from_name: Chad Perrin

body:
Nicholas Knight wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
>
>> Nicholas Knight:
>>
>> I don't see anything wrong with "an encyclopedia" having such a
>> blanket policy, either.  On the other hand, I do have a problem with
>> the idea that my favorite encyclopedia might suddenly become less
>> informative due to strict implementation of a policy enforcing
>> cultural taboos that
>
>
> I'm the last person to be substantially influenced by cultural taboos. I
> just don't want to see a picture of a guy sucking himself off.

In that case, then, it seems you're just trying to enforce a personal
preference.  That's far worse, in my estimation.

In any case, I have to wonder why you don't want to see it, but do want
to read about it.

>
>> interfere with the ability to provide useful, factual, relevant
>
>
> _*How is the image useful*_?

I didn't say it was.  I don't really know whether it's useful.  I
haven't made any particular judgment.  Applying blanket policies like
you seem to advocate, however, would certainly end up disqualifying a
great many images that WOULD be "useful".

>
>> information.  As such, I don't think I can in good conscience support
>> such a policy for Wikipedia.  One of the problems with "blanket"
>> policies like that is that they tend to cover good things as well as bad.
>
>
> Can you give me a single example of a case where a PHOTOGRAPH of a
> sexual act is meaningfully more useful than a line drawing?

Sure.  What about a case where something graphically illustrative is
needed, no line drawing is available to the person posting the article,
and he or she either hasn't the skill to draw one or access to the
technology to make it available online?

Besides . . . I don't understand how a photograph is necessarily more
offensive than a drawing.  For one thing, it's often more difficult to
accurately render informative or otherwise useful detail with a pencil
than with a camera, and for another, a line drawing can be far clearer
(and thus more evocative) than a photograph at times.

>
>> If it's pertinent and not gratuitous, I don't tend to have a problem
>
>
> It IS gratuitious.

I was speaking in the generic.  Whether or not this particular image is
gratuitous isn't something I'm going to argue right now.  You made
references to making policy, and that is what I addressed.

>
>> with it.  In cases where a substantial demographic does, it might be
>> reasonable to move it off-page without removing it entirely, if some
>> simpler visitor-controlled mechanism for "censoring" the visible
>> content is not available.
>>
>> Don't fool yourself, though -- claiming that something is "indecent"
>
>
> I never said anything was indecent. I said it was crap.

Sheer, unadulterated opinion, then.  That's not even a reasonable
facsimile of the same possible usefulness of a philosophical statement
about indecency.

>
>> just because it's graphic is a matter of personal perspective, not of
>> absolutist principles.
>
>
> Most people do not want to see photographs of explicit sex acts when
> browsing an encyclopedia. Given the lack of educational value such
> images have, I see no reason to drive those people, including me, off
> with such images.

Most people don't want to have to exercise to stay in shape, either.
That's hardly a relevant argument, unless you also think that "most
people agree that redheads are better in bed" is justification for
making statements to that effect in an encyclopedia.

Your statements to the effect that there's nothing wrong with a blanket
policy of blocking any and all sexually explicit photos indicate that by
"such images" you mean "sexually explicit" images.  Based on that, I can
only assume you believe that there's no credible possibility of
educational value in any "sexually explicit" image.  That being the
case, I have to disagree, but if you can't figure out why for yourself I
don't think there's any point in trying to explain it to you.

--
Chad


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins who abuse their powers

body:
Deletion of an article after it has been recreated following a VfD (and especially following the followup VfU) is totally appropriate, in line with Wikipedia policy, and not extra-judicial.

RickK

BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
Should any any action be taken? What about the admin that
"extra-judicially" deleted the page?

--
mvh Bj?rn

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.


from_name: Nicholas Knight

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK welcome

body:
Rick wrote:
> The Block log showing his attempts at re-editing every day is my facts.

Please provide the date and time for some of these attempts. I don't see
any.


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Writing about sexual topics responsibly is not
	censorship

body:
Robert said:
> Some people have been talking about putting explicit images
> of sexual activities on Wikipedia.  Still images are being
> discussed just for now - but what about when we get more
> bandwidth and server space?  Will some people also want to
> put on actual videos of these sexual practices?

Yes, a good modern online encyclopedia should almost certainly consider
including movies.  I seem to recall that Encarta had movies for some topic
as far back as 1994.
Things have changed somewhat in the past twenty years or so.  The sale of
the very successful sexually explicit educational video, The Lovers'
Guide, through mainstream high street bookstores in 1991 under an 18
certificate showed that the general public is receptive to well presented
informational movies on sexual topics.  Obviously Wikipedia isn't a "How
to" guide of that type, but where a movie would be useful and one is
available under GFDL it should be considered.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Writing about sexual topics responsibly is  not
	censorship

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:

> Perhaps you could provide a line drawing to substitute for it? Back when
> I first notice the poll on this thing before it had erupted onto the
> mailing list, someone suggested that the photograph was unacceptable but
> that we should find a piece of "artwork" to substitute, and I jokingly
> suggested running the photograph through Photoshop's brushstroke filter.
> Maybe an edge filter could turn it into a line drawing and actually be a
> way to resolve this.
>
>

Last I checked, it had already been "resolved" by getting replaced with
a line-drawing, actually.  We're mostly just arguing the principle at
this point, I think, though I suppose the original photo might
eventually be replaced on the page.

--
Chad


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Writing about sexual topics responsibly is not
	censorship

body:
Nicholas Knight wrote:

> I continue to see no usefulness in it, and the "why not" is because
> people _will not use wikipedia_, and quite likely, existing editors
> would leave. I certainly would if this became an accepted part of
> Wikipedia. It would be a final demonstration that the people here are
> not the least bit interested in constructing a useful educational
> resource, but seek only to shove a social agenda down other's throats.

Now you've really lost me.  Who seeks "only to shove a social agenda
down other's [sic] throats"?  What social agenda do you mean?  This
isn't some kind of moral objection to the act of autofellatio, is it?

--
Chad


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Nicholas Knight said:
>
>>It's CRAP. Everyone here KNOWS it. Stop pretending this is a grey area,
>> it's not.
>
>
> This attitude isn't going to impress people who disagree with you.

I think he's of the impression that nobody actually disagrees with him
on whether or not it's "crap", for some mostly unspecified reason (aside
from the fact that he doesn't want to see it).  He seems to think that,
rather than disagreeing, others are lying.

--
Chad


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Talk:Autofellatio]] - Poll

body:
BJ?rn Lindqvist said:
> There seem to be way to much heat in this debate. So far people are
> focusing solely on three courses of action while forgetting all the
> rest. Here are some of my ideas:
>
> 1. Erik's idea - label it as sexually explicit and then people can turn
> the family filter on and off.
> 2. Edit the image so that the glands of the penis (or the whole penis)
> is blurred.
> 3. Show the image smaller. I guess the smaller it is showed the less
> "in your face" it feels.

I had some similar ideas to 2 and 3 shortly before Jimbo pre-empted the
autofellatio discussion.  I felt that linking to the main image and having
a slightly toned down image would probably gain a consensus.  I still
think this is the way to go and I am convinced that seeking a balance
between different levels of display would have been the classic Wiki
solution.


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] public service ads in Wikipedia?

body:
Chad Perrin said:
>
> Fair enough.  The question, then, becomes one of whether the risk of
> perception of bias on the part of Wikipedia is a valid barrier to
> acceptance of advertising revenue.
>
Yes.  I really think that's a decision the Foundation should take.  If and
when they come to it.


body:
> This is a request for clarification about admins and their powers.
>
> All
> editors can do in a case like this, we're being told, is begin the long
> process of RfCs, mediation, and arbitration.
>
Regardless of the answer to your question, this path need not be a long
one, especially not with the energizer bunnies in the new Arbcom.


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

body:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 10:44:04PM +0000, Christiaan Briggs wrote:
> How about "This is an encyclopedia and we don't see the human body as a
> vessel of sin and shame, we don't have issues with the human body and
> what it is capable of, and we don't intend to promote the concept of
> bodily shame and sin through censorship. If other institutions want to
> censor content down stream that is their prerogative."

Hear, hear!

That said, I agree with Jimbo that the *specific image* in question at
[[Autofellatio]] is a pretty crappy one, and one we don't need.  It is
badly composed, it is almost certainly a copyright violation from "Joe's
Discount Boy-Porn and Bait Shop" (or some such), and the guy looks like
he's about to burst a blood vessel in either one of two places.  Ouch.

Rama's sketch is much more suitable -- not because it *is* a sketch, but
because it is a stylistically better depiction than the photo.  There's
also the advantage that s/he has made a series of these sketches for the
various sexual-position articles, thus giving a consistent appearance to
them.

[snip]
> The problem is defining pornography, and this has much to do with
> context. Many people find any image of sex pornographic. I certainly
> don't find the controversial image pornographic in the context that it
> is in.

Many people who seek to ban "pornography" in the general case -- that
is, wishing to punish ownership and creation of it, not just wishing to
see it not published on Wikipedia -- don't stop with images.  They wish
to ban "obscene" novels, sex-education material, and other sexually
explicit *textual* matter as well.

(Let's not forget that _Ulysses_ was once banned in the United States
for its passages dealing with sex and bodily functions.  And it hasn't
got any illustrations -- just plain text on plain paper.)

There are vile persons in the world who wish to impose ignorance of
sexuality, by force of law.  "But we don't have any dirty pictures!" is
not going to work as a defense in those people's eyes.  It isn't
pictures they are trying to destroy, but rather thoughts.

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Chad Perrin said:
>
>>What social agenda do you mean?
>
>
> It's one of those conjugating nouns that turn up to often in these
> discussions.
> I have principles
> You have bias
> He has a social agenda
>

While that was my first (and immediate) reaction, I decided to assume
good faith and ask the question as I did.

