Re: [Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:51 AM, wrote: > How about this one.  Every arrest (read block for 24 hours or longer) must be > approved by an "Admin Supervisor" (let's just call it for now).  That Admin > Supervisor, must use a Real Name and be Verified. > > That by itself, would greatly cut down on

Re: [Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:33 PM, wrote: > In a message dated 11/7/2009 10:56:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, > andreeng...@gmail.com writes: > > >> We tried that on nl: (although with 1 week rather than 24 hours >> minimum). The effect of this is that _each and every block_ will get >> the whole wiki

Re: [Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:05 AM, David Goodman wrote: > We need, as does every voluntary society, the involvement of many > ordinary members in  each aspect of the government of the society.  We > need, thus, the influence of community opinion--expressed opinion, > expressed without fear of reject

[Foundation-l] Banners

It's interesting that this list has been effectively closed just before it would be getting a true storm of protest... But on the off-chance that it's actually nobody writing here rather than nobody being there to get the messages through: Why o why these ugly, YELLING, unclear banners? At many pl

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:37 PM, George Herbert wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg > wrote: >> I am not talking about "pedophilia activism", but instances where the >> individual in question is not disruptively editing. > > There are a wide variety of reasons to permanentl

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Teofilo wrote: > How about moving the servers (5) from Florida to a cold country > (Alaska, Canada, Finland, Russia) so that they can be used to heat > offices or homes ? It might not be unrealistic as one may read such > things as "the solution was to provide nea

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > We've advertised third party for-profits in the past with prominent > matched donations notices before (albeit controversially). This isn't > that different. As you say, that one was controversial and this one isn't that different. Then it s

Re: [Foundation-l] commercial use of wikipedia content

On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Istvan Soos wrote: > For the sake of example we would like to automatically convert the > page content to a different text and different format (e.g. > automatically create text extracts and compile it into a pdf document) > and sell it as part of a subscription

Re: [Foundation-l] (no subject)

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:23 AM, C F wrote: > With 2 personal phone numbers? Nevermind it seems that one of them has > the wrong area code (although I might be wrong), which suggests that > the phone numbers were the only things intended for that email. Those are probably just their standard signa

Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Erik Zachte wrote: > Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: > > Where do our readers come from? > > > >   http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Going through the countries, another remarkable result in my opinion is the Ukraine - Ukra

Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > Ziko van Dijk wrote: >> Thank you for the numbers, Erik! >> I wonder why 40 % of the visitors of ksh.WP (the dialect of Cologne) are >> from Japan. And why 25 % of the visitors of eu.WP (Basque) are from Poland? > > Bots? I think that's a

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy on CNN

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2010/1/19 Domas Mituzas : >> Hello dear people, >> >> there's something very very very special about the video at >> http://cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2010/01/19/ctw.connector.jimmy.wales.cnn >> You can definitely see that organization just

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia history ! (urgent)

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Chad wrote: > While I don't agree that we need to take this away from the community > and hand it to a team of lawyers, I must say that the "practical training" > caught my eye. > > Would it be possible for the Foundation to get Mike--and other people > who actua

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:36 AM, The Cunctator wrote: > No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A "free" > license is a copyright license. So? What does that have to do with the post you are quoting, or anything else in this thread? > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:11 PM,

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Przykuta wrote: >> > Or just use common sense that it's silly for a Wikimedia project to say >> > it's >> > not allowed to use a logo own by Wikimedia Foundation >> >> It is not "common sense" to depend on the relationship between the >> project and the hosti

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Mike Godwin wrote: > It's crazy. sv.wiki still has "unfree" logo on every page :) >> It is "unfree" to protect wiki identity. >> > > This is exactly right.  If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions on > the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial fo

Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:19 PM, James Alexander wrote: > I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big > issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many > people use google maps or another tool to find the geo location. The > locations themselv

Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:28 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: > Guys, > Lets get back to one point : terms of service. > > We are talking about copyright here the whole time, but the contract > agreement in the terms of service are much more binding, they override > your copyright. > > If

Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > It wasn't a response -- I hadn't read your comment yet.  But when I did see > your comment, I thought it missed the point that Fox was always going to > congratulate itself on its story, regardless of what we did or didn't do in > response. I'v

Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andre Engels wrote: >> >> So instead we just give in to them? We get attacked and decide to just >> sit up like a good dog? > > No one is acting "like a good dog." Bad meta

Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Alec Conroy wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: >> >> I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do >> things from the "Founder" flag. > > I appreciate this step, but the community has now firmly rejected your > continued s

Re: [Foundation-l] Statement on appropriate educational content

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Commons:Sexual content

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote: > Okay, I've complained a lot, time to give something back. > > I think I've managed to create a sexual content policy that's > consistent with the core values of commons and previous decisions, > such as the artworks of Muhammed,  while dealing

Re: [Foundation-l] Commons:Sexual content

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kim Bruning wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote: >> Being educational should be just another word for being in scope, and >> in scope are, in my opinion, in the first place those files that are >> usable for

Re: [Foundation-l] Commons:Sexual content

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Noein wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10/05/2010 05:51, Andre Engels wrote: >> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kim Bruning wrote: >>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote: >&

Re: [Foundation-l] Another board member statement

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:05 AM, stevertigo wrote: > Kat Walsh wrote: >> "Commons should not be a host for media that has very >> little informational or educational value > > This is too broad. Confine the scope toward dealing with what does not > belong, rather than trying to suggest that every

Re: [Foundation-l] Another board member statement

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:13 AM, stevertigo wrote: > Stephen Bain wrote: >>It is not too broad; Commons has always distinguished itself in this >>way from general purpose photo/media hosting services like Flickr or >>YouTube. > > Andre Engels wrote: >> I disag

Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > When you look where what languages have their biggest audience, you will be > surprised. The notion of most likely languages is either based on such > statistics or it is only guess work. The best performance is when people can > cho

Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: >> Is that possible without putting WMF lawyers in a tight spot? > > Sometimes. Sometimes not. (The issue is not so much putting lawyers in a > tight spot as it is one of making WMF more vulnerable, e.g., by revealing > defense strategies.) Sure

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: change of registered TMs in Persian wikipedia

I think that we cannot decide this for you, this is typically something you (that is, the Persian Wikipedia community) have to decide themselves. Having said that, the best strategy in my opinion would be to do whatever is usual in Persian texts - which might well be different for different tradema

Re: [Foundation-l] encouraging women's participation

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Aphaia wrote: > One thing we can do would be to make contributors' names more visible. > Translators for WMF stuff too (Ting Chen made a good point about the > latter in Alexandria). Many websites gives clear credits to > contributors - not only for-profit media, b

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: > I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a > book's pages and TOC.  Wikisource is becoming AWESOME. > > Do we have PGDP contributors who can weigh on on how similar the > processes are?  Is there a way for us to actua

Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against "copyleft"

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Jeffrey Peters <17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote: > Thank you for clarifying. I put forth another email based on the expectation > of the point you just made (so, thus, I am sorry for assuming you were > speaking against the law and not in support of the licens

Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against "copyleft"

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM, wrote: > When I go to YouTube, the number of videos which are some bad amateur > singer trying to sing some good song far outweigh the number of original > videos > of that song/group.  The amount of free content in music, in general is > rapidly approaching or

Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters <17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote: > Austin, > > Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. Gerard's > call for political activism against that organization is completely > unacceptable and harms projects like my own that

Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Austin Hair wrote: > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Andre Engels wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters >> <17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote: >>> Austin, >>> >>> Maybe you didn't realiz

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Samuel J Klein wrote: > < PGDP has a very strict and arduous workflow...  The >> result is quality, however only the text is sent downstream. > > Why not send images and text downstream? Because PGDP produces for Project Gutenberg, which publishes text and html

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > Good question! ;-) > Storage is one issue. > It would be interesting to estimate the storage requirements of > Wikisource if we had produced the PGDP etexts. I think it is the main reason; however, a back-of-the-envelope calculation (20.0

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

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Muhammad Yahia wrote: >> Acehnese Wikipedia is ready to boycott Wikipedia if there is fatwa from >> competent ulama. > > > In addition to trying to have a dialog with them and explain NPOV and the > rest of the pillars, I think someone should explain that the money

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

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:25 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 16 July 2010 17:58, Excirial wrote: > >> If a culture sees these images as highly offensive, and if the main >> complement of editors / readers agrees with this i wouldn't object to such a >> rule, as long as it remained in their local Wik

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

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:14 PM, David Gerard wrote: > That there is ambiguity at the edges does not disprove NPOV. Day fades > into night, but they're different things. This template is blatant > advocacy to violate NPOV, and indeed to do so across all Wikimedia > sites. They had it up on the ma

