On 5 October 2011 09:03, M. Williamson wrote:
> If you don't even think that is a comparable situation, then you clearly
> don't understand at all what some people think the image filter is all
> about.
Indeed. As a supporter (to some extent) of an image filter; I can entirely
see how it could
On 5 October 2011 09:26, Jalo wrote:
> >
> > If you don't even think that is a comparable situation, then you clearly
> > don't understand at all what some people think the image filter is all
> > about.
> >
>
> You're comparing a wiki without images with a world (the italian world)
> without wik
On 5 October 2011 10:45, Lodewijk wrote:
> (changing the topic, since hijacking a thread is considered inpolite)
>
> I think indeed they are incomparable. One is an internal political
> discussion, the other is totally external and legal.
So de.wiki doing this would be merit-less because it is
On 5 October 2011 11:20, church.of.emacs.ml <
church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 10/05/2011 06:25 AM, Aaron Adrignola wrote:
> > I'm sure those on this list are familiar with the de.wikipedia poll on
> the
> > proposed image filter with its strong outcome on a particular side of the
>
On 5 October 2011 16:07, wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: emijrp
>
>
> >By the way, our free licenses also need to show the text authors. Thousand
> >people re-use the contents and link to the Wikipedia page. As far as I
> know,
> >no history is available now at Italian Wikipedia to
mid-2013.
Last ones were in June.
Tom
On 9 October 2011 17:18, Nathan wrote:
> I could probably look this up and find out, but can anyone tell me
> when the next Board election will be?
>
> Nathan
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@li
On 10 October 2011 12:16, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Taking a step back, to look at the bigger picture
>
I would; but someone added it to this pesky image filter...
(too soon? sorry :P)
Tom
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
U
On 11 October 2011 15:08, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Also in today's Guardian:
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/11/david-cameron-porn-filter-isps?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
>
>
> ISPs moved quickly to insist that the provisions will only apply to people
> taking out completely new contra
On 11 October 2011 21:51, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:55:46PM +0100, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> > OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should
> > meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the
> > objections that I'm awa
>
> By modern day standards the image is more comical than titillating
> *by our Finnish standards* --- but would be highly suspect in the US,
> atleast
> if the deletion debate for that image at commons is to be given credence
> to...
It is a horrendously useless illustration of Pedophilia (fro
>
> Secondly, it ignores the fact that an encyclopedia, at least in intention,
> does not deal in opinions at all, but rather in facts
Not at all!
You've confused "a fact" with factual. What we record is factual - but it
might be a fact, or it might be an opinion. When relating opinions we
refle
>
> It contains facts about opinions - it does not itself express an opinion.
> It
> is both factual, and a fact.
>
It expresses the *opinion* of the judge that Abbey killed Betty :) We
include it because the global *opinion* is that judges are in a position to
make such statements with authority.
On 17 Oct 2011, at 09:19, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> Am 16.10.2011 21:27, schrieb ???:
>> On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>>> Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
> On 16 October 2011 14:40, ??? wrote:
>
>> Don't be an arsehole
>
> > And that is a mature and sensible attitude.
> >
> > Some people do not share your view and are unable to ignore what to
> > them are rude or offensive things.
> >
> > Are they wrong?
> >
> > Should they be doing what you (and I) do?
> >
> > Tom
> The question is, if we should support "them" t
On 18 October 2011 11:08, David Gerard wrote:
> 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 el
On 18 October 2011 11:56, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> I don't assume that. I say that they should have the opportunity to
> change if they like to.
Absolutely - we do not disagree on this.
> That controversial content is hidden or that we
> provide a button to hide controversial content is prejud
Just to clarify the technical details for those interested... the code is
located here:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/includes/specials/SpecialRandompage.php?view=markup
It gets a random number using PHP's build into pseudo-random number
generator and uses that to recover
>
> That comes down to the two layers of judgment involved in this proposal.
> At first we give them the option to view anything and we give them the
> option to view not anything. The problem is that we have to define what
> "not anything" is. This imposes our judgment to the reader. That means,
>
>
> This is only no problem, as long we don't represent default settings, aka
>
categories, which introduce our judgment to the readership. Only the
> fact that our judgment is visible, is already enough to manipulate the
> reader in what to see as objectionable or not. This scenario is very
> much
Yes, that was an unfortunate use of un-statistics. I had a {{facepalm}}
moment when I read it.
On the other hand I do not think it is a ludicrous or unexpected claim that
most people do not wish to view images of gore or bodily functions :)
Tom
___
fou
>
> If I may be so blunt. What part of non-negotiable don't people quite
> grasp?
