On 21 September 2011 15:43, Milos Rancic wrote:
> They want that censoring tool and I think that they won't be content
> until they get it. Thus, let them have it and let them leave the rest
> of us alone.
Ah, you didn't read the bit of the report that specifically said a
filtering mechanism sh
On 21 September 2011 16:37, WereSpielChequers
wrote:
> But since Flickr has already proven that something like this can work in
> practice, can we agree to classify Image filters as one of those things that
> work in practice but not in theory? Then we can concentrate on the practical
> issue of
On 21 September 2011 18:41, Kim Bruning wrote:
> David's Magical Flying unicorn ponies work very well thank you in
> the frame of fairytale fiction.
Originally from discussion of an actually impossible project at work.
"Look, we've specified a magical flying unicorn pony because we think
they'l
On 21 September 2011 19:47, David Levy wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> Don't worry! Any implementation of censorship project would lead to
>> endless troll-fests which would be more dumb than Youtube comments.
>> The point is just to kick out them out of productive projects. Imagine
>> a place wh
On 21 September 2011 21:20, Kanzlei wrote:
> This poll was not representative for wikipedia readers, but only for some
> German wikipedia editors. Scientifically research found that Germa editors
> are not representative for German speaking people but far more
> environmetal-liberal-leftists
On 21 September 2011 18:58, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 07:42:18PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 21 September 2011 18:41, Kim Bruning
>> wrote:
>> > David's Magical Flying unicorn ponies work very well thank you in
>> > the frame of
On 22 September 2011 12:19, WereSpielChequers
wrote:
> So is there a simpler way to do this, is there some flaw in this that would
> prevent it working, or is this the flying unicorn option?
I believe it was envisioned as working for anonymous casual readers as well.
There *should* be some way
On 22 September 2011 12:50, Robert Rohde wrote:
> Teachers are wary of Wikipedia, and one of the reasons (justifiable or
> not) is that our content is too adult. I recall hearing anecdotes of
> Wikipedia reading being blocked in some schools because of this.
> Having a "safe" version for schools
On 22 September 2011 15:43, emijrp wrote:
> I hope my redaction is good enough to explain my opinion about this topic.
> Please, if you find errors, fix them, I'm not very fluent in English.
> Thanks.
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_a_deadline
Slightly copyedited, per your
On 23 September 2011 11:38, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Wikipedia was also briefly blocked in Pakistan, because of the Mohammed
> cartoon controversy. So there might be a scenario where countries like Saudi
> Arabia and Pakistan figure out how to block access to adult images and images
> of Mohamme
On 23 September 2011 14:01, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> And all the data in the world right now is not going to change the way I
> feel, and this stuff just frustrates me.
I too heartily endorse MPOV as a foundational Wikimedia principle.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MPOV
- d.
On 23 September 2011 14:57, Stephen Bain wrote:
> The dewiki poll had 300 participants, the one on meta over 23,000.
There was a poll on meta which asked "do you want the filter"? I'd
love a link to it.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation
On 23 September 2011 16:17, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Obviously, majority of those who have small number of edits --
> who represent specific part of readers, those who have opinion toward
> Wikipedia articles, but who don't want to spend their time on editing
> Wikipedia -- they are in favor.
Er,
On 24 September 2011 22:40, wrote:
> The last I heard the German people, as expressed through their
> lawmakers, DO NOT want their kids looking at porn or images that are
> excessively violent. They go so far as periodically getting Google to
> filter the search results for Germans.
Analog
On 24 September 2011 23:00, Phil Nash wrote:
> The IWF just did not understand how access to Wikipedia works; a strange
> situation, given their mission. And it wasn't helped by their publicity at
> the time, IIRC. Fortunately, they seem to have shut up since then, and
> possibly got their act to
On 26 September 2011 14:23, WereSpielChequers
wrote:
> BTW I was sorry to hear about your problems on EN wiki, I don't know the
I should point out that block, or even ban, status has never been a
barrier to participation on this list.
- d.
___
foun
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
> Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please
> discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
> conversation about the image f
On 29 September 2011 07:40, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
>> - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the bo
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
> Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please
> discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
> conversation about the image f
On 29 September 2011 23:45, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
>>> http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
>>> Pretty sound blog, no matter which po
On 29 September 2011 23:53, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Not dealing with pending comments promptly doesn't sound like
> arbitrary filtering to me...
