i
On 8 May 2010 11:17, Ting Chen wrote:
> it depends. Please point to me what you mean so that I can give you my
> opinion on the cases.
They've been named in this thread repeatedly.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Hello David,
it depends. Please point to me what you mean so that I can give you my
opinion on the cases.
I personally disagree with some of the decisions the Commons community
made in the past, and I do think that in some cases Commons has a too
broad definition for educational, and sometimes
Ting Chen wrote:
> It is certainly possible that Jimmy in doing his work had made some false
> decisions. We all know that he do make failures. Maybe he didn't
> researched the context of a particular image, maybe in some cases his
> criteria was too narrow. One can discuss those on the case basis
Marcus Buck wrote:
> Ting Chen hett schreven:
>
>> For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
>> effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
>> direction.
>>
> Not my definition of a "soft push".
>
> In my opinion it's not the task of boar
Hello Milos,
At first to the two points you pointed out:
* No, I didn't mention that sexually explicit content should be deleted
and I still think the criteria should not be if something is sexually
explicit. The criteria should be if it has educational value. This is
what I said in my statemen
2010/5/8 Anthony :
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%A9licien_Rops_-_Sainte-Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se.png
[...]
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%A9licien_Rops_-_La_tentation_de_Saint_Antoine.jpg
[...]
> And what would that b
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Marcus Buck wrote:
> > Amory Meltzer hett schreven:
> >
> >> This is nuts. Literally, nothing has changed. Stuff on Wikimedia
> >> sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
> >> of the project and the fo
Fred Bauder wrote:
> Yes, Category:Women facing left
>
> A caricature of a Catholic saint using a dildo but used on Wikipedias in
> 3 languages to illustrate the article "dildo". I'm not a student of
> Teresa of Ávila but it seems rather unlikely she did a lot of wanton
> stuff with dildos. Not tha
Marcus Buck wrote:
> Amory Meltzer hett schreven:
>
>> This is nuts. Literally, nothing has changed. Stuff on Wikimedia
>> sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
>> of the project and the foundation. We don't host articles about my
>> her breasts or his penis, a
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>
>> By in my first few clicks on Jimmy's deletion log I instantly found
>> several hundred year old works of art by artists who have articles in
>> almost every major language Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I confess I found a certain poignancy in
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> By in my first few clicks on Jimmy's deletion log I instantly found
> several hundred year old works of art by artists who have articles in
> almost every major language Wikipedia.
>
>
>
I confess I found a certain poignancy in reading the article
on one of the victim
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/thread.html
Everything is archived.
~Amory
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A technical and sincerely genuine question about this list. Is somebody,
some bot or some site synthesizing our emailed discussion, or is
everything vanishing as soon as it is spoken?
In this last case, shouldn't we keep an organized trace of the threa
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:18 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> Is there anyone who disagrees that we need to hold to the policies:
>
> 2. that no WMF project contain material that it can not legally contain.
>
Legally contain according to what laws?
___
founda
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This, my friends, beyond the porn debate, is an important lesson about
the vulnerability of wikipedia.
You just have to threaten or convince Mr. Wales to control or shutdown
the entire project. The whole community is powerless.
When this crisis is over
When I heard that Jimmy had taken an axe to explicit images on commons,
I thought it was good news as I've been frustrated and disappointed by
my own inability to convince the commons community that some things,
like the bulk copying of erotic imagery from flickr— hundreds of
images with little to
Ting Chen hett schreven:
> For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
> effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
> direction.
Not my definition of a "soft push".
In my opinion it's not the task of board or foundation to push the
community in
Hoi,
There has been a need to address these things. Let us be clear, there is no
need for speedy deletions, there is time to have the ordinary deletion
process. Let us be equally clear that there is no room for business as usual
because not only have things gone bad and bans like the current Irania
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 15:15, Ting Chen wrote:
> For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
> effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
> direction.
The problem is that what Jimmy is doing on Commons isn't a soft push.
It's a whack across the he
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
> What I can say to your questions is that Jimmy informed the board about
> his intention and asked the board for support. Don't speaking for other
> board members, just speak for myself. I answered his mail with that I
> fully support his engageme
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 06:21:38PM -0400, MZMcBride wrote:
> Doing something good in the worst possible way. Is this not completely par
> for the course for Wikimedia? Few people should be surprised.
>
MZMcBride: You could re-state that in a more positive way:
We are happy that some initiative i
Doing something good in the worst possible way. Is this not completely par
for the course for Wikimedia? Few people should be surprised.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
What I can say to your questions is that Jimmy informed the board about
his intention and asked the board for support. Don't speaking for other
board members, just speak for myself. I answered his mail with that I
fully support his engagement.
