Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action

On 8 May 2010 17:46, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > As far as "which capacity", I think Jimmy's own statements make this > abundantly clear regardless of what the PR spin says: > "I am fully willing to change the policies for adminship (including > removing adminship in case of wheel warring on this is

Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action

On 8 May 2010 17:49, David Gerard wrote: > I've been working on the RationalWiki article on the decline and > all-but-collapse of Citizendium: > http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium - CZ now has less > contributors or actitvity than *Conservapedia*. And a lot of that w

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

On 8 May 2010 18:35, Samuel Klein wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Ting Chen wrote: >> Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource has by themselves no educational >> value. They gain their educational value in the way that they provide >> repositories for the other WMF projects. > Hold on, now.

Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective

On 9 May 2010 01:04, Noein wrote: > On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote: >> (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography >> distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous >> hosting).  (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated the issu

Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action

On 9 May 2010 07:30, Samuel J Klein wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> It's board members directly asserting control over content. Of >> course it's a major issue. > Perish the thought.  The Board is not controlling content - I would &g

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

On 9 May 2010 02:20, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the > clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at > Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not in > use by any project*. >

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

On 9 May 2010 07:45, Samuel Klein wrote: > True. The resignations are deeply unfortunate, and I hope those who > have left will still contribute to the ensuing discussions - their > opinions are among those badly needed to find the right way forward. "deeply unfortunate" is, far too often, a co

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

On 9 May 2010 06:09, K. Peachey wrote: > Bugzilla 982[1]  MediaWiki should support ICRA's PICS content labeling. > From my understanding without reading much about it, It [ICRA] is ment > to be a "international" or at least a standard for these things which > most people seem to abide by (i see i

Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action

On 9 May 2010 13:26, Samuel Klein wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:23 AM, David Gerard wrote: >> The overriding question will be the editorial role of the board. > The Board has no editorial role, on Commons or on any other Project, > nunless you consider high-level g

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

On 9 May 2010 20:46, David Goodman wrote: > This is the first step towards censorship, and we should not take it. Indeed. The initial impetus for this headless chicken moment was the *existence* of the material on Wikimedia Commons, not that it wasn't adequately classified. It's already classi

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

On 9 May 2010 21:17, Marcus Buck wrote: > The tags applied should be clear and fact-based. So instead of tagging a > page as "containing pornography", which is entirely subjective, we > should rather tag the page as "contains a depiction of an erect penis" > or "contains a depiction of oral inter

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

On 9 May 2010 21:28, Mikemoral wrote: > By why censor Commons? Should educational material be freely viewed and, > of course, be made free to read, use, etc. Well, yes. The apparent reason is that Fox News is making trouble. Categorisation, labeling, etc. won't fix that - only removing the mat

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

On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner wrote: > My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the "scope of > Jimmy's authority" question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the > importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about > what's happened over the p

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

On 10 May 2010 19:14, Noein wrote: > I don't understand exactly your thoughts. What happens to someone who > wants to navigate Wikipedia or use Commons but doesn't want to reach > offending (according to his/her personal sensibility) pages? If this > person wants a protecting tool, what is your a

[Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

Despite Content Purge, Pornographic Images Remain on Wikimedia By Jana Winter http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-remains/ Any attempt to "filter" ourselves is not addressing the fact that the images exist at all on Commons. Any attempted appeasement of these

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

On 10 May 2010 22:32, Mike Godwin wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, David Levy wrote: >> > Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion >> that >> > "Fox News was correct"? >> I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw >> upon encoun

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

On 11 May 2010 16:44, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > There are other resources which address these subject areas in a > manner which religious conservatives may find more acceptable, such as > conservapedia. Actually, Conservapedia has almost no readers or editors. (Its activity rate is marginally hi

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

On 11 May 2010 17:45, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > Sure, and that's inevitable.  You aren't going to please people who > have ideological problems with Wikipedia's entire premise.  But > leaving aside people who think nudity is morally wrong on principle, > we are still left with a very large number of