Note comments from others in this thread experiencing the same.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
found
On 30 September 2011 00:28, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with
> nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems
> quite valid.
Really, every single response to every single comment?
It suggests communication has alr
On 30 September 2011 01:56, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-letter.html
>> He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all
>> manner
On 30 September 2011 13:40, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> First attempt at labeling content was made by Uwe Kils, and his class
> of students collectively logging as Vikings or something of the sort
> tagged content not suitable for teenst. Jimbo banned them, but an
> accomodation was made where
http://wikitrekk.blogspot.com/2011/09/out-of-blue.html
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 30 September 2011 19:41, Theo10011 wrote:
> Then, there also Kim's challenge to break such a filtering system.
Kim doesn't need to do a damn thing. There are enough *actual* trolls
on the Internet to mess with it just for the lulz.
- d.
___
foun
http://www.berlios.de/
Is there anything we could do to help? Is this too far outside our area?
I recall how useful and helpful BerliOS was back in the olden days
when it was Wikipedia's downtime backup and news source ... before
Wikipedia going down knocked over BerliOS too.
- d.
On 30 September 2011 20:04, Michael Snow wrote:
> On this score, it seems likely that we are failing to live up to one of
> our core principles, that of neutrality. I think we need significantly
> better editorial judgment applied to many of these articles to address
> it. That will be a challeng
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Sondage/Installation_d%27un_Filtre_d%27image
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 6 October 2011 12:49, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> But all users would need to do so, because a random user or sysop could
> be asked to publish the correction/statement. On wiki there was a
> discussion about how to globally implement such a switch to clandestine
> accounts...
Personally s
On 06/10/2011, Lodewijk wrote:
> The WIki is back online already. But the village pump page was (at least for
> the last day) available.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> No dia 6 de Outubro de 2011 18:17, teun spaans
> escreveu:
>
>> As I understand, the change has only been proposed.
>>
>> Possibly another inter
On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen wrote:
>> The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
>> to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed.
> How do you know? The "referendum" didn't ask whether people were
On 9 October 2011 22:03, Bob the Wikipedian wrote:
> The fact
> is that a majority of the community expressed it was either a good idea
> or something important to them (interpret that however you care to), and
> Wikimedia finds it important to please the majority of their users.
I think that r
On 10 October 2011 11:17, Hubert wrote:
> Am 09.10.2011 16:35, schrieb Anneke Wolf:
>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewalt
> dear Anneke,
> +1
> and see the basic difference and the disaccordance in understanding and
> meaning of violence.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
I don't unders
On 10 October 2011 18:58, Hubert wrote:
> David, did you read the german article completely?
> have you compared the contents of which part of the concept of violence
> and more attention is paid to what portion of the term violence in en:
> wp did not occur?
> Gewalt ist nicht unbedingt in gleic
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 consensus fairly
> quickly.
On 12 October 2011 14:09, David Levy wrote:
> Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> We already have bad image lists like
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list
>> If you remain wedded to an abstract philosophical approach, such lists
>> are not neutral. But they answer a real need.
> Apart f
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,791316,00.html
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I love Cracked. It's Wikipedia with dick jokes.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19453_6-reasons-were-in-another-book-burning-period-in-history_p2.html
To be ha ha only serious for a moment, this touches on why we all
bother doing this.
(But an image filter definitely needs money spent on it.)
-
On 16 October 2011 14:40, ??? wrote:
> Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for
Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was
complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs lacking in
empathy.
- d.
On 18 October 2011 10:43, Thomas Morton wrote:
> If an individual expresses a preference to hide certain content, it is
> reasonable for us to provide that option for use at their discretion.
> Anything else is like saying "No, your views on acceptability are wrong and
> we insist you must see th
On 18 October 2011 15:17, Béria Lima wrote:
> He did it 5 times from 2005 to 2008, and I never saw a sex article on it. In
> fact we used to joke that pt.wiki is made only by French villages and
> asteroids (because EVERYONE get one of them in their 15 articles) ;)
en:wp was like that in 2004 -
On 18 October 2011 15:40, Nathan wrote:
> I'll admit it: If you were to propose a method for filtering NSFW
> article topics, I would stop and stare at the train wreck. It's an
> embarrassing character flaw, but I know I wouldn't be able to avoid
> watching the carnage and counting the bodies.
On 19 October 2011 10:07, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> wrote:
>> Yes, but that is not proof of what we as a community understand the
>> principle to mean, it means the board is on crack.