>
Sorry, you're claiming this as non-negotiable in favour of your view? What's
that discussion about censorship again?
Apologies for being so bluntly critical but of all your rather odd emails
today this one had me
>
> I'm more worried about lack of user requirements gathering, vague
> problem definition, and over-engineering coupled with an expectation
> for 'the community' to build a dataset that they appear reluctant to
> build.
Second this concern - particularly the comment r.e. problem definition.
Thi
>
> That there is a pornography project would be empirical evidence to the
> contrary. That a random page load can load pages with CBT images, genital
> piercings, or ejaculate leaking from or flowing over various body parts is
> also problematic.
>
>
Well, strictly speaking that isn't pornography
>
> As a person from a more nordic and perhaps even ruder than brazilian
> culture, We did confront a teacher who was in her retirement age with
> images worse than genital piercings. And, yes, she not only blushed
> but turned livid, But she kept on teaching us biology. ! Not saying
> what we did
>
> > On Wikipedia this is called vandalism and trolling; and we *do* censor it
> :)
> >
>
> No we don't and that is the whole point. We edit. We don't censor,
We remove & suppress such material. This is censoring the troll/vandals
contribution.
I am sorry but you don't get to use a potential st
>
> Okay, We do not censor, because censorship is prior referral to a body
> to approve publication. We edit live, so a priori we don't censor.
Ouch, no it isn't. It's just suppression of material. That we edit publicly
and in real time is just a product of advancing technology :)
> Very clear
>
> There was a 30 post per person monthly "soft" limit on foundation-l.
>
My apologies; I was unaware of this soft limit.
Happy to abide by it :) and I hope others will too! And, so, this should be
my last post for this month. FWIW I entirely agree that less vocal posters
may be put off by large
Hmmm.
Whilst this research has interest, I don't think it really says much about
gender. This form of gender coding is extremely hand wavy; and as the
latter part of the report proves it is also largely defunct when applied to
the internet.
They clearly show that the predominant style of writing
This is a fantastic email, thanks Theo.
When someone decides to lead a movement of people like me, I expect better
> from them. Maybe I should expect less. I even had the pleasure of arguing
> yesterday, if paid employees should be held to a lower standard.
>
That is wonderfully expressed.
I sup
It's not spam; it's the mailing list "confirmation" string.
Obviously didn't quite go right :)
Tom
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The article about them is... amusing. It's almost entirely sourced to press
releases...
Tom
On 6 December 2011 10:14, Bod Notbod wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Hardly surprising or new, but something we need to be aware of:
> Wikipedia is being edited by a large lobbying company, Bell Pottinger.
> It remo
>
> +1 to Fae
>
> This is outrageous. I would say COI notices + Disputed Neutrality notices.
>
Lets not get too dramatic.
And anyway; if the purpose of doing such tagging is to punish them for
their actions, well, then it's probably not a good thing to do...
Tom
_
On 7 December 2011 17:28, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 7 December 2011 15:28, Woojin Kim wrote:
> > Wikimedia Foundation fundraising is now making a misunderstanding about
> > Wikipedia. Some mass media report that WMF and WP is now encountering
> > financial difficulties so WMF urges public donati
On 7 December 2011 19:05, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 7 December 2011 18:08, Thomas Morton
> wrote:
> > Well you know; at the start of the drive the foundation is short of cash.
>
> Not really. The Foundation has plenty of reserves. The fundraising
> drives aren't a
Some thoughts.
I don't see the problem, myself. There's no product, service or
> commercial interest being advertised. It's for users who are logged
> in, not all readers. People who choose to participate actually receive
> money, which can then be donated to the IRC or Wikimedia.
Advertisement
>
> We're an educational resource concerned with the diffusion of
> knowledge. They are primary researchers that will publish their data
> and conclusion with an open license, thus adding to the "sum of all
> knowledge". I think those objectives are eminently compatible.
>
Which is a reasonable
>
> In reply to Tom Morton's point about privacy - the exposure is no more
> (and as we now know, considerably less) than we experience every time
> we visit any other site on the 'net.
No... because the banner sent your WP username as part of the link - if I
visit any other site in the world the
(I originally sent this to WikiEn-l - but intended to send it here to
foundation-l... my email reader got confused..)
Hi Dario,
This proposal went through a long review process, involving community
> forums, the Research Committee and various WMF departments since early 2010.
