On 5/15/2010 4:34 AM, Joan Goma wrote:
> *The roots of the problem*
>
> Michael, if the Board is analyzing the issue then it should address the
> roots of the problem.
>
We would like to. Roots are sometimes difficult to get at.
> The fact that recent discussion has taken place around sexual im
Michael Snow
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Statement on appropriate educational
>content
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <4bee4264.9020...@verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 5/7/2010 5:30 PM, Sue Gard
On 5/7/2010 5:30 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> On 7 May 2010 16:07, Kim Bruning wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 12:30:18PM -0700, Michael Snow wrote:
>>
>>> announce-l still has issues. The Board of Trustees has directed me to
>>> release the following statement:
>>>
>> Just to be
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:39 PM, stevertigo wrote: For
one, successful companies can get too
>
> big and lose focus: Drifting into "wiki" priorities instead of
> "encyclopedia" priorities, for example, would be the albatross here.
> That's not to say that we shouldn't further pursue the science of
Ting Chen wrote:
>> Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource has by themselves no educational
>> value. They gain their educational value in the way that they provide
>> repositories for the other WMF projects.
Samuel Klein wrote:
> Hold on, now. These are all awesome educational projects in their own
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, K. Peachey wrote:
> Bugzilla 982[1] MediaWiki should support ICRA's PICS content labeling.
> From my understanding without reading much about it, It [ICRA] is ment
> to be a "international" or at least a standard for these things which
> most people seem to abide
On 9 May 2010 06:09, K. Peachey wrote:
> Bugzilla 982[1] MediaWiki should support ICRA's PICS content labeling.
> From my understanding without reading much about it, It [ICRA] is ment
> to be a "international" or at least a standard for these things which
> most people seem to abide by (i see i
Thanks for your prompt response, Ting. Fine to see we come to
agreement so quickly :)
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Ting Chen wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> the following sentence from me is surely a very stupid sentense. I
> apology for it. And thanks for everyone, especially Aphaia and SJ for
> poin
Hello all,
the following sentence from me is surely a very stupid sentense. I
apology for it. And thanks for everyone, especially Aphaia and SJ for
pointing this out to me.
Ting
Ting Chen wrote:
> Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource has by themselves no educational
> value. They gain their educ
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> It is *NOT* *OUR* *ROLE* to decide what is and is not "appropriate"
> for children to view on our website. That role is to be discharged
> solely by parents and supervisors of those children.
>
> The *ONLY* rating and classification system t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/05/2010 22:20, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
>> 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 h
> So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm)" ?
> There is plenty of stuff to be delete then... not only penis and
> vagina pictures... For example delete all biographies of porn-stars,
> articles about addictive violent computer games, and there is tons of
> things to be d
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> 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 be technically simpl
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm)" ?
>> There is plenty of stuff to be delete then... not only penis and
>> vagina pictures... For example delete all biographies of porn-stars,
>> articles about addictive vi
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Excirial wrote:
> Educational and inappropriate are not static terms, as the definition can
> vary between groups of people.
I disagree with this.
> Ergo, take the group "pre-puberty kids".
> Plenty of parents would find it objectionable if their children would
*You agreed yourself that there were certain images that were "inappropriate
for children", but would be educational and/or informative for certain niche
professionals. That sounds to me like a choice needs to be made. It's just
like the choices that are made in every encyclopedia article on Wiki
Hi,
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Tomek writes:
>
>> So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm)" ?
>
> For what it's worth, I personally don't see the issue as one of making
> Commons (or Wikipedia or any other project) "family-friendly."
I believe
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Has it occurred to you that we could simply _age-rate_ articles, rather
> than delete them? An article on a pornographic novel could be 18-rated,
> just like the novel itself. Same with porn star bios, which aren't likely
> to be of interest t
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2010/5/8 Anthony :
>
> > I dunno, when framed that way it seems the answer is to be
> family-friendly,
> > and to let the specialists get their information in specialist resources.
>
> So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendl
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> There's also no urgent legal issue driving any changes to Commons -- we
> don't have reason to believe any category of content we knowingly carry on
> Commons is definitionally illegal under U.S. law. (Obviously, when if people
> upload content
Tomek writes:
So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm)" ?
> There is plenty of stuff to be delete then... not only penis and
> vagina pictures... For example delete all biographies of porn-stars,
> articles about addictive violent computer games, and there is tons of
> t
Why do you believe that there is a need to make a "choice" between groups of
people? We can easily supply all the data - it is up to the user to decide
if they want to access it. Anyone active on the internet has the potential
to unearth vast amounts of data. There are pro-choice and pro-life sites
> 2010/5/8 Anthony :
>
>> I dunno, when framed that way it seems the answer is to be
>> family-friendly,
>> and to let the specialists get their information in specialist
>> resources.