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

On 11 May 2010 21:42, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block >> images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're >> the target mark

Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective

On 11 May 2010 22:48, Stuart West wrote: > A lot has happened since my email so here's a quick follow-up. I hear the > concerns many of you have raised on this list and elsewhere. I feel awful > about them. As Kat said so well, I think there is a big difference between > the principles the Board

Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective

On 12 May 2010 00:38, David Goodman wrote: > I think we will only make progress when we accept the apologies of the > people involved.  I can understand that they want to at least formally > defend the original board statement, but I think they--and we all- > -recognize that the discussion has mo

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

On 12 May 2010 21:50, David Goodman wrote: > Even more than what  Ray says: +1 to this entire email. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Visual impairment

On 17 May 2010 09:08, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote: > i think the best effect of recaptcha is psychological, since this > meaningless task may be perceived as "useful" for some noble task. and > it's good that we manage to be able to fool ourselves that way, > captchas are so annoying.. >

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

On 3 June 2010 15:26, Mike Godwin wrote: > It turns out that foreign copyright judgments are more easily enforceable > against U.S. entities in  United States courts than other kinds of > judgments, due to the copyright lobby's efforts to shape international > copyright and enforcement treaties.

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

On 3 June 2010 16:14, David Gerard wrote: > If you can link in your notifications to a handy guide to contesting a > DMCA takedown notice, that would probably answer the concerns in this > thread. It's clear that people weren't sure if they could re-add > things at all,

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

On 3 June 2010 21:42, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > There are several handy online guides for how to file DMCA > counter-notices. It is very easy and doesn't require hiring a lawyer. > The only catch is that by filing the counter-notice you are putting your > money where your mouth is and legally asserti

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Announcing new Chief Global DevelopmentOfficer and new Chief Community Officer

On 3 June 2010 20:40, Ray Saintonge wrote: > Self-deprecating humour is another great weapon. It is very difficult to > understand when you believe that you are in the most powerful nation in > the world. Americans understand humor, whereas Canadians understand *humour*. - d. ___

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

On 3 June 2010 19:04, Erik Moeller wrote: > Yes, we discussed this internally as well as a better path to exposse > Wikipedia's multilingual nature than to dump a long list of native > language names in the sidebar (we might have an expansion link such as > "Show X other languages" to indicate th

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

On 4 June 2010 13:00, Austin Hair wrote: > 2010/6/4 Jon Harald Søby : >> When you are monolingual and are already on your >> native language Wikipedia there isn't really a lot of use in going to >> another language. > What's more, when that language is the one with the largest Wikipedia, > you'r

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

On 4 June 2010 19:58, David Levy wrote: > Perhaps a suitable compromise can be devised, but in the meantime, the > only appropriate solution is to display the interwiki links by > default.  It's unfortunate that this fix was reverted, let alone in > the name of "usability." Indeed. Could someon

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

On 5 June 2010 01:03, Howie Fung wrote: > First, some background on the problem we're addressing and the design > principle that we used.  Every situation is unique, but in the case of > the interwikilinks, we believe the sheer number of language links, > especially within the context of an infor

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

On 5 June 2010 19:03, wrote: > Austin, think about who "everyone" is.  The folks here on foundation-l are > not representative of readers.  The job of the user experience team is to try > to balance all readers' needs, which is not easy, and will sometimes involve > making decisions that not

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

On 5 June 2010 19:40, Aphaia wrote: > What is the good reason usability team thought data from English > Wikipedia visitors' behaviors and alone were enough to design for all > other 200+ languages' readership? It looks me an obvious mistake in > opposition of your statement. Indeed. There appe

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

On 7 June 2010 14:55, Victor Vasiliev wrote: > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Michael Snow wrote: >> If you don't know the history of racial issues in the US, you might not >> realize just how serious a subject lynching is. In that cultural >> context, it is not something to be joked about. >