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

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote: >> So? Is every single rule on Wikipedia completely determined by NPOV? > > As to the best of my understanding > Each and every single rule on Wikipedia is completely determined by > WP:5P (and NPOV is one of them) in sense that no rule may con

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

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Bod Notbod wrote: > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Andre Engels wrote: > >>> As to the best of my understanding >>> Each and every single rule on Wikipedia is completely determined by >>> WP:5P (and NPOV is one of them) in

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

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Mark Williamson wrote: > Andre, I personally don't have a problem with the mere existence of > the template. I have a huge problem with it appearing at the top of > the mainpage of a Wikipedia. And the reason for telling this to me is what? -- André Engels, an

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:13 AM, emijrp wrote: > Also, reading the Privacy Policy[10] of the Wikimedia Foundation, you can > see: > > User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User > contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login > status. Data on user

Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote: > Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use Wikimedia > marks ? Because they might feel a need to identify themselves as part of Wikimedia. Yes, there is much talk about use of Wikimedia trademarks here, but I think that

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Marc Riddell wrote: > Phoebe, does this sound familiar? "We want you to imagine a world in which > every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That > is our commitment". "We're in it for the long haul". (From: "Ten things you > may not kn

Re: [Foundation-l] Plethora of overlapping Categories

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Rui Correia wrote: > I know I am in the wrong place for this. Normally this kind of thing would/ > should go on the "discuss" pages, but category discuss pages don't attract > much attention. > > If you consult Categories: Sailors/ Navigators/ Explorers, you will

Re: [Foundation-l] Amicus Brief Filed in Golan v. Holder: Fighting for the Public Domain

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:07 AM, teun spaans wrote: > None of these 5 seem to qualify as fitting into the gap of death of the > author between 50 and 70 years ago, though for File:Alicebeggar.png and > File:AliceSilvy.png: this is not 100% sure - if the artist was 20 years old > in 1861, and be

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:03 PM, David Gerard wrote: > The relevant paragraph appears to be > http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sokpop#Ontsnappingsclausule > > The Google translation is "In order to be unblocked, the person behind > the corresponding IP address is a letter (paper) to a comm

Re: [Foundation-l] List of Wikimedia projects and languages

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:32 AM, emijrp wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct_language > > "It is believed that 90% of the circa 7,000 languages currently spoken in > the world will have become extinct by 2050, as the world's language system > has reached a crisis and is dramatically res

Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Krinkle wrote: > I haven't fully read the context of this thread, but something that > did cross my > mind recently, why do we treat YouTube-links different from other > links here? > > Aren't most of our sources and external linked websites atleast as > copyrigh

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:25 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Risker wrote: > > I have a hard > > time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the > > community. They're representative of people who like to join chapters. > > I agree with

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter >wrote: > > > > Did the idea of the second trial get any momentum in the end of the day? > > As a en.wp newbie, I could only find the poll that the trial has been > > discontinued, but n

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > The selection of labels isn't supposed to be unbiased. Users select > whichever labels they want. All you have to do is make sure it's easy > for people to create new labels if none of the existing ones fit their > needs, and you're sorted. >

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Risker wrote: > On 5 September 2011 11:02, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > > > On 05/09/2011 10:55 AM, Andrew Gray wrote: > > > As to why no-one is distributing a "filtered" version of Wikipedia, I > > > think that falls more under the general heading of "where are the

Re: [Foundation-l] The systematic and codified bias against non-Western articles on Wikinews

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: > But as Tom say, online media has quickly found that the traditional > editorial process doesn't work so well on the internet. On the other hand > the net does allow very quick rewrite & expansion for a developing story. > > It's this last ste

Re: [Foundation-l] The systematic and codified bias against non-Western articles on Wikinews

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > Can not you just introduce a flag of a "trusted editor", similar to an > autoreviewer? I mean, if the news creator is a en.wp administrator most > probably he/she is not a vandal trying to post junk in the Google News. Why > this message

Re: [Foundation-l] PG rating

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Stephen Bain wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:24 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > > > > Are there any encyclopedia which have been > > classified/banned/bowlderised by any country in the last 50 years? > > > > If Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia, most rating agenc