--
Chad


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] More thoughts on the 3-revert rule

body:
>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>JAY JG said:
>>
>>>But there are many editors (admittedly usually newer
>>>ones) who are  not committed to these principles, and with them Talk:
>>>is often useless.   And you'll tend to find those kinds of editors on
>>>hot-topic pages.
>>
>>
>>I've run into people like that, I'm sure we all have.  But I really don't
>>understand why you would claim that using talk with newcomers and
>>mavericks is useless.
>
>I don't think that's what was being said at all.  My interpretation of
>phrasing was not that "using talk with newcomers and mavericks is useless,"
>but rather that there is a statistical trend of "useless" effect to
>discussion with certain demographics.  That doesn't mean that one shouldn't
>try talking to members of such demographics, but rather that one should
>understand that sometimes such attempts at reasonable discussion are more
>prone to failure than with other people.

Exactly.

>
>>Newcomers need to be handled gently and with understanding, as your aware.
>>  Mavericks can only really be dealt with via dispute resolution, which
>>requires us to assume good faith and try to use persuasion in the first
>>instance.  Give a troll a chance and he'll hang himself.  A maverick with
>>clue can be an asset, up to a point.
>
>I don't see that as actually disputing the statement you quoted at all.

Right again.  Unfortunately, I find that Tony often puts meaning into my
statements that is unrelated to the actual words I have used, or intent
behind them.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Talk:Autofellatio]] - Poll

body:
Puddl Duk said:
>
> --- BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I totally accept that some images are to gross for
>> Wikipedia to show.
>> Like the rumoured goatsex one. But removing images
>> because some
>> Wikipedia editors think it is porn is unacceptable.
>>
>>
> Not a rumor, its here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Goatse_screenshot.jpg
>
The thing that convinced me to vote inline on the Goatse poll was seeing
the  screenshot on Alexa.


body:
Nicholas Knight wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
>
>> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>>
>>> I continue to see no usefulness in it, and the "why not" is because
>>> people _will not use wikipedia_, and quite likely, existing editors
>>> would leave. I certainly would if this became an accepted part of
>>> Wikipedia. It would be a final demonstration that the people here are
>>> not the least bit interested in constructing a useful educational
>>> resource, but seek only to shove a social agenda down other's throats.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now you've really lost me.  Who seeks "only to shove a social agenda
>> down other's [sic] throats"?  What social agenda do you mean?  This
>> isn't some kind of moral objection to the act of autofellatio, is it?
>
>
> No, it's an objection to shoving explicit and disgusting images in what
> is supposed to be an encyclopedia for the purpose of trying to force the
> world to somehow "de-prudify" itself.

Who exactly is trying to push that agenda?  Do you mean to suggest that
everyone that opposes your interpretation is pushing that agenda?

Personally, I am not trying to "de-prudify" the world in any way.  I'm
merely interested in an informative encyclopedia whose effectiveness is
not limited by prudishness.  Making the encyclopedia effective by
"de-prudifying" its policies and trying to "de-prudify" the world aren't
even marginally equivalent.  If you aren't referring to me some class of
people including me, though, I'd like to know what you mean.

--
Chad


body:
So your opinion is now law?

Wonderful.  We don't need all of those nasty little polls or votes at VfD or VfU or everywhere else.  All we have to do is have you make the decision for us.

I thought Jimbo was the benevolent dictator.  You seem just to want to be dictator, period.

RickK

Nicholas Knight <nknight at runawaynet.com> wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> At 05:26 PM 2/13/2005 -0800, Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
>> I see nothing wrong with an encyclopedia having a blanket policy that
>> sexually explicit photographs not be displayed in articles. You can
>> argue relativism, subjectiveness, and "censorship" all you want, we
>> both know it's crap.
>
>
> You _think_ it's crap. Others obviously think otherwise, or there'd be
> no ongoing debate.

Guess what? They're wrong. I'm right.

There, I said it.

It's CRAP. Everyone here KNOWS it. Stop pretending this is a grey area,
it's not.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wiktionary-l] He who laughs last, laughs best.

body:
What about this proverb?

In a conversation on Skype with Gerard we used this proverb.

All of you are kindly invited to add translations in as many languages
as possible

(and no: I did not forget about Valentine's day ... I'll be back with
that tomorrow ...)

We have.
EN, DE, NL, IT so far.

Please add here:
http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/wie_het_laatst_lacht%2C_lacht_het_beste
and/or here
http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ride_bene_chi_ride_ultimo.

Thank you!!!!

Ciao, Sabine


body:
Nicholas Knight wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:

>> I think he's of the impression that nobody actually disagrees with him
>> on whether or not it's "crap", for some mostly unspecified reason (aside
>
>
> On this list I've seen exactly one argument, and that rather
> half-hearted, as to why it's not crap. I'm of the impression, due to
> their own statements, that nobody here is thrilled with the image, and
> are simply labouring under some sort of impression that Wikipedia has
> some bizarre obligation to provide it.

Ah.  That makes a little more sense.

I think you're laboring under some sort of impression that many
statements made here regarding the principle of the matter, and not
applying some "blanket policy" (your words) because of this one photo,
are in fact references to this particular incident specifically.  In
truth, I think many people here are referring to the principles behind
the issue, and not the specific incident.  I try to be clear about the
point of division between the two, though I suppose I might have been
misunderstood at times in that regard.

--
Chad


list: foundation-l

from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Foundation-l] IFAP

body:
Hoi,
I have written a proposal on grants.wikimedia.org In it you find a
proposal for spending as much as we can get from UNESCO under their IFAP
program. To ask for this grant we HAVE to apply before the 20th of Februari.

http://www.unesco.org/webworld/ifapprojects/manuals/instructions.pdf is
the PDF with the instructions that we have to comply with.

One issue is that we have to involve the national IFAP committees .. :(
I do not see how this can be done practically) This will have to be
discussed how this is to be done practically..
One answer that can be given is, that we are already working towards our
goals.

The money we ask for will give our efforts a shot in the arm. There are
two considerations: When we apply for this grant, we will have to spend
the money according to how we apply for the grant. This means that we
have to do this, criticism from any and all not withstanding. Another
thing is that by asking for grants, we let big donors decide how we
spend money and we will have admin because of it. It makes sense to
allow our smaller donors also to have this spending power. Please read
"Donations: putting your money where your mouth is" on Meta..

Thanks,
    Gerard


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] IFAP


from_name: Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Quenya language

body:
> Prior to 1998, Ausir, you'd be right. Up until that year, only around 1,000
> Quenya words were known. These were published in Nancy Martsch's "Basic
> Quenya" book. However, with the publication of the Qenya Lexicon in 1998,
> thousands of additional entries (4,109) were added. These entries are, I
> assure you, quite official, and fully authorized by the Tolkien estate. But
> if you are basing your opinion on the old situation, I hope you will
> consider a visit to some Tolkien language sites. Yes, of course, there are
> still a few gaps in the vocabulary. There are not, however, many words made
> up by fans in any of the translations I have seen, such as the Bible
> translations I linked to yesterday, or in other translations.

Maybe there's enough words to cover Middle-earth topics and such,
but certainly none for writing about modern stuff...

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK welcome

body:
>From [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist]]:

07:28, Feb 13, 2005, Snowspinner blocked #16525 (expires 07:28, Feb 14, 2005) (unblock) (Autoblocked because you share an IP address with "RK". Reason "Arbcom ruling for a four month ban.".)

I think that the rest of them expire after the 24 hour period ends.  They don't stay on the ipblocklist for more than that.  Unfortunately.

But I hope you're not trying to imply that I'm lying.

RickK

Nicholas Knight <nknight at runawaynet.com> wrote:
Rick wrote:
> The Block log showing his attempts at re-editing every day is my facts.

Please provide the date and time for some of these attempts. I don't see
any.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'


body:
It's been in his User space since February 2.

RickK

Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
Phil Sandifer said:
>>
> Let's be perfectly clear here. Another User is someone who is under a
> standing order against trolling. Another User listed it as a history
> only undelete and insisted no vote was necessary. It was a history only
> undelete by a pure technicality, having been protected blank because
> of the recreation vandalism. After repeatedly being banned because of
> the standing order and having his request deleted with the simple
> direction to relist it in a section where there could be a vote on
> it, he
> finally managed to trick an admin into giving him the history, and he
> promptly recreated the article in his userspace.
>
If that's who I think it is, could it be that he just wanted it in his
userspace temporarily so as to migrate it to his fork?

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

body:
Robert wrote:

> I just checked for myself - there are millions of explicit sex images
> available on the web, easily found on images.google.com.  No
> censorship is occuring.

Well no one is seriously suggesting that censorship of that other
Wikipedia is occurring here.

> Christiaan writes:
>> this is essentially what the argument boils down to. To treat such
>> pictures differently is a cultural
>> statement in itself about that picture. This debate is not so much
>> about what constitutes an appropriate image but which cultural point
>> of view will prevail on Wikipedia. It's one of those issues where
>
> True, but is our task to show pornography in the name of freedom of
> speech or open culture?

I think our task is to spread and promote knowledge within the realms
of the law. If we can promote and spread knowledge about a sexually
explicit act and tell a thousand words with a picture then we should.

>> To hide or remove such an image is a statement. To keep such an image
>> inline or linked is a statement.
>
> Yes - and our statement is "This is an encyclopedia, not Hustler
> magazine."

But this is hyperbole. We're talking about autofellatio here, not the
implementation of a Wikipedia centerfold.

How about "This is an encyclopedia and we don't see the human body as a
vessel of sin and shame, we don't have issues with the human body and
what it is capable of, and we don't intend to promote the concept of
bodily shame and sin through censorship. If other institutions want to
censor content down stream that is their prerogative."

> If someone wants to view explicit images and videos of sexual acts ...
> there are thousands of outlets for just such things. But presumably
> people come to Wikipedia to read a professional academic article.