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

On 7 June 2010 16:52, Eugene Eric Kim wrote: > Good design isn't just about following the user path; it's also about > guiding the users in a way that's appropriate to the mission of the > work. This appears to sum up the problem with this change: the usability team focused on some ideal of usa

[Foundation-l] Fwd: One-sentence explanation of pending changes

We expect a publicity storm around pending changes. Jay doesn't currently plan to do a press release as such, but we're definitely getting ready with talking point sheets and Q+As and a blog post and etc. For obvious reasons, this is best drafted in public. Journalists are simple creatures busy ge

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

On 10 June 2010 17:54, Excirial wrote: > This has been discussed many times on many occasions. It comes up every year or two, in accordance with the typical 18-24 month cycle of Wikipedia contribution. The discussion is pretty much the same every time. - d. __

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia trade mark misuse

On 13 June 2010 17:22, Pedro Sanchez wrote: > In other words, the use of "wiki" predates wikipedia (wikipedia gets > its name since it was a encyclopedia using the wiki system) (speaking only personally) The consistent WMF position has been that "Wikipedia" is a proper name and a trademark - bu

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia trade mark misuse

On 15 June 2010 00:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > You are claiming the law is complicated. But the facts are > plain and simple, and no amount of FUDD is going to support > a view that there is any reasonable justification (by moral > or juridifical standards) to claim WMF is the body to appl

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia trade mark misuse

On 15 June 2010 00:25, Thomas Dalton wrote: > I'm not suggesting we should claim a trademark on the word "wiki" (it > wouldn't stand up). I'm suggesting that "wiki" when used as the name > of an encyclopaedia is sufficiently similar to "Wikipedia" to cause > confusion in the market (which is what

Re: [Foundation-l] "The problem with Wikipedia..."

On 17 June 2010 21:07, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > Isn't the quote backwards? "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works > in practice. It could never work in theory"? I vaguely remember it on wikien-l many years ago. I have no idea if that was its first use. - d.

Re: [Foundation-l] "The problem with Wikipedia..."

Here's the phrase in a 1988 sociology paper: http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/1/1/19 I'd call it a pretty obvious play on words, though, so I really doubt we got it from that. Anyone got a complete wikien-l archive to grovel through? - d. ___

Re: [Foundation-l] English language dominationism is striking again

On 22 June 2010 14:06, wrote: > There is a major problem with latin names in a number of taxa. It seems that > if tehre are 5 consecutive wet days in Summer a couple of researchers put > their heads together and concoct new names, move things about, split, or > combine species. And the actu

Re: [Foundation-l] English language dominationism is striking again

On 22 June 2010 15:20, wrote: > The common name in any language has more stability as far as the lay person > is concerned. the lay person shouldn't have to first find the latin name of > an organism when looking it up: > http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&searc

Re: [Foundation-l] English language dominationism is striking again

On 23 June 2010 15:34, Magnus Manske wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Tisza Gergo wrote: >> Magnus Manske writes: >>> Basically, this will (on the search page only!) look at the last query >>> run (the one currently in the edit box), check several language >> Again, I would suggest us

Re: [Foundation-l] Gmail - List messages flagged as spam

On 19 June 2010 19:00, MZMcBride wrote: > Ryan Lomonaco wrote: >> A housekeeping note: Gmail has been marking some list messages as spam for >> the past five days or so. > Google is evil. Your message ended up in my Gmail spam ;-p - d. ___ foundat

Re: [Foundation-l] English language dominationism is striking again

On 23 June 2010 21:31, Mariano Cecowski wrote: > --- El mié 23-jun-10, Michael Peel escribió: >> I always think than not using reCaptcha is a shame, as it's >> a nice way to get people to proofread text in a reasonably >> efficient way. It would be really nice if someone could >> create somethin

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Board resolution commissioning study and recommendations

On 24 June 2010 19:28, Michael Snow wrote: > That's the meaning, definitely, same as it was in the previous board > statement. I would observe, too, that for material on user pages, if > you're even going to ask whether it's educational, what is it going to > educate people about? That particular