>
> The Berkman rese
>
> Do you actually realize that RCom is not a single person, and that there
> is no way we can issue an official statement in 24 hours? I am not sure we
> need to issue anything as a body anyway, but if we need it is absolutely
> unrealistic to do in 24 hours, since most of us have not been involv
The poll hit a community of many tens of thousands. So...
Tom Morton
On 14 Dec 2011, at 23:10, Mateus Nobre wrote:
>
> 87% is more than sufficient.
>
> En.wikipedia (not that one, I'm native of ptwiki and I voted in it too) it's
> like a whole country.
>
> It's simple impossible to reach a con
Citzenship and where the photo was taken is important *IF* the work is
unpublished. In this case the applicable copyright depends on these things.
On the other hand, wherever it was taken and no matter who took it, if the
image has been published in a jurisdiction then it is subject to copyright
f
Yep. Same here.
Tom Morton
On 14 May 2011, at 15:59, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Orionist wrote:
>> What is the default position by the way?
>
> I checked my preferences on enwiki and the box was checked, so I would
> assume the default is for it to be checked.
>
> --
This causes a little confusion today :) when it was mistook for an email
message from a bot (which had edited the users talk page and cause the
notification).
(see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Question_about_Suggest_a_Bot
)
Did anyone announce th
Ah... this is one of those perennial issues that is unlikely to be solved
this time around.
I think casting this a gender issue is incorrect; certainly amongst my group
of friends those who would not appreciate the image are fairly evenly split
between male/female. I think most rational adults can
ot's user page loudly railing against Commons being
> "censored", I'd say the issue is less "art" and more "lets see who we can
> shock and/or piss off."
>
> -Dan
> On May 16, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
>
>> Ah... this is
en.wiki just slowed to a crawl and is now errored out. It has been going
from normal to treacle slow all day.
Tom
On 18 May 2011 19:20, Sarah wrote:
> The English Wikipedia has been experiencing painfully slow load times over
> the last few days, and lots of error messages when trying to save,
ech team if they were related,
> they
> didn't think so. Maybe, its a co-incidence, but did anyone notice if the
> slowness increased when email notifications were turned on?
>
> Theo
>
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Thomas Morton <
> morton.tho...@googlem
Yeh, that was when it was turned on. So maybe :)
On 18 May 2011 19:27, Sarah wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:24, Theo10011 wrote:
> > I had problems with load times and time-outs, ever since the email
> > notification was turned on. I asked the tech team if they were related,
> they
> > did
A way to tie clicking "hide" to an *account* rather than just by storing it
as a local cookie would also be a good move.
Tom / ErrantX
On 19 May 2011 10:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> church.of.emacs.ml, 19/05/2011 10:52:
> > There are several ways of minimizing negative effects:
> > 1. Disp
I think using images for the POTY competition is also justifiable, :) given
the context. But, yes, images need to be considered carefully.
As I recently mentioned on Meta - we could really do with some reasearch
into the effectiveness of different sized images as compared to text for
click through
That would be great :) I did have a look when researching for the board
elections but couldn't find any hard figures.
Tom/ErrantX
On 19 May 2011 18:15, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Thomas Morton <
> morton.tho...@googlemail.com
> > wrote:
&g
> They won't. Most reputable news sources are not interested in kiss and
> tell and there are other ones that are in place for really rather good
> reasons to the point where breaking them would probably get you sued
> for libel under even US law
>
Heh, what news do you read!
>
> > Then, of cour
> On 20 May 2011 21:21, Thomas Morton wrote:
>>> They won't. Most reputable news sources are not interested in kiss and
>>> tell and there are other ones that are in place for really rather good
>>> reasons to the point where breaking them would probably get y
Huh? Why?
Tom Morton
On 20 May 2011, at 23:00, geni wrote:
> On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of.
>
> That's not actually legal.
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing l
Ah. No thats not accurate. Fortunately even the British courts can't
stamp On private communication.
The injunction is on publishing the info. Telling your mates down the
pub is fine.
Tom Morton
On 20 May 2011, at 23:08, Risker wrote:
> On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>> On 20 May
Also; hard to see anyone suing you for communicating the info for the
purposes of supressing it :-)
Tom Morton
On 20 May 2011, at 23:08, Risker wrote:
> On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>> On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder wrote:
Please mail User:Oversight with any such instan
It's not publishing the info. It's fine.
The point is to stifle mass media.
Tom Morton
On 20 May 2011, at 23:28, geni wrote:
> On 20 May 2011 23:13, Thomas Morton wrote:
>> Ah. No thats not accurate. Fortunately even the British courts can't
>> stamp On pr
and there is
something to be concerned about. But not on a personal level.