> That's not a helpful contribution to this discussion.
On 19 October 2011 14:14, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> Well, let's make sure that in any implementation of an image filter
> that does go ahead, we've thought through and addressed each of those
> consequences. You won't find any argument from me on that.
> --
> Andrew Garrett
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
On 20 October 2011 16:02, Andreas K. wrote:
> Not everybody uses the Internet in the same way. Many younger users are
> fairly inured to porn and gore, having seen it all before. But a lot of the
> people who have something to offer Wikipedia in the, you know, *educational*
> field, are turned of
On 22 October 2011 20:58, Erik Moeller wrote:
> If not, would
> you be interested in organizing some community discussion on whether
> there are solutions within the scope of the resolution that the dewiki
> community would find acceptable, or whether the prevailing view is
> that the resolution
On 22 October 2011 22:23, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good
> opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that
> a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But
> even if 99.99% of editors are
On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and
> the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?
And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
the use case this does not serve?
The board have n
On 22 October 2011 23:36, Erik Moeller wrote:
> A show/hide all images function is likely too drastic to serve some of
> these use cases well. So for example, if you're at work, you might not
> want to have autofellatio on your screen by accident, but you'd be
> annoyed at having to un-hide a fab
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_%28Mickey_Mouse%29%22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif
Holy shit.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wi
On 23 October 2011 00:11, Steven Walling wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2011 4:05 PM, "David Gerard" wrote:
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_%28Mickey_Mouse%29%22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif
>> Holy shit.
> This
On 23 October 2011 00:19, David Gerard wrote:
> I am *amazed* that it took a whole month for someone to mention it on
> [[:en:Talk:Mickey Mouse]], and another half an hour before someone
> (me) replaced the image in the article itself ...
And I've just done a version without th
On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wrote:
> On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work
> carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the
> one on the derivative (which "extends only to the material contributed
> by the author of such work, as distingu
On 23 October 2011 09:16, Peter Damian wrote:
> Edward
Is "Edward" Peter Damian, or someone else?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 23 October 2011 10:01, teun spaans wrote:
> I completely agree :)
So you can address my answer, even as Nikola didn't quite.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/lis
On 23 October 2011 11:50, Fae wrote:
> How about the fact that newspaper websites regularly include shocking
> images of violence and death on their main pages and have few
> complaints as they rely on editorial control rather than built-in
> software tricks? This is a solution looking for a prob
On 23 October 2011 12:30, Fae wrote:
> PS "clear failure" looks like an opinion, not a statement of fact.
> Presumably this relates to an official position of the WMF?
An opinion held by several staff on the matter, including the
Executive Director. I consider this significant, you may not.
-
On 23 October 2011 15:36, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> One open problem is the so called "logic/brain of the system". Until we
> have an exact description on how it will exactly work, we know neither
> it's strong points nor it's weak spots. Until i see an algorithm that is
> able to solve this task,
On 23 October 2011 13:12, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the
> underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole
> concept of derivative works.
The deletion discussion was reopened by Anthony and is still in
prog
On 25 October 2011 17:52, Andreas K. wrote:
> For those interested, there is a current request for arbitration on English
> Wikipedia related to the board resolution on controversial content, which
> contains some further views and discussion. I have summarised my view that
> our illustrations, j
On 26 October 2011 11:04, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> So, on Thursday we're going to be holding an Office Hours session on IRC to
> discuss the Article Feedback Tool and what we're planning to do with it -
> namely, scrapping it and replacing it with an entirely new version ;).
*slaps own forehead*
On 26 October 2011 08:31, Tom Morris wrote:
> https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/29993
> Creative Commons, those nice people who make all this sharing stuff
> possible, are having their annual fundraiser.
I see they use testimonials too. We should probably offer one. I'd
guess we're the m
On 28 October 2011 13:48, Peter Gervai wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 04:05, Tim Starling wrote:
>> as I did. We both spend a lot of time making sure Wikipedia is always
>> up and available for people to read, so it's painful to see a small
>> proportion of a wiki's users decide to take a whol
On 28 October 2011 20:08, Kim Bruning wrote:
> I have the impression that most opposition comes from people with an IT
> background. That is to say, people who have tried to figure it out, and have
> had
> some trouble finding a solution. (I may be biased, since that's my own
> personal
> backg
http://www.good.is/post/the-most-important-occupy-wall-street-photographer-you-ve-never-heard-of/
An interview with David Shankbone that's actually about the joys of
contributing good, useful, original free content to the general
commons. A very good advertisement for the concept.
