Hi guys, I just posted an update on the current editor appeal we're running. Take a look: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011 Thanks, Megan -- -- Megan Hernandez Head of Annual Fundraiser Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@... Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics What's happening that this is disabled? ~Nathan On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Megan Hernandez <mhernandez <at> wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hi guys, > > I just posted an update on the current editor appeal we're running. Take a > look: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011 > > Thanks, > > Megan > > -- > > Megan Hernandez > > Head of Annual Fundraiser > Wikimedia Foundation > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________(Continue reading)
There was a brief outage due to that page, Nathan, a few days ago. (Because of Brandon Harris's AMA on Reddit.) The intent is to get the page back up, but I don't know when. I'd guess it might take a week or so, but that's just a guess. Thanks, Sue -- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation 415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate On 30 November 2011 18:05, Nathan <nawrich <at> gmail.com> wrote: > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics > > What's happening that this is disabled? > > ~Nathan > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Megan Hernandez(Continue reading)
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Andreas K. <jayen466@...> wrote: > If the image filter uses a user-specific personal filter list stored on the > Foundation's server, that would assume that the censor can populate the > user's list without the user noticing, can prevent the user from emptying > their PFL again, and can disable the user's ability to click on a hidden > image to reveal it. Is there something that we could do to make that more > difficult, or impossible? Because then any censor would be back to square > one, left to their own devices, rather than being able to ride piggy-back > on our filter function. > Two misconceptions there. A genuine dyed-in-the-wool censor wouldn't give two figs about whether the user trying to access non-conformant material was aware or not of being restricted from accessing it. Secondly, if there is no forcibly programmed barrier, of course, a user can just bypass a soft barrier, but censors rarely use soft barriers, they tend to be a bit more hardnosed about it. One of my principle objections about the whole idea of doing anything remotely along the lines of what the board resolutions and board meeting minutes appear to reveal about their approach -- more direct speech from that direction would be welcome, of course, so we do not work under a misapprehension about their real goals -- is that creating the structured informational web of potentional controversial content knowledge-base is a highly complex task (I would say impossible, but there seems to be a viewpoint in the direction of the WMF that it could be done) and having made such a creature purely by the actions of a community who in fact are largely philosophically opposed to doing any such thing, then we as(Continue reading)
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Andreas K. <jayen466@...> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Tom Morris <tom@...> wrote: > >> >> I find it highly unconvincing and wrote an extended blog post on the >> topic a while back: >> >> http://blog.tommorris.org/post/11286767288/opt-in-image-filter-enabling-censorware >> >> > > > I found that a