>
> So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm)" ?
> There is plenty of stuff to be delete
2010/5/8 Anthony :
> I dunno, when framed that way it seems the answer is to be family-friendly,
> and to let the specialists get their information in specialist resources.
So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm)" ?
There is plenty of stuff to be delete then... not onl
>
> So which group is more important? Which is the better answer, to tell
> families to go elsewhere, or to tell the specialists to go elsewhere?
>
> I dunno, when framed that way it seems the answer is to be
> family-friendly,
> and to let the specialists get their information in specialist reso
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Excirial wrote:
> Sexual and medical images might be entirely inappropriate for children, but
> they provide valuable information for other groups of people - for example,
> a gynecologist or a medical student might have a completely non sexual
> reason to look at
Is it really our task to worry about the impact certain content might have
in a certain culture? There will always be people who are offended by a
certain image, phrase or comment, and we cannot possibly accommodate
everyone. I would argue that we *should not *consider ourselves educators
who's goa
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Fred Bauder
> wrote:
>> It comes down to the size of the tent. If you want students in Saudi
>> Arabia to be able to use Wikipedia it has to be structured one way. If
>> you want to please gay college students you structure it another way.
> [snip]
>
> The deletio
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> It comes down to the size of the tent. If you want students in Saudi
> Arabia to be able to use Wikipedia it has to be structured one way. If
> you want to please gay college students you structure it another way.
[snip]
The deletions performed
It comes down to the size of the tent. If you want students in Saudi
Arabia to be able to use Wikipedia it has to be structured one way. If
you want to please gay college students you structure it another way.
Really there is no right or wrong; it's a matter of who the resource is
going to be avai
H...
> The vast majority of that material is entirely uncontroversial, but the
> projects do contain material that may be inappropriate or offensive to
> some audiences, such as children or people with religious or cultural
> sensitivities.
Time to delete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_
On 8 May 2010 18:35, Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
>> Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource has by themselves no educational
>> value. They gain their educational value in the way that they provide
>> repositories for the other WMF projects.
> Hold on, now.
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
> Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource has by themselves no educational
> value. They gain their educational value in the way that they provide
> repositories for the other WMF projects.
Hold on, now. These are all awesome educational projects in th
Disagreed. Those free licensed (or sometimes public domain) content on
Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource are not only cited on Wikimedia
wikis but on third parties' publifications: from websites to books and
magazines. They help to spread "a sum of human being knowledge" per
se, not just repositor
Hi,
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
> Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource has by themselves no educational
> value. They gain their educational value in the way that they provide
> repositories for the other WMF projects. Wikisource is the library of
> Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikine
True, some people read news sources for titillation by tabloid
contents, but most read to learn about current events, which is
certainly one important role of education
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Victor Vasiliev
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 10:57:52AM -0400, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> >> We already do what we can to help Muslims censor themselves.
> >>
> >> See [[Talk:Muhammad]], faq 4.
> >
> > Dang.
> >
> > All this censorship makes me feel a lot dirtier than the
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Ting Chen wrote:
> Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource has by themselves no educational
> value. They gain their educational value in the way that they provide
> repositories for the other WMF projects.
What about Wikinews? What educational value does it have?
--vvv
Hi,
2010/5/8 Ting Chen :
> Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource has by themselves no educational
> value. They gain their educational value in the way that they provide
> repositories for the other WMF projects. Wikisource is the library of
> Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikiversity an
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>> We already do what we can to help Muslims censor themselves.
>>
>> See [[Talk:Muhammad]], faq 4.
>
> Dang.
>
> All this censorship makes me feel a lot dirtier than the "smut" it is
> censoring.
>
Huh? You're against giving people the choice
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
> Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource has by themselves no educational
> value. They gain their educational value in the way that they provide
> repositories for the other WMF projects. Wikisource is the library of
> Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikinews,
Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource has by themselves no educational
value. They gain their educational value in the way that they provide
repositories for the other WMF projects. Wikisource is the library of
Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikiversity and Wikispecies.
The volumes col
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
>> Having said that, the Wikimedia projects are intended to be educational
>> in nature, and there is no place in the projects for material that has
>> no educational or informational va
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> Having said that, the Wikimedia projects are intended to be educational
> in nature, and there is no place in the projects for material that has
> no educational or informational value.
I'd like to point out that we already have a project whe
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 08:09:34PM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> > On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 03:58:10PM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote:
> >> Instead of deleting pornographic content that we deem "important" to
> >> the projects, we can tag those i
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:09 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> [[Internet Content Rating Association]]
Thanks for info. This can be a very good solution!