Personally, I think that the board is responsible f
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> I don't actually see what the problem is necessarily in deleting it.
> It's called editorial judgment, and as I have been telling people for
> years and years on Wikipedia, editorial judgment =/= censorship. You
> may write the most awesome no
It's another time we have a problem which would hypothetically fall
into the scope of some "global arbcom", but since it does not exist,
I'm still not sure there's the correct way to handle such situations.
I hope that Jimbo and Board will be able to make things settle down.
Petition [1] seems to b
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:18 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> Is there anyone who disagrees that we need to hold to the policies:
>
> 1. that the WMF projects as a whole contains only material --of any
> sort , on any topic-- with informative or educational value,
Maybe we need a new motto for Commons:
Yes, Category:Women facing left
A caricature of a Catholic saint using a dildo but used on Wikipedias in
3 languages to illustrate the article "dildo". I'm not a student of
Teresa of Ávila but it seems rather unlikely she did a lot of wanton
stuff with dildos. Not that there would be anything wron
I am sure there are many people with far better understanding and knowledge
of the rules and inner workings of the project.
However, for the benefit of those who have never come across funny stuff,
these photos have been the a strong subject of edit warring by pt_wikipedia
editors. The editor adde
Is there anyone who disagrees that we need to hold to the policies:
1. that the WMF projects as a whole contains only material --of any
sort , on any topic-- with informative or educational value, and
judges that by community decision in the relevant project
2. that no WMF project contain material
Amory Meltzer hett schreven:
> If you're
> looking to masturbate, Commons is among the best, most available, and
> easiest to navigate sources of material there is
You really do think that? Write me off-list and I'll send you a list of
pages that will greatly improve masturbation sessions! It wil
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Amory Meltzer wrote:
> This is nuts. Literally, nothing has changed. Stuff on Wikimedia
> sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
> of the project and the foundation. We don't host articles about my
> her breasts or his penis, and we
Hoi,
We apparently disagree on this. The ban of the complete Wikimedia domain
from Iran happened some time ago and nothing was considered. This issue has
been raised several times and the amount of content that is inappropriate
because it adds nothing to what is already there is high.
Let me be cl
Amory Meltzer hett schreven:
> This is nuts. Literally, nothing has changed. Stuff on Wikimedia
> sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
> of the project and the foundation. We don't host articles about my
> her breasts or his penis, and we don't need to host image
It still works, it's just harder. And I'm totally with you on the
second point. Jimmy got a needed process started. Could he have
started it a different, less dramatic way? Probably. Would that have
been better? Probably. As effective? Probably not. If you're
looking to masturbate, Commons
On 7 May 2010 21:56, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> There is a board message about this that is completely in line with what
> Jimmy mentioned. When you consider that because of many of those images that
> should have remained private the whole Wikmedia domain has been blogged, we
> really have t
On 7 May 2010 21:56, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> There is a board message about this that is completely in line with what
> Jimmy mentioned. When you consider that because of many of those images that
> should have remained private the whole Wikmedia domain has been blogged, we
> really have t
Hoi,
There is a board message about this that is completely in line with what
Jimmy mentioned. When you consider that because of many of those images that
should have remained private the whole Wikmedia domain has been blogged, we
really have to consider how we deal with this issue.
The first prio
On 7 May 2010 21:42, Amory Meltzer wrote:
> This is nuts. Literally, nothing has changed. Stuff on Wikimedia
> sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
> of the project and the foundation. We don't host articles about my
> her breasts or his penis, and we don't need
This is nuts. Literally, nothing has changed. Stuff on Wikimedia
sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
of the project and the foundation. We don't host articles about my
her breasts or his penis, and we don't need to host images of them
either. Arguing otherwise
But how should we see Jimbo's actions?
Jimbo isn't a administrator on Commons, the community didn't vote about his
adminship so he is using the Founder flag.
That he can use the Founder flag for doing his thing we can see this as a
staff / board action?
Best regards,
--
Huib "Abigor" Laurens
Hooray for letting American prurience and Larry Sanger's oddities shape the
project. To be expected, though.
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Sydney Poore wrote:
> The primary reason that several weeks back I became involved in the
> Common's
> discussions about sexually explicit content is my wo
I try to understand what happened, but I'm not sure whether the pieces
that I found so far add up.
* Larry Sanger is mad about Wikimedia. [apparent]
* Larry Sanger notifies the FBI and tells them Wikimedia hosts child
porn. [affirmed]
* The FBI is rather unimpressed and does not take swift actio
The primary reason that several weeks back I became involved in the Common's
discussions about sexually explicit content is my work with the strategic
planning process for WMF. During the strategic plannings discussions, I
became acutely aware of the problems with the lack of diversity among WMF
re
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
