from_name: Sheldon Rampton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
Karl Krueger wrote:

>What's wrong with censorware tagging?  Where to start?  Here's the
>biggie:  tagging is incompatible with Wikipedia's existing commitments.
>
>No system of tags is compatible with Wikipedia's commitment to
>neutrality.  The dimensions, biases, and extremes of any system of tags
>are created from a particular non-neutral point of view.  Wikipedia is
>categorically forbidden from taking on such a point of view as its own.

Well, actually, there is a system that *would* work while maintaining
Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality: an *external* tagging system.

Imagine a separate website with a domain name of, say, "ob.noxio.us."
Like del.icio.us, it would be a tagging system that lets anyone post
their own bookmarks, with keywords. The difference would be that
whereas del.icio.us tags web pages that have content they LIKE,
ob.noxio.us would tag pages with content they DISLIKE. This would
create a sort of censorware folksonomy. It would then be a fairly
simple matter to design a system that filters content on pages (not
just on Wikipedia but on the entire web), according to whatever
categories they choose: nipples, images of excrement, the face of
Bill O'Reilly, whatever.

If people are really concerned about the content on Wikipedia, I
think they should devote their energies to developing an external
solution along these lines. After all, the problem they're describing
isn't just a problem with Wikipedia. If you're worried about your
boss getting mad when your web browser displays nudity, Wiipedia
isn't the only (or even the most likely) place where this is likely
to happen. A web-wide solution would be more appropriate to the scope
of this problem, and it would allow Wikipedia to continue doing what
it does best without worrying about yet another layer of
administration and contention.

--Sheldon Rampton


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Expanding CheckUser permissions

body:
>
>That's a good idea! Add it to [[m:CheckUser]] ;-)
>
>Since the community hasn't added much that's solid or elegant in the way of
>guidelines for my non-dev use of the function, I plan to add outlines for
>my future use of the function to m:CheckUser and see who screams. Something
>along the lines of "any strong suspicion of sockpuppetry to violate ArbCom
>ban or restriction" as well as the current criterion I use, which is
>"well-founded suspicion of sockpuppetry in current ArbCom case" or similar.
>And see who screams and how loud.
>
>
>
This is difficult. It could only be implemented for the english pedia.
As it would be impossible for say someone from the Japanese pedia to run
for this as he/she would be unknown outside their own projects. This is
also the reason why the vote for boardmembers will result most probably
in two people from en.wikipedia being choosen.

Waerth/Walter


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: [Wikinews-l] Chinese Wikinews: board action
	required

body:
Andrew Lih wrote:

>If you haven't been following it, the Chinese Internet is in a bad slump
>right now. There are occasional reports of Internet crackdowns in China, but
>the recent one should be a real concern. College campus Internet BBS systems
>have had severe restrictions imposed, and some have closed down. One of the
>best known Internet entrepreneurs had his personal site shut down by
>government order because of content posted on April Fools day.
>
>So many of the comments in the vote were in the spirit of, "It's not a good
>time to do something that will most definitely get roped into this mess."
>OTOH, some said this is exactly why it should be created, in that it will be
>a canary in the coal mine, so to speak. Just thought you'd be interested in
>the sentiment that they've expressed in the vote.
>
The uses for a dead canary are very limited.  Having the miners dress up
in yellow suits to do this job strikes me as a little suicidal.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] The role of the board

body:
Chad Perrin wrote:

>On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 08:56:29PM -0400, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>
>>Alternatively we can design processes which somehow guarantee diverse
>>representation at the board level.  This is not easy.
>>
>>This is particularly not easy because it would be undesirable from a
>>fast decision-making point of view to have a board of 75 people.  And so
>>long as we have a manageable group, of course it is hard to get proper
>>representation for different languages.
>>
>>
>
>Yikes.  That sounds like the beginnings of the United States Congress.
>
>Of course, we all know that CONgress is the antonym to PROgress.  Yes?
>
>
It gave me visions of our very own electoral college.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] The role of the board


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 02:10:33PM -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:
>
> OK, I think I understand. And, I don't think that our differences are
> very far apart.
>
> Currently, the NPOV model is to try to have competing ideas under the
> same article title. My proposal is to have some kind of separation  of
> conflicting points of view. In my original proposal, I suggested
> concurrent article titles, but it doesn't have to be that. Perhaps
> different points can be presented side-by-side. My thought is that in an
> NPOV, someone claiming to be neutral may not do the best job of
> presenting any side's point of view. Why not let the proponents present
> their case, and then make some kind of interface where the end-user can
> compare the different points of view? Also, this proposal does not
> prevent, in any way, a summary article that attempts to synthesize
> different branches.
>
> It's a question of where should we put differing points of view. If I'm
> a proponent of the idea that space aliens run the government, I may feel
> jilted by someone else's summary of my position. However, the original
> author sees my work as crazy and extreme, so they go and 'fix' it. I
> 'fix' it back, and so on. What results is a wasteful revision process.
> Instead, let people build up their sides of the story without destroying
> other's work.

Upon further reflection, I've come to the conclusion that this technical
proposal is a solution to a different problem than that of "fixing" some
of the difficulties of Wikipedia.  An encyclopedia should definitely
work toward an NPOV consensus, whereas what has been proposed here
strikes me as more working toward a balance of points of view with the
most popular points of view taking top honors.  That being the case, I
might have exactly the project in mind for such a thing:

We already have Wikipedia and Wikinews.  Do we have a Wikipinion?
Perhaps this is the technical solution to the idea of a community-driven
open-contribution collection of opinion columns.  Where a given
topic/heading exists, op/ed articles can be written by different people
and the best-regarded among them for their clear and popularly agreeable
presentations can rise to the top as the cream of the crop, as 'twere,
by way of a voting/rating system.  Then, perhaps, the top-rated article
would be the first thing presented with explicit links to the next five
(or however many) highly rated version and a catch-all link where a list
of all of the versions might be located.  These versions might be
"owned" with an open-edit page for people to contribute editing comments
so that constructive input is made easy (owned by their authors, that
is).  In fact, if such a thing doesn't appear in the Wikimedia family at
some point, I'll probably create it elsewhere as a separate endeavor.

It seems to me like too good an idea to pass up, really, and if this
community doesn't like it enough to implement it, I'm sure a community
for such can be generated from the luminiferous ethere of the Internet.

Of course, I'm so busy as it is that if I end up having to create it
myself it'll probably take three years to get around to it.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 01:59:16PM -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
>
> >
> >I disagree with that characterization of NPOV as a goal.  Rather than
> >say that it's some kind of myth to which we pretend to subscribe here,
> >I'm of the opinion that it's more an asymptote rather than a point on a
> >graph, and we are (in general) "approaching NPOV" incrementally with our
> >efforts.  The fact that we may never reach an absolute value of NPOV
> >idoesn't make it any less real, though.
> >
> >
> OK, I think I understand what you are saying. First off, a multiple
> competing article system does not prevent an article with an NPOV. If
> that article exists and it highly rated, great! Second, humor me and
> pitcure this.  If we did have a multiple article system, isn't that
> approaching the asymptote, albeit in a different way? Say we have three
> highly rated and conflicting articles. Some well-reputed author comes
> along and creates another article that summarises all three of those
> viewpoints. Wouldn't this be a more efficient system? Proponents of each
> side are allowed to make their case as they wish. The author who
> summarizes has most of the writing work done for him. Nobody has to
> destroy the other side's article, and if they don't like the summary,
> they can fork it and make their own.  However, if the summary is highly
> rated, isn't that the golden NPOV goal we are reaching for?
>
> Can you spell out exactly the current process of getting a NPOV?
>

1.  I wasn't saying anything one way or another about the validity of
the multiple-article approach for approaching NPOV.  I was just
commenting on the validity of the concept of NPOV and its suitability as
a goal for our encyclopedic project.

2.  The easiest analogy for explaining the current process for me to
produce right now involves the indirect-fire (such as mortars and
artillery) concept of "walking fire" to a target.  One aims where one
thinks one should to get the trajectory of a round to land on the
intended target.  One sees how far off one is, then adjusts the expected
amount to correct that.  One sees how far off one is, then adjusts.
Rinse, repeat.  Often what happens with this is that two or three rounds
move toward the target on one side, then one lands on the other side,
and each time they hit closer to the mark.  If done properly, you should
never miss with more than four shots, and the first round that hits
should be a known hit before it's even fired, so that you can "fire for
effect" (which consists of basically emptying your armory in one
volley), saturating the target area.  You're highly unlikely to ever hit
an enemy unit commander on the top of the head with the leading point of
a single artillery round, but you'll easily cover him with overlapping
blast radii.  That's pretty much what we do with NPOV at Wikipedia, I
think, except that the accuracy curve is infinite rather than just "we
got close enough", because we're building instead of destroying.

Hmm.  In retrospect, that analogy might be rather strange to most of
you.  I blame the late hour and my recent agonizing over what turned out
to be a really stupid mistake of my own with some PHP code.

I blame PHP.  That's it.  It's always easier to blame the language.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Anthere (anthere9 at yahoo.com) [050418 03:24]:
> David Gerard a ?crit:
> > Tim Starling

> >>it. So it's not just two people overseeing each other. I'd prefer it if
> >>more people could view the log, but for privacy reasons we can't make it
> >>public at this stage. If there's sufficient demand, we could probably
> >>make partial logs available -- say, just the usernames but not the IP
> >>addresses.

> > I can see the creatively antisocial trying to use that as a point against
> > other editors they are in combat with.