So what is it that makes an image of a sexually explicit act in an
article about a sexually explicit act unprofessional? Why send a person
who has come to educate themselves about autofellatio away from the
site to view an image when we could show it to them ourselves. We might
as well send them away to read about it too.

> In any case, our encyclopedia is useless if people refuse to read
> it...and thousands of schools will ban its use if it continues to
> offer pornographic images (and eventually, videos.)  What good is our
> work if few people can access it?  Even if it is not officially banned
> by entire schools, many teachers will tell their students that
> Wikipedia is not reliable or professional if we continue this course
> of extreme sexual explicitness.

But there are technical solutions to these minor problems.

> Do not get me wrong: We need not censor ourselves by adopting the
> least offensive text and images - that would be impossible.  Somebody
> will find everything about sex offensive.  But we also do not have to
> go to the other extreme by shoving in what is essentially pornography.

The problem is defining pornography, and this has much to do with
context. Many people find any image of sex pornographic. I certainly
don't find the controversial image pornographic in the context that it
is in.

> An educated adult should be able to professionally write about human
> sexual practices without being coarse, and without showing photographs
> of men sucking themselves off.

But this exactly what we are trying to describe and an image, as they
say, tells a thousand words. To tell you the truth I think a better
image in this case would be one where the man gets much of his penis in
his mouth.

Christiaan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Autofellatio - NO to that image

body:
I would say that if a user presses the random page button and gets a page
he didn't expect, then the button is probably working as advertised.  We
should perhaps put a reminder to read our content disclaimer just under
the button.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK welcome

body:
Rick wrote:
>>From [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist]]:
>
> 07:28, Feb 13, 2005, Snowspinner blocked #16525 (expires 07:28, Feb 14, 2005) (unblock) (Autoblocked because you share an IP address with "RK". Reason "Arbcom ruling for a four month ban.".)
>
> I think that the rest of them expire after the 24 hour period ends.  They don't stay on the ipblocklist for more than that.  Unfortunately.

This is typical of the bug that's been around for a good long while now
where a blocked user will be re-blocked for *viewing* Wikipedia pages.
This is a known issue. Go read the archives for _this very list_ within
just the last eight weeks or so.

> But I hope you're not trying to imply that I'm lying.

Wow, you just don't quit, do you?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Autofellatio - NO to that image

body:
Lothar Kimmeringer said:
> So the logical solution is the deactivation of the Random-button or
> bring up an explicit warning that has to be confirmed on before
> switching over to the random page.
>
> There are enough pages that might be offensive in one way or the
> other, so you can't reduce it to the pages covering sexuality.

Yep.  Some Wikipedia pages need a link that says "Click here to see
potentially offensive pictures of horrible hairy caterpillars."  Just for
my benefit.


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Talk:Autofellatio]] - Poll

body:
There seem to be way to much heat in this debate. So far people are
focusing solely on three courses of action while forgetting all the
rest. Here are some of my ideas:

1. Erik's idea - label it as sexually explicit and then people can
turn the family filter on and off.
2. Edit the image so that the glands of the penis (or the whole penis)
is blurred.
3. Show the image smaller. I guess the smaller it is showed the less
"in your face" it feels.

IMHO, the position of those that wants the image linked or deleted is
rediculous. There are hundreds of images on Wikipedia that are "much
wore" and there would be thousands of more if it wasn't so hard to
find images suitable for the GFDL. I.e. ever seen an image of what a
smokers lung look like? It's shown to elementary school children and
are in many countries put on packs of cigarettes. I fully expect to
see such an image when I go to the article [[Lung cancer]]. I also
fully expect to see an image of a human brain when I visit [[Brain]]
and I fully expect that those images will shock me much more than the
innocent image of the autofellating man.

I totally accept that some images are to gross for Wikipedia to show.
Like the rumoured goatsex one. But removing images because some
Wikipedia editors think it is porn is unacceptable.

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Promo-stuff shop of openstuff.

body:
Wikimedia Foundation schreef:
> ---- Forwarded message from "Walter Vermeir ." <walter at wikipedia.be> ----
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>This shop is selling stuff from opensource projects;
>>http://openstuff.net
[cut]

Thanks for the support. I contact openstuff to ask what the options are.

--
[[w:nl:gebruiker:walter]]


from_name: Lothar Kimmeringer

body:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:56:15 -0500, Delirium wrote:

> So, if we really wanted encyclopedias whose focuses were geared towards
> local culture, we would actually need to split some languages into
> multiple encyclopedias

Some? More or less all, except the klingon and esperanto wikipedia.

> Italy gets a local
> version, because nobody else really speaks Italian,

The language doesn't qualify for the culture. The cultural differences
between the north and the south of Italy are quite big. In Germany
even within one state like Bavaria you have different cultures like
Franken and Oberbayern (not to mention the people living in the
Bayerischer Wald).

Regards, Lothar
--
Lothar Kimmeringer                E-Mail: spamfang at kimmeringer.de
               PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 0x8BC3CD81)

Always remember: The answer is forty-two, there can only be wrong
                 questions!


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK welcome

body:
Rick, I know the block log does, or used to, show each time a page was
viewed by a blocked user account or IP; or rather, each time a page
was viewed, the block was automatically extended. I don't know whether
it's still doing that.

Sarah

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:55:26 -0800 (PST), Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Block log showing his attempts at re-editing every day is my facts.  It does not show people who just view articles.
>
> RickK
>
> Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have no idea whether the block log mentions or not attempts to editing or.
>
> And I frankly do not think it matters.
>
> The infringment would be to actually edit. No edits were made under his
> user name.
>
> If he actually edited under another user name under another ip range,
> nobody noticed, which means the contributions were all good :-)
>
> If some attempts were made to edit, it does not mean these were RKs. If
> they were RKs, all that mean is that he was suffering from
> wikipediholism :-)
>
> But I do not believe RK is stupid. Him trying to edit every day just in
> case for some reasons the software be bugged and let him go through
> seems to me to be an unreasonable assertion.
>
> I would add Rick, that you did not provided any facts.
>
> So, sorry, your disagreement does not seem to hold much sense.
>
> As I said, since RK had finished his ban time, I really really hope that
> he will have the opportunity to edit in peace, so I expect good will
> and constructive attitude of *all*.
>
> Anthere
>
> Rick a ?crit:
> > I disagree with this action.
> >
> > RK continued to attempt to edit during his ban,
> as is evident by a practically daily entry into the block log showing
> that he had done so. He did not serve his ban appropriately,
> and the ban should have been reinstated from the date he last attempted
> to edit.
> >
> > RickK, who had no opinion on either side of RK's banning
>
> > Anthere wrote:
> > I received a mail from RK today, telling me his ban
> > was over, but he was still banned.
> >
> > The ac decision was made on the 14th, but he was
> > apparently notified on the 15th (after being blocked I
> > fear), so it seems to me that he should be unblocked
> > today;
> >
> > Accordingly, I unblocked him. I however asked him to
> > edit his personal space today, in case some people are
> > nosy enough to say it is the 14th rather than 13th.
> >
> > RK served his time very well. He did not try to cheat
> > at all. He apparently went on reading what was going
> > on, since we could see him write to this mailing list,
> > in a very reasonable tone, from time to time.
> >
> > I hope that everyone will take heart to welcome him
> > back and hope that we can all work together in good
> > faith and peace.
> >
> > Anthere
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
> > http://my.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
>  Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Avoiding offence without censorship

body:
Here're some technical ideas for dealing with potentially offensive
content:

- Tag "potentially offensive" content for downstream censorship.

- When someone creates an account on Wikipedia they can check a "hide
potentially offensive content from immediate view" option, which can be
overridden when reading an article.

- As Skyring suggested, a one-time cookie-based splash screen when
navigating to a page with "potentially offensive" content, for those
not logged in.

- Print versions of Wikipedia could simply include or not include
"potentially offensive" content. If both were printed one would be for
the squeamish and one for everyone else.

Christiaan


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: IFAP

body:
Hello

Just in case some people wonder where this comes from...
We had a grant meeting today on irc (as announced a couple of days ago
on this list).
It lasted nearly three hours, and was extremely fruitful.

Some of the grants we are thinking of will be worked on meta, while
others will be worked on the grant wiki. Please contact Danny if you are
interested in giving some of your time and energy to these topics.

Meanwhile, any feedback is welcome on meta.

Thanks

Anthere

Gerard Meijssen a ?crit:
> Hoi,
> I have written a proposal on grants.wikimedia.org In it you find a
> proposal for spending as much as we can get from UNESCO under their IFAP
> program. To ask for this grant we HAVE to apply before the 20th of Februari.
>
> http://www.unesco.org/webworld/ifapprojects/manuals/instructions.pdf is
> the PDF with the instructions that we have to comply with.
>
> One issue is that we have to involve the national IFAP committees .. :(
> I do not see how this can be done practically) This will have to be
> discussed how this is to be done practically..
> One answer that can be given is, that we are already working towards our
> goals.
>
> The money we ask for will give our efforts a shot in the arm. There are
> two considerations: When we apply for this grant, we will have to spend
> the money according to how we apply for the grant. This means that we
> have to do this, criticism from any and all not withstanding. Another
> thing is that by asking for grants, we let big donors decide how we
> spend money and we will have admin because of it. It makes sense to
> allow our smaller donors also to have this spending power. Please read
> "Donations: putting your money where your mouth is" on Meta..
>
> Thanks,
>    Gerard


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: IFAP


body:
Robert said:
> Tony Sidaway writes:
>> The sale of the very successful sexually explicit
>> educational video, The Lovers' Guide, through mainstream
>> high street bookstores in 1991 under an 18 certificate
>> showed that the general public is receptive to well
>> presented informational movies on sexual topics.
>> Obviously Wikipedia isn't a "How to" guide of that type,
>> but where a movie would be useful and one is available
>> under GFDL it should be considered.
>
>
> Sure - it might be a good idea to have a GFDL, open-source
> website on sex.  I just don't think that the full, explicit
> content of such a site should be in a general encyclopedia
> like ours. Wikipedia should discuss human sexuality (even
> the "gross" aspects, which apprently vary from reader to
> reader) while at the same time not being a sex instruction
> site.
>
Yes.  I think that we should consider illustrations where appropriate
while not competing with sex instruction manuals.  Where we draw the line
on illustration is probably going to take a while to work out, and will
likely change over time as people become less prudish with each successive
generation.  Improvements in technology will also tend to make streaming
video more common on sites like Wikipedia.  I certainly hope that the
prospect of some of it being labeled "porn" will not stop this useful
medium being used.


body:
Robert said:
> Frankly, I'm not even sure that I want to see my own wife
> give birth.