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Board resolution commissioning study and recommendations

On 24 June 2010 19:50, Victor Vasiliev wrote: > On 06/24/2010 10:40 PM, Michael Snow wrote: >> I recommend that people not confuse "educational" with "pedagogical" or >> try to divorce its interpretation from the context of the particular >> project. Historical records have educational value, for

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

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/ They're actually gathering money to fight free content. We may need to do something about this. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia

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

On 25 June 2010 23:15, James Alexander wrote: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:04 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/ >> They're actually gathering money to fight free content. >> We may need

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

On 25 June 2010 23:46, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > Exactly how does Creative Commons steal music lyrics? I'm not following you. It only relates to it if someone is trying to derail a thread. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia

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

On 26 June 2010 11:53, wrote: The point of my post was, of course, that ASCAP are attempting to apply pressure to Congress to outlaw the licence most Wikimedia content is released under (by its creators). They want to stop the actual creators of content from releasing it under copyleft licence

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

On 26 June 2010 17:33, wrote: > I don't suspect that is correct for one moment, and there is nothing to > suggest such FUD in their letter. They are talking about THEIR copyright > and that "these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of *our* > music". No, what ASCAP means by that is t

Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite

I blogged a range of disaster scenarios a few years ago: http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/04/10/disaster-recovery-planning/ The WMF looked a lot less solid then than it does now. At least we have a full history dump from en: now. Probably. Can we reasonably say that everything else on the li

Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite

On 3 July 2010 17:35, Samuel Klein wrote: > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Birgitte SB wrote: > David Gerard writes: >> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/04/10/disaster-recovery-planning/ >> Can we reasonably say that everything else on the list there is a >> solved

Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?

On 4 July 2010 00:34, Liam Wyatt wrote: > You have started with a theoretical question that is complex and interesting > - about the languages/project's relationship to the MediaWiki skin. You have > received a very thorough and well reasoned answer from both the head > software developer and dep

Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?

On 4 July 2010 02:03, William Pietri wrote: > On 07/03/2010 04:47 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> Well. not really. He's asking the same question Greg Maxwell and I >> asked last month about the language list defaulting to open rather >> than closed: If a wiki voted for i

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?

I am at the Sunday pre-Wikimania meet up, and have had several people tell me I'm being a major dick, and that even if they're wrong then I'm wronger. And they're right. So I hereby admit to being wrong both in what I asked and how I asked it, and beg your forgiveness. And I bet you don't see peop

Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?

On 4 July 2010 21:20, William Pietri wrote: > No, which makes it especially worth appreciating, on three levels. > First, is says something good about the person. Second, it can really > move a discussion along. And third, it serves as an example for future > discussions, like begetting like. So

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

On 16 July 2010 13:17, Manuelt15 Wiki wrote: > Only wanted to notify you that the Acehnese Wikipedia < > http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ôn_Keuë> > have plans about boycotting Wikipedia, as they say in this statement < > http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki

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

On 16 July 2010 14:44, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > The Acehnese Wikipedia is a young project. They are entitled to their > mistakes. It is for this reason important that we first talk with them about > what it is that they do. We should not start talking TO them about what they > are to do. > The cu

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

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 Wiki, with no attempts to force > it on other wikipedia's. Ever

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

On 16 July 2010 18:51, Lars Åge Kamfjord wrote: >  I removed the template from the main page after a short discussion > among stewards. If they don't want the images to be on Wikipedia; > advertising where the images can be found on the main page is not the > best way of doing it... I've also inf

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

On 16 July 2010 19:08, Andre Engels wrote: > Sod? Is every single rule on Wikipedia completely determined by NPOV? > If not, then there apparently is some leeway, some possibility of > having different rules. And if that is the case, then isn't the > Wikipedia thing to do to have those be decided

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

On 16 July 2010 19:14, Bod Notbod wrote: > Er, en:wp, and other languages, are outstandingly "owned" by the > Western democratic cultures of the US and Europe. > It's what makes us able to show pictures that those of another culture > might be willing to kill someone for. They do, however, have