> I would not support any such list to be public. It seems to me that
> bringing public suspicion over someone is already a bit condemning him.
> This is not wikilove at all, and prone to further heat conflicts.

Precisely.

> Another solution could simply be to name two people ombudsmen over this
> topic. We should choose two people trusted by the community, BUT
> generally out of usual cabalistic discussions. Rather quiet and discreet
> people, not involved in current internal politics. These are most likely
> to be independant from those with the right to check the ips.

That's a good idea! Add it to [[m:CheckUser]] ;-)

Since the community hasn't added much that's solid or elegant in the way of
guidelines for my non-dev use of the function, I plan to add outlines for
my future use of the function to m:CheckUser and see who screams. Something
along the lines of "any strong suspicion of sockpuppetry to violate ArbCom
ban or restriction" as well as the current criterion I use, which is
"well-founded suspicion of sockpuppetry in current ArbCom case" or similar.
And see who screams and how loud.

- d.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: pitching an idea

body:
Steve Lefevre (lefevre.10 at osu.edu) [050418 03:35]:

> Yes, go on to the realization of this project!
> All kidding aside, you have the basic gist of this idea.
> But instead of "If you are..., click _here_", it would present
> _John Kerry_ ( 16 authors, 236 signatures, score of 1027, weighted score
> of 4,829)
> _John Kerry_ ( 45 authors, 380 signatures, score of 2094, weighted score
> of 4,928)
> _John Kerry_ (108 authors, 1,388 signatures, score of 10,000, weighted
> score of 6,093)
> And here's the troll pit:
> _John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1)
> _John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1)

You know, this looks something like what I imagine the scores might be from
[[m:Article validation feature]]. (Though we're talking in the MediaWiki
1.6 timeframe there, which may include doing things with the data.)

- d.


from_name: Aphaia

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: [Wikinews-l] TheWorldForum.org adds Wikinews
	logo

body:
On 4/18/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>  If so, it would seem that someone
> should update the foundation website.

A question came to me; if we have already mentioned other officers as
is in a clear way?

As for mav I can found
-Two  Quarto pages (vol.1 & 2)
-His own user page
-Some meeting logs

Before update, should we create a brief list of WMF officer(s)? Or it
s okay to add a brief note on "Trustees" page? (The latter idea seems
however  to me a bit confused. One of my friend confused Tim Shell and
Tim Starling ...)

--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
Wouter Steenbeek (musiqolog at hotmail.com) [050418 03:20]:

> Steve's proposal is interesting and can be defended from a philosophical
> point of view. Indeed most philosophers involved with science agree that
> objectivity is an illusion, and the quasi-objectivity we reach in e.g.
> encyclopaedias is only a broad consensus within one culture.

Except the ones who are actually scientists. "Sorry, evolution has been
voted out of science."

> On some
> topics, everyone agrees, on other ones, people hold divergent views. That
> justifies splitting a controversial topic.

Well, only splitting as sections in an article.

- d.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
Steve Lefevre (lefevre.10 at osu.edu) [050418 03:51]:

> If I and my people can have a our own article under 'Evolution', then I
> don't need to go disrupting the other side's article. I can put my
> energy into building and maintaining my side of the story.

Is this Wikinfo you're describing?

- d.


from_name: Wikipedia Romania (Ronline)

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Conflict between two Wikipedias

body:
In response to Mark's message of Sat Apr 16 20:46:14
UTC 2005:

>Again I would like to point out that you are
emphasising >what is
>"right" or "correct". Why does that matter? Why
should >we care?

I am emphasising what is right because that is what we
should be striving towards. Just because any
Moldovans, who you seem to think are the only ones who
have an authoritative right to a say in this, haven't
complained, doesn't mean that the idea of is right.
Now, you're going to say again something along the
lines of "Yes, you keep on using the word right. Who
cares what's right". Well, we *should* care about
what's right! For example, we couldn't go ahead now
and form a Romanian Wikipedia without diacritical
symbols, just because the Romanian community supports
it, even when it is incorrect. In this example,
writing Romanian with no diacritics would be easier
and, hypothetically, let's say it would be supported
by the community, which , hypothetically, is made up
of 1 person. Does that mean we should actually
implement that proposal? Just because the "community"
agrees to something doesn't make it right, doesn't
mean that it's correct for, in the example, the
ro.wiki to be written without diacritic symbols.

The same goes for mo.wiki. There is basically *one*
Moldovan Cyrillic contributor, and you're saying that
just because he hasn't complained, then it's OK,
because no Moldovan contributor has so far complained.
Why? Because *there is no Moldovan wiki community*.
There is just one person! I think there might have
actually been a Moldovan contributor at ro.wiki which
is no longer active. But that's about all. For that
reason, we can't base ourselves here on "we do what
the Moldovans think, because they're the ones who
should have the most say." If we go by that principle,
then we won't get anywhere, because there isn't yet,
unfortunately, a Moldovan Wikipedia community.

So, as you keep on blaming the ro.wiki community for,
there's nothing wrong with us getting involved. The
same goes in your case - there's nothing wrong about
you getting involved, as a non-Moldovan, in this
issue. We *all*, as Wikimedia contributors, have a
right to involve ourselves in *all* Wikimedia issues
as long as we are adequately informed. And I think
both of us, and many other people who have given an
opinion, have done so in an informed, comprehensive
manner.

>There have been
>no complaints from actual Moldovans, only from
>Romanians, and they are
>all politically motivated.

I don't think you can actually say that all the
comments are politically motivated. If you read the
discussion page at ro.wiki, you will see that many
Romanians actually enforce the idea of having a
Moldovan Wikipedia, and recognise the need for one. I
don't think you can blame most of the community for
being either superficial or politically-motivated.
Most of us have said that - yes, having a mo.wiki is
OK, even in Cyrillic script, but it needs to be at a
separate subdomain, due to all the reasons that I've
mentioned in my numerous past messages.

>My solution is practical, and currently it is working
>fine.

True. By the way, don't think I'm trying to argue with
you just for the sake of it. Your POV is actually a
very legitimate one on this issue and it is the most
practical. I "admit" that as you said. And it's
working fine. At the moment. What I mean by at the
moment is that 1) it will get more problematic in the
future and it's better to solve the problems now and
2) you can't really call it working, because the is 1
contributor! There is basically no community yet.

I see there have been people (it may be the same user
as the Cyrillic one, actually I think it is) who have
already made Latin script contributions. Already it's
starting to become problematic. What happens if a user
comes and makes Latin script contributions? Should we
simply move them to ro.wiki? Or should we keep the
mo.wiki a biscriptal confusion?

There have been many cases where a single contributor
has started something, which is not technically right,
and then when a larger community came, the project had
to be moved somewhere. You must realise that by
putting only Cyrillic content at mo.wiki, we become
terribly biased towards that script? Why should
Wikipedia, the free, NPOV encyclopedia, be like that?
And why should we then have to change everything when
Moldovan Latin users come over and start adding
content to the mo.wiki?

>the only people who have a problem with it are
>Romanians who are trying to meddle in the affairs of
>the Moldovan
>Wikipedia for political reasons and replace the
>perfectly working
>status quo with some sort of cumbersome change that
>they say is
>technically correct, which will make the URL longer
>and require the
>assistance of a developer.

You're saying this as if it would require registering
a new domain, setting up a new interface and writing
new software! It's really not that hard to make a new
subdomain! It's being done all the time, when new
language projects are being launched. So what if we
require the assistance of a developer? I think that
you really are too practical - just for the sake of
easiness and practicality, it doesn't matter how wrong
something is, or how biased it is, you won't support
it  just because it requires more work. I believe that
we must first be correct, then practical. Being
practical now will just cause more problems later on.

Finally, I'm not happy with the status quo. I've tried
until now numerous ways to negotiate, I started
writing on this mailing list, and yet nothing has
worked. The status quo has just been maintained, and
you haven't considered the point of view than anyone
else. Honestly, that's really frustrating. I mean,
I've written many messages that just basically say the
same thing over and over again -- we've covered no
ground here. And you can't say I haven't been
reasonable. I've proposed something that doesn't
denigrate Moldovan Cyrillic, that is perfectly fair to
it, gives it space to grow, but at the same time
doesn't put it in favour of Moldovan Latin. Yes, it's
practically harder, but I don't see anything
theoretically wrong with it. On the practical side, I
will go and contact a developer to do it if we reach
concensus. That's not that hard a move. Neither is the
whole setting up. It's not as if you now have to go
and waste a week's work on setting up a new subdomain!

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide


subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
Wouter Steenbeek (musiqolog at hotmail.com) [050418 04:17]:

> You didn't get the point! Indeed, scientists are given a big authority, so
> people, especially encyclopaedia-makers, use their theories to form their
> opinion. So, in our culture, the view of scientists is especially favoured
> among encyclopaedia-makers, because they are supposed to have justificated
> their views by means of an elaborate dialectic process, not by dogmatic
> tradition. On the other hand, for other people the Bible might have a
> bigger authority. They form a different image of the world around us than
> we do, and than most scientists do.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=2&articleID=000E555C-4387-1237-81CB83414B7FFE9F
was supposed to be humour ...

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] The role of the board

body:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 08:56:29PM -0400, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> Alternatively we can design processes which somehow guarantee diverse
> representation at the board level.  This is not easy.
>
> This is particularly not easy because it would be undesirable from a
> fast decision-making point of view to have a board of 75 people.  And so
> long as we have a manageable group, of course it is hard to get proper
> representation for different languages.
>

Yikes.  That sounds like the beginnings of the United States Congress.

Of course, we all know that CONgress is the antonym to PROgress.  Yes?