Re: [Foundation-l] Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Tobias Oelgarte < tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Does rebranding change anything then the "name" or "appearance"? > > Or better asked: Does it help to solve any of our real problems? > It might be useful in reducing confusion - when saying that one is on

Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Marcin Cieslak wrote: > Can you help me in understanding in why such a user control feature may > possibly bring more people to Wikipedia? By giving people who do not want to run the risk of seeing certain images that they disagree with one less reason to _not_

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > This is an interesting point. In some ways Wikipedia has so fetishised > reliability that there isn't much room for oral histories and memoirs. > We can contact and communicate with each other by electronic means far > more efficiently than

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Tobias Oelgarte < tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > You would have to proof that your facts are indeed true. But if you > accept it as a huge difference between cultures, how can you impose a > filter for a culture that doesn't need it or wants it? > Just

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Tobias Oelgarte < tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I would not have any problems if we would not play in the hands of > censors (local ISPs, a simple proxy, regimes, institutions, ...) by > actually labeling content as objectionable. Which gives away the co

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

Sorry, I dropped some hot food on me as I wrote this, and then apparently accidentily hit sent. On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Andre Engels wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Tobias Oelgarte < > tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> I would not have any pro

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Tobias Oelgarte < tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > This would imply that the referendum indeed asked the wrong questions. > If all would have equal values, then i must wonder about the strong > difference in result. We have a referendum which points out th

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:16 PM, David Levy wrote: > > I find it strange that you consider this an objection to a filter. > Surely, > > giving someone an imperfect choice of what they consider objectionable is > > _less_ making a decision for them than judging in advance that nothing is > > obje

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Wikimedia *used* to hold the position that we wouldn't aid China to block > images of the Tianamen Massacre, and went to great lengths to assure > that chinese users of Wikipedia could evade blocks to viewing. I am not > sure you ar

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Tobias Oelgarte < tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Am 18.09.2011 09:46, schrieb Andre Engels: > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen< > cimonav...@gmail.com > >> wrote: > > > >> Wikimedia

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote: > Okay. Is there a commitment on the part of the foundation that they will > help > people using our filtering scheme and the usual browser add-ons to Wmake it > impossible to view material on wikipedia from sch

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Oliver Koslowski wrote: > Am 18.09.2011 13:56, schrieb Andre Engels: > > On itself the one who tags the image, but we happen to have a system for > > that in Wikimedia. It is called discussion and trying to reach consent. > Who > > decide

Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Tobias Oelgarte < tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I still can't the a rational difference between images included in > articles by the will of the community and text passages included by the > will of the community. It's much easier to note offensive te

Re: [Foundation-l] A possible solution for the image filter

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:19 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > One of my objections that I hope some others share is that an IP based > system inevitably means one person deciding what others may see - which to > my mind is the point where an image filter becomes a cen

Re: [Foundation-l] 10th wiki-birthdays?

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 7:07 AM, aude wrote: > Rather than 10th birthday for the projects, I think he's talking about as > an > editor. Anyone here who has been editing for 10 years? ;) > Plus a few months, my first edits were from March 2001. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com __

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Theo10011 wrote: > > That is just completely untrue. The image filter will allow people to > > choose what to see and what not to see. We won't be making the > > decisions... > > > > > Actually, "we" will be. Depending upon how such a system is implemented, it >

Re: [Foundation-l] An image filter proposal from German Wikipedia

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > What I like about this proposal is its simplicity and elegance. It has the > great benefit of leaving the communities and content writers in charge of > where and to what extent they use the filter, and it also includes > non-logged-in user

Re: [Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Castelo wrote: > On 21-10-2011 03:06, Andreas K. wrote: > > the > > median is always smaller than the average. > There's no such relation between median and average: > > {20, 21, 24, 26, 28}: Median (24) > Average (23.8) > {20, 22, 24, 26, 28}: Median (24) = Averag

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia ideology

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Peter Damian wrote: > A general question: is there a Wikipedian ideology? What is it? In > particular, how does the current ideology, if there is one, compare with the > ideology which inspired its founding fathers. And mothers - many of the > founding editors o

Re: [Foundation-l] just wondering, are we going to take down en.wikipedia.org?

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Domas Mituzas wrote: > we recently did some practice on italian wikipedia, are we going to protest > IP legislation in US by taking down English Wikipedia? > > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/disastrous-ip-legislation-back-%E2%80%93-and-it%E2%80%99s-worse-

Re: [Foundation-l] Finnish MP FAIL!!!