Some guys never do want to see that.  Others love it.  I'm glad I got the
chance; my father didn't.


body:
Christiaan Briggs said:
> Here're some technical ideas for dealing with potentially offensive
> content:
>
...
Simply put a content disclaimer linked from every page.

Oops, we already do that...


body:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:30:00 +0600, Arno M wrote:

> I'd like to put my reply to sannse's e-mail here.
>
> That autofellatio image should go - and go immediately.
>
> People have the right to go through this wikipedia without being confronted
> with this kind of pornographic material without warning.

I wonder how somebody might be shocked to see a picture like that
after looking for [[Autofellatio]] explicitly. Especially I wonder
how you can't be warned if you specifically look for this kind of
word in an encyclopaedia.
In difference to a printed encyclopaedia you have to go to that
page actively instead of see it when just look from one page to
the other.

Why don't you ask for the removal of the pictures on [[Penis]],
there you even can see monstrosities like the penis of an elephant?

Or [[vagina]], or [[breast]], or [[Autocunnilingus]],
or [[Anal masturbation]]

> It's like you going down a street and having some idiot expose himself
> to you without warning.

Wikipedia never exposed itself to me. I always had to enter an URL
into the browser or click onto a link.

> Would you like that?

Spywarelike behavior? No. But Wikipedia does not behave that way.

> How about your kids?

What would happen with kids that see the picture on [[Autofellatio]].
The boys would try it out, the girls not.

> Would you like them to see this kind of thing without warning or supervision?

Internet is not a place for children without supervision anyway, so
what's your point?

> I see nothing here inconsistent with freedom of expression. This kind of
> exhibitionist behaviour is anarchy, NOT freedom.

Anarchism: [...] These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based
           on voluntary cooperation of free individuals. [...]

Try to find out where I was getting this definition from ...

> Oh, and for the record and at the risk of raising the hackles of certain
> wikipedians, I also remain very opposed to links to pornographic sites
> within wikipedia. Autofellatio also has this, as do certain other pages.

The first link in the article should be removed, that's true.

> This tells minors where to go looking for such material and again, that's
> not on.

Sorry, but the minors already know the best sites already. They don't
need Wikipedia for that.

Regards, Lothar
--
Lothar Kimmeringer                E-Mail: spamfang at kimmeringer.de
               PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 0x8BC3CD81)

Always remember: The answer is forty-two, there can only be wrong
                 questions!


body:
Skyring said:
> Some books on massage and sexual instruction have some
> really well-done and tasteful illustrations. Those from The Joy of Sex
> (for an example see
> http://www.theconnection.org/photogallery/sex/default.asp?counter=1)
> are beautifully done.

Man, why didn't you warn me about those potentially offensive beards? :)


body:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:00:08 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway wrote:

> Skyring said:
>> If you want
>> Autofellatio, you have to find it for yourself. You can't honestly
>> expect to be offended by something you have gone out of your way to
>> find.
>
> At this point somebody can be relied upon to object to this statement on
> the grounds that pressing the random article button may deliver and
> article that X or Y user thinks outrages public decency.

So the logical solution is the deactivation of the Random-button or
bring up an explicit warning that has to be confirmed on before
switching over to the random page.

There are enough pages that might be offensive in one way or the
other, so you can't reduce it to the pages covering sexuality.

Regards, Lothar
--
Lothar Kimmeringer                E-Mail: spamfang at kimmeringer.de
               PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 0x8BC3CD81)

Always remember: The answer is forty-two, there can only be wrong
                 questions!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK welcome

body:
I have no idea whether the block log mentions or not attempts to editing or.

And I frankly do not think it matters.

The infringment would be to actually edit. No edits were made under his
user name.

If he actually edited under another user name under another ip range,
nobody noticed, which means the contributions were all good :-)

If some attempts were made to edit, it does not mean these were RKs. If
they were RKs, all that mean is that he was suffering from
wikipediholism :-)

But I do not believe RK is stupid. Him trying to edit every day just in
case for some reasons the software be bugged and let him go through
seems to me to be an unreasonable assertion.

I would add Rick, that you did not provided any facts.

So, sorry, your disagreement does not seem to hold much sense.

As I said, since RK had finished his ban time, I really really hope that
   he will have the opportunity to edit in peace, so I expect good will
and constructive attitude of *all*.

Anthere

Rick a ?crit:
> I disagree with this action.
>
> RK continued to attempt to edit during his ban,
as is evident by a practically daily entry into the block log showing
that he had done so.  He did not serve his ban appropriately,
and the ban should have been reinstated from the date he last attempted
to edit.
>
> RickK, who had no opinion on either side of RK's banning

> Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I received a mail from RK today, telling me his ban
> was over, but he was still banned.
>
> The ac decision was made on the 14th, but he was
> apparently notified on the 15th (after being blocked I
> fear), so it seems to me that he should be unblocked
> today;
>
> Accordingly, I unblocked him. I however asked him to
> edit his personal space today, in case some people are
> nosy enough to say it is the 14th rather than 13th.
>
> RK served his time very well. He did not try to cheat
> at all. He apparently went on reading what was going
> on, since we could see him write to this mailing list,
> in a very reasonable tone, from time to time.
>
> I hope that everyone will take heart to welcome him
> back and hope that we can all work together in good
> faith and peace.
>
> Anthere
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
> http://my.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
>  Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
On Feb 13, 2005, at 11:47 PM, Rick wrote:

> In a similar vein:
>
> We spent a great deal of time dealing with a User who was insistant on
> creating a vanity article at Shawn Mikula, pumping up his notability
> and recreating the article despite several attempts by admins and a
> VfD process to delete.  It was finally recreated as an empty article
> and protected, so it could not be created again.
>
> Another User then asked for it to be undeleted on the Votes for
> Undeletion page, and the votes were clearly in favor of Keep Deleted.
>
Let's be perfectly clear here. Another User is someone who is under a
standing order against trolling. Another User listed it as a history
only undelete and insisted no vote was necessary. It was a history only
undelete by a pure technicality, having been protected blank because of
the recreation vandalism. After repeatedly being banned because of the
standing order and having his request deleted with the simple direction
to relist it in  a section where there could be a vote on it, he
finally managed to trick an admin into giving him the history, and he
promptly recreated the article in his userspace.

-Snowspinner


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: False claims about RK

body:
Robert a ?crit:

> Confused as hell,
>
> Robert (RK)

Do not worry about Rick. Chromosoms are waiting for you ;-)

Ant


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject:
avoiding forks (was Re: [Wikipedia-l] public service ads in
	Wikipedia?)

body:
--- Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's very pompous of you, Daniel.

Ah, starting off with an insult.

> If I recall correctly, when a similar advertising debate occurred some
> time back, there was a major fork (monolingual) which now houses a
> substantial number of articles and users, and although that debate
> passed is still separate and competes for attention and visits with
> the corresponding Wikipedia.

I'm very aware of the Spanish Wikipedia fork - I was here when it happened and
I led an unsuccessful attempt to remerge the projects some months later. That
fork hampered the development of the Spanish Wikipedia for some time, but now
the tide has turned and the Spanish Wikipedia is growing very fast with over
40,000 articles and Enciclopedia Libre is growing slowly with just over 27,000
articles.

This combined with the existence of other much less-successful wiki forks,
gives us our only data on the subject. On top of that is the huge momentum
behind the Wikipedia brand and the fact that it is very, very popular. This
kind of popularity requires a lot of money to keep things running, thus making
forks even less likely to be successful.

That said, we do need to make sure we keep people reasonably happy about the
way things are run. Doing that will go a long way toward making forks less
likely. But they will always be possible due to the terms of our license and
the fact that we cannot possibly accommodate everybody's views on how things
should be run.

> To assume that forks will not attract any people is very na?ve. We
> should always tread carefully, and try not to move into any territory
> that is liable to get many people up in arms and wanting to fork (ie,
> adding ads).

See above and re-read my previous message. Especially note its overall message
that there is no need for ads in the foreseeable future.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK welcome

body:
Rick, the autoblocker does that when a page is viewed, not only when
an attempt is made to edit.

Sarah

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:40:59 -0800 (PST), Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >From [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist]]:
>
> 07:28, Feb 13, 2005, Snowspinner blocked #16525 (expires 07:28, Feb 14, 2005) (unblock) (Autoblocked because you share an IP address with "RK". Reason "Arbcom ruling for a four month ban.".)


body:
Chad Perrin said:
> That aside, however, I would like the ability to watch such things if I
>  were to change my mind.  It might be viewed as "horrifying", but it
> might also be viewed as "informative" or "educational".
>
> As such, any solution that does not bar explicit content (as long as
> it's not gratuitous), but does allow for opting into a blocking
> mechanism (reversible on a case-by-case basis) if that is desired,
> sounds like a great idea for me.  My question is this:
>
> Is there anyone that finds that sort of "fix" to the issue
> inappropriate, inapplicable, incomplete, or otherwise objectionable?
> Is  there any reason to force either visible presence or complete
> absence of  such content on people?
>
We already have this capability built into our browsers.  For those who
can't or are simply unwilling to learn how to use their browsers, however,
it would be easy enough to adapt MediaWiki to suppress or display all
image content by default per user, reversible on a case-by-case basis. I
downloaded a copy of MediaWiki the other day and if I find the time I'll
write a patch for that.


subject: [WikiEN-l] All quiet on the Stormfront?

body:
There's no Blitzkrieg, but there's an editor from the New Zealand
National Front, one Stormfront activist/supporter, and a third who's
the webmaster of several white supremacist websites. This last one has
just been banned indefinitely, but another editor has tried to
overturn it. Not a Krieg, just a steady trickle of irritants.