This useless digression has been brought to you by the number 16, the
letter O, and . . .
--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


subject: [Foundation-l] The role of the board


list: wikien-l

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] One argument I do not find compelling

body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Now this is not to say that there aren't other arguments against linking
> and in favor of inlining this sort of image.  But I don't think this
> argument that somehow linking is taking away choices is very compelling.
>  It seems clear to me that the opposite is true: linking gives people
> the choice to view the image or not, in the simplest and most effective
> way possible, without requiring the to know in advance that there might
> be shocking images, without requiring them to change browser settings, etc.

Exactly. The opposite argument is absurd on its face. The only issue now is the
details: what to display by default and what to link by default. Being only a
semi-prude, I say simple nudity is almost always OK to display by default while
sex acts (both with oneself and with the help of others ) is almost always not
OK to display by default in articles (with the possible exception of good line
drawings).

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Foundation-l] The role of the board

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>If your question is: will there ever come a day when the community
>undertakes a vote of some kind to do away with neutrality or the
>principle of free licensing, then my answer is: not if I can help it.
>And this is not me _against_ the community, but rather this is my
>promise to the community, to defend it and not make hasty decisions that
>would lead to the potential corruption of our ideals.
>
>
I agree with that, but I don't think those scenarios are likely to come
up, and certainly not very often.  In the more common case, there are
issues on which reasonable people can disagree within the scope of
Wikipedia's mission, and on those I think deferring to the community in
large part makes some sense.

I don't necessarily mean holding votes on everything, but at least
recognizing that in principle this isn't a top-down organization, but
rather a community that largely works on its own to write a high-quality
encyclopedia.  The community resolves disputes over articles, develops
policies on specific projects, and so on, with a legal organization that
provides servers, loose guidance, and suggestions, and a baseline
assurance that nothing is straying unacceptably from the Foundation's
mission (abandoning neutral viewpoint or something of that sort).

There seems to be a tendency lately, since we have a board, to just dump
all decisions onto it as a convenient arbiter ("this should be a Board
decision"), which I think would be a mistake.

-Mark


subject: [Foundation-l] The role of the board


body:
On 4/18/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Currently, the only officer I am aware of is Mav.
>
> Tim resigned when he took his wikibreak. Not sure exactly what the
> situation is currently on this topic.

The moral is: "any statement can make some confused". I can't figure
even now what made the confusion I mentined  possible .. but there was
a confusion actually  So I prefer to have a separate page for a list
with necessary information in minimum (name, if possible user name,
what they concern, and so on)

--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


from_name: Richard Holton

body:
On 4/18/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> geni said:
> [...]
> >> Push it up the chain and change Wikipedia to suit *some* users, and
> >> you simply distribute an individual problem to lots of other
> >> individuals, and degrade the usefulness of Wikipedia as a whole.
> >
> > Yuo appear to have forgotten one of the key points of this project.
> > this is to try and make information availible to everyone.
>
> I do not propose any a priori restrictions on access; unlike you I do not
> propose that we appease the extreme religious right of the USA and one or
> two less salubrious countries by applying content restrictions motivated
> by grundyism rather than the wish to improve the encyclopedia.
> The GFDL already guarantees that content availability is maximized. Those
> who want a bowdlerized version can adjust their browsers or produce a
> bowdlerized mirror.
>

I think that anyone who has been following this series of threads is
now quite familiar with Tony's view on this topic. I can't see that
anything constructive is accomplished by further attempts to persuade
him.

Perhaps Tony is 100% correct, and is simply standing firm in the
truth. Perhaps he is stubborn, and will not change his view. Or
perhaps he is more interested in argument than in constructive
conversation, Whether it's one of these, or something else, I suggest
that continuing to engage him on this topic is pointless.

Just my personal opinion. Others may find it useful to adapt a similar opinion.

-Rich Holton

[[W:en:User:Rholton]]


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
Sheldon Rampton said:
> Imagine a separate website with a domain name of, say, "ob.noxio.us."
> Like del.icio.us, it would be a tagging system that lets anyone post
> their own bookmarks, with keywords. The difference would be that
> whereas del.icio.us tags web pages that have content they LIKE,
> ob.noxio.us would tag pages with content they DISLIKE. This would
> create a sort of censorware folksonomy. It would then be a fairly
> simple matter to design a system that filters content on pages (not
> just on Wikipedia but on the entire web), according to whatever
> categories they choose: nipples, images of excrement, the face of  Bill
> O'Reilly, whatever.
>
> If people are really concerned about the content on Wikipedia, I
> think they should devote their energies to developing an external
> solution along these lines. After all, the problem they're describing
> isn't just a problem with Wikipedia. If you're worried about your  boss
> getting mad when your web browser displays nudity, Wiipedia
> isn't the only (or even the most likely) place where this is likely  to
> happen. A web-wide solution would be more appropriate to the scope  of
> this problem, and it would allow Wikipedia to continue doing what  it
> does best without worrying about yet another layer of
> administration and contention.

Hear hear!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites

body:
Arno M said:
> The bowdlerising project does ssem to have died a quiet death , all
> right.

I never even heard of it.

>
> Examples of pages with links to porn/adult sites in them (all found in
> 20 seconds):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenna_Jameson,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_James and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Carey.
>

Jameson,James and Carey are porn stars.  The links, I'm neutral on them--I
could be persuaded either way.  They're almost certainly encyclopedic
because anyone interested in either of them is likely to be interested in
their websites.  The Jenna Jameson entry seems to have, well, quite a lot
of external links.
Apparently Mary Carey stood in the 2003 gubernatorial elections in
California, against Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and finished
tenth out of a field of 135 with "over 10,000 votes" according to imdb.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Suggestions for a work-safe encyclopedia

body:
geni said:
>> I've posted there a lot in the past (nicely, and they liked me a lot).
>> I know what they're like.
>
> Appel to authority logical fallacy.

What?  I'm just explaining that I know what they're like.  I was once a
regular there.
> You haven't explained why they
> shouldn't just link to a mirror of a shock site for a much more
> effective effect.

It isn't my argument that Wikipedia is the most effective shock site.  I
just demonstrated how it is, nevertheless, very easy to use as one in a
manner that would be undetectable prior to first use--the user page
wouldn't show in the "what links to" list for more than the few seconds it
took for the miscreant to blank it.

>
>> People who are that easily shocked may get upset at movies, period.
>> It is notoriously difficult to tell the content of a movie from its
>> name.  And you just pointed out yourself that movie ratings in one
>> country may mean nothing in another.
>
>
> They may get shocked at movies but they will not expect to get shocked
> by encyopedia articles.
>

If they're shocked by a boob or two I think it's fair to say that they'll
be used to being shocked by encyclopedias.  There is nothing we can do
about this.  My 1950s Britannica has boobs, I don't expect things have
changed much on that score in the past 50 years.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Suggestions for a work-safe encyclopedia

body:
geni said:
>> I'm sorry, but what a load of bullocks.
>>
>> Christiaan
>
> are you seriously trying to suggest that there is a significant
> percentage of earth population that would not be offended by the the
> goatse?

I think they might snicker a bit and show it to their friends.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bowdlerpedia--go got it!

body:
Alex Regh said:
>
> The problem therefore is, in my opinion, how we can find a way between
> the need to inform (which does IMO include pictures) and a need to
> remain accessible to as many people as possible.

I have an idea.  Let's licence the material using the GFDL!  Then anybody
who wants to make a bowdlerpedia can do so.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Kate Winslet

body:
Arno M said:
> Further to my last e-mail, I see that a compromise has been made and
> the offending image 'cut' so that we only see her face and shoulders.
>
> This is certainly better.

It's better than that.  The new image is of higher quality and shows
better significant detail.  It isn't so much a compromise as a significant
improvement.  The reduction in squabbling over the old image is a fringe
benefit.


body:
Jimmy Wales said:
>
> Tony suggests that users can browse with *all* images turned off and
> simply click to view them.  He apparently concedes that with Firefox,
> you have to download an extension to make this easy.  But even with
> this, users who come to Wikipedia for the first time (and each
> subsequent time) have to think: gee, I'm going to a serious
> encyclopedia project, so I might see a photo of someone engaging in
> autofellatio so I had better turn off all images just in case.
>
> This is forcing the user to go through a lot of hoops

Only the ones who have a problem with images.  The rest of us have much
more choice if we have inlines.  Put it this way: use linking and you're
forever sacrificing the chance to have the image actually illustrate the
article it's supposed to.  Use inlining and you leave the choice with the
user. If he really is bothered by certain images, he can turn them off.
This seems reasonable to me as long as the images themselves are
appropriate to the article in the first place.
The problem lies with the user, and so the user should deal with it.  Push
it up the chain and change Wikipedia to suit *some* users, and you simply
distribute an individual problem to lots of other individuals, and degrade
the usefulness of Wikipedia as a whole.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Kate Winslet Exposure

body:
Rebecca said:
>
> For the record, taking a leaf from Google's book in this area has
> always been my preferred way of going about things. Also, to my
> knowledge, Google does not use the highest level of censorship as a
> default, but rather a moderate level (which is what I think we should
> be doing also).

