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

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

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

I am amazed by the Keep votes the various deletion requests for images in the BDSM gallery -- files that are not actually used by any project -- are getting. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/05/08#May_8 Editors are saying, with a straight face, that there is "no i

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

--- 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

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*. The result so far: 14 Opposes, 1 Support.  You get th

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

> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

> 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 ex

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

--- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone will fill that void.  That someone does not need to be us.  Google does this job with their image browser already without the need for any providers to actively "tag" any images. 

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

I am sorry about the horrible formatting in my last post (any advice appreciated). I'll try this again. --- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone > will fill that void. That someone does not need to be us. Google

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

--- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > I would suggest a "child-safe" approach to > Commons, is simply to use the Google image browser with a > "moderate filter" setting.  Try it, it works. Actually, it doesn't. For example, if you search for masturbation site:commons.wikimedia.org yo

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

This post by David does prove that it is possible to argue, with intellectual integrity, that there are more important things at stake than getting Commons into schools. Andreas --- On Wed, 12/5/10, David Goodman wrote: > From: David Goodman > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on C

[Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Jehochman has suggested that we need legal advice from the Foundation at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content with respect to § 2257[1}, and I tend to agree with him. The relevant discussion is here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#The_Ca

Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

--- On Tue, 11/5/10, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > The obvious solution is not to display images by default > that a large > number of viewers would prefer not to view.  Instead, > provide links, > or maybe have them blurred out and allow a click to unblur > them.  You > don't hide any information from p

Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of her making tea. Requiring an OTRS release from the model for any nude and sexually explicit content seems appropriate to me. Andreas --- On Fri

Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Another great post. You are right: this is a separate issue from the original censorship/content filtering debate, but it is an important issue that the proposed "Sexual content" policy on Commons should address. Recapping some thoughts around this: *No image showing an actual living person en

Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Sounds like a good idea. It would put drafting the Sexual Content policy on a more solid footing, and maybe avoid problems later on. Andreas --- On Thu, 20/5/10, Stillwater Rising wrote: > From: Stillwater Rising > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, >

Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

I guess people the world over know that at least one member of the board has been quite active in the selection process of late. ;) Also, in cases of illegal content, the Foundation may well find -- or have found -- itself in a position to direct that material be deleted, thus playing an active

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

Wikipedia is a multilingual reference work. The visibility of the interwiki links made that plain. Please restore them. A. --- On Sat, 5/6/10, David Gerard wrote: > From: David Gerard > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a > BadIdea, part 2 > To: "Wikimedia

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

I used the interwiki links all the time in this manner at work, and still do. It was one of the things that turned me on to Wikipedia and caused me to start contributing, and eventually to register an account. As others have said, if the interwiki links had not been visible by default, I likel

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

One thing that is undoubtedly good is that users now have the choice of displaying lists like the interwiki links, or not. The system seems to do a reasonable job remembering a user's preferences. Someone who prefers the interwiki links hidden can get them off his screen with a click. But the

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

--- On Mon, 7/6/10, Andrew Gray wrote: > There is a piece of user js which was implemented on en > which does > this, incidentally: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manishearth/Scripts#Wikipedia_interwiki_translator > > - it turns, eg, "Espanol" into "Spanish (t)", with the (t) > link goin

[Foundation-l] Collapsed galleries for particularly explicit images

There is currently a discussion at the en:WP content noticeboard whether we could or should 1. Use collapsed galleries for particularly graphic sexual images (requiring the reader to click "Show" to see the content) 2. Display them openly, as has been normal practice so far 3. Dispense with im

Re: [Foundation-l] Collapsed galleries for particularly explicit images

Call me an optimist -- I retain the hope that such discussions may not remain circular forever, but eventually might come to resemble a spiral, with some upwards movement, as has happened in other areas like BLP. In discussions around these issues, it is easy for people on both sides of the a

[Foundation-l] Please help review [[Commons:Sexual content]]

As many of you are aware, Commons has been developing a proposed policy regarding sexual content at [[Commons:Sexual content]].[1] It is now stable and ready for review by third parties - if you haven't read it yet, please look it over and provide any feedback on the talk page. We want to move f