Sarah

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:47:49 +0600, Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
> Let's hope that any proposed 'blitzkreig' has been called off.


body:
Skyring said:
> Think Reverend Hardmind using certain pages as examples to his
> large television audience. They go to the URL on screen - it could even
> be a tinyurl like http://tinyurl.com/3klr6 - and here's an image of a
> bloke sucking himself off. Do we want our godfearing churchgoing
> children exposed to such filth, he asks?

This is how I expect such people to act.  I don't see why I should be
concerned about their antics.


body:
Chad Perrin said:
>
> The statement that "we" already have this capability built into "our"
> browsers assumes some things about visitors to the site that are not
> necessarily true.

Well you had to dig pretty deep for a not-very-convincing example. :)

> Besides, anything less than a one-click method of blocking all images
> is  unlikely to make blocking all images palatable to anyone using a
> graphical browser.  As such, I think that addressing the matter from
> the  server side is rather important, in the long run.
>
I agree that, at most, it's a nice-to-have.  But really the users should
be taking this issue up with the designers of their browsers, not the
producers of content.  http is not a push medium.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Avoiding offence without censorship

body:
On 14 Feb 2005, at 12:10 am, Lothar Kimmeringer wrote:

> prelude: Irony might occur.
>
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:20:09 +0000, Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>
>> Here're some technical ideas for dealing with potentially offensive
>> content:
>>
>> - Tag "potentially offensive" content for downstream censorship.
>>
>> - When someone creates an account on Wikipedia they can check a "hide
>> potentially offensive content from immediate view" option, which can
>> be
>> overridden when reading an article.
>
> I would do it the other way. Pages with aforementioned tag lead
> to a warning-message that you have to confirm. To get it away
> permanently you can register yourself and active
> [ ] show me the filthy things without warning
> Otherwise it might look like that you have to register to
> Wikipedia to be "secure".

Yeah, that sounds good.

>> - As Skyring suggested, a one-time cookie-based splash screen when
>> navigating to a page with "potentially offensive" content, for those
>> not logged in.
>
> People might argue that you can be shocked by a second page
> after being prepared for the first, so the warning should be
> on every page tagged.

yeah I meant you only get the splash once for any particular page

>> - Print versions of Wikipedia could simply include or not include
>> "potentially offensive" content. If both were printed one would be for
>> the squeamish and one for everyone else.
>
> You mean like the way all other encyclopaedias are published?

Yeah like that ;)

Christiaan


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>> I agree that, at most, it's a nice-to-have.  But really the users
>> should be taking this issue up with the designers of their browsers,
>> not the producers of content.  http is not a push medium.
>
> And yet I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to browse
> an encyclopedia with images on and not run across disgusting crap that
> adds no value to the article whatsoever.

You should never encounter disgusting crap that adds no value to an
article.  If you find any, remove it.


body:
> It seems pretty obvious to me that Mikkelai's claim that the name-space was
> not deleted, so he can write a new article in it, is just an attempt to
> circumvent the vote for deletion.  Not only does this demonstrate bad
> faith; it sets a bad precedent.  Anyone who was invested in any deleted
> article can just bring it back and write some more.  And others would once
> again go through the lengthy process of a vote for deletion.

The VfD process is five days, which is hardly "lengthy."

> Perhaps we need not always permanently delete a name space -- maybe in some
> cases, a moratorium of half a year or a year would suffice.  But I think we
> need a clear policy on this: the name spaces of articles deleted are either
> deleted as well, or protected for some significant period.

It is not correct to refer to the name of a deleted page as "name
space." Namespaces are things that contain names not the names
themselves. I do think it is OK for someone to create an article with
the same name as a previously deleted one as long as the new article
isn't more or less a copy of the deleted one. Ofcourse people are free
to place the new article on VfD too. I don't think the VfD process
creates final decisions for what should be in Wikipedia, I don't think
it should either.

> In the meantime, what kind of action can be taken in this case?  The

Should any any action be taken? What about the admin that
"extra-judicially" deleted the page?

--
mvh Bj?rn


body:
prelude: Irony might occur.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:20:09 +0000, Christiaan Briggs wrote:

> Here're some technical ideas for dealing with potentially offensive
> content:
>
> - Tag "potentially offensive" content for downstream censorship.
>
> - When someone creates an account on Wikipedia they can check a "hide
> potentially offensive content from immediate view" option, which can be
> overridden when reading an article.

I would do it the other way. Pages with aforementioned tag lead
to a warning-message that you have to confirm. To get it away
permanently you can register yourself and active
[ ] show me the filthy things without warning
Otherwise it might look like that you have to register to
Wikipedia to be "secure".

> - As Skyring suggested, a one-time cookie-based splash screen when
> navigating to a page with "potentially offensive" content, for those
> not logged in.

People might argue that you can be shocked by a second page
after being prepared for the first, so the warning should be
on every page tagged.

> - Print versions of Wikipedia could simply include or not include
> "potentially offensive" content. If both were printed one would be for
> the squeamish and one for everyone else.

You mean like the way all other encyclopaedias are published?

Regards, Lothar
--
Lothar Kimmeringer                E-Mail: spamfang at kimmeringer.de
               PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 0x8BC3CD81)

Always remember: The answer is forty-two, there can only be wrong
                 questions!


from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] NYTimes.com: Google may host encyclopedia project

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> So, you think it's good that the majority of the board members were
> not voted in but rather chosen silently by Jimbo? I said "more
> complete democracy", not "completely direct democracy".
>

I think that how they were chosen is immaterial, actually, except in
terms of public perception.  The important bits are how they'll be
chosen in the future, and what decisions they'll make.  Choosing them by
democratic process hasn't been proven, or even indicated logically, to
have a better chance of providing "better" board members than any other
method, as far as I'm aware.  Please let me know if I'm wrong, but
expect that I'll want some kind of logical support for your disagreement.

--
Chad


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>> Nicholas Knight said:
>>
>>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>>
>>>>I agree that, at most, it's a nice-to-have.  But really the users
>>>>should be taking this issue up with the designers of their browsers,
>>>>not the producers of content.  http is not a push medium.
>>>
>>>And yet I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to browse
>>>an encyclopedia with images on and not run across disgusting crap that
>>>adds no value to the article whatsoever.
>>
>>
>> You should never encounter disgusting crap that adds no value to an
>> article.  If you find any, remove it.
>
> *points at [[Autofellatio]]*

When I inlined the autofellatio image on January 6th, I thought it
possible that a very large number of Wikipedia editors would think as you
do.  I did not expect it to remain inlined for long.  And yet, until Jimbo
removed it, the image proved very difficult to return to its linked form
(I myself never replaced it when it was removed--that would have been
interfering).
>From this, and the result of the Sannse's poll so far, it appears to me
that there has not been a consensus--or at least, not the kind of 2/3+
consensus we're used to on Wikipedia--that the image is so "disgusting"
and without redeeming merit.  Nobody was more surprised about this than I.
Aware that the actions of one of the opponents of inlining may have skewed
the poll by attracting the attention of people with anti-censorship views,
I asked for the poll deadline to be set some considerable time in the
future--in late March.  I believe this was in line with the poll on
[[Clitoris]].   The thinking was that the longer the poll went on the more
likely it would be that a representative sample of Wikipedians would have
the opportunity to consider the case and vote.  A few people thought there
should be no deadline, but most thought a deadline was better and, with
some dissenters, most seemed to be happy with the March 20 deadline I
proposed.
Someone originally proposed a 70% criterion for consensus, but later
changed his mind.  I still think 70% is reasonably low, but the 2/3 value
would probably also be acceptable to most people.
I think I can say I've tried very hard to do everything I can to favor a
representative survey.  It was publicised on current surveys and in
Villege Pump policy.
But still I do not see a consensus on the proposal that the picture has no
merit.  Even the proposal to link is just about scraping 60% support.
My opinion?  It's a lovely picture that illustrates the subject matter
beautifully.


from_name: Charles Podles

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK welcome

body:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:06:11 -0800, Nicholas Knight
<nknight at runawaynet.com> wrote:
> Rick wrote:
> > The Block log showing his attempts at re-editing every day is my facts.
>
> Please provide the date and time for some of these attempts. I don't see
> any.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

These won't be in the block log. The IP block list
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/special:Ipblocklist) records when an IP
is blocked because it was used by a blocked username, but these blocks
only last 24 hours and don't stay in the list for long. If RK tried to
edit while his account was blocked, these would show up in the IP
block list, but they would be gone from it shortly afterwards. If he
tried to edit, well, we needn't assume nefariousness: it could just
mean that he followed a red link or has "edit pages on double-click"
turned on; I know that switching that option on leads to the
occasional accidental edit.

--
Charles Podles


from_name: geni

body:
Incerdently how many people saw this (the link contains the image in question)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Recentchanges&oldid=10224385

--
geni


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
Ray Saintonge said:
> This kind of "my way or the highway" attitude

...is, I think, a sign that I didn't make my thoughts clear.  I think it's
the Foundation's job to consider this, not ours.  But by "optimal" I mean
just that.  I don't mean "likely to net the greatest amount of money."
The Foundation must weigh in the balance, amongst other things, its
greatest asset: the editors.  But there will always be some editors who
will reject any advertising.  Those people will still have access to their
material.


body:
Chad Perrin said:
> Making a universally accessible
> encycolpedia implies making an encyclopedia that strives to be as close
>  to universally palatable as is practicable, as well, without betraying
>  the needs of encyclopedic quality.