(IANAL; my interest in law is academic, but I have the good fortune to work
alongside a pile of lawyers, civil and criminal)
Tom
On 20 May 2011 23:34, geni wrote:
> On 20 May 2011 23:33, Thomas Morton wrote:
> &
Our BLP policy is pretty solid, and the editors that enforce it are pretty
good at keeping out the crap :) We can always improve it, of course. And
there are never enough BLP editors. (There are probably about 5 or 6 that
specialise heavily in such content).
Most of the outstanding issues are wit
Has anyone notified SD about this discussion? Pretty much essential given
the allegations made by Dror K (which are clearly unfounded, but may be
damaging).
Tom
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wik
Supreme Deliciousness, whose actions are being discussed...
I noted that he hadn't been told so dropped him a note as common courtesy.
Tom
On 22 May 2011 11:58, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> 2011/5/22 Thomas Morton :
> > Has anyone notified SD about this discussion? Pretty much e
Yeh :-) sorry about that
Tom
On 22 May 2011, at 12:26, "Amir E. Aharoni"
wrote:
> 2011/5/22 Thomas Morton :
>> Supreme Deliciousness, whose actions are being discussed...
>>
>> I noted that he hadn't been told so dropped him a note as common courtesy.
>
eople allegedly associated with me,
> without any substantial evidence, hence damaging not only me personally
> but other people as well. Now certain admins also hold private
> information about me, obtained unlawfully or unethically, without
> notifying me, without warning SD for h
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness&diff=next&oldid=430329545
>
> Dror K
>
> בתאריך 22/05/11 14:00, ציטוט Thomas Morton:
>
> > Supreme Deliciousness, whose actions are being discussed...
> >
> > I noted that he had
or "You
have no right to do that" is incorrect, because WP is a private website.
If the consensus of the community is to ban you from the project, even under
spurious grounds, there is nothing to stop them from doing so.
Tom
On 22 May 2011 16:19, Pronoein wrote:
> Le 22/05/2011
I'm note sure I understand... Wikipedia is privately owned by the
foundation. There is no real definition of "public website", but I suppose a
government website would be publicly owned (although that raises an
interesting question as to your rights to access/contribute to such a
website).
The poi
> As it is the community does regulate it in that way.
No. People are banned or restricted all the time. The point of WP:FREESPEECH
is to point out that those bannings can't be contested under the premise
that the banned party has a right to edit.
Yes, the community does regulate it this way. Tha
An interesting "aside" on this would be...
What is the quality of the foreign-language Wiki's that currently exist. For
example; the articles in my specific technical topic area have a few foreign
language equivalents. Most are two or three lines.
It would be interesting to see this question expa
> my personal interpretation is that BLP failings were more likely to
be seen and more likely to cause some kind of real or perceived
harm, leading to a greater response rate.
I suppose that if your a notable figure... you probably take a look to see
if a Wikipedia article exists... and even mone
reasonably detailed encyclopaedia.
Just theorizing on a related topic :)
Tom
On 22 May 2011 22:18, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On 05/22/2011 06:41 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> > An interesting "aside" on this would be...
> >
> > What is the quality of the foreign-language
I'm not so sure. As much as living persons have a history of
raising/catching important errors in their articles, they also take
exception to negative material.
I had one rather protracted issue with a BLP where the individual feels he
has been attacked by other parties and the media for a number
So, just a quick thought for future reference - during maintenance is it
possible in future to update the error message to explain that maintenance
is ongoing?
Seeing as how widely WMF projects are used by a non-technical project the
current MySQL connection error I am seeing on Commons is just go
I think it's reasonable (and indeed standard) to deploy some sort of
"downtime" maintenance error message.
If that requires improving the error handling code to catch a wider variety
of errors and push people to the error message page then I understand the
time issues :).
If the short term soluti
Austin,
That's interesting, what was the wording for the maintenance message? I only
ever saw the default "our servers are experiencing a technical problem"
error page.
Tom
On 25 May 2011 10:53, Austin Hair wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:32 AM, FT2 wrote:
> > I don't get this.
> >
> > Wou
n Hair wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Thomas Morton
> wrote:
> > That's interesting, what was the wording for the maintenance message? I
> only
> > ever saw the default "our servers are experiencing a technical problem"
> > error page.
>
&
Huh? The downtime was expected during 13:00 and 14:00 UTC, or at least there
was an email warning of such things the day before... hardly unplanned or
unknown.