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

> From: Ting Chen > What I find not convincing is the slogan "No censorship". I > think this is a bad argument. Actually, I wish we'd rename [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] in en:WP to something more sensible, for similar reasons. It is too often used as a justification for poor editorial decisions. --"Wh

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

Thanks Alec. I wouldn't like to see Wikipedia fork either. Excirial's suggestion -- which I understand to mean enabling readers to self-censor the type of content that offends them, or that they don't want their children to see -- strikes me as the way we can have our cake and eat it. It's als

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

--- On Sat, 24/7/10, David Gerard wrote: > >> - That IPs are shown a mildly "censored" version, > and that seeing the uncensored version of Wikipedia requires > registering an account and setting the preferences up > accordingly. > > > And this is where it all breaks down. Once you start > to off

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

> From: David Gerard > > Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out > the correct parameters for default IP access. Each language > version of any project could make its own determination in > this regard. Arabic, no Mohammed images; India, no sex and > kissing; Dutch and German, the ful

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

/7/10, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: > From: wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for > Potentially-Objectionable Content > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Sunday, 25 July, 2010, 10:54 > Andreas Kolbe w

Re: [Foundation-l] Is Google translation is good for Wikipedias?

--- On Sun, 25/7/10, Fajro wrote: > Machine translation is always unsuitable to produce usable > articles, but can > help to start new ones in smaller wikipedias. I second that. About 50% of machine translation output is gibberish, or worse, plausible-sounding text that actually says the opposi

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

Milos, when I am talking about the possibility of a censored default for IP access, I am talking about the types of censorship Flickr and YouTube are using. They categorise their content on the basis of whether it is moderate or explicit adult content. This has not resulted in Serbian YouTube

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

> From: Milos Rancic > And what about words? Do you think that one devoted > homophobic > Christian would be willing to see [relevant] citation > inside of some > general article that "Jesus was gay"? > > If it is not acceptable to someone to see pornographic > content, it is > highly possible th

Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation

Having tried it tonight, I don't find the Google translator toolkit all that useful, at least not at this present level of development. To sum up: First you read their translation. Then you scratch your head: What the deuce is that supposed to mean ...? Then you check the original language vers

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

It's a bit of a Keystone Kops joke for the FBI to complain about Wikipedia being irresponsible here, when the Director of National Intelligence himself publishes the seal on his website, in almost infinitely scalable detail: http://www.dni.gov/100-day-plan/100_FOLLOW_UP_REPORT.pdf A. --- On Tu

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

Incidentally, britannica.com removed the seal today from their article on the FBI. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203351/Federal-Bureau-of-Investigation You can see the edit in the "Article History". However, at the time of writing, the seal is still included in the "Media" section o

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

Indeed. I should have written "The Office of the Director of National Intelligence", because that's who www.dni.gov belongs to, according to its banner. A. --- On Wed, 4/8/10, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > To be fair, the DNI is a relative a > friend of mine and I am pretty sure he > does not persona

Re: [Foundation-l] Mini update on sexual content discussions

Also raised on the Sexual content talk page in Commons are uploads by User:Midnight68. Some users feel these are out of scope at Commons, and may violate child pornography laws: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archive001.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Fil

Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation

ollect memories from haphazard Wikipedia translations done by amateurs which, judging by the feedback from the relevant Wikipedia communities, are garbage. Why feed that garbage into the system? There should be alarm bells ringing at Google here. A. > Andreas Kolbe написа: > >

Re: [Foundation-l] Parallel text alignment (was: Push translation)

--- On Sun, 8/8/10, Lars Aronsson wrote: > This is where our experience differs. I'm working faster > with the Google > Translator Toolkit than without. Whether "faster" or not is a function of a number of variables: - How well do you know the languages and subject matter concerned? Do you rel

Re: [Foundation-l] Parallel text alignment (was: Push translation)

--- On Sun, 8/8/10, Mark Williamson wrote: > > You won't find many professional > translators using GTTK for their work. > > [citation needed] Professional translators and translation agencies tend to use systems like Trados or Wordfast, building their own translation memories relevant to the

Re: [Foundation-l] Parallel text alignment (was: Push translation)

> I read that thread and noticed a lot of confusion. One translator > admitted she never even tried it, but still had lots of negative stuff > to say; more than one person said they found it useful (see > Esperantisto's response), and other people seemed to not realize there > was a difference betw

Re: [Foundation-l] Parallel text alignment (was: Push translation)

combinations seem to do much better. A. --- On Mon, 9/8/10, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > From: Andreas Kolbe > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Parallel text alignment (was: Push translation) > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Monday, 9 August, 2010, 2:37 > > I re

Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.

