On 29 July 2011 11:58, Thomas Morton wrote:
> While some editors do tend to argue binary options over sources, in general
> this is not the case (and if you are observing it as so, it's probably one
> of the battlefield areas where such things do occur).
They do tend to be noisiest, and they do
On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wrote:
> I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish
> texts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is
> that important to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon
> be, a verifiable En
On 29 July 2011 19:19, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Why can't you do both?
> Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed
> by a translation. Any bickering over the quality of the translation can be
> dealt with through consensus on the talk page, while the original is
On 6 August 2011 00:26, John Vandenberg wrote:
> And in doing so, the WMF wont have the benefit of the donations that
> are made because the donor responds well to the fact they know in
> advance that the money goes to a local organisation - an organisation
> which is accountable to the local reg
On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do with
> chapters?
That the message from WMF is about a decentralisation not working from
their perspective, so recentralising fundraising.
On 9 August 2011 16:36, Chris Keating wrote:
> So I simply do not accept that the right thing for the movement is for
> donations to be received by the Foundation and then passed on to the
> chapters. Chapters in my view have an important role to play in maximising
> the fundraising potential of
On 9 August 2011 18:29, geni wrote:
> On 9 August 2011 08:18, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>>> This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do with
>>> chapters?
>> That the message from WM
On 10 August 2011 21:30, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> On 8/9/11 1:46 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> (I don't think that is the intent - apparently WMF feels like it can
>> mess people around and still get 100% from them. I do consider that
>> the problems really haven't bee
[posted to foundation-l and wikitech-l, thread fork of a discussion elsewhere]
THESIS: Our inadvertent monopoly is *bad*. We need to make it easy to
fork the projects, so as to preserve them.
This is the single point of failure problem. The reasons for it having
happened are obvious, but it's st
On 12 August 2011 13:07, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> I do agree that the monopoly, at least in this case, is a bad thing, but I
> do not see why stimulating creation of the forks would be the best way to
> create competition. As far as I am concerned, the only real competition to
> us comes from
On 12 August 2011 13:37, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> My point is that making it easy to fork does not create good competitors.
> Good competitors come from elsewhere. And they will come, if we do not
> deploy WISIWIG, not lower the entrance barrier for novices, not make it
> harder to troll out
On 12 August 2011 20:53, geni wrote:
> On 12 August 2011 20:24, George Herbert wrote:
>> We still have wide gaps in knowledge coverage. Not in the most common
>> areas, but in many specialized areas, where they're not heavily
>> geek-populated.
> Yes but those don't have much to do with normal
On 12 August 2011 20:37, Sue Gardner wrote:
> I have mixed feelings about him leaving. I don't know everything he did
> on-wiki, but I know enough to respect his contributions, and I also found
> his e-mails (both on-list and off) enormously thoughtful and valuable. I am
> sad he's left and I'm g
On 14 August 2011 13:46, Krinkle wrote:
> The thread is about one of the following:
> * .. the ability to clone a MediaWiki install and upload it to your own domain
> to continue making edits, writing articles etc.
> * .. getting better dumps of Wikimedia wikis in particular (ie. Wikipedia)
> * .
2011/8/15 David Richfield :
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
>> On 12/08/11 20:55, David Gerard wrote:
>>> THESIS: Our inadvertent monopoly is *bad*. We need to make it easy to
>>> fork the projects, so as to preserve them.
>> I mus
On 15 August 2011 07:51, Tim Starling wrote:
> So you're worried about a policy change? What sort of policy change
> specifically would necessitate forking the project? Is there any such
> policy change which could plausibly be implemented by the Foundation
> while it remains a charity?
> I'm jus
http://blog.okfn.org/2011/08/15/austria-adopts-ckan-and-cc-by-as-nation-wide-defaults/
CC-by to be default licence for government data.