Every user could fill the questionnaire and he or she would see just
the content which he or she is willing to see.
Some defaults may be applied:
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 05:30:09PM -0700, Sue Gardner wrote:
> On 7 May 2010 16:07, Kim Bruning wrote:
> > On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 12:30:18PM -0700, Michael Snow wrote:
> >> announce-l still has issues. The Board of Trustees has directed me to
> >> release the following statement:
> >>
> >
> > Jus
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 03:58:10PM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> Instead of deleting pornographic content that we deem "important" to
>> the projects, we can tag those images in a uniform manner and emit
>> POWDER ICRA labelling[1] or similar
Hoi,
In my opinion there are three issues.
- there is an influx of material that is best kept private
- there is material that some may object to
- we can not fulfil our aim because Commons and Wikimedia gets blocked in
countries like Iran
All the pictures best kept private can be del
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 03:58:10PM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Instead of deleting pornographic content that we deem "important" to
> the projects, we can tag those images in a uniform manner and emit
> POWDER ICRA labelling[1] or similar. The filters can then scale with
> us.
Shall we also m
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:58 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> ...snip...
> Instead of deleting pornographic content that we deem "important" to
> the projects, we can tag those images in a uniform manner and emit
> POWDER ICRA labelling[1] or similar. The filters can then scale with
> us.
> 1. http://
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:06 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> ... I see no reason why we should cooperate
> with censorship, however well intentioned.
I think cooperation with censorship is the only safe ground.
If we perform censorship ourselves, the quality of our projects
suffers and/or contributors
I can't follow your reasoning there. Ensuring that Commons can be safely
viewed by minors is not censorship, in my opinion. I am actually fine with
uncensored pornographic content for adults, but I think we will end up
cutting ourselves off from the younger generation if we don't cooperate
with
The only existing US law that I think Commons might possibly not be
complying with is the requirement to ensure that the models of some
pictures are not minors; to what extent these provisions might be
retroactive, IANAL, much less a specialist in these matters, is
something that I do not know.
Bu
One thing which I would have wished the Board's statement to address is the
need for some sort of content rating and filtering system that will enable
parents, schools and libraries to screen out content unsuitable for minors.
Anyone giving minors access to Commons presently also gives them rea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> It seems like a lot of bullshit and spin to me, but perhaps there are
> nuggets of valuable information buried somewhere in there.
You forget that his job title is "Head of Communications" -- not that we
don't love him to pieces, but spin is his jo
Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 12:30:18PM -0700, Michael Snow wrote:
>> announce-l still has issues. The Board of Trustees has directed me to
>> release the following statement:
>>
>
> Just to be sure:
> Are there no other statements that have been made by the board
> or are being p
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> Kim, the board (and I) have been talking about this for the past
> couple of days, and we'll continue to talk about it over the next
> couple of weeks. I think it's fairly likely there will be some kind
> of statement or statements at the end
On 7 May 2010 16:07, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 12:30:18PM -0700, Michael Snow wrote:
>> announce-l still has issues. The Board of Trustees has directed me to
>> release the following statement:
>>
>
> Just to be sure:
> Are there no other statements that have been made by the bo
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 12:30:18PM -0700, Michael Snow wrote:
> announce-l still has issues. The Board of Trustees has directed me to
> release the following statement:
>
Just to be sure:
Are there no other statements that have been made by the board
or are being planned to be made by the board
On 7 May 2010 22:27, Michael Snow wrote:
> Is there some particular reason for using that as an example?
Only in that it's the one I'm aware of from old BLP debates. The
statement makes exactly the same error as was being made then. Making
a statement supposedly about all projects when really at
geni wrote:
> On 7 May 2010 20:30, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> Having said that, the Wikimedia projects are intended to be educational
>> in nature, and there is no place in the projects for material that has
>> no educational or informational value.
>>
> Err the user namespace? the project n
On 7 May 2010 20:30, Michael Snow wrote:
> Having said that, the Wikimedia projects are intended to be educational
> in nature, and there is no place in the projects for material that has
> no educational or informational value.
Err the user namespace? the project namespace?
>In saying this, we
Hoi,
I learned about the imminence of this announcement and as I often do I
blogged about it. As you will read I am in favour of scrutinizing much of
the material that is largely irrelevant. At the same time there are
historical reasons why we should not go overboard and remove much of the
material
Distributing this more widely, since apparently the forwarding from
announce-l still has issues. The Board of Trustees has directed me to
release the following statement:
The Wikimedia Foundation projects aim to bring the sum of human
knowledge to every person on the planet. To that end, our pr
65 matches
Mail list logo