--- On Mon, 9/8/10, Oliver Keyes wrote: > > Let's linky here, Oliver: > -- > > ~Keegan > > > > My bad. Anyway, to quote "The role of the Mediation > Committee is explicitly > to try to resolve disputes, especially those *involving > content*" (itali

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:49 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > > What happened with implementing software related to controversial content? > There was quite a bit of hubbub at some point, then Wikimedia pulled back a > little (and Sue visited Germany to give some assurances)... what's the > current status o

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:00 AM, phoebe ayers wrote: > > Hi MZ and all -- > > Project development was put on hold over the winter in favor of more > pressing priorities, with the agreement of the Board. There is > currently an open proposal on the table for the Board to vote on > whether to contin

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:32 AM, David Gerard wrote: > Yeah, 'cos that worked so well applied to de:wp. > > You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board, > with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling? Wait ... so you're saying that the two board memb

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > Just for the record, not sure where you got "voted twice"... There's > been one vote on each resolution. > > And it was not raised as an electoral issue. I think that's a little > unfair to people (including myself) who are trying to do their

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:32 AM, phoebe ayers wrote: > Anyway, there are surely more interesting things to talk about -- like > search! Let's talk about search. I am 100% in favor of better commons > search :) > Can you get a developer to provide us with some feedback on Niabot's proposal? http

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Oelgarte < tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related > categories and images are also very popular among our readers and that the > current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are s

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

tures. > For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn bodies > and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting > "spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some > mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Tobias Oelgarte < tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Am 07.03.2012 23:41, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: > Sorry to interrupt you. But as i can see, you constantly rage against > sexuality in any form. I came to this little conclusion because i

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

s als > "evidence of controversy", but maybe I am too much busy with writing > Wikipedia articles. > > But good that you care about the hurtings of WMF. I believe that they will > thank you every day for this. > > > Juliana > > > 2012/3/7 Andreas Kolbe > &g

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Neil Babbage wrote: > If you ran a charity store committed to providing educational products > free to all who needed them you wouldn't get many children as customers if > you put hardcore sex products right by the entrance. ^^^ This. ^^^ __

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:31 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 9 March 2012 13:52, Nathan wrote: > > > So what you're saying is, you feel confident that everyone agrees with > you, > > and thus perfectly comfortable speaking on behalf of the entire > community? > > I see. > > > I thought he was noting

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote: > >> The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any >> executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's >> a stated policy that they are not responsible for t

[Foundation-l] Personality rights

Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following Resolution: ---o0o--- The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as

[Foundation-l] UK Parliament Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions

The UK Parliament's Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions is due to release its report shortly. Evidence submitted to it over the past months is now available online on the UK Parliament's website, at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWe

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=20&redirs=0&profile=images&search=male+human So unless I want to see 100 dicks and arseholes I am somehow against * knowledge*? http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=20&redirs=0&profile=

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Fae wrote: > Strangely enough, searching Commons for "Male figure" rather than > "Male human" shows me artwork from the National Museum of African Art > and a Michelangelo Buonarroti sketch from the Louvre in top matches. > No problem with wading through "100 dick

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Fae wrote: > >> Strangely enough, searching Commons for "Male figure" rather than >> "Male human" shows me artwork from the National Museum of African Art >>

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Fae wrote: > Strangely enough, searching Commons for "Male figure" rather than > "Male human" shows me artwork from the National Museum of African Art > and a Michelangelo Buonarroti sketch from the Louvre in top matches. > No problem with wading through "100 dick