Anyone from .at in the house who could comment on this?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wiki
On 15 August 2011 14:22, church.of.emacs.ml
wrote:
> On 08/15/2011 02:50 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> http://blog.okfn.org/2011/08/15/austria-adopts-ckan-and-cc-by-as-nation-wide-defaults/
>> CC-by to be default licence for government data.
> Wow, this is awesome! I hope m
On 15 August 2011 20:02, Gustavo Carrancio wrote:
> Yes, leave and forking is our main problem. Sure. I think that to make easy
> to fork will be something like to show the exit way to some people well,
> let me think one minuteYes! excelent!
Although it's not a reason to go all-out, it
On 16 August 2011 09:06, Domas Mituzas wrote:
> Anyway, we should definitely build something like that, just don't pay
> attention to suicide rate.
:-) I am quite cognisant that the likely number of people wanting to
build a full fork of Wikipedia may well be *zero*. I apologise if I
have give
On 16 August 2011 09:18, David Gerard wrote:
> (BTW - we *do* have someone making sure the Internet Archive - or a
> similar organisation, if there are any similar organisations - has a
> full collection of all our backups, so if Florida was hit by a meteor
> tomorrow people would ha
On 16 August 2011 10:59, Milos Rancic wrote:
> That leads us to the serious dead end: We want forkability because of
> our principles. We could potentially lose parts of our movement.
> According to our principles, the only way to protect the movement is
> to be attractive to editors more than po
On 16 August 2011 14:37, Tim Starling wrote:
> I think that we should have some other reason for being attractive to
> our editors apart from fear of forking. Say, some sort of goal or
> mission statement, which is helped by having a strong WMF.
> One problem with using fear of forking as your pr
On 16 August 2011 20:39, Wjhonson wrote:
> I don't believe your claim that you can take something which is PD, make an
> exact image of it, slap it up in a new work of your own (enjoying copyright
> protection automatically) and then claim copyright over that PD image in your
> work.
Indeed.
On 19 August 2011 20:50, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> I was oh so very pleased to learn that I get to give my opinion on
> insignificant implementation details of a "feature" that stands in
> opposition to everything Wikipedia stands for which is going to be
> committed against us whether we like i
On 26 August 2011 08:55, Bishakha Datta wrote:
> Are we truly on a slippery slope with 'informative labelling' with neutral
> language? Or can this be considered another aspect of curation?
We have a category system. Modulo idiots (the danger of a wiki is that
people can edit it), it mostly wor
On 26 August 2011 13:30, Andrew Gray wrote:
> Legal identity is a bit tangential here, I think; if we accept a
> pseudonymous account as good enough to release the content under CC
> licenses to begin with, then all you'd need for relicensing would be
> for those same accounts to agree to it.
Y
On 26 August 2011 16:06, David Goodman wrote:
> This labeling is proposed to be done on the basis not of the regular
> commons categories, but of special ones designed for the purpose; not
> on the regular WP editors, but a special committee.
Ooh, *really*. Then this initiative will be bitterl
On 27 August 2011 09:04, wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2011 11:12am, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 26 August 2011 16:06, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > This labeling is proposed to be done on the basis not of the regular
>> > commons categories, but of special
On 28 August 2011 14:40, Nathan wrote:
> Has it been worked out how many chapters will be affected by this
> change?
All except WMDE.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailm
On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathan wrote:
> Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting
> like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters?
Because that's its effect: "The entire system of chapters, except
WMDE, is hereby recentralised. Thanks for your hard work, everyone!"
On 29 August 2011 11:51, Milos Rancic wrote:
> That will make significant overload in WMF's processing capabilities.
> Can't wait to see how WMF would analyze programs of any larger
> chapter; and chapters tend to be larger and larger. Ultimately, that
> will lead into even more delay in allocati
On 30 August 2011 10:11, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
> Ok, but is WMF an economic institution?
I was hoping to make a more general analogy.
How ab
On 2 September 2011 20:11, Florence Devouard wrote:
> I can not help commenting a bit more on the matter of "conflict of
> interest". I think I can probably say more on the matter than most
> people here.