Google's "moderate" filtering acts on images.  Google's "strict" filtering
acts on images text.  Google (at least the site I am shown in the
UK--other countries may vary) does not seem to have different levels of
image filtering.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why linking an image gives less choice to the reader

body:
Rebecca said:
> On 4/18/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>> We appear to have a difference of opinion on the ease of operation of
>> modern browsers such as Internet Explorer and Firefox.  As a person
>> who often uses both in this mode I can assure you that it's neither
>> extreme nor ridiculous.  It's very sensible and it solves the problem
>> totally.
>
> ....but is also a major nuisance anytime you want to use any other site
> than Wikipedia, or in the 99% of cases where this is not an issue. (and
> still doesn't help you know if an image is likely to be offensive in
> the first place)

If you're likely to be offended by Wikipedia, you're likely to be offended
by other websites.  As it happens I configure my browser to switch images
on and off with a click.
This is an individual problem and an individual solution is best.  To
adopt a group solution will only degrade the content of Wikipedia.


from_name: Puddl Duk

body:
On 4/18/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> geni said:
> >> I'm sorry, but what a load of bullocks.
> >>
> >> Christiaan
> >
> > are you seriously trying to suggest that there is a significant
> > percentage of earth population that would not be offended by the the
> > goatse?
>
> I think they might snicker a bit and show it to their friends.
>

Excellent case for editorial judgment. Unless we want to create a site
that appeals to, or looks like it was created by, snickering
juveniles.


body:
Rebecca said:
> In many cases, I
> think linking solves the problem fairly easily.

It's awkward and clunky.  It may be appropriate with images that many
people may find shocking, but it still stops one of the image's major
functions, which is to adorn the page and break up the text, so it's
clearly inappropriate for most cases where you get piddling objections
about boobs and whatnot.


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture Nonsense

body:
--- Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
> Kevin, you have my full sympathy. I'm still only
> semi-returned after a making a similar decision
> about having a wiki-vacation last year.
>
> You've hit the nail exactly on the head when you
> wrote "We exist to be an encyclopedia
> not a bastion of freedom of speech. We are here to
> provide information NOT to make political statements
> about censorship."
>
> Unfortunately, there are far too many individuals
> here who seem to think otherwise, and this is very
> disruptive.

Why is it that those of us who believe that this *is*
information are the ones who are being disruptive?
We're not the ones running around demanding things
HAVE TO GO.  We're the ones saying, let's keep valid
information.  (Gawd, who would ever have thought that
I'd ever be a rabid inclusionist?).

> That picture should definitely go. It is not the
> explicit stuff that the autofellatio picture was,
> buit its purpose is still to shock in the name of
> freedom of speech more than to inform.

Codswallop.  It's an image illustrating an article
about a movie, taken from the movie.

> Whatever happened to that bowderliasing project that
> was promised in the wake of the autofellatio
> picture? That seems to have dioed a quiet death.

Who promised any such thing?

RickK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


subject: [WikiEN-l] Kate Winslet

body:
--- Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
> Further to my last e-mail, I see that a compromise
> has been made and the offending image
> 'cut' so that we only see her face and shoulders.
>
> This is certainly better.

No, it's not.

RickK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Foundation-l] The role of the board

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Delirium wrote:
>
>
>>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The board doesn't represent the community, per se, but rather has a
>>>legal responsibility to carry out our charitable mission, which of
>>>course involves profound respect for the community.
>>>
>>>
>>That's only true for the unelected 3/5 of the board---two of the board
>>members very explicitly represent the community, and indeed the
>>community can replace them at the next election if it dislikes how it's
>>being represented.
>>
>>
>
>Board members, elected or unelected, have a duty to the organization's
>charitable aims, not to the members who elected them.
>
>Over the very long haul future, I anticipate increasing community
>participation on the board, in some fashion, but I do not anticipate
>that this should ever be allowed to give rise to the idea that Wikipedia
>can be whatever the community wants it to be, no matter who the
>community is.
>
>This is not as simple as "voting versus not voting" for board members.
>The exact _mechanisms_ by which we (in the long run) organize the board
>can have a huge impact on the project, and I intend that we slowly and
>carefully modify and test and design those mechanisms to ensure that we
>continue to hold to our fundamental ideals.
>
>Let me give a very simple example to explain what I mean about it not
>being as simple as "voting versus not voting" -- it is not hard for
>anyone who has studied a little bit of election theory to come up with a
>plan for electing board members which would guarantee a victory only for
>people who are either en.wikipedia users or are somehow famous in the en
>community.
>
>This would lead to no representation for other languages, etc.
>
>Alternatively we can design processes which somehow guarantee diverse
>representation at the board level.  This is not easy.
>
>This is particularly not easy because it would be undesirable from a
>fast decision-making point of view to have a board of 75 people.  And so
>long as we have a manageable group, of course it is hard to get proper
>representation for different languages.
>
>We also have to be very concerned about the possibility as we become
>more important of outside groups trying to control the content of
>Wikipedia by controlling the votes.  I think this is a very easy thing
>to deal with, so I only mention it to mention yet another way in which
>the question of "elected or not" doesn't really get us very far.
>
>If your question is: will there ever come a day when the community
>undertakes a vote of some kind to do away with neutrality or the
>principle of free licensing, then my answer is: not if I can help it.
>And this is not me _against_ the community, but rather this is my
>promise to the community, to defend it and not make hasty decisions that
>would lead to the potential corruption of our ideals.
>
>- --Jimbo
>
>
Hoi,
In your reply, you mention how the voting system will decide how the
Wikipedia community is represented on the board. The Wikimedia
Foundations does however not only represent the Wikipedia communities,
there are the other communities as well. They are equally deserving in
having some representation on the board. In my opinion we are fortunate
that the current board is open to the needs of the other projects. This
does not mean that more could be done for the other projects, it means
that I am happy with our board and if anything I hope that we will find
both Anthere and Angela on the board after the elections because some
stability is a good thing in our current form of organisation.

Thanks,
    GerardM


subject: [Foundation-l] The role of the board


subject: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites

body:
--- Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
> The bowdlerising project does ssem to have died a
> quiet death , all right.
>
> Examples of pages with links to porn/adult sites in
> them (all found in 20 seconds):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenna_Jameson,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_James and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Carey.
>
> I fail to see any constructive purpose to them, and
> and any school that can reasonably
> be described as decent or respnsible is (not) going
> to love them.

Great.  The slippery slope has become an avalanche.
Now it's not good enough to delete images which SOME
people believe are obscene, now you want to delete
links from articles ABOUT porn actresses to links
ABOUT them?  This is far, far, far, beyond the pale.

RickK

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


body:
--- geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yuo appear to have forgotten one of the key points
> of this project.
> this is to try and make information availible to
> everyone.
>
> --
> geni

Aren't those images Information?

RickK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject:
[WikiEN-l] The horror of it all (was: Suggestions for a work-safe
	encyclopedia)

body:
> I think we've been
> going around in circles for a while now.  To summaries, we
> differ strongly about whether Ms Winslet's mammary glands are
> so horrific that the world needs to be protected from them.

"Horrible", as in the [[horror movie]] genre, would be something like
Nightmare on Elm Street, Freddie Kreuger, etc. Grisly action scenes of
impaling, beheadings, etc. There is nothing horrible about a camera
revolving around a half-nekkid broad draped on a couch while intervening
stage props repeatedly reveal and conceal her tits.

Horrid is when a man wakes up one day and realizing you have no family
life, because you focused too much on sex (i.e., with someone other than
his wife).

The problem with movie nude scenes is not that they "offend" or are
"horrible"; don't bother wasting our time as you knock down THOSE straw
men, with the easy grace of an outfielder catching a pop fly. It's that
they ENTICE.

If your friend or co-worker was on a diet (perhaps for medical reasons),
how often would you amuse yourself by teasing him, "Hey, Billy, want
some ice cream? It's chocolate, yer favorite!" Knock it off, will ya?

Uncle Ed


from_name: Sj

subject: [WikiEN-l] International Writing Contest : glory to Apollo 8

body:
Results for the March  International writing contest are out:

     http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/International_writing_contest

There were many great English submissions, and even though en: entered
the contest on very short notice, some of our submissions ranked up
there with the best articles in any language.  The top six articles,
each worthy of a long read :

   1. Apollo 8 (Evil Monkey) [the clear winner, even before audio
files were added]
   2. Reformation in Switzerland (Lupo)
   3. Spring Heeled Jack (Shauri)
   4. Kreutz Sungrazers (Worldtraveller)
   5. Oakland Cemetery (uberpenguin)
   6. Automatic number plate recognition (violetriga)

Honorable mention goes to [[Diamond]], which underwent an incredible
transformation over the course of the month, and will probably be
featured by the end of the week.  It was also the most collaborative
effort submitted to the contest, worked on actively by Bantman, Jasper
and Hadal.  However, despite seeing every paragraph and section
change, it was already a long and well-sourced article when the month
began.

Congratulations to everyone who worked on these articles.

There will be another writing and media contest in May, for materials
created primarily after April 30; hopefully with some good prizes in
the mix.  We are already seeing some innovative video contributions,
and I hope there will be some good entries next month (if you haven't
already, take a peek at this quick clip of Wikinews TV :
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Broadcast ).

If you are interested in judging either the writing or the media
submissions; or if you would like to donate a prize for one of these
contests, please leave a note on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Contests .

(NB: Both the English Wikinews writing contest and the German entries
for this past International writing contest have attracted a few
hundred dollars in prizes... )

--
+sj+
 _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites

body:
On 4/18/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> I looked at one, the Mary Carey site. It is a commercial web site for sale
> of her wares, such as they are. I think she can buy advertising for that
> purpose and ought not to depend on an encyclopedia article. She is a notable
> figure, but links might be more appropriately to reports of her notable
> political activities such as running for governor of California rather than
> to her store. It's easy enough to google for it anyway.

If the store is explicitly hers, and thus has special significance, I
see no reason not to link it.  However, if it's just A store that
sells her merchandise, then it should not be listed.  Just like we may
link to Ford's web site in an article about a Ford car, but not to a
specific dealership.