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 12 March 2012 20:24, Tobias Oelgarte > wrote: > > > I'm tired to reply to this kind of comments since I said anything > important > > multiple times already. So I will keep it as that and only write the > > following: > > Sorry, but your

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Tobias Oelgarte < tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Am 13.03.2012 03:39, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: > >> >> No. I'm not accusing you for prudery, but for making wrong cited > statements. Your assumption is that we have to sa

[Foundation-l] Buzzfeed articles

Note that there have been two recent Buzzfeed articles about Commons and Wikipedia, by Jack Stuef, who is a writer for The Onion: 1. The Epic Battle For Wikipedia's Autofellatio Page In the underbelly of Wikipedia is an exhibitionist subculture dedicated to one thing: Ensuring that their penis i

Re: [Foundation-l] SEOs :((((

Well, Peter, it's got over 2,000 in-bound links, from user and user talk pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-08-01/In_the_news We should really look at making such links nofollow; only mainspace links should be dofollow, and that should exclude nav templates and t

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

--- On Wed, 7/9/11, David Gerard wrote: The closest we could come to a neutral filtering system is an easily accessible on/off switch for images. Actually, that is really not a bad idea.  If a user wants to read about bukkake or fisting, rather than seeing it displayed in graphic detail on their

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

--- On Thu, 22/9/11, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: From: Tobias Oelgarte Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, 22 September, 2011, 23:06 Am 22.09.2011 23:55, schrieb Andrew Gray: > On 21 September 2011 14:14, Jussi-Ville Hei

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

e: From: Tobias Oelgarte Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 23 September, 2011, 0:26 Am 23.09.2011 01:21, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: > And where would the problem be? If a user prefers to go to a Bowdlerised site > like th

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

search" from google pages. [3] Many Anti-Virus software includes googles "safe search" functionality http://forum.kaspersky.com/lofiversion/index.php/t145285.html ... Am 23.09.2011 02:46, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: > Are you aware of any "providers" that use other site

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

September, 2011, 11:53 On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > ... > I believe Saudi Arabia has sporadically blocked access to Wikipedia, and > blocks access to porn sites at the Internet service provider level: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Saudi_Arabia

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

ld we take that risk? Currently we are promoting free access to information and knowledge. If a filter like this has a 50:50 chance to improve or worsen things, then we might raise the question: Is it worth the effort or should we search for better solutions? Greetings Tobias Am 23.09.2011 12

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

--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari wrote: From: Ryan Kaldari Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28 On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote: > This post appea

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

I do think that one needs to have spent some time in Germany to understand that  things *are* different there. Nudity is no big deal. To give some examples, municipal  swimming pools may have times set aside for nude bathing. They may have mixed saunas,  or changing rooms used by females, males,

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

rote: From: Tobias Oelgarte Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 17:06 Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: > --- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:

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

--- On Sat, 1/10/11, Theo10011 wrote: From: Theo10011 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" Date: Saturday, 1 October, 2011, 1:58 > We're not suggesting that as far as I know. Nothing is bein

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

: David Levy Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, 1 October, 2011, 13:42 Andreas Kolbe wrote: > We'd still be in good company, as all other major websites, including > Google

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

I would echo Risker's question: What exactly does the proposed new law say?  Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is received, and *replaced* with the BLP subject's statement? Or is it that BLP subjects have the right to ask for a correction to be posted on the page,

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say? To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" Date: Tuesday, 4 October, 2011, 22:42 http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf Page 24. On 4 October 2011 22:40, Andreas Ko

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

Note changes to the statement on Italian Wikipedia: http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AComunicato_4_ottobre_2011&action=historysubmit&diff=43934772&oldid=43934752 (Edit summary translation: In short, the law doesn't say that) http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedi

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Jalo wrote: From: Jalo Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say? To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 12:40 > > the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, una

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

at 2:05 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:49, Andreas Kolbe wrote: >> Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the >> proposed law, >> the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on >> the page (wh

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

--- On Wed, 5/10/11, Andrea Zanni wrote: From: Andrea Zanni Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say? To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 22:44 > Given that a Wikipedia biography is usually the fi