If I could +1 this message I would.
> Our bylaws were changed a few years ago, as to dec
On 3 September 2011 10:51, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> The organization itself is not the objective.
+1
What things could WMF do to make itself obsolete as quickly as
possible, in as many individual areas as possible?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing lis
On 3 September 2011 11:14, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 3 September 2011 11:03, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 3 September 2011 10:51, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>> The organization itself is not the objective.
>> +1
>> What things could WMF do to make itself obsolete as
On 3 September 2011 21:45, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I was mentioned in a leaked US diplomatic cable - with my name spelled
> wrong!
> http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/11/08SANTIAGO1015.html
You'd think the founder of Wikileaks would be better known
- d.
__
On 4 September 2011 05:33, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> The committee running the vote on the features for the Personal Image Filter
> have released their interim report and vote count. You may see the results
> at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/en.
The bimodal d
On 4 September 2011 13:48, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> The Foundation needs to be mature enough to admit that they've screwed up
> this survey, apologise and try again. Next time, start by figuring out what
> you want to achieve by asking the questions and then choose the questions
> accordingly.
..
On 4 September 2011 14:08, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Frankly, I am quite unhappy about the referendum and share the
> concerns expressed by Thomas. I think that the Foundation did not take
> those Wikimedians serious who are opposed to the filter. The
> Foundation avoided the direct question whether
2011/9/4 Jon Davis :
> Walker, Wikipedia Ranger?
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2010/11/24/jimmy-wales-facts/
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 4 September 2011 20:42, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 4 September 2011 20:11, church.of.emacs.ml
> wrote:
>> That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
>> sense in German Wikipedia, since the German culture is generally pretty
>> liberal with respect to depictions of se
On 4 September 2011 20:57, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I never said there was anything wrong with the German Wikipedia. I was
> suggesting that swastikas might be something German people would want
> to filter out, even if none of them are offended by sex, violence, or
> images of Muhammad. Even if th
On 4 September 2011 21:16, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 4 September 2011 21:12, David Gerard wrote:
>> The trouble is that at its edges, education is fundamentally
>> disconcerting, upsetting and subversive. And that this is a matter
>> only of degree, not of kind.
> I
On 4 September 2011 21:20, rupert THURNER wrote:
> swastikas are not problem, but scorpions seem to be recently, haha:
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
> * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
Well, en:wp allows fair use, but de:wp doesn't. Which averts that one nicely.
-
On 4 September 2011 20:28, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:16:42PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> I agree, and I would never turn on such a filter. That doesn't mean
>> that other people shouldn't be allowed to if they want to.
> Right, but then they won't be educated.
> But, if
On 4 September 2011 20:38, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:29:25PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> They won't be educated *as much*. They can still be educated. If they
>> don't use Wikipedia at all because of fear of seeing things they don't
>> want to see (or, because their paren
On 4 September 2011 21:36, rupert THURNER wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 22:22, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 4 September 2011 21:20, rupert THURNER wrote:
>>> swastikas are not problem, but scorpions seem to be recently, haha:
>>> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
On 4 September 2011 21:44, Michael Dale wrote:
> It will be a lot easier to import from YouTube once Timed media handler adds
> support for webm to commons. If you check out the wikivideo-l and commons
> lists for some recent example YouTube to commons scripts. I know this is not
> super usef
On 4 September 2011 21:18, Kim Bruning wrote:
> I really wish people would read previous discussions.
But it's all "LOL so simple" if you don't.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedi
On 4 September 2011 22:18, Sarah Stierch wrote:
>> I really wish people would read previous discussions.
> Don't be passive aggressive ;)
I think it's an entirely reasonable statement, given what Kim's cited
in his reply is stuff that came up in the last week.
- d.
_
On 4 September 2011 22:50, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 4 September 2011 21:18, Kim Bruning wrote:
>> I really wish people would read previous discussions.