Yes.  A balance must be struck.  As I indicated earlier, I'm a programmer
and will tinker with image suppression if I get the time.


body:
David Gerard said:
>
> Advertising on wikipedia tends to be treated as one of the Worst Ideas
> Ever because when it was first even *mooted*, the Spanish wikipedia
> promptly forked. Producing the Enciclopedia Libre and taking a large
> chunk of the userbase with it. A truly pointless fork, because it's got
> pretty much the same goals.
>
> So the question would be whether it would risk a similar effect.
>
No.  Next question. :)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Coolcat and Kurds

body:
JAY JG said:
>
>
> Oh, it's more than just "not too well thought out".  It's quite
> obviously a  pro-Turkish anti-Kurdish POVing.  He's done the same on
> "Turkey" and  "Kurdistan Workers Party", which I've more or less
> reverted.  It will be  interesting to see how your policy of "talk
> nicely and don't revert" works  with him.

Yes, watch while I give it a field test.


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
>
> Can you give me a single example of a case where a PHOTOGRAPH of a
> sexual act is meaningfully more useful than a line drawing?

I can.  A photograph of autofellatio convincingly demonstrates that this
extraordinary act is achievable by some men.  A line drawing can only give
an artist's impress of how perhaps it *might* be done, should it be
possible.


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>> Nicholas Knight said:
>>
>>>Can you give me a single example of a case where a PHOTOGRAPH of a
>>>sexual act is meaningfully more useful than a line drawing?
>>
>>
>> I can.  A photograph of autofellatio convincingly demonstrates that
>> this extraordinary act is achievable by some men.  A line drawing can
>> only give an artist's impress of how perhaps it *might* be done,
>> should it be possible.
>
> If Wikipedia has to rely on photographs to say something is possible, a
>  critical credibility problem exists.

It doesn't have to rely on them, but they're very effective for this
purpose.  I've got blind colleagues who manage very well without being
able to see a thing, but this doesn't mean that sight isn't also useful.
>
> And even IF you're correct, that does not in any way require an inlined
>  image.

I agree.  It does not.  But if it's a useful illustration, why not?


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
> and the "why not" is because
> people _will not use wikipedia_, and quite likely, existing editors
> would leave. I certainly would if this became an accepted part of
> Wikipedia.

You must do what you think is best.  However the hypothesis that the rest
of Wikipedia, or even significant numbers of editors, would follow you, is
wishful thinking.


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
>
> It's CRAP. Everyone here KNOWS it. Stop pretending this is a grey area,
>  it's not.

This attitude isn't going to impress people who disagree with you.


body:
Chad Perrin said:
> What social agenda do you mean?

It's one of those conjugating nouns that turn up to often in these
discussions.
I have principles
You have bias
He has a social agenda


body:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:53:05 -0800, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> At 05:32 PM 2/13/2005 -0800, Nicholas Knight wrote:
> >Uh, look at the URL a little closer. Geni is pointing out that someone put
> >that image up on the Recentchanges page.
>
> Is there anyone (aside from the vandal that first put it there) advocating
> that a photograph of autofellatio adds to the value of the recentchanges
> page? I'm not sure what the point of mentioning this is, otherwise.

Just demonstraighting that the argument that only people who expect to
see this image will see it is a waste of electrons. Now I know someone
why try and counter this by saying we should not give into vandles
like that but last I cheacked the frount page was protected and admin
powers are not avaible to every user.

--
geni


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
>
> No, it's an objection to shoving explicit and disgusting images in what
>  is supposed to be an encyclopedia for the purpose of trying to force
> the  world to somehow "de-prudify" itself.

Who has advanced this argument for including the picture?


body:
JAY JG said:
>
> Unfortunately, I find that Tony often puts meaning into
> my  statements that is unrelated to the actual words I have used, or
> intent  behind them.

Often?  Then I owe you an apology.  Please don't hesitate to correct me if
I ever misread you again.


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
> I'm of the impression, due to
> their own statements, that nobody here is thrilled with the image,

Actually I've said here and on Wikipedia that I think it's a lovely picture.

> and
> are simply labouring under some sort of impression that Wikipedia has
> some bizarre obligation to provide it.

Or maybe, just maybe, some of them are just of the opinion that, being a
picture of a man licking the head of his penis, it illustrates the
autofellatio article quite well.


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>> Nicholas Knight said:
>>
>>>No, it's an objection to shoving explicit and disgusting images in
>>>what
>>> is supposed to be an encyclopedia for the purpose of trying to force
>>>the  world to somehow "de-prudify" itself.
>>
>>
>> Who has advanced this argument for including the picture?
>
> No one. If you'll look back at the exact sequence of the conversation,
> you'll understand where this came from. It's predicated on images like
> the autofelleto one becoming accepted parts of Wikipedia, and is not
> specific to the photograph in question.

The autofellatio picture has survived one IfD round already and was
showing every sign of surviving a second when someone overwrote it with a
line drawing.  In addition there is at least one other (fair use)
autofellatio picture, uploaded by me, and this also has survived IfD.  So
images like the autofellatio one are already an accepted part of
wikipedia.


body:
Robin Shannon said:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:42:24 -0800, Nicholas Knight
> <nknight at runawaynet.com> wrote:
>> This is the nature of randomness.
>
> Except, that the random page button is not actually random...

find . -name '*Rand*'
grep -i rand includes/SpecialRandompage.php
find . -name '*.php' -exec grep -il cur_rand {} /dev/null \;
lynx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister

Random enough. :)


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Bill Konrad (bkonrad123 at sbcglobal.net) [050213 02:28]:

> I was blocked yesterday for violating the 3RR. I don't fault Geni for doing
> this, as it was within the letter of the 3RR. However, I have questions
> about what the intent of the rule is. Is the rule intended as punishment of
> any technical violation of 3RR, even where the conflict causing the reverts
> has been resolved? Or is it supposed to be a mechanism for putting an end
> (or at least a cease-fire) to active edit wars?

As the [[WP:3RR]] policy page says, it's intended to forestall sterile edit
wars.

> However, the block was not imposed until 02:23, 12 Feb 2005, some several
> hours after the end of any disagreement between me and Netoholic.
> So to my mind, this raises some questions -- Should the current state of
> the "edit war" be taken into account when imposing a block for violation of
> 3RR? If whatever dispute was at the root of the reversion has been
> resolved, does it make sense to impose a block as punishment for earlier
> violations (and especially as this was not a case of a repeat edit warrior
> who perhaps might need a slap on the hands as a reminder)? I mean, I
> certainly don't see myself as an edit warrior, and I'd be very surprised if
> anyone else saw me as such.

I'm not sure I'd bother placing one so far after the event. But the 3RR is
supposed to be such a silly thing to violate that it can operate as an
electric fence. So a good thing to do would be to email the blocking admin
(or another admin), apologise for getting taunted by the perceived
foolishness of another into violating it, and asking to be unblocked. Or
something like that.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: IFAP

body:
Sj a ?crit:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:31:34 +0100, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Hello
>>
>>Just in case some people wonder where this comes from...
>>We had a grant meeting today on irc (as announced a couple of days ago
>>on this list).  It lasted nearly three hours, and was extremely fruitful.
>
>
> Speaking of meetings, will there be another meeting to discuss NEH
> grants and searching for further applicable grants?

Most probably since we did not have the time to discuss it yesterday.
This would be best done when we have first covered the ones discussed
yesterday but sufficiently in time before the next ones deadlines.

>>Meanwhile, any feedback is welcome on meta.
>
>
> Where on meta should people give general feedback on Grants?
> Is there a place to suggest new grants, or to suggest project proposals
> for which we should find a suitable grant?
>
> Cheers,
>      +sj+

On http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/grants (which would benefit from a
clean up), its related pages and talk pages :-)

Ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: IFAP


body:
Phil Sandifer said:
>>
> Let's be perfectly clear here. Another User is someone who is under a
> standing order against trolling. Another User listed it as a history
> only undelete and insisted no vote was necessary. It was a history only
>  undelete by a pure technicality, having been protected blank because
> of  the recreation vandalism. After repeatedly being banned because of
> the  standing order and having his request deleted with the simple
> direction  to relist it in  a section where there could be a vote on
> it, he
> finally managed to trick an admin into giving him the history, and he
> promptly recreated the article in his userspace.
>
If that's who I think it is, could it be that he just wanted it in his
userspace temporarily so as to migrate it to his fork?


body:
Skyring said:
>
> My problem is the argument that could be raised that Wikipedia is a
> repository for explicit images that are inappropriate for children and
> therefore the site should be blocked by educational institutions and
> concerned parents. I think we should take steps to address this before
> it suddenly takes top billing on talkback shows.

Something of this kind cannot be avoided except by banning *all* sexually
explicit images--something I've seen seriously advanced.  We have to make
up our minds what we want to do, build an encyclopedia or sit around on
talk shows being patted on the back for producing something "safe".


body:
Rick said:
> It's been in his User space since February 2.

Couple of weeks, then.  Unless he starts making a collection of this kind
of recreated deletia, I don't see that it's a major problem.  It might be
a good idea to wag your finger at him so he knows it's been noted and it's
disapproved of.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Responsible handling of sexual topics

body:
Arno M said:
>
> I share Nicholas'es concerns here. It is , in my firm opinion, very
> unfortunate that links to porno sites (eg that autosolo one) have
> become standard practice here. We do not need porno pictures becoming
> standard practice.