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

On 16 July 2010 22:57, Bod Notbod wrote: > The prohibition against illustrating Mohammed in (some?) muslim > culture is no more a "personal opinion" than a decision we would make > not to show, for example, certain sexual imagery or images of > violence; there's certainly imagery in those realms

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

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] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

On 22 July 2010 12:59, R M Harris wrote: > I’ve posted a series of questions for discussion on the Meta page that hosts > the study > (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content.) > Please feel free to visit the page and contribute to the > discussion. L

Re: [Foundation-l] Private Wiki

I've found a shared Google Doc surprisingly usable in practice. (Even shows changes in slightly-behind-real-time!) Lacks history, though. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailm

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

On 22 July 2010 16:32, R M Harris wrote: > May I just reply to thank Excirial for the excellent suggestions > re:formatting contained in his thoughtful reply (I'll look them over > carefully) and just to note a couple of things. I'm well aware of the > long-standing debates on these issues in

[Foundation-l] Nazi Goatse part 94 (was Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content)

Robert emailed me asking for an opinion, privately or publicly. At the risk of another cycle ... I can reiterate my basic argument, as father of a three-year-old and stepfather of two teenagers. The Wikimedia communities are sufficiently painstaking in making sure everything is educational and in

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

On 22 July 2010 20:10, Excirial wrote: > I would, however, strongly support a system that gives users > a choice to censor if they wish. It should be possible to categorize commons > in such a way that certain images can be blocked. For example, a user might > choose to block "images of Muhammad

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

On 22 July 2010 21:01, teun spaans wrote: > I think I am completely factual. After I wrote this, I went to the > questionlist and found the cry "we dont censor" in one of the > reactions. Which proves my point, I think. You yourself use that term > in your email. Well, we don't. You appear to b

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions forPotentially-Objectionable Content

On 23 July 2010 00:06, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > Actually I think there is one issue that has still not been well > discussed, and which I think it should be possible to build consensus > around (but maybe I'm naive): The issue of context for controversial > images. For example, although it may be pe

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

On 24 July 2010 18:39, geni wrote: > On 24 July 2010 18:28, Andreas Kolbe 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 al

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

On 25 July 2010 00:46, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > 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; Du

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

On 25 July 2010 01:07, David Gerard wrote: > This didn't save Encarta. They did this as a marketing move. They > threw neutrality out the window as a marketing move [1]. That this is > a blatant distortion was problematic enough that Britannica took them > up on it [2]. I recal

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

On 26 July 2010 20:08, Ryan Kaldari wrote: failure > offer filtering. Frankly, we're already filtering content, even on > en.wiki, but only according to a "default" Western/American POV. We use > line drawings instead of photos in articles on sex positions. And this was a defective compromise wi

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

On 26 July 2010 20:40, Milos Rancic wrote: > If photos of Tienanmen protests are > forbidden in China, we should remove them for population from China. I certainly hope you're saying this as an attempt at reductio ad absurdum. - d. ___ foundation-

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

On 26 July 2010 22:14, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > I don't see anything > threatening about Mr. Harris evaluating the issues, As has been pointed out several times already, the presumption that there is a case to answer. (#5 on the original board resolution.) I note also that several board members i

Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation

On 27 July 2010 09:36, Shiju Alex wrote: > Wiki communities like the biological growth of the wikipedia articles in > their wiki. Why English Wikipedia did not start building wikipedia articles > using *Encyclopedia Britannica 1911* edition which was available in the > public domain? Er, are yo

Re: [Foundation-l] Why should Wikimedians meet?

On 31 July 2010 16:21, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > But all of the above are nice dreams about the future. Is there any > proven experience from the past that demonstrates why personal > meetings between Wikimedians are not just fun for them, but actually > beneficial to the Wikimedia community, the

Re: [Foundation-l] Why should Wikimedians meet?