> I read the discussions, I just don't see any merit in the arguments.
> Of course the labels are prejudiced, that's the whole point. People
>
On 5 September 2011 00:26, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Please define "censorship" because I think the word must mean something very
> different to you than it does to me. To me it means one person stopping
> another person from seeing something the first person doesn't want the
> second person to see.
On 5 September 2011 14:59, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> What I'd expect now from the committee/WMF is an acknowledgement that
> the image filter is nowhere near the no-brainer they imagined it to be,
> and a commitment to not do any further work towards implementation until
> a real community discu
On 5 September 2011 19:08, Stephen Bain wrote:
> It provides a quite satisfactory 'yes' in answer to the question of
> whether it is worth the devs' time coding beginning development. We're
> merely talking about a proposed software feature here.
I didn't see that question on the survey.
I'm s
On 5 September 2011 21:23, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2011 9:19 PM, "Stephen Bain" wrote:
>> The first question asked people how important they considered it to be
>> that the projects offer the feature. The perceived importance of
>> offering a new software feature indicates the level/qua
On 5 September 2011 21:35, Stephen Bain wrote:
> The referendum was pretty clearly predicated on the basis that the
> feature was going forward:
> "The Board of Trustees has directed the Wikimedia Foundation to
> develop and implement a personal image hiding feature."
> "[The referendum was held]
On 5 September 2011 22:09, Stephen Bain wrote:
> It indicated importance. The mean response to the first question of 5.7 and
> the medium response of 6 points to the community considering it moderately
> important that the feature be offered, which suggests moderate dedication of
> dev resources
On 6 September 2011 12:56, 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 step that
On 7 September 2011 09:15, Milos Rancic wrote:
> We need to stop wasting time and energy on personal wishes of two
> Board members. As it isn't about removing the content, any solution is
> better than wasting willingness on one nonconstructive and decadent
> project. If that time and energy was
On 7 September 2011 15:40, Thomas Morton wrote:
> I confess to not being "on top" of the exact mechanics of this proposal...
> but why can we not be using normal categories?
> Ok so for ease of use it is sensible to consider pre-made "bundles" of
> commonly filtered images (and I can see the issu
On 7 September 2011 15:55, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Obviously given the complexity of the category tree system any such
> engineering wouldn't be infallible - but you could match it to most use
> cases. Ultimately it is just a collapsing tree problem, and they are ten a
> penny to a decent engineer
On 7 September 2011 22:26, Risker wrote:
>> Turning off images should be, and can be, done by the user-agent.
>> We have a help page describing how to do this.
> That would be the page with the great big "this page is out of date" notice
> at the top, giving instructions that are not valid for t
On 8 September 2011 21:43, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:39 AM, FT2 wrote:
>> A more plausible option is to make WMF more conspicuous. Right now it's
>> almost unknown that WP is part of a wider project.
>> "
>> An educational website of the Wikimedia Foundation"
> That is a
On 9 September 2011 12:44, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> If you don't like the feature, then don't use it.
This statement implies it will not affect the encyclopedia's contents
in any way at all - that the implementation will be provably free of
side-effects.
Are you guaranteeing this? If so, then base
On 9 September 2011 12:54, Kim Bruning wrote:
> After that, we get back to the side effects of regular (non-wikipedia
> kind) filters. This information is well documented all over the net.
> You'll discover that not just images, but also the pages those images
> are on will not be reachable. We've
On 10 September 2011 01:15, Phil Nash wrote:
> But changing, and toughening up the TOS is sending the right message to the
> wrong people. Any technically savvy journalist is going to realise the
> weakness in doing that, and any committed troll/vandal/disrupter is going to
> be able to subvert a
On 10 September 2011 09:34, Yann Forget wrote:
> 2011/9/10 Philippe Beaudette :
>> I do not yet have a full feed that meets our needs for analysis beyond
>> what's already done.
> We should have started by this before organizing a "referendum".