"You may not kn
On 30 October 2011 10:15, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> Along the same line of reasoning, I see
> that 99% of admins use template warnings which I hate and I never used any
> template warning except for copyright violation when I was still an admin.
> In my opinion, getting a template warning is
On 30 October 2011 16:44, Brandon Harris wrote:
> (One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people,
> *there is no talk page button*. There's a "Discussion" tab. So when
> someone says "Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help
> you out!" that means.
On 31 October 2011 11:04, David Gerard wrote:
> I suspect our main newbie problem is Wikipedia's utter opacity.
> Outsiders have *no goddamn clue* how this thing is even supposed to wo
work, let alone how it actually does.
- d.
___
f
I’ve been into Wikipedia for several years, and all my friends know
this. I *still* find myself having to explain to them in small words
that that “edit” link really does include them fixing typos when they
see one.
So my suggestion: tiny tiny steps like this: things people can do that
have a stro
On 31 October 2011 11:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> What's the impact of changes like
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Tagline&diff=20130615&oldid=17050524
> ?
> (Probably minimal, readers don't actually read our invitations to edit
> anyway, usually.)
Do we have knowl
On 31 October 2011 12:30, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> Not sure about that specific change, but one illustration might be the
> Article Feedback Tool, which contains a "you know you can edit, right?"
> thing. Off the top of my head I think 17.4 percent of the 30-40,000 people
> who use it per day attemp
On 31 October 2011 13:01, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> I imagine for the other 14.6 percent the
> process goes something along the lines of "oh, it says I can make the
> changes myself, lets do thaWAUGH, WHAT IN CTHULU'S NAME DOES ALL THIS TEXT
> MEAN"
I've been editing nearly 8 years and I get that r
On 1 November 2011 23:39, Mateus Nobre wrote:
> If the sources are so important to Wikipedia, this has to be easier to
> newbies.
The essential problem is that the Wikipedia community is newbie-hostile.
Not actively - mostly - but passively. They view newbies as trouble and work.
Hence all t
On 2 November 2011 12:11, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Well, you'll hear no such thing from me (and I'm arguably one of the
> more verbal opponents of the image filter as originally proposed). This
> neatly sidestep all of the fatal flaws with filters where moral
> judgments are imposed, or our we
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_is_a_mess_wikipedians_say_1_in_20_articl.php
Now, we have a lot of work to do, it's obviously encyclopedic and it
would be hard to get really wrong.
What needs to be in place to make it possible to recruit newbies for
the task of referencing things?
On 2 November 2011 21:28, Nathan wrote:
> To explain what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:QUICKREF
YES. We need this horribly urgently.
It should also pop up when someone clicks on a "[citation needed]" tag
- that's a blue link that looks like a direct invitation, after all.
-
On 2 November 2011 21:41, Nathan wrote:
> I knew it looked so obvious someone must've already tried to do it.
> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ProveIt.jpg and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ProveIt_GT. This is a GUI reference
> adding interface that shows up while editing (i.e., afte
2011/11/3 David Richfield :
>> This should be kept in mind (particularly for bot design) when many new
>> articles such as biographies are *incorrectly* tagged for speedy deletion
>> or as unsourced when sources are present in the article, they just do not
>> use the citation template or ref tag.
On 3 November 2011 09:31, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Also can the expression "citation needed" be changed to something that
> is more inviting to newbies, like "Please add citation"?
We may be late for that - "citation needed" is entering English.
- d.
___
On 3 November 2011 09:45, Béria Lima wrote:
> Well, no newbie will wake up and say: "I want to place references in
> Wikipedia articles today" - they do because one of us asked them to do. And
> all (maybe not all but most of) us know the software, and don't cost more
> of our time ask them t
On 3 November 2011 12:22, Tom Morris wrote:
> Perhaps this could be part of the article feedback tool: "is this article
> missing a source? could you tell us what it is?" - this would automatically
> dump a new section on the talk page with whatever they type in, along with
> a template called so
On 3 November 2011 12:53, Nathan wrote:
> I
> wish we didn't always have to dispense with this tired argument that
> making editing easier will inundate the projects with idiots. Easy and
> open editing is the ethos that built the whole project.