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Not sure if this is appropriate for this list, but just for lulz. A > finnish member of > parliament just got caught for his speech being a word for word piece of > snippets from a Finnish Wikipedia article. No intervening binding li

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > I think the fundamental error in this reasoning is that you seem to under the > impression that this is something new here that is considered, and that there > have only been a few people commenting on these different schemes. The >

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:43 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 28 November 2011 09:34, Andre Engels wrote: > >> Our core mission is making information and knowledge available to >> people who want it, not pushing it down their throats against their >> will. > > > Sho

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:14 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 28 November 2011 10:07, Andre Engels wrote: > >> You're saying that anything that is not wanted by more than a few >> people goes against our core mission? > > > No, and nor did I say anything that could

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:58 AM, David Gerard wrote: > At this point you appear to be stretching to keep a flame war going. Stretching? It seemed like a valid chain of reasoning to me. But if you don't agree, please give your line of reasoning as to how your statement was a refutation of, or ev

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > If the filter is predefined then it might meet the personal preference > and can be easy to use. But it will be an violation of NPOV, since > someone else (a group of reader/users) would have to define it. That > isn't user initiated cens

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > The problem starts at the point where the user does not choose the > image(s) for himself and uses a predefined set on what should no be > shown. Someone will have to create this sets and this will be > unavoidably a violation of NPOV in t

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > I neither agree. We decide what belongs to which preset (or who will do > it?), and it is meant to filter out controversial content. Therefore we > define what controversial content is, - or at least we tell the people, > what we think, th

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Alasdair wrote: > So a big objection is that any "sets" of filters is not so much to the "weak" > filtering on wikipedia but that such "sets"  would enable other censors to > more easily make a form of "strong" censorship of wikipedia where some images > were n

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > Am 29.11.2011 14:40, schrieb Andre Engels: >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte >>  wrote: >> >>> The problem starts at the point where the user does not choose the >>> image(s) for hi

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > Do you remember your last mail in which you said that my viewpoints are > extreme? I was writing that considering anything controversial or not > are the only neutral positions to take. You opposed it strongly. Now you > start your claim w

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Am I being dense, or are you being silly? Blocking advocacy from a site with > a NPOV policy is a bajillion miles from being censorship. It may be a bajillion miles, I still think it's closer to it than giving the possibility to peop

Re: [Foundation-l] "Terms of use" : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > Would you care to explain anything you're talking about? > > I don't see anything in the Licensing section that mentions anything > about U.S. copyright law. It says the content is licensed under the GFDL > and CC-BY-SA, and the Attribution se

Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Michael Snow wrote: > I deal with this regularly in a professional capacity, this is what > stock photography firms are built on, and I can assure you that there is > no adequate freely licensed stock photography resource in the world. > Commons is the best there

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > As to your arguments that having a NY chapter obviates the need for other > subnational US chapters, I disagree. There are plenty of reasons why a > person outside of NY would want to become a member of a US subnational > chapter other than

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Ting Chen wrote: > As far as I know, there are already two organizations in the > Netherlands, why would you want to create an Amsterdam chapter and what > is the beneficial of it? Or is the question just theoretical? Well, there are two organizations, but one o

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote: > Two answers to this question: > 1) WMNYC does prevent the creation of a separate WMUSA chapter. At the > moment the rule-of-thumb is that chapters cannot overlap. However, it > may be possible in the future if both groups agree to share s

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Andre Engels wrote: >> Well, one benefit would be that it avoids strange definitions of >> chapter boundaries. Suppose that we have a Los Angeles chapter and a >> Monterey County cha

Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Andrew Gray wrote: > 2009/1/23 Nikola Smolenski : >> Article length was 82028 bytes, and length of contributors' names is 650 >> bytes >> (or 0.8% of the article's length). If that would be printed in an >> encyclopedic format, the article would take some more th

Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

One thing that has not been brought forward yet in this discussion, and which I think is important, is that 'author' does not equate 'editor'. It seems many here do go from that assumption in trying to get the authors of an article. Suppose, an article has the following edit history: A starts the

Re: [Foundation-l] The reality of printing a poster

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > The Zwijntje picture is actually one that is rather special. I use it as an > avatar on many of my profiles. When people abuse this picture, it may hurt > me. There is another aspect as well, I am not arguing about attribution to > t

  1   2   >