Tom
On 25 May 2011 11:12, Domas Mituzas wrote:
> >
> > As you can see it refers to some unknown error. In this case the
> > maintentanc
The maintenance was planned, downtime was noted as possible. An error
message that reflects that seems, frankly, a good idea.
The response to what I thought to be a helpful suggestion in improving
communication with readership has been... incredibly disappointing. I wish I
hadn't bothered. :( I wa
> If we knew what would fail to put an appropriate error message there, we'd
probably fix the problem beforehand. :-)
That's... completely missing the point. Yes the specific errors faced were
unexpected or unforseen, BUT they were a* direct result* of the maintenance
between 13:00 and 14:00. I am
mention the planned
maintenance and the timeframes.
Sorry for the confusion!
Tom
On 25 May 2011 08:15, Tim Starling wrote:
> On 24/05/11 23:32, Thomas Morton wrote:
> > So, just a quick thought for future reference - during maintenance is it
> > possible in future to update the e
Maybe we can replace the IRC link in the Squid error message with a
link to the WatchMouse page
@Tim; that seems a good idea.
@Domas, I'm afraid you don't seem to have understood the premise of my
suggestion.. which is fine. But one fallacy is worth responding to:
> You have some annoying users,
Tim,
Great, thanks for that. Seeing as it was me that raise this ;) I guess it's
only right I take up the gauntlet, so will try and find time later to
propose something.
Tom
On 25 May 2011 13:48, Tim Starling wrote:
> On 25/05/11 21:19, MZMcBride wrote:
> > Tim Starling wrote:
> >> Maybe we c
Just conceptualising...
I haven't played with Squid for a while (so am rusty) but the simplest
solution would probably be to catch all PHP errors somewhere in the
Mediawiki code and return a 500 status error code.
Then get Squid to map that to the static error page.
On the other hand throwing a
Is the Squid configuration the foundation employs available publicly
somewhere (I'm scanning the SVN and not seeing it..)? Because I don't mind
having a look and filing a specific bugzilla correction with various bits of
code & changes.
It's about time I refreshed my Squid knowledge :)
Tom
On 25
old our ignorance of these things against us! We're just
trying to contribute where we can. :)
Tom
On 25 May 2011 15:26, Tim Starling wrote:
> On 26/05/11 00:05, Thomas Morton wrote:
> > Is the Squid configuration the foundation employs available publicly
> > somewhere
Let's just drop it :) I'm not sure where things went so south but I take
full responsibility. I've pinged Tim off-list about contributing my own time
to work on the error page matter - which I think is only fair enough given
that I raised it. And sorry for any offence caused to the ops team by my
s
I'm pretty sure there was a site notice; I recall seeing one anyway :)
Tom
On 26 May 2011 09:09, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Milos Rancic, 26/05/2011 09:57:
> > Site notice for a week before the maintenance would be useful, too. We
> > communicate with our users via web site, not via emails.
Unfortunately this is the side effect of running a big website; people
register the typos and put up spam sites under them.
There are ways to seize or recover the domains, but it can be a pain.
Tom
On 1 June 2011 14:01, FT2 wrote:
> Endorse Foundation action on this obvious bad-faith domain wh
The privacy policy does not preclude releasing private emails, and even
writes in specific exceptions. When raised on en.wiki in relation to
releasing CheckUser information (in that case linking an IP to an account) I
thought the response there said it best; that not linking IP's to accounts
was ac
This is somewhat off-topic but..
Whilst that is a somewhat glib view of the smaller projects :P it's not
entirely inaccurate.
By virtue of being smaller and starved of editors it is a lot easier to gain
permissions at those projects. In fact, if one of us (established editors)
was banned from Wik
Given the situation can we not be clear on the details of this?
I have various views on the matter, but all of them really depend on what
exactly this person did.
As with all such matters I see no reason why discussion of the details
cannot be conducted visibly, and if provided with the adequate
n 4 June 2011 01:10, Thomas Morton wrote:
> > Given the situation can we not be clear on the details of this?
> >
> > I have various views on the matter, but all of them really depend on what
> > exactly this person did.
> >
> > As with all such matters I see no r
Tom
(p.s. the signpost link doesn't work for me - if that addresses my above
issues then apologies)
On 4 June 2011 01:54, Scott MacDonald wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
> > boun...@lis
it ought to just be handled and
> announced, either by one or more stewards or by the Office acting as such.
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> > On 3 June 2011 22:03, Thomas Morton
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm, assuming that
101 - 193 of 193 matches
Mail list logo