If, however, the store is just part of a more general official fan
site, then linking to the main page of that fan site might be more
appropriate - just like the fan site for any other actress.

-Matt


from_name: geni

body:
> Only the ones who have a problem with images.  The rest of us have much
> more choice if we have inlines.  Put it this way: use linking and you're
> forever sacrificing the chance to have the image actually illustrate the
> article it's supposed to.  Use inlining and you leave the choice with the
> user. If he really is bothered by certain images, he can turn them off.
> This seems reasonable to me as long as the images themselves are
> appropriate to the article in the first place.
> The problem lies with the user, and so the user should deal with it.  Push
> it up the chain and change Wikipedia to suit *some* users, and you simply
> distribute an individual problem to lots of other individuals, and degrade
> the usefulness of Wikipedia as a whole.

Yuo appear to have forgotten one of the key points of this project.
this is to try and make information availible to everyone.

--
geni


body:
> This is an individual problem and an individual solution is best.  To
> adopt a group solution will only degrade the content of Wikipedia.

Argument by assertion logical fallacy

--
geni


body:
> I think they might snicker a bit and show it to their friends.

You now appear to be trying to speak on behalf of the worlds population.

--
geni


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites

body:
I looked at one, the Mary Carey site. It is a commercial web site for sale
of her wares, such as they are. I think she can buy advertising for that
purpose and ought not to depend on an encyclopedia article. She is a notable
figure, but links might be more appropriately to reports of her notable
political activities such as running for governor of California rather than
to her store. It's easy enough to google for it anyway.

Fred

> From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites
>
>
> --- Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
>> The bowdlerising project does ssem to have died a
>> quiet death , all right.
>>
>> Examples of pages with links to porn/adult sites in
>> them (all found in 20 seconds):
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenna_Jameson,
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_James and
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Carey.
>>
>> I fail to see any constructive purpose to them, and
>> and any school that can reasonably
>> be described as decent or respnsible is (not) going
>> to love them.
>
> Great.  The slippery slope has become an avalanche.
> Now it's not good enough to delete images which SOME
> people believe are obscene, now you want to delete
> links from articles ABOUT porn actresses to links
> ABOUT them?  This is far, far, far, beyond the pale.
>
> RickK
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites

body:
It is the Prurient content....

Fred

> From: David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 02:23:37 +1000
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites
>
> Fred Bauder (fredbaud at ctelco.net) [050419 02:18]:
>
>> I looked at one, the Mary Carey site. It is a commercial web site for sale
>> of her wares, such as they are. I think she can buy advertising for that
>> purpose and ought not to depend on an encyclopedia article. She is a notable
>> figure, but links might be more appropriately to reports of her notable
>> political activities such as running for governor of California rather than
>> to her store. It's easy enough to google for it anyway.
>
>
> Why remove this commercial page in particular, rather than any other
> company page on Wikipedia? That is, this doesn't seem to be the criterion
> commercial links are added or removed on for other articles, so this seems
> a novel policy.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Stuart Orford

subject: [Foundation-l] Comment on Copyright Orphans

body:
On 4/12/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I already put my previous submissions into the mailing list.  It's No.
> 697 in the records of the Copyright Office.  All 714 submissions may be
> read as pdf files.  Is there a way to do a text search for all those pdf
> files to see if any other submissions used the string "wiki"?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=site%3Acopyright.gov%2Forphan%2F+%28wiki+OR+wikipedia+OR+wikimedia%29&btnG=Search&meta=

www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/OW0236-Waddell.pdf
www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/OW0663-IndependentFilm.pdf
www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/OW0523-Schack.pdf
www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/OW0580-Kilfiger.pdf
www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/OW0025-Krupp.pdf
www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/OW0697-Saintonge.pdf


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
geni wrote:

>>I do not propose any a priori restrictions on access; unlike you I do not
>>propose that we appease the extreme religious right of the USA and one or
>>two less salubrious countries by applying content restrictions motivated
>>by grundyism rather than the wish to improve the encyclopedia.
>>The GFDL already guarantees that content availability is maximized. Those
>>who want a bowdlerized version can adjust their browsers or produce a
>>bowdlerized mirror.
>>
>>
>And those who want a pornographic version can also ajust their
>browsers (by clicking yes everytime something asks to download) and
>produce a pornifed fork. I am not trying to appease the relgious right
>in the US. I am trying to appease the majority of the human
>population. Now I could be wrong but I belive that the majority on
>this planet have sex and nudity tabos. Certianly the forien language
>newspapers at my university are not notable for the level of nudity
>they carry.
>
I would not put what we do in terms of appeasement.  That's being
condescending to a segment.  Neville Chamberlain proved that it is not
always a successful strategy.  A policy based on Wikilove which shows
genuine respect for differing points of view would put the matter on
much sounder footings.

Ec


body:
Sj wrote:

>There will be another writing and media contest in May, for materials
>created primarily after April 30; hopefully with some good prizes in
>the mix.  We are already seeing some innovative video contributions,
>and I hope there will be some good entries next month (if you haven't
>already, take a peek at this quick clip of Wikinews TV :
>http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Broadcast ).
>
>(NB: Both the English Wikinews writing contest and the German entries
>for this past International writing contest have attracted a few
>hundred dollars in prizes... )
>
This gave me the idea that there should be a contest open to just
highschool students.  Since we can't always be sure that a person who
says that he is in highschool is telling the truth the cash prize could
be mailed to him in care of his school's principal, who would then have
the choice of presenting the prize privately or at a school assembly.
The bonus for us would be in making school administrators more aware of
Wikipedia.

Ec


from_name: Kevin Rector

subject: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites

body:
I would agree with Tony with a caveat. For a sports related link you can
often get a lot of information. For instance if you go to
www.nashvillepredators.com you can get significant information about the
team (for instance you can get the box scores for every game the team
has ever played). This information is all freely available to anyone who
wants it. However, -most- adult oriented sites simply exist to take your
money and show you porn.

I would submit that there is a different level of "commerciality"
involved between the average porn site and the average non-porn
corporate site since the primary commodity of the porn site is the porn
site itself.

I would think that we should be hesitant to link to any web sites (porn
or otherwise) whose primary commodity is selling access or "memberships"
to the website, and more liberal with links to other types of
industries.

-Kevin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
> bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 11:30 AM
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites
>
> David Gerard said:
>
> > Why remove this commercial page in particular, rather than any other
> > company page on Wikipedia? That is, this doesn't seem to be the
> > criterion commercial links are added or removed on for other
articles,
> > so this seems a novel policy.
>
> That's what I thought last time someone suggested some removals from
> another sexual subject.  Different criteria may be applied to sexual
sites
> (I'm open to the possibility, though it seems far-fetched if the site
is
> otherwise encyclopedic) but if we do adopt a "no commercial links"
> approach to sexual topics we should not pretend that they're the same
> criteria that would be applied to, say, sports.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
Rick wrote:

>(Gawd, who would ever have thought that
>I'd ever be a rabid inclusionist?).
>
OUR tigers are allowed to change their spots. ;-)

Ec


body:
geni said:
[...]
>> Push it up the chain and change Wikipedia to suit *some* users, and
>> you simply distribute an individual problem to lots of other
>> individuals, and degrade the usefulness of Wikipedia as a whole.
>
> Yuo appear to have forgotten one of the key points of this project.
> this is to try and make information availible to everyone.

I do not propose any a priori restrictions on access; unlike you I do not
propose that we appease the extreme religious right of the USA and one or
two less salubrious countries by applying content restrictions motivated
by grundyism rather than the wish to improve the encyclopedia.
The GFDL already guarantees that content availability is maximized. Those
who want a bowdlerized version can adjust their browsers or produce a
bowdlerized mirror.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites

body:
Yeah, to be clear, I'm making no comment on the "goodness" or "badness"
of the article it's content or anything at all to do with the article in
question, but the topic of linking to "commercial" sites.

-Kevin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
> bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 11:42 AM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites
>
> Kevin Rector (krector at Compco.com) [050419 02:40]:
>
> > I would think that we should be hesitant to link to any web sites
(porn
> > or otherwise) whose primary commodity is selling access or
"memberships"
> > to the website, and more liberal with links to other types of
> > industries.
>
>
> Possibly. But (1) it's an editorial judgement call and (2) the page is
> clearly tagged [[Category:Porn stars]].
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
geni said:
>> This is an individual problem and an individual solution is best.  To
>> adopt a group solution will only degrade the content of Wikipedia.
>
> Argument by assertion logical fallacy

It is a fact that a linked image cannot be put back into the article by
the browser, but an inlined image *can* be turned into a link or
placeholder by the browser.
It is a fact that the decision to link images is a matter of individual
taste; there is nothing intrinsically unencyclopedic about the content
which certain individuals are proposing to separate from the articles on
grounds of their own personal taste, and no encyclopedic purpose is served
by degrading the encyclopedia in this way.
It follows that the proposal to link boob pictures is an overreaction to a
personal distaste for boob pictures rather than an encyclopedic necessity.


body:
geni said:
>> I think they might snicker a bit and show it to their friends.
>
>
> You now appear to be trying to speak on behalf of the worlds
> population.

The words "I think" and "might" may tip you off that I'm expressing my
personal opinion--as are you.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites

body:
Right, I hate McDonalds and wish they'd go bankrupt (not likely).
However, the McDonalds website does provide (at least the US version)
"nutrition" information as well as other information. The website isn't
the company's primary commodity, that's all I'm saying. I'm pretty sure
we're agreeing on this one.