The article is about a sexual act.  I don't see what the problem is with
porn in this instance, as long as the site itself contains lots of high
quality free material (which this one does).


body:
He has also recreated Andre Nilsen, which has been there since December
31st.

-Snowspinner

On Feb 14, 2005, at 1:00 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:

> Rick said:
>> It's been in his User space since February 2.
>
> Couple of weeks, then.  Unless he starts making a collection of this
> kind
> of recreated deletia, I don't see that it's a major problem.  It might
> be
> a good idea to wag your finger at him so he knows it's been noted and
> it's
> disapproved of.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Daniel P.B.Smith

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "It's what some editors feel..." The reality of
	editorial authority

body:
On the citing sources/original research front, I now want to muse a bit
on the other side. This was prompted by an article that was, in my
opinion, high-quality listcruft. Don't want to get too specific because
I was personally involved. It's a silly list article that happened to
appeal to me and that, I thought on the whole, should be kept. Survived
VfD with significant opposition.

During the discussion, an editor, who advocated deletion, said nothing
but sensible and reasonable things. Among them, he said:

"Basically [this is a list of] what some editors feel are [X].... While
I agree with some of the POVs on the page, it's just not verifiable. It
comes down to original research."

The situation is similar to that of many lists. What was in dispute in
this article was NOT whether item Y belongs in list X. That had been
partially sorted out over time in the development of the page. The list
has an element of subjectivity, yet there are many values of Y for
which you can say "Y is an X" and nobody will disagree; and there were
continuing discussions in progress on the Talk page about borderline
items. In other words, the list was reasonably neutral. Even in
something like a "list of tall buildings" you have subjective elements
regarding how height should be measured (does the height of the Empire
State Building include the height of the dirigible mooring mast that
once surmounted it, etc).

The objection was that the list, and the items on it, could not be put
entirely into the mouths of non-Wikipedians, with cited sources. It
reflected the well-founded consensus opinion of those Wikipedians who
chose to work on the article.

Without passing judgement on this particular list, which is borderline,
what I want to muse about is this:

a) The reality of the situation is that _most_ of Wikipedia's content,
as with print encyclopedias, rests primarily on the knowledge,
judgement, and opinion of editors.

b) That's neither entirely bad nor entirely good. It's just the reality.

c) The difference between Wikipedia and a print encyclopedia is that
Wikipedia is based on the group consensus authority of those
self-appointed persons, usually anons, who choose to edit an article,
whereas print encyclopedias are based on a traditional top-down
hierarchical authority structure starting from the editor-in-chief.

d) While citing sources is always good, and should be strongly
encouraged, and we don't do it enough, we should not pretend that
there's anything wrong with personal authority. The only thing that's
wrong is inaccuracy.

There is a faction, whom I will label "Gradgrinds," who seem to feel
that there is a way of eliminating judgement and opinion from the
process altogether. A very extreme and aberrant case occurred over a
statement I once made about a writer, whose 1960s paperback editions
usually had language like "sizzling blockbuster" on the cover. I said
that a particular novel "combined good writing, a strong story, and
numerous more-or-less-gratuitous scenes of explicit sex." This was
challenged by an editor, not on the grounds of being unsourced, but on
the grounds of being POV. It was clear, however, that this was a
challenge on principle; it's not that he personally knew the book or
thought it was _poorly_ written or that the sex scenes were
_necessary_.

Now, I eventually fixed the problem by replacing my statement with a
similar statement from a newspaper review of the book. I think that was
an improvement, _but I don't think it was necessary_.

Here is how I think _most_ of Wikipedia is written. Well, let's be
specific: it's what _I_ do.

In many cases, I write on something for which material is lacking for
which I think I have personal knowledge. I write things that I believe
are "universal general knowledge." That is, they are so far inside the
borders of what I think I know, that I feel confident that anyone who
knows about the topic "just knows" it. I cannot believe anyone
knowledgeable on the topic would challenge it.

So, I don't bother to look for sources, I just write.

As I write, _if_ it's a good day and I'm being a responsible Wikipedian
I will do some quick Googling and World Almanac riffling and
old-college-textbook flipping to check my memory on things and make
sure I'm being accurate. And, as I follow an interesting line and
realize that the paragraph really should say something about
thus-and-such, but I don't really _know_ thus-and-such--THEN I bother
to seek out information. And, having bothered to use a source,
naturally I will cited it.

After I've written it, a number of things can happen. Most commonly,
_almost nothing happens_ to the _content._ Editors will come through
and copyedit or even tweak wording, but not alter the sense of what's
been written. In these cases, I can't tell whether anyone else
knowledgeable has glanced at the content and implicitly improved it by
failing to change it.

Hot disputes can happen, but that's rare.

More pleasantly, an article will develop over time as a collaborative
effort.

The point I want to make is that even in the case of collaborative
many-eyes effort, a good part of what's on the page is written _on the
personal authority of the editors as a group._ If we get to nit-picking
about what's unsourced, I think we would have to throw out most of
Wikipedia.

Consider the Featured Article about Albert Einstein. The first words on
the page are "Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 - April 18, 1955) was a
theoretical physicist who is widely regarded as the greatest scientist
of the 20th century."

Where do the dates come from? Did someone actually make a point of
checking them? They're sourced in a sense because there are a bunch of
links to Web biographies of Einstein, but the article doesn't say
specifically where the dates came from or what the authority is. I
mean, what would I do? I'd google a couple of sites, if they both have
the same dates, bam, in they go. I wouldn't hop on a plane to
Wurttemburg and take a cab to the Office of Vital Statistics, that's
for sure.

As some are aware, there are rare occasions where there is a dispute
about someone's dates, and WIkipedia was raked over the coals on one of
them--was it John Adams?

But on to the next sentence.

"Widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century."

Wow. Weasel-words and everything!

Now, there are two directions one could go in this point. One could
discuss how to fix this "problem." By replacing it with a verifiable
factual statement like "won the Nobel price." Or finding a citable
source. "In an article published the day after his death, The New York
Times said 'Dr. Albert Einstein was respected above all others by
scientists the world over as the outstanding intellect in modern
times.'" (Yeah, that's real, I just looked it up).

Or, we can acknowledge the truth, which is that the sentence is fine as
it stands because it has passed the muster of Wikipedia's editors--the
self-appointed people who chose to work on the Einstein article. The
commonsense general knowledge of such a group is enough to know whether
this is a controversial statement or not, and it isn't.

The group consensus that the statement is OK is good enough. It does
not need a New York Times citation to buttress it. Such a citation
_might_ _improve_ it, but it is not _necessary_.

For another example, look at some science and mathematics articles.
"Force" leads off: "In physics, a net force acting on a body causes
that body to accelerate; that is, to change its velocity. The concept
appeared first in the second law of motion of classical mechanics. It
is usually expressed by the equation F = m ? a." Boom. And there's not
a citation or reference in the darn thing, other than a Web calculator
for converting U. S. Customary units to metric.

Oh, F = m ? a, does it? SEZ WHO? Well, you can look at the article
history. But it's just a bunch of self-appointed anons.

Is this a problem? I don't think so.

I think "citing sources" can be used as a selective way to attack
articles. When it is used in this way it is dishonestly raising the bar
for purposes of attack.

I am happy with F = m ? a on the authority of Tarquin or 134.93.196.222
or whomever it was. Because... well, f _does_ equal m ? a  and
everybody knows it.

And Einstein _is_ widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the
twentieth century.

And Ethelbert Nevin really _is_ a one-hit wonder in classical music.

Well, you didn't _really_ think this wasn't personal, did you?

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/


from_name: Reuven R.

subject: [Foundation-l] wow the whole thing sounds amazingly ....

body:
heyo...

i really can't belive it - there're people who
actually care enough to help and are constantly block
and don't give up...

sounds to me like you have some quality support here -
i don't know that many other places where people would
insist to donate their time and efforts where they
seem to _not be welcome_...

and for gods sake, it's a wiki - from my expirience
vandalism can be undone by users... (that and 1001
other reasons why it doesn't make the least sense on a
wiki... o_O)

ohh well...

(did i mention that it makes no sense?)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked ISP proxy

body:
Rick (giantsrick13 at yahoo.com) [050213 07:44]:

> I'm very sorry.  Is there somebody who can put together a list of all of these major proxies?

We'll probably build it the hard way, one ISP at a time ;-)

- d.


from_name: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:
> Mark Williamson stated for the record:
>
> >Of course.
> >
> >But a more complete democracy would've been better.
>
> An interesting opinion.  One that is not universal.

In the long run there is no question that we will go in this direction
in some fashion, i.e. less and less dependence on me as a person.  But
in the short run (for several years) there will be transition with
more and more community involvement on the board.

We have to guard against a lot of different kinds of dangers to our
mission, and slow institutional transition is a good way to make sure
we don't have any sudden huge shifts in policy.

--Jimbo


body:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> So, you think it's good that the majority of the board members were
> not voted in but rather chosen silently by Jimbo? I said "more
> complete democracy", not "completely direct democracy".

I think it was very good.  Transition in a responsible manner takes
time.

Angela and Anthere are unbelievably good as board members, and we have
a casual agreement between us that if the two of them ever vote in one
direction, I will defer to them, so that it does not matter how Tim
and Michael vote.  The only exception I would make to this is if they
wanted something that I felt endangered us in some very extreme way --
but this is basically impossible because they are so good at what they
do.

--Jimbo


from_name: Skyring

body:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:30:00 +0600, Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
> I'd like to put my reply to sannse's e-mail here.
>
> That autofellatio image should go - and go immediately.
>
> People have the right to go through this wikipedia without being confronted
> with this kind of pornographic material without warning.
>
> It's like you going down a street and having some idiot expose himself
> to you without warning.