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Taking a step back, to look at the bigger picture -- one thing that has always struck me  as odd is how different our approach to text and illustrations is. For text, we are incredibly "censorious", insisting that any material presented to the reader  must reflect what is found in reliable s

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

From: Ting Chen Hello Fae, thank you very much for pointing this out. Yes, I think you indeed hit the nail. We discussed this problem on our meeting and Sue provided some plans on how to work on this problem. I am normally reluctant to comment what the staff is doing or what they are planning

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

From: Hubert Because the wars in Commons, which Categories at least will fit violence, will be unmanageable. I don´t want to confront myself with fundamental christian groups in categorising cruzification and holy cross as to become a to be hidden category be

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

From: "Möller, Carsten" To: "foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org" Sent: Monday, 10 October 2011, 18:01 Subject: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content > Andreas Kolbe jayen466 at yahoo.com > Mon Oct 10 11:16:2

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

From: Sue Gardner Yes, I hear you. The Board didn't specifically discuss yesterday what to do if there is no acceptable solution. So I don't think they can make a statement like this: it hasn't been discussed. I hear what you're saying here, but my hope is that

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Hubert,  The fact is that the English word "violence" has a quite different etymology, and a much narrower meaning, than the German word "Gewalt", which historically also means "control", or even "administrative competence". The scope of the English article is indeed appropriate to the English

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

From: David Gerard > On 10 October 2011 18:37, Kim Bruning wrote: > > I think that having the image blurring system, combined with an option to > > unblur, > > would get us very far towards the stated board directive, and I don't think > > many in the community would object, and we could reach

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

From: MZMcBride Personally, from the technical side, I don't think there's any way to make per-category filtering work. What happens when a category is deleted? Or a category is renamed (which is effectively deleting the old category name currently)? And are we

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

From: Bob the Wikipedian The question arises, however, of where to draw the rather thick gray line. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, take for instance the famous Renaissance paintings; often innocent at first glance, but perhaps one of the subjects is nude. Perhaps in the background

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content - Commons searches

From: David Levy Andreas Kolbe wrote: > The way it is supposed to work is by creating categories that simply describe > media content. A bit like alt.texts, I guess. Examples might be: > > Images of people engaged in sexual intercourse. > > Videos of people masturbating. >

[Foundation-l] David Cameron's opt-in filter, Parentport (UK)

In the news today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8818827/Parents-to-be-urged-to-report-sexual-imagery-aimed-at-children.html "The Prime Minister will unveil Parentport, an online complaints site targeted at mothers and fathers who have concerns about their children being exposed to

Re: [Foundation-l] David Cameron's opt-in filter, Parentport (UK)

an opt-in or opt-out." People who change to a different tier of connection within the same service will not be obliged to change the setting. BT said that new customers will be offered a package of parental control systems, provided by the security company McAfee. ____

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

From: Fae > We could also just delete them, unless someone actually uses them in a > sensible way in an article. :-) > > sincerely, >        Kim Bruning Not on Commons; being "objectionable" to some viewers and not being currently in use does not make a potentially educational image out of scope

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

David, You asked for a reply to your earlier questions. > As has been mentioned numerous times, deeming certain subjects (and > not others) "potentially objectionable" is inherently subjective and > non-neutral. > Unveiled women, pork consumption, miscegenation and homosexuality are > considered

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

> From: Tobias Oelgarte > > Someone on Meta has pointed out that Commons seems to list sexual image > > results for search terms like cucumber, electric toothbrushes or pearl > > necklace way higher than a corresponding Google search. See > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

> From: David Levy > Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > If we provide a filter, we have to be pragmatic, and restrict its > > application > > to media that significant demographics really might want to filter. > Define "significant demographics."  Do you have a num

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content - Commons searches

From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2011, 22:40 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content - Commons searches > What you are all missing here is that commons is a service site, not a > repository > for the

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

> From: David Levy > Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > I would use indicators like the number and intensity of complaints received. > For profit-making organizations seeking to maximize revenues by > catering to majorities, this is a sensible approach.  For most WMF > projects, conv

  1   2   >