-Kevin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
> bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 12:06 PM
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Cc: Kevin Rector
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites
>
> Kevin Rector said:
> > Yeah, to be clear, I'm making no comment on the "goodness" or
"badness"
> > of the article it's content or anything at all to do with the
article
> > in question, but the topic of linking to "commercial" sites.
>
> How about the external link to mcdonalds.com on [[McDonalds
Corporation]]
> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mcdonalds_Corporation )?  I popped on
over
> there, selected my country (UK), and was promptly shown lots of happy
> smily kids stuffing themselves with junk food, and all kinds of
propaganda
> saying how healthy their revolting, fat-filled crap is.  I hope they
get
> taken big one day by all the fat people whom they have made ill with
their
> targetted advertising and false claims, but somehow it would seem
wrong to
> me if the article about this company didn't contain a link to their
crappy
> website.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
> I do not propose any a priori restrictions on access; unlike you I do not
> propose that we appease the extreme religious right of the USA and one or
> two less salubrious countries by applying content restrictions motivated
> by grundyism rather than the wish to improve the encyclopedia.
> The GFDL already guarantees that content availability is maximized. Those
> who want a bowdlerized version can adjust their browsers or produce a
> bowdlerized mirror.

And those who want a pornographic version can also ajust their
browsers (by clicking yes everytime something asks to download) and
produce a pornifed fork. I am not trying to appease the relgious right
in the US. I am trying to appease the majority of the human
population. Now I could be wrong but I belive that the majority on
this planet have sex and nudity tabos. Certianly the forien language
newspapers at my university are not notable for the level of nudity
they carry.

Fianly for pretty obvious reasons we try and avoid forks. I suggest
you stop advocating one.

--
geni


body:
geni said:
>> I do not propose any a priori restrictions on access; unlike you I do
>> not propose that we appease the extreme religious right of the USA and
>> one or two less salubrious countries by applying content restrictions
>> motivated by grundyism rather than the wish to improve the
>> encyclopedia.
>> The GFDL already guarantees that content availability is maximized.
>> Those who want a bowdlerized version can adjust their browsers or
>> produce a bowdlerized mirror.
>
> And those who want a pornographic version can also ajust their
> browsers (by clicking yes everytime something asks to download) and
> produce a pornifed fork.

Indeed.  But here you're simply flipping to a mischaracterization of the
present state of Wikipedia as "pornographic", which is clearly nonsense.

> I am not trying to appease the relgious right
> in the US. I am trying to appease the majority of the human
> population.

You wrongly accused me earlier of proposing to speak for the human race.
This is what you are doing as a matter of fact.
What makes you think that the majority of the human race is revolted by
Kate Winslet's naked left breast?  If it's such a problem, why was there
not rioting in the streets at the prospect of children being exposed to
this heinous sight?
>
> Fianly for pretty obvious reasons we try and avoid forks. I suggest you
> stop advocating one.

A fork wouldn't be a bad idea in this instance, because probably people
offended by the sight of a breast would have pretty firm ideas about our
textual content.  But a mirror would be adequate for imposing the kind of
grundyism you are defending.


body:
> It is a fact that a linked image cannot be put back into the article by
> the browser, but an inlined image *can* be turned into a link or
> placeholder by the browser.

In fact it is theoreticly posible to turn a link back into an image

> It is a fact that the decision to link images is a matter of individual
> taste; there is nothing intrinsically unencyclopedic about the content
> which certain individuals are proposing to separate from the articles on
> grounds of their own personal taste, and no encyclopedic purpose is served
> by degrading the encyclopedia in this way.
> It follows that the proposal to link boob pictures is an overreaction to a
> personal distaste for boob pictures rather than an encyclopedic necessity.

Can you prove it degrads the enclyopedia?

--
geni


body:
> The words "I think" and "might" may tip you off that I'm expressing my
> personal opinion--as are you.

So you have nothing more than your personal opion to base your argument on?

--
geni


body:
> Indeed.  But here you're simply flipping to a mischaracterization of the
> present state of Wikipedia as "pornographic", which is clearly nonsense.

And you are charactering what your oponets want as bowderised

> You wrongly accused me earlier of proposing to speak for the human race.
> This is what you are doing as a matter of fact.
> What makes you think that the majority of the human race is revolted by
> Kate Winslet's naked left breast?  If it's such a problem, why was there
> not rioting in the streets at the prospect of children being exposed to
> this heinous sight?

Check out the recent history of bollywood

There was a lot of opersition to the banning of fox hunting in the UK.
I don't notice much in the way of rioting in the street

> A fork wouldn't be a bad idea in this instance, because probably people
> offended by the sight of a breast would have pretty firm ideas about our
> textual content.  But a mirror would be adequate for imposing the kind of
> grundyism you are defending.

So you view all those with to keep the level of nudity in wikipedia
down to a minium as stupid?

--
geni


body:
geni said:
>> It is a fact that a linked image cannot be put back into the article
>> by the browser, but an inlined image *can* be turned into a link or
>> placeholder by the browser.
>
> In fact it is theoreticly posible to turn a link back into an image

I think you use the word "theoretically" with great licence, even though
it is a significant concession. Where in the page would the image be
placed?  What size would the image be displayed at?
>
> Can you prove it degrads the enclyopedia?

Absolutely.  Here's an exercise.

Write a test article on your sandbox.  Place an image inline in the
article.  Place it so that it goes well with the text that it illustrates.
 If it's a diagram, annotate it so that points in the text are plainly
depicted.  Notice how well the image complements the text.  Notice how the
placement of the image can be used to break up long text, and how the use
of color, in the case of a colored image, makes the page more attractive.
Now edit the article to replace the inlined image with a link.

The article and the image are now separated.  It isn't possible to see the
linked image in the article any more.  One has to memorize detail when
switching from image to article--even if one places them side by side in
separate browser windows.
The article has been degraded.


body:
geni said:
>> The words "I think" and "might" may tip you off that I'm expressing my
>> personal opinion--as are you.
>
> So you have nothing more than your personal opion to base your argument
> on?

No.  Recall that you were expressing a personal opinion of yours as if it
was fact.  I simply demonstrated that a different opinion could be
expressed.  Thus I refuted your argument by assertion, to the effect that
Kate Winslet's left breast is such a revolting sight that the world's
population must be protected from it.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: The role of the board

body:
Delirium a ?crit:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> If your question is: will there ever come a day when the community
>> undertakes a vote of some kind to do away with neutrality or the
>> principle of free licensing, then my answer is: not if I can help it.
>> And this is not me _against_ the community, but rather this is my
>> promise to the community, to defend it and not make hasty decisions that
>> would lead to the potential corruption of our ideals.
>>
>>
> I agree with that, but I don't think those scenarios are likely to come
> up, and certainly not very often.  In the more common case, there are
> issues on which reasonable people can disagree within the scope of
> Wikipedia's mission, and on those I think deferring to the community in
> large part makes some sense.
>
> I don't necessarily mean holding votes on everything, but at least
> recognizing that in principle this isn't a top-down organization, but
> rather a community that largely works on its own to write a high-quality
> encyclopedia.  The community resolves disputes over articles, develops
> policies on specific projects, and so on, with a legal organization that
> provides servers, loose guidance, and suggestions, and a baseline
> assurance that nothing is straying unacceptably from the Foundation's
> mission (abandoning neutral viewpoint or something of that sort).
>
> There seems to be a tendency lately, since we have a board, to just dump
> all decisions onto it as a convenient arbiter ("this should be a Board
> decision"), which I think would be a mistake.
>
> -Mark

Sort of agree with the latest comment...
But... I do not see that a *recent* trend at all. Previously, most
unsolved issues were dump on Jimbo ("this should be decided by Jimbo").

In principle, Jimbo has been careful not to necessarily react to such
appeals, but only to get involved in the most untractable cases (and not
even always so) or those potentially damaging the basic principles of
the projects.

ant


from_name: Arno M

body:
Kevin, you have my full sympathy. I'm still only semi-returned after a making a similar decision about having a wiki-vacation last year.

You've hit the nail exactly on the head when you wrote "We exist to be an encyclopedia
not a bastion of freedom of speech. We are here to provide information NOT to make political statements about censorship."

Unfortunately, there are far too many individuals here who seem to think otherwise, and this is very disruptive.

That picture should definitely go. It is not the explicit stuff that the autofellatio picture was, buit its purpose is still to shock in the name of freedom of speech more than to inform.