On 31 July 2010 16:32, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > OK, but how exactly? Why did people have to fly to another continent > to start a chapter in their own country? Did they use Wikimania as an > opportunity to talk to the people who started the pioneering chapters > (Germany, France, Italy) and learn

Re: [Foundation-l] Why should Wikimedians meet?

On 31 July 2010 18:15, Austin Hair wrote: > To answer the original post, many projects have resulted from random > talks at dinners during Wikimania, five-minute chats between sessions, > and people just getting to know each other.  I wish I could take the > time to make a more complete list—I th

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

On 1 August 2010 03:30, Jimmy O'Regan wrote: > Depending on the languages involved, the amount of resources available > for those languages, and having realistic expectations, a usable system > can be made in as little as 3-6 months by a single motivated volunteer, > with help from experienced de

Re: [Foundation-l] Banner ads in sitenotice

On 3 August 2010 02:32, Brandon Harris wrote: > On 8/2/2010 6:12 PM, MZMcBride wrote: >> A lot of the complaints I heard regarding the Vector rollout were based in >> the fact that the Wikimedia Usability team has subverted and bastardized the >> term "usability" in an attempt to impose purely ae

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

On 3 August 2010 14:31, Nathan wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw > The FBI sent a cease & desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal > of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike replied with, in the > words of the New York Times, "a primer on the law." Well do

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

On 3 August 2010 14:33, David Gerard wrote: > On 3 August 2010 14:31, Nathan wrote: >> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw >> The FBI sent a cease & desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal >> of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike repl

Re: [Foundation-l] Free translation memory

On 1 August 2010 04:08, stevertigo wrote: > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Jimmy O'Regan wrote: >> Open-Tran: http://open-tran.eu/ >> Is something like translatewiki. >> Software here: http://code.google.com/p/open-tran/ >> They also provide their databases for download. >> For running your ow

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

On 3 August 2010 22:05, wrote: > No ethics here then. Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: htt

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

On 3 August 2010 23:23, wrote: > David Gerard wrote: >> On 3 August 2010 22:05,   wrote: >>> No ethics here then. >> Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a >> Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling? > How is it trolling to

Re: [Foundation-l] Call for Volunteers: Wikimedia Research Committee

On 3 August 2010 18:52, Gregory Kohs wrote: > Will critics of less-than-best-practices within the Wikimedia Foundation be > considered for invitation to the Wikimedia Research Committee, or is there > some sort of loyalty "litmus test" going to be applied? > I've sent my self-nomination by privat

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

On 4 August 2010 19:11, wrote: > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-July/060076.html No detectable project participation. Thanks for your detailed response. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Un

Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation

On 6 August 2010 18:47, Michael Galvez wrote: > 3. We acquire dictionaries on limited licenses from other parties.  In > general, while we can surface this content on our own sites (e.g., Google > Translate, Google Dictionary, Google Translator Toolkit), we don't have > permission to donate that

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Internal-l] Pre-Strategy Finalization Goals Survey (Community)

On 6 August 2010 20:14, Sue Gardner wrote: > I sent this to an internal Wikimedia mailing list earlier today to surface > any bugs, and it seems to be working fine.  So, please do fill out this > survey, if you've got time :-) [X] I'd like us to have as long as five years to double our unique g

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

On 9 August 2010 20:45, James Heilman wrote: > To address the comments made.  The mediation committee does not have formal > means of enforcement.  This is something maybe we should look at creating. > What is needed is a group of people who actively research the topic and come > to a tentative a

Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott

On 1 February 2012 17:12, Lodewijk wrote: > could you perhaps elaborate how exactly the Free Knowledge would benifit > from boycotting non-OA journals? (Not meant sarcastic, I really want to > know) > Also, how would you imagine such support? I could imagine that with any > support by Wikimedia f

Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees

On 3 February 2012 12:57, Florence Devouard wrote: > I do not know if Phoebe would have been community elected or not. She did > not try. I can only guess that if she were not chosen this year by chapters, > she could very well be community elected in the future because she is > obviously very in

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >