Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

I think I would accept that some language wikis decide, by consensus, > that they will not show illustrations of Mohammed under any > circumstances. > > They should not ask for a boycott of another language, though. They > could have a protest page with a list of users who want to sign up to > it.

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

I don't know Krishna case, nor Western Church, but according to the Tradition (or the Holy Tradition as the church says), thus not accoding to secular people, - St. Paul, his portrait is described by Eusebius, who records a 2nd century account in "The History of the Church", and at least Eastern O

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.* As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic images which display any god or prophet? *Second: You know millions of Muslims find images of Mohammad extremely offensive. * Christians (And then i am mostly talking abo

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

And a reply to no one in specific: It seems that Si Gam Acèhhas reverted the steward removal of the template from the ACE mainpage, causing it to be displayed again. ~Excirial ___ foundati

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Hoi, Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ? The notion that what somebody does who holds a title like steward is not that firm in our community. The recent fracas about problematic images at Commons is a clear indication of that. Thanks, GerardM On 17 July 2010 11:56, Exciri

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On 07/17/2010 04:39 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: > First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant. There are no authentic images of most characters from the Bible. Yet I believe at least 1 % of works of art on Commons contain them. --vvv ___ founda

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> *First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.* > As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic > images > which display any god or prophet? Yes, there are photographs of Joseph Smith, Jr. and of Bahá'u'lláh a prophet of the Bahá'í Faith. http://en.wikipedia.or

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*Hoi, Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ?* I have no idea to be honest, as i only just noticed it myself. The steward in question (Laaknor) is also subscribed to this mailing list and present in this specific thread, so i think we can await his answer on this. Based upon his con

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> On 07/17/2010 04:39 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant. > > There are no authentic images of most characters from the Bible. Yet I > believe at least 1 % of works of art on Commons contain them. > > --vvv > There is a difference between using an ima

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Fred Bauder > wrote: >>... >> >> That's the issue. Displaying offensive religious images is a big >> problem, >> not a tiny little problem that can be brushed under the rug. You're >> doing >> something that outrages millions of people and saying, "Hey, tough".

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> I think I would accept that some language wikis decide, by consensus, >> that they will not show illustrations of Mohammed under any >> circumstances. >> >> They should not ask for a boycott of another language, though. They >> could have a protest page with a list of users who want to sign up to

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*Yes, there are alternatives to religious beliefs. In this case the alternative is the view that offensive bogus images should be displayed. Saying that is fine; doing it another.* *Wikipedia:Reliable sources IS policy. There are no authentic images of Muhammad. Including one outside the realm of

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Excirial wrote: > *First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.* > As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic images > which display any god or prophet? > Do they not have traditional images that go back millennia? If you depicted images of Shiva as Yoda you

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> Excirial wrote: >> *First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.* >> As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic >> images >> which display any god or prophet? >> > > Do they not have traditional images that go back millennia? If you > depicted images of Shiva

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:06 PM, wrote: > > ... I know an artist friend of > > mine draw a number of Ronald Reagun sucking a horses dick and shitting > > nuclear missiles. Perhaps I'll take some scans and add them to: > > > > http://commons.w

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

John Vandenberg wrote: > in the article about Jesus. > > If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles > relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much > free time on their hands. The images of Muhammad that we use are > images of an object which is held

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

I was raised areligious and I see a clear difference there. On the one hand, you're talking about portraying a religious figure on a sex toy; on the other hand you're just talking about portraying a religious figure. Just on the grounds of being offensive, I don't think either should be excluded fr

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different? On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:40 AM, wrote: > John Vandenberg wrote: >> in the article about Jesus. >> >> If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles >> relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

So the logic seems to be thus - if I tell employee X something about my life, interests, experience, C.V. that could possibly be of use or interest to the Foundation, it's fine to store it on a central database where all and sundry within the Foundation can get at it, despite the fact that this was

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

*So the logic seems to be thus - if I tell employee X something about my life, interests, experience, C.V. that could possibly be of use or interest to the Foundation, it's fine to store it on a central database where all and sundry within the Foundation can get at it, despite the fact that this wa

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to display an image that is known to offend. I note that none of the references in that article actually display the image and are far more informative of the actual controversy surrounding the image. The wikipedia article also do

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

I'd rather not speculate about what happens or the intent before someone from the WMF who is responsible for this clarifies the statement. I hope we all can hold ourselves from guessing and seeking logic until that moment. Lodewijk 2010/7/17 Oliver Keyes > So the logic seems to be thus - if I t

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On 17 July 2010 12:40, wrote: > John Vandenberg wrote: >> in the article about Jesus. >> If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles >> relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much >> free time on their hands.  The images of Muhammad that we use are

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

I'm not sure what's so unreasonable about including an image of an art work in the article about it. I would not be against the use of the goatse.cx image in that article, although we'd have to make sure to not allow it to be used outside of that page (to prevent vandalism). On Sat, Jul 17, 2010

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 Now Posted

On 17 July 2010 00:28, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > I'm a bit late here, but I have three (little) questions: > 1) Page 7, part VI, section A, line 7a: "Does the organization have > members, stockholders, or other persons who may elect one or more > members of the governing body?" Why is the answ

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to display an image that is known to offend. I note that none of the references in that article actually display the image and are far more informative of the actual controversy surrounding the image. The wikipedia article also

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On 17 July 2010 14:13, Mark Williamson wrote: > I'm not sure what's so unreasonable about including an image of an art > work in the article about it. I would not be against the use of the > goatse.cx image in that article, although we'd have to make sure to > not allow it to be used outside of t

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

On 17 July 2010 13:53, Lodewijk wrote: > I'd rather not speculate about what happens or the intent before someone > from the WMF who is responsible for this clarifies the statement. I hope we > all can hold ourselves from guessing and seeking logic until that moment. This is foundation-l... your

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

David Gerard wrote: > On 17 July 2010 12:40, wrote: >> John Vandenberg wrote: >>> in the article about Jesus. > >>> If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles >>> relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much >>> free time on their hands. The image

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Gerard Meijssen, 17/07/2010 12:01: > Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ? Yes: http://ace.wikipedia.org/?diff=19301 http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8h#Don.27t_attack_other_Wikipedias.21 Does somebody know if there's some discussion ongoing wit

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, wrote: > When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the > specific articles that have piss taking images, or images of him > trampling on the 10 commandments, or being tortured in hell? > > Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm incli

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Actually, to clarify; it's a particular Islamic sect which has a problem. A lot of the smaller groups really don't care. On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Nathan wrote: > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, wrote: > > > When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the > > spec

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*Does somebody know if there's some discussion ongoing with ace.wiki users somewhere?* I have tried to determine if this was the case, but so far i see no real indication of this. I tried to check some recent contributions from the involved parties, but none seem to be no internal dialog (on-wiki

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 Now Posted

Hello, Under rare circumstances, the Board could choose not to appoint someone who won a community election to a seat; however in that case the candidate receiving the next most votes must be appointed instead. That may constitute an election process, despite the caveat.[1] SJ [1] From IV.3.C o

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different? There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend? Piss Christ was an artistic-political controversy

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> This turns out not to be the case. In practice, anything that is even > *purported* to be an image of Mohammed is condemned. > > (And, as the article on the history of such images notes - this is a > modern POV of one particularly noisy and violent group rather than a > constant over the history

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?* 1) It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an encyclopedia. 2) We do not cater

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If > we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on. It's the very core of the whole this issue. That's why it's so ...mission critical to stay very firm with WP:5P with all due respect to all and ev

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Seconded, particularly (2). The line I use with OTRS and other complainants about muhammad images is simply that; that we cannot favour one particular group, because we'd have to favour a second, and so on - the end result is removing everything anyone could ever find offensive. On Sat, Jul 17, 20

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On 07/17/2010 06:57 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > Piss Christ was an artistic-political controversy. Oh, and Jyllands-Posten wasn't? --vvv ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listin

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Nathan wrote: > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, wrote: > >> When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the >> specific articles that have piss taking images, or images of him >> trampling on the 10 commandments, or being tortured in hell? >> >> Unless there is evidence to

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

Sorry -- is there a question outstanding? I know Nathan posted some questions about the annual plan (which I think Veronique'll answer, and if she she doesn't I will). If there was something else, I think it slipped right past me. Thanks, Sue --Original Message-- From: Thomas Dalton S