Whatever happened to that bowderliasing project that was promised in the wake of the autofellatio picture? That seems to have dioed a quiet death.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Rector" <krector at Compco.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:20:07 -0500

>
> Please see the discussion on [[Image:KateWinsletTitanic.jpg]] at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Apr
> il_11.
>
> Here's my reply to the whole deal:
>
> Delete -- For the same reason as Nunh-huh and DreamGuy. This adds
> nothing to the article except controversy. So the only reason to keep it
> in the article is to reduce WikiLove, and to increase Wikistress. I hate
> all these stupid debates about nudity. We exists to be an encyclopedia
> not a bastion of freedom of speech. We are here to provide information
> NOT to make political statements about censorship. Having nude and/or
> sexually explicit pictures in our encyclopedia upsets enough people that
> it detracts significantly from the task of making an encylopedia and
> that is reason enough to delete this picture (and others like it). There
> is a definite agenda by the nude-picture-pushers here and it has nothing
> to do with creating an NPOV encyclopedia. Kevin Rector (talk) 22:04, Apr
> 12, 2005 (UTC)
>
> Now to you the mailing list:
>
> I've tried to stay out of the fray with all the nude/porn picture
> debates that have gone on, but I've come to the realization that people
> are searching out nude pictures to put in the 'pedia. They are looking
> to stir up trouble, mostly to make a point.
>
> The fact that the Wikipedia "community" won't resolve these problems,
> and the fact that the community so proudly proclaims that "Wikipedia is
> not censored" while ignoring the fact that "Wikipedia is quite
> dysfunctional" has made me realize that I need to re-evaluate if this is
> a project that I want to be a part of.
>
> Plus the politics and partisanship are really annoying.
>
> I'm going on WikiVacation - I may or may not return.
>
> -Kevin Rector
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com


body:
geni said:
>> Indeed.  But here you're simply flipping to a mischaracterization of
>> the present state of Wikipedia as "pornographic", which is clearly
>> nonsense.
>
> And you are charactering what your oponets want as bowderised

It is a fact that you propose a bowdlerization.
>
>> You wrongly accused me earlier of proposing to speak for the human
>> race. This is what you are doing as a matter of fact.
>> What makes you think that the majority of the human race is revolted
>> by Kate Winslet's naked left breast?  If it's such a problem, why was
>> there not rioting in the streets at the prospect of children being
>> exposed to this heinous sight?
>
> Check out the recent history of bollywood

Ms Winslet does not act in Indian movies.  You're dodging the question.
Why did Titanic receive a PG13 certificate in the USA, allowing children
of all ages to attend the movie legally, unaccompanied by adults?
>
> There was a lot of opersition to the banning of fox hunting in the UK.
> I don't notice much in the way of rioting in the street

There was quite a lot, actually, although the majority of the UK
population either didn't care or strongly supported abolition.  I think
you're clutching at straws but if you seriously question this we can
discuss it off-list and summarise.
>
>
>> A fork wouldn't be a bad idea in this instance, because probably
>> people offended by the sight of a breast would have pretty firm ideas
>> about our textual content.  But a mirror would be adequate for
>> imposing the kind of grundyism you are defending.
>
> So you view all those with to keep the level of nudity in wikipedia
> down to a minium as stupid?

Non-sequitur.  I decry the rush to eliminate perfectly useful,
encyclopedic, esthetically beautiful illustrations from Wikipedia out of
what appear to me to be wildly overstated fears about the acceptability of
such images.  I recognise that those proposing this removal are
intelligent people, and thus I hope to persuade them that they are wrong.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Kate Winslet

body:
Further to my last e-mail, I see that a compromise has been made and the offending image
'cut' so that we only see her face and shoulders.

This is certainly better.

--
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com


from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 06:45:05PM +0800, Andrew Lih wrote:
> On 4/18/05, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
>
> > It seems to me like too good an idea to pass up, really, and if this
> > community doesn't like it enough to implement it, I'm sure a community
> > for such can be generated from the luminiferous ethere of the Internet.
> >
> > Of course, I'm so busy as it is that if I end up having to create it
> > myself it'll probably take three years to get around to it.
>
> They do exist today, but usually the battle lines are drawn up in
> terms of polarizing left- and right-wing opinion. It would be
> interesting if a community could develop that would tolerate and
> engage in civil discourse given the vitriolic opinion pieces that tend
> to show up on these sites. I'm skeptical, but would love to be proved
> wrong.

The mechanisms for other community opinion-column sites are wholly
different at the technical level from this, and tend to aggregate
similarly-minded opinionated people.  With a more open entry mechanism,
an article-based format (as opposed to a journal-like blog), and
encouragement of contrasting opinions by virtue of the fact that
agreeing columns would be redundant and ignorable, I think something
entirely different from previous op/ed communities would be the result
of such a thing.  I don't know that it would be appropriate for
Wikimedia, but it does strike me as sort of a close cousin of wiki, and
something worth trying at some point.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


body:
Daniel Mayer said:
> The only issue
> now is the details: what to display by default and what to link by
> default. Being only a semi-prude, I say simple nudity is almost always
> OK to display by default while sex acts (both with oneself and with the
> help of others ) is almost always not OK to display by default in
> articles (with the possible exception of good line drawings).

I think it's here that you'll find that I've only been describing current
policy and practice.
The current situation is that we judge things on an article-by-article
basis.  The survey on objectionable images arrived at a very strong
consensus for this in December.
The current written policy recognises that linking is an act of degrading
the utility of an article so we should avoid censorhip if an image adds
something to an article.
Now there does appear to be on this list a concentration of people in
favor of somewhat more drastic censorship than applies at present.
However the present practice does seem to work well and produce good
results, so I don't see it changing any time soon.


from_name: Rebecca

body:
On 4/18/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> We appear to have a difference of opinion on the ease of operation of
> modern browsers such as Internet Explorer and Firefox.  As a person who
> often uses both in this mode I can assure you that it's neither extreme
> nor ridiculous.  It's very sensible and it solves the problem totally.

...but is also a major nuisance anytime you want to use any other site
than Wikipedia, or in the 99% of cases where this is not an issue.
(and still doesn't help you know if an image is likely to be offensive
in the first place)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites

body:
The bowdlerising project does ssem to have died a quiet death , all right.

Examples of pages with links to porn/adult sites in them (all found in 20 seconds):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenna_Jameson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_James and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Carey.

I fail to see any constructive purpose to them, and and any school that can reasonably
be described as decent or respnsible is (not) going to love them.

--
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com


body:
> That may be true of goatse and even possibly autofellation.  But a nude
> scene from a PG13 movie?  I could not have guessed at the extreme
> reactions it has provoked from people.
> You have not demonstrated any fallacy.

It doesn't surprise me (although it doesn't offend me in the slightest
personally). Still, I think people have a point here - there *are*
concerns about nudity coming up where unexpected. In many cases, I
think linking solves the problem fairly easily. In cases such as
these, though, one has to wonder if the image is really that
important. While it doesn't offend me in the last, in this particular
case, I'm inclined to say no.

-- ambi


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.4.1 released

body:
> * Localized category namespace for ka (Georgian)

Just before the release was made I localized the rest of them, in
addition to the category namespace.


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Kate Winslet

body:
> > This is certainly better.
>
> No, it's not.
>
> RickK

Yes, it is.

--
 Sean Barrett     | Enter any 11-digit prime
 sean at epoptic.com | number to continue.


body:
> No.  Recall that you were expressing a personal opinion of yours as if it
> was fact.  I simply demonstrated that a different opinion could be
> expressed.  Thus I refuted your argument by assertion, to the effect that
> Kate Winslet's left breast is such a revolting sight that the world's
> population must be protected from it.

No I was asking a question. Now if you read [[Nudity]] you will find
that most of the world population has some form of nudity taboo.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Kate Winslet Exposure

body:
On 4/16/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> I agree.  If we do have server-side filtering, we should use the highest
> level of censorship as a default so that nobody can complain that they
> didn't ask for what they got (otherwise, why bother doing it?)  It should
> be possible to override this by setting preferences and obtaining a
> long-term site cookie, without having to log in.  This would make
> Wikipedia's behavior similar to Google's.

For the record, taking a leaf from Google's book in this area has
always been my preferred way of going about things. Also, to my
knowledge, Google does not use the highest level of censorship as a
default, but rather a moderate level (which is what I think we should
be doing also).

-- ambi


body:
> Ms Winslet does not act in Indian movies.  You're dodging the question.
> Why did Titanic receive a PG13 certificate in the USA, allowing children
> of all ages to attend the movie legally, unaccompanied by adults?

India population 1,306,313,812
USA population 295,900,500

PG13 means Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13

In the UK it recived a 12 meaning that children under 12 could not see it

> There was quite a lot, actually, although the majority of the UK
> population either didn't care or strongly supported abolition.  I think
> you're clutching at straws but if you seriously question this we can
> discuss it off-list and summarise.

Didn't notice a riots. Noticed a lot of protests but not much in the
way of rioting.

> Non-sequitur.

Look up the defintion of grundyism

> I decry the rush to eliminate perfectly useful,
> encyclopedic, esthetically beautiful illustrations from Wikipedia out of
> what appear to me to be wildly overstated fears about the acceptability of
> such images.  I recognise that those proposing this removal are
> intelligent people, and thus I hope to persuade them that they are wrong.

A highly crowded image that was heavily ocupied by the back of one of
the actors heads was esthetically beautiful?

--
geni


body:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 12:45:29PM +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> geni said:
> >> It is a fact that a linked image cannot be put back into the article
> >> by the browser, but an inlined image *can* be turned into a link or
> >> placeholder by the browser.
> >
> > In fact it is theoreticly posible to turn a link back into an image
>
> I think you use the word "theoretically" with great licence, even though
> it is a significant concession. Where in the page would the image be
> placed?  What size would the image be displayed at?

Just a thought:  How about using CSS to show a block of color of the
size and dimensions of an image that might be deemed "inappropriate" by
popular standards of prudishness, with the ability to replace/cover that
block with the image itself by clicking on it?  This would be simple
enough to implement it, involving probably a class= for potentially
objectionable images.  This could be the default behavior, with a link
in place of the caption that says simply something like "This photo may
be objectionable to some viewers.  Click here to turn off content
filtering."  This would reload the page with the image shown, depositing
a cookie on the client system that circumvents the image blocking in
future visits to the site.