I've asked only twice now, here goes for a third
On 10 September 2011 06:33, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> I also enjoy the photo with the guy pointing at the storyboard, and under
> awarness it has the point "put a face".
Something like http://v.gd/XH404Q ? Works a couple of months a year ...
- d.
_
On 10 September 2011 12:14, Milos Rancic wrote:
> And while I think that such tool would include other cultures as well
> (there are other cultures in the world, besides Christian and Muslim
> right-wingers), motivation for this filter didn't come from Muslims or
> indigenous people of Australia,
On 11 September 2011 17:22, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 09:38:38AM -0700, Sue Gardner wrote:
>> I wrote the questions, with Phoebe and SJ, in Boston at the Wikipedia
>> in Higher Ed conference.
>> It's not a secret -- I wrote about it here:
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph
On 12 September 2011 06:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> Only countries which have lists of monuments compiled by the government
> and having the status of the law are eligible for WLM. This is in some
> sense POV but no more POV than say writing articles of members of
> parliament who were elect
[subject changed]
On 12 September 2011 08:46, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> Right, but we do have this systemic bias already in place: in ALL our
> projects, the articles on localities in Sweden are longer and better
> written (and better illustrated) than the articles on localities in Burkina
>
On 12 September 2011 21:50, Tempodivalse wrote:
> I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of
> WIkinews' contributor base has forked into its own project
> (http://theopenglobe.org) after becoming deeply dissatisfied with Wikinews.
> The new wiki has finished its cre
On 12 September 2011 22:57, MZMcBride wrote:
> From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is "one down, several hundred to
> go." Wikimedia has made it clear that its singular focus is the English
> Wikipedia. All other Wikipedias are peripheral; all other project types are
> abandoned. Perhaps w
On 12 September 2011 23:17, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2011 11:10 PM, "Thomas Morton"
> wrote:
>> It's a tiny bit disappointing that the tone here is "oh well, we tried and
>> failed".
>> When really it should be "cool - now we have a competitor, what do we need
>> to give WN to help them
2011/9/13 David Richfield :
> As for Wikiquote being one of our less useful projects, that's
> possibly true, but only because the other projects are so awesome!
> The web is awash with crap quotation websites of with the same
> misattributed quotes being incestuously copied around - Wikiquote is
2011/9/13 David Richfield :
>> It's possible. The interface part is even quite easy.
>> The hard part is defining a data model to contain all the words in all
>> languages, with definitions in all languages, with morphology tables,
>> etc. Something like this is slowly being done at www.omegawiki.
On 13 September 2011 16:04, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Supporting/Investing in the extensions used by OmegaWiki.
> http://www.omegawiki.org/Special:Version
Including one credited, I see, to "Alan Smithee" ...
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
founda
It may seem a big goal, but perhaps en:wp can emulate the success of
en:wn. Will we achieve the best-practice level of seven layers of
review? We can but hope.
- d.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Chad
Date: 13 September 2011 17:18
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Autoconfirmed articl
On 14 September 2011 14:45, Sydney Poore wrote:
> Besides your acknowledged bias towards confronting people with their bias
> and forcing a discussion, it is also not very practical that we be the host
> for discussions on talk pages continuously with large groups of people. It
> fatigues our est
On 14 September 2011 21:02, Achal Prabhala wrote:
> It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the world now follows the
> Wikinews model.
No, you're describing bare skimming of the unedited social media pool.
Wikinews follows a process-heavy review model, so laborious that news
dies before get
On 15 September 2011 19:26, Thomas Morton wrote:
>> Thirdly, there never has in the past been *any* hierarchy in
>> wikimedia, that is the beauty of it. And any attempt at empire
>> building, now, or in the future, is doomed to fail. There is a
>> governance structure, but that should be ring-fe
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/28644
FLAWLESS VICTORY! [*]
- d.
[*] I expect Geni to be along in a moment picking holes in this statement.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.