Yes. All arguments of this form are saying "newbi
On 3 November 2011 13:27, Fae wrote:
> On 3 November 2011 12:27, David Gerard wrote:
>> Backlogs as a concern translate directly to "newbies are inherently a
>> problem."
> I don't get the point being made here,
People who say "But x would lead to a ba
2011/11/4 David Richfield :
>>> I'd disagree. Newbie treatment is important, but having quarter of a
>>> million articles without a single reference is also important given WP:V.
>> It's also valuable to avoid giving undue weight to WP:V.
> My opinion (and it's just an opinion) is that it's real
On 19 November 2011 18:05, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2011/11/19 Mateus Nobre :
>> +1.
>> always thought it.
> There is actually such a wiki-project called "WikiHow":
> http://www.wikihow.com/Main-Page
It is, however, CC by-nc-sa - not actually free content. So there's a
niche here.
- d.
__
On 19 November 2011 14:09, Mateus Nobre wrote:
>> Puts the neutrality of the Wikipedia into severe doubt, though. Parliament
>> speeches aren't particularly known for choosing a neutral point of view.
> The Italian parliament quickly changed its mind cause they can't make new
> speechs without
On 26 November 2011 19:54, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
[snip long list of concerns with this latest attempt in practice]
> I'm very curious what we try to achieve with this filter? Is it really
> to get more readers or is it just to introduce a filter that is in some
> way predefinable? Where is the
On 26 November 2011 21:50, Möller, Carsten wrote:
> The only exeptable filter would be a _strictly_ personal one.
> Stored on the users computer in an encrypeted file, which he can transfer
> from one computer on his memorystick or CD to the other if logged in with the
> same username, but not
On 28 November 2011 07:38, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> 2011/11/28 Dirk Franke :
>> Seriously: Could we please create something like the Twitter Fail Whale?
>> Maybe a Sad Jimbo? Could help fundraising as well..
> Scattered pieces of the puzzle globe.
+1
- d.
___
On 28 November 2011 02:12, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Using phrases like "some people", "a few people" is a pathetic representation
> of the reality. It isn't a minority you want to address/oppose, but a huge and
> strong entrenched core group. Pretending otherwise is just pure madness.
Unf
On 28 November 2011 09:34, Andre Engels wrote:
> Our core mission is making information and knowledge available to
> people who want it, not pushing it down their throats against their
> will.
Show that there is a demand. Build a filtered Wikipedia and get rich.
(There must be a FAQ somewhere
On 28 November 2011 10:07, Andre Engels wrote:
> You're saying that anything that is not wanted by more than a few
> people goes against our core mission?
No, and nor did I say anything that could reasonably be construed as that.
- d.
___
foundatio
On 28 November 2011 10:51, Andre Engels wrote:
> I said that an image filter was not against our core mission. You
> reacted to that by saying that I should show that there is a demand.
> Then you added something about "all the points refuted a thousand
> times like this". Surely it is quite reas
On 29 November 2011 12:03, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> What i found to be the best solution so far was the "blurred images
> filter". You can 'opt-in' to enable it and all images will be blurred as
> the default. Since they are only blurred you will get a rough impression
> on what to expect (someth
On 29 November 2011 12:56, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> ... And I still want to see the "good reason for doing so". So far i
> could not find one single reason that was worthy to implement such a
> filter considering all the drawbacks it causes. That doesn't mean that
Yes.
The Board voted unanimou
On 2 December 2011 11:00, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> A fourth area of contention is money and specifically whether this is a
> legitimate use of the money donated to the movement. We've already had one
> UK board member ask awkward question re this.
Wikimedia Deutschland has passed a motion aga
On 2 December 2011 14:36, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> My reading of that is that the board has agreed to drop the idea of a
> filter based on our category system, but unfortunately they haven't yet
> agreed to drop the idea that someone controlling an IP could censor what
> other viewers using tha
On 6 December 2011 10:14, Bod Notbod wrote:
> Hardly surprising or new, but something we need to be aware of:
> Wikipedia is being edited by a large lobbying company, Bell Pottinger.
> It removes negative coverage of its clients:
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/caught-on-camera-to
On 9 December 2011 14:58, Nathan wrote:
> I don't accept your false equivalence between Harvard/Science Po and
> McDonalds, nor do I believe you misunderstood my point: that
> advertising is commonly rejected for its potential for various harms,
> while even those who object to this banner have n
401 - 500 of 1151 matches
Mail list logo