"Going down a street". Hmmm. Very Freudian wording there. May I
suggest that if you are coming along Autofellatio Street then you may
expect to have such images in your face. But I doubt that too many
Wikipedia users hunt up that particular article. It's not like
browsing through ''World Book'' where you look up [[Automobile]] and
come across [[Autofellatio]] on the facing page. If you want
Autofellatio, you have to find it for yourself. You can't honestly
expect to be offended by something you have gone out of your way to
find.
--
Peter in Canberra


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> The site in question has an age disclaimer.  Are we trying to build an
> encyclopedia, or an electronic playpen into whch people can dump their
> kids without supervision?

But, consider this restatement: Are we trying to build an
encyclopedia, or an electronic playpen where annoying trolls can dump
their porn photos without supervision?

--Jimbo

--
"Pianosa is een Italie" - first words of 50,000th article on nl.wikipedia.org


body:
Mark Pellegrini (mapellegrini at comcast.net) [050213 06:31]:

> The three revert rule was not meant to be applied mechanically for every
> person who violates the rule - in fact, the phrasing (which I wrote) makes this
> clear. Admins are expected to use their discretion when blocking people for
> violating it, and SHOULD NOT be blocking every person who reverts three times.
> Just my 2 cents.

It's a pity you didn't vote in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Charles_Darwin-Lincoln_dispute/Proposed_decision
;-) I wrote the first sentence "The three revert rule is an electric fence,
not an entitlement." I think it's a safe enough rule because it's so easily
reversible - getting an even slightly questionable 3RR block reversed is
really easy.

- d.


from_name: Christopher Mahan

body:
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > So, you think it's good that the majority of the board members
> were
> > not voted in but rather chosen silently by Jimbo? I said "more
> > complete democracy", not "completely direct democracy".
>
> I think it was very good.  Transition in a responsible manner takes
> time.
>
> Angela and Anthere are unbelievably good as board members, and we
> have
> a casual agreement between us that if the two of them ever vote in
> one
> direction, I will defer to them, so that it does not matter how Tim
> and Michael vote.  The only exception I would make to this is if
> they
> wanted something that I felt endangered us in some very extreme way
> --
> but this is basically impossible because they are so good at what
> they
> do.

Is the re-election campain on already? ;)

I agree as well. I think Angela and Anthere are doing an amazing job.

(See, the British and the French _can_ work with each other)

Since most people don't know how Tim and Michael think, I wouldn't be
surprised if they too would have the Wikipedia's best interest at
heart when voting. I am not worried about the Jimbo+2 bloc.

Finally, on moving slow; an old Italian proverb goes something like
this: "He who travels slowest travels safest."

=====
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Autofellatio: a reader "deserves whatever they get"?

body:
 --- Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
> csherlock at ljh.com.au (csherlock at ljh.com.au) [050214 11:23]:
> > Arno M wrote:
>
> > >I'd like to put my reply to sannse's e-mail here.
> > >That autofellatio image should go - and go immediately.
> > >People have the right to go through this wikipedia without being
> confronted
> > >with this kind of pornographic material without warning.
>
> > Out of interest Arno, why are you looking at the Autofellatio article if
> > you risk getting offended?
>
>
> I too would like to know the answer to this question.
>
> (It's like people who complain the picture on [[clitoris]] is not worksafe
> and can't come up with why they were reading about clitorises in the course
> of their job.)

Your argument is that any poor fool who visits such a page "deserves whatever
they get". I disagree. For a start, it may be that the person does not even
understand what the topic means -- the reason that they're looking it up in
Wikipedia in the first place (it's quite possible that I'd choose to visit
Wikipedia first, rather than Google or a dictionary, when investigating an
unfamiliar noun). Furthermore, I don't think it follows that, even if a reader
knows what it means, that there would be any expectation of a graphic
photographic illustration. It's unusual to see "porno-style" images in an dry,
academic reference work -- like Wikipedia. And still furthermore, I think it is
quite legitimate to want to read the text but not view such an image -- I would
fall into this category, for instance. Images can be very potent -- which is
why "Goatse" is a photo and not a chunk of prose.

I do think readers must be given the opportunity to choose whether they see
images like this or not. I don't think they should have to fiddle around
crippling their browsers to achieve this, either. It would be nice to have some
elegant cookie/server-filtering/optional software feature, but inlining is an
effective (albeit inelegant) solution for now.

-- Matt

[[User:Matt Crypto]]

___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Petr Kadlec

subject: [Wikitech-l] Copying Mediawiki or creating language files

body:
> * Is there a simpler way to copy the MediaWiki namespace between
> projects, or is it being worked on?

I believe you can use maintenance\dumpMessages.php and
rebuildMessages.php. Of course, that requires shell access to the
machines where the wiki runs. (But you can get the contents of the
Wikipedia's MediaWiki: namespace from a database dump.)

> * Is there a simpler way to update language files, or is it being worked on?
Simpler than what? There are some problems with accepting updated
LanguageXx.php files into MediaWiki distribution, but there have been
some progress recently (check archive). If you mean "simpler than
writing/modifying PHP code", than the answer is no, AFAIK.

-- [[:cs:User:Mormegil | Mormegil ]]


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Writing about sexual topics responsibly is not
	censorship

body:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:19:28 -0800 (PST), Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> In any case, our encyclopedia is useless if people refuse
> to read it...and thousands of schools will ban its use if
> it continues to offer pornographic images (and eventually,
> videos.)  What good is our work if few people can access
> it?

That's sloppy logic. Even if every single school in the world banned
Wikipedia, the remaining Internet users would be more than "a few".
Tens or hundreds of millions of users, as a matter of fact.

>  Even if it is not officially banned by entire schools,
> many teachers will tell their students that Wikipedia is
> not reliable or professional if we continue this course of
> extreme sexual explicitness.

They may tell their students that, but it does not make it true.

However, the point is a valid one. If we include explicit images (or
videos) then we are going to get criticism from those who feel that
they are inappropriate. I would not be at all surprised if some people
express their views in a vocal fashion and enlist the support of
school boards, church congregations or others to make as much fuss as
possible. With a sufficient level of noise and complaint from these
sort of people Wikipedia, in the mind of the general public, might
come to be equated with pornography. Although untrue, this would be
the perception, and anybody who cared to investigate need do no more
than look up Autofellatio and find a rather "in your face" image. Or,
heaven forbid, an explicit video.

Never mind that Google Images will come up with hundreds of explicit
images on the same subject and that this is easily accessible to
schoolchildren.

Although you would generally have to go looking for such material in
order to find it in Wikipedia, this point would be lost or seen as
irrelevant by those with an axe to grind and a point to push.

And the end result would be that thousands of schools would ban
Wikipedia, which would be a shame.

Is there some way that we can find a technological solution? Have a
"splash screen" that warns of explicit images? A cookie that prevents
download of "adult content"? Something that will pop up when the
casual user navigates to Autofellatio?

All we really need is some sort of hurdle that must be leapt, some
button that must be pressed, some door that must be opened.
--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] All quiet on the Stormfront?

body:
<slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote

> Not a Krieg, just a steady trickle of irritants.

I wonder if everyone posting here realises that this list is archived on the
Web. For example, google for 'Wikipedia Stormfront' and you easily find the
thread:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/018997.html .

Therefore I think low-key responses here are indicated: this is not a
private discussion, and we should be giving the topic the attention it
deserves, no less and no more, without spicing it up with provocative stuff.
( I hasten to add that this wasn't prompted by anything specific.)

Charles


body:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:00:08 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway
<minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Skyring said:
> > If you want
> > Autofellatio, you have to find it for yourself. You can't honestly
> > expect to be offended by something you have gone out of your way to
> > find.
>
> At this point somebody can be relied upon to object to this statement on
> the grounds that pressing the random article button may deliver an
> article that X or Y user thinks outrages public decency.

Yeah, well I thought of that, but it's not a likely outcome. You'd
have to stroke the button long and rapidly before you came across an
objectionable image. And it's not something that can easily be
reproduced. Reverend Hardmind might claim that he pressed random and
up popped a beaver, but his parishioners are going to find that they
press the same button and get [[Flannel]].

--
Peter in Canberra


body:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:42:24 -0800, Nicholas Knight
<nknight at runawaynet.com> wrote:
> Skyring wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:00:08 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway
> > <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Skyring said:
> >>
> >>>If you want
> >>>Autofellatio, you have to find it for yourself. You can't honestly
> >>>expect to be offended by something you have gone out of your way to
> >>>find.
> >>
> >>At this point somebody can be relied upon to object to this statement on
> >>the grounds that pressing the random article button may deliver an
> >>article that X or Y user thinks outrages public decency.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, well I thought of that, but it's not a likely outcome. You'd
> > have to stroke the button long and rapidly before you came across an
> > objectionable image. And it's not something that can easily be
>
> The nature of random numbers means such a claim is patently ridiculous.
> You cannot predict how many clicks it could take. It could take 1 or
> 1,000,000. Or even an infinite number.
>
> > reproduced. Reverend Hardmind might claim that he pressed random and
> > up popped a beaver, but his parishioners are going to find that they
> > press the same button and get [[Flannel]].
>
> Except you can't predict that.

I can and do. I predict that people pressing the [Random Article]
button are NOT going to get [Autofellatio].

> Every person that hits that link from now
> to judgement day could land on [[Random number generator]]. This is the
> nature of randomness.

I accept the nit-picking points you are making.
--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Writing about sexual topics responsibly is not
	censorship

body:
Nicholas Knight wrote:

> I see nothing wrong with an encyclopedia having a blanket policy that
> sexually explicit photographs not be displayed in articles. You can
> argue relativism, subjectiveness, and "censorship" all you want, we
> both know it's crap. We're here to provide an educational resource.
> Inlined explicit photographs of sex acts as a whole do little to
> educate that a line drawing wouldn't do, and only turn people off to
> Wikipedia as an educational resource. Crap like the autofellatio image
> is even worse.

This is an opinion based on emotion. Other people have a different
opinion.

Christiaan