On 15 September 2011 23:22, Chris Keating wrote:
> The judgement is a preliminary injunction prior to a hearing. Presumably the
> respondents will present a case at the hearing - do we know if they will
> present arguments that the CC-By-SA license is somehow unenforceable?
> However, the descrip
On 15 September 2011 23:48, MZMcBride wrote:
> If anyone knows of any other bugs/requests, please feel free to list them.
> As the page notes, these rejections are rare, but in my opinion they offer a
> fascinating look into the "Wikipedia power structure."[1]
The community, God love it, is *fr
On 16 September 2011 09:40, Peter Gervai wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:08, Tobias Oelgarte
> wrote:
>> A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
>> filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
>> introduce the feature.
> I believe it is a fa
On 16 September 2011 10:27, Peter Gervai wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:23, David Gerard wrote:
>>> I believe it is a fair assumption that we have voted for developing
>>> the feature,
>> Citation needed.
> Well I am the universally official source for my o
On 16 September 2011 18:13, Milos Rancic wrote:
> * It's likely that staff and Board already know that correlation
> between the results of German Wikipedia referendum and global survey
> could be drawn to support previous two conclusions. Thus, they don't
> want to publish that part of data.
T
On 17 September 2011 09:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Just to be clear, I might not join a hypothetical fork myself as an editor,
> but I feel the ability to fork is so precious a boon for projects like us,
> that
> it would be worth it to bankroll one purely on the principle of the thing.
On 17 September 2011 10:16, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:11 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> We need people to try the technical basics of a fork, i.e. taking an
>> en:wp dump, an images dump, ..
> Is there an images dump?
If there isn't, there should
On 17 September 2011 15:50, Kim Bruning wrote:
> My first instincts for de.wikipedia would be to note down
> de.wikipedia's usage statistics, get a bunch of techies together, and
> all go have a nice chat with say hetzner.de, to figure out roughly what
> things will cost. You can always start a b
On 18 September 2011 14:38, Yann Forget wrote:
> At the beginning, I was quite neutral about a filter: I had no idea
> how it would work, and I wouldn't use it, but what if somebody else
> wants it?
> But after reading nearly all comments on this list, I think that the
> arguments for a filter do
On 19 September 2011 06:28, David Levy wrote:
> Additionally, if and when the WMF proudly announces the filters'
> introduction, the news media and general public won't accept "bad luck
> to those using the feature" as an excuse for its failure.
Oh, yes. The trouble with a magical category is n
On 19 September 2011 15:50, Fae wrote:
> All of these would be problematic; if these were the default criteria
> for a school to enforce on their pupils when using school computers,
> one could imagine images of many 18th century paintings or depictions
> of gods being excluded due to "nude femal
On 19 September 2011 16:14, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:56 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> How much is "mutilated"? A scratch? Ten scratches? A hundred
>> scratches? St Sebastian?
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sebastia.jpg
> I&#x
On 19 September 2011 18:24, Fae wrote:
> Alternatively anyone who has "common sense" can take Wikipedia for
> free and hack it about in their own time and cash in by selling it to
> schools that would like to benefit from a *guaranteed* child friendly
> and religiously tolerant (out of date) vers
On 19 September 2011 18:57, Phil Nash wrote:
> Hasn't this already happened, albeit on a voluntary basis, and with free
> distribution?
> http://schools-wikipedia.org/
If that were sufficient for whatever purpose the Board is thinking of,
this proposal wouldn't have happened.
So we need a deta
On 21 September 2011 11:41, Kim Bruning wrote:
> While surveys show that a small majority finds this option
> (marginally) acceptable, current best analysis suggests that this
> particular option may not be implementable within the intersecting
> frames of the wikimedia movement and the laws of p
On 21 September 2011 14:14, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> The real problem here is that if there was a real market for stupid
> sites like that, they would already be there. And they are not, which
> does seem to point to the conclusion that there isn't a real market
> for such sites. Doesn't it
301 - 400 of 1151 matches
Mail list logo