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Excirial wrote: > *There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it > is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a > mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?* > > 1) It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an > ency

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Talking about the inclusion of different images is beside the point. Each project can, and does, decide what content is appropriate for it. You could call this selection "censorship", although it is very much an editorial decision that anyone writing anything must make. If a particular wiki decides

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of selected images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking of all images?* See the FAQ section on Talk:Muhammad, which contains an easy method to hide the images tro

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> There is no problem > with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article > wording Is that really so? ... and please don't mix that with personal, by own choice made editorial decision(s) On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Prodego wrote: > Talking about the inclusion of dif

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

There are some constraints on what is written - it is supposed to be a neutrally presented encyclopedia. But if a particular wiki's community comes to a different conclusion than another on what is neutral than another, who is to say which one is "right"? 'What is neutral?' is one of the things co

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

The community of each wiki can decide which illustrations are best for a certain article, true. Using foundation resources (banner, cpu, bandwidth) to campaign against other foundation projects should be avoided. Protest against decisions of WMF is one thing, lobbying against a whole WMF project i

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Oh well, if any community is completely free to define what is neutral... :( On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Prodego wrote: > There are some constraints on what is written - it is supposed to be a > neutrally presented encyclopedia. But if a particular wiki's community comes > to a different c

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

I don't think any community, even one from a majority Muslim nation, could reasonably consider following the doctrine of a particular Islamic sect with no other considerations "neutral". Anyone who things "neutral point of view" means "consider the ONE ACCEPTABLE POINT OF VIEW TO US AS INDIVIDUALS"

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

On 17 July 2010 18:29, Sue Gardner wrote: > Sorry -- is there a question outstanding?  I know Nathan posted some > questions about the annual plan (which I think Veronique'll answer, and if > she she doesn't I will).  If there was something else, I think it slipped > right past me. Lodewijk re

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

An additional question; is there going to be an explicit need to gain permission, or is it simply going to be the implicit assumption that the person does/does not want their information stored? On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 17 July 2010 18:29, Sue Gardner wrote: > >

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

I was mainly wondering what the stakeholder database would look like - what information will be in there, how is it gathered, will information from existing databases be merged? (for example, if I am an editor and I happen to make a donation - will that information be put into one combined database

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

"Wiki-list", the huge glaring difference is that the goatse.cx image is a pornographic image and we were unable to identify the subject of it, which raises potential privacy concerns. Please don't accuse me of hypocrisy as I am personally in favor of including that image in that article. On Sat

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Excirial wrote: > *Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of selected > images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking of > all images?* > > See the FAQ section on > Talk:Muhammad, > which contains an easy

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Note from the Board Chair

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Ting Chen wrote: > Dear friends, > > Today, here in Gdansk,  at the meeting of the Board of Trustees during the > sixth annual Wikimania Conference, the Board made some important changes. I'm > pleased to share this news with you.  The Foundation will be issuing a

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Mark Williamson wrote: > "Wiki-list", the huge glaring difference is that the goatse.cx image > is a pornographic image and we were unable to identify the subject of > it, which raises potential privacy concerns. Please don't accuse me of > hypocrisy as I am personally in favor of including that im

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any one of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling. Except t

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Don't censor except when "you" do? That's one of the problems with this thread, it seems everything's been made personal. I don't censor anything. I was not involved in the debate about deleting the goatse image, nor have I been much involved in the Muhammad debate, but I am a firm believer in non-

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

"You" - again, this is not (or at least it should not) be about ME and YOU. I did not upload any of those images, I did not vote for (or against - I didn't know the vote was taking place) the deletion of the Goatse image, I'm merely stating the reason it was deleted. We have rules, some of our page

[Foundation-l] Copy editors' tab

Hey Everyone, I posted an ideaI had into meta, and was looking for some feedback! Thank you Chris ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https:

[Foundation-l] free software policies

Hi All: I'm still riding the wave of enjoyment I caught at Wikimania in Gdansk, thanks for that :). One of the topics that came up in my conversations there had to do with Wikimedia's policies surrounding free software. It is my view that a good portion of 'the sum of all knowledge' is currently