This way, we'd have:

A) initial default behavior that satisfies the more "sensitive" readers

B) initial default behavior that allows a one-click-per-image ability to
inline the image without altering the layout of the page

C) a clear indication to viewers that the article would be better
demonstrated by inline inclusion of the image if the viewer is willing
to view it

and
D) the ability to click once, ever, the first time you visit the site,
to turn off this default behavior and simply have EVERYTHING inlined

I'm not saying this is the best option.  It's just something that
occurred to me and, in comparison with category rating and fine-grained
controls on the server side, should be relatively trivial to implement,
while maintaining a near-maximum degree of control in the hands of the
viewer in terms of what he or she sees on the site.  The only caveats to
that are that the browser being used would have to properly implement
the CSS used and, of course, some kind of "potentially objectionable
material" image insertion wiki tag would have to be implemented to make
it easily used when adding images to articles.  Oh, and it would require
people who wish to circumvent image blocking to accept cookies, which at
Wikipedia doesn't bother me personally, but might bother others.

I suppose there's the concern that it might make the site aesthetically
less pleasing to those who choose to browse with image blocking, but
that seems to me to be no worse than the lack of illustrative images for
encyclopedic purposes being inlined.

Thoughts?  Comments?

> >
> > Can you prove it degrads the enclyopedia?
>
> Absolutely.  Here's an exercise.

I think answering that rather than adjusting the language is probably
not the best possible response.  Saying it "degrades" it, without
specifying what qualities are degraded, invites intractable differences
of opinion.  Perhaps, rather than saying "Absolutely," you might say
"Yes: specifically, it degrades the encyclopedic informative
capabilities of Wikipedia by removing illustrative images from their
context within the article."  That, I think, would be difficult to argue
against, whereas simply saying "Absolutely!" leaves "degrade" undefined
except by example, which admits room for counter examples, et cetera.

It's difficult to reach a meeting of the minds when the two sides of a
debate are using different definitions of the word.  It may degrade the
article for you by removing illustrative images from context, but the
converse may degrade the encyclopedia for someone else by making it
objectionable to his sensibilities.  Whether you agree that degradation
of the encyclopedia according to matters of personal taste is something
to give half a fig about, the fact of the matter is that for some people
it WILL thusly be degraded, and by failing to define your terms your
point gets lost in others' objections.

Granted, you did sorta make your intent clear with an example, but you
never explicitly spelled your point out, thus leaving the door open to
an inclusive interpretation of "degrade" that allows for "weighted"
degradation estimations, where one balances personal taste against
encyclopedic standards of content.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


from_name: JAY JG

body:
>From: Richard Holton <richholton at gmail.com>
>I think that anyone who has been following this series of threads is
>now quite familiar with Tony's view on this topic. I can't see that
>anything constructive is accomplished by further attempts to persuade
>him.
>
>Perhaps Tony is 100% correct, and is simply standing firm in the
>truth. Perhaps he is stubborn, and will not change his view. Or
>perhaps he is more interested in argument than in constructive
>conversation, Whether it's one of these, or something else, I suggest
>that continuing to engage him on this topic is pointless.
>
>Just my personal opinion. Others may find it useful to adapt a similar
>opinion.

After the 50th or so repetition of Tony's view, I personally felt I was
sufficiently informed on the subject.

Jay.


from_name: Andrew Lih

body:
Erik, folks,

I've taken some time this weekend to read over the ZH Wikinews vote
comments, and the concerns of the 13 opposed are quite interesting.

If you haven't been following it, the Chinese Internet is in a bad slump
right now. There are occasional reports of Internet crackdowns in China, but
the recent one should be a real concern. College campus Internet BBS systems
have had severe restrictions imposed, and some have closed down. One of the
best known Internet entrepreneurs had his personal site shut down by
government order because of content posted on April Fools day.

So many of the comments in the vote were in the spirit of, "It's not a good
time to do something that will most definitely get roped into this mess."
OTOH, some said this is exactly why it should be created, in that it will be
a canary in the coal mine, so to speak. Just thought you'd be interested in
the sentiment that they've expressed in the vote.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

On 4/14/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> There has now been a vote, organized by Formulax, among Chinese language
> Wikimedians on whether there should be a Chinese Wikinews.
>
> The results are at:
>
> http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E6%8A%95%E7%A5%A8/%E7%BB%B4%E5%9F%BA%E6%96%B0%E9%97%BB
>
> In an amusing demonstration of the problems of voting, there were 13
> votes opposed to the project, 13 votes in support, and 1 vote with
> support only if compromises could be made about NPOV.
>
> There was a larger vote earlier on whether this should be up to the
> global community to decide, or to the Chinese community. That vote was
> inconclusive, too, with opinions evenly split (50% want it to be a
> global decision, 50% want it to be a local decision) and very strong
> expressions of emotions on both sides.
>
> We can continue voting until we get a nice result, but I think it would
> be best now for the board to make a decision about this.
>
> My recommendation is a compromise: the project should go ahead under
> somewhat more rigid conditions (at least 10 support votes with at least
> 6 of them from Wikimedia regulars PLUS the process at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_language_pre-launch ). We can deal
> with problems of censorship as they arise.
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikinews-l mailing list
> Wikinews-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
>


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
geni said:
>> No.  Recall that you were expressing a personal opinion of yours as if
>> it was fact.  I simply demonstrated that a different opinion could be
>> expressed.  Thus I refuted your argument by assertion, to the effect
>> that Kate Winslet's left breast is such a revolting sight that the
>> world's population must be protected from it.
>
> No I was asking a question.

Ah, so we're agreed, then.  I could have sworn that you said at least once
that the world's population needed you to protect it from Ms Winslet's
dangerous mammaries.
> Now if you read [[Nudity]] you will find
> that most of the world population has some form of nudity taboo.
>

That would be the article illustrated by Manet's Olympia Michaelangelo's
David and Goya's nude and clothed Maja?  I must say I popped down to that
article expecting to see something supporting your claim, but instead
found an account of very diverse views and practices.


body:
> That would be the article illustrated by Manet's Olympia Michaelangelo's
> David and Goya's nude and clothed Maja?

Yup for some reason artitisic nudes seem to have more accptance

 I must say I popped down to that
> article expecting to see something supporting your claim, but instead
> found an account of very diverse views and practices.

Yup but they all seem to have some form of nudity taboo (even if it
only to limit nudity to certian areas).

--
geni


body:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 06:34:47PM +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Chad Perrin said:
> >
> > Just a thought:  How about using CSS to show a block of color of the
> > size and dimensions of an image that might be deemed "inappropriate" by
> > popular standards of prudishness, with the ability to replace/cover
> > that block with the image itself by clicking on it?
>
> Yes, this is very much along the lines I've been thinking. Give em their
> figleaf.  Figleafing should be configurable (on or off by default) and the
> user should be able to set his preferences by cookie, without logging in.

Exactly.  We seem to be on the same wavelength.

This thought has actually been forming in the back of my brain over the
course of the last three to five days without making itself consciously
available to me.  Only today did it arise as a fully-formed thought
complete with the notion that, as a CSS solution, should admit a trivial
implementation.

I'm convinced that to be properly implemented, however, it must be
cookie-configurable by viewers not logged in from day one.  Implementing
such that we overshoot our goals of accomodating users in the direction
of a pablumpedia would be a Bad Idea.  Write the cookie code first, THEN
write the CSS.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


from_name: mbecker ™

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bowdlerpedia--go got it!

body:
Someone should tell kids.net.au that they are breaking our licensing
agreement since they don't supply any history and don't link to us,
the original article, or the license...

On 4/18/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Or they can claim they do, like kids.net.au, and not actually do much work
> in that direction!
>
>
> - d.

--
Michael Becker


body:
geni said:
>> Ms Winslet does not act in Indian movies.  You're dodging the
>> question. Why did Titanic receive a PG13 certificate in the USA,
>> allowing children of all ages to attend the movie legally,
>> unaccompanied by adults?
>
> India population 1,306,313,812
> USA population 295,900,500

It doesn't matter how many people live in India, Ms Winslet still does not
act in the Bombay talkies.  For all I know she may want to, but as far as
I'm aware she has not taken that career path.
>
> PG13 means Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13
>
> In the UK it recived a 12 meaning that children under 12 could not see
> it

And children of 13 and above could.  I'm sure the brief nude scene was of
far less concern than the scenes of extreme horror, which I touched on in
an earlier email.
>
> Look up the defintion of grundyism

Narrowmindedness, prudery.  "What would Mrs Grundy say?"

>
> A highly crowded image that was heavily ocupied by the back of one of
> the actors heads was esthetically beautiful?

Absolutely.  The movie won awards, amongst others, for its direction,
cinematography, art direction and set decoration.  One person voting to
keep in the current IfD said "The way Rose was introduced into the film
was through the finding of her sketch in the safe. I thought the nude
scene was an important part of the love story."  That scene had to work,
had to look beautiful.  It is certainly one of the most memorable parts of
the movie, the one that links the finding of the portrait, near the start,
and the return of the jewel to the sea near the end.


body:
geni said:
>> That would be the article illustrated by Manet's Olympia
>> Michaelangelo's David and Goya's nude and clothed Maja?
>
> Yup for some reason artitisic nudes seem to have more accptance

And did you happen to look at Ms Winslet's pose?
>
>
> I must say I popped down to that
>> article expecting to see something supporting your claim, but instead
>> found an account of very diverse views and practices.
>
> Yup but they all seem to have some form of nudity taboo (even if it
> only to limit nudity to certian areas).
>

Actually this is one thing that I can state with confidence is *NOT* in
the article you referenced.
I think we've been going around in circles for a while now.  To summaries,
we differ strongly about whether Ms Winslet's mammary glands are so
horrific that the world needs to be protected from them.  I'm confident
that yours is the view of a tiny minority of people, so I won't waste any
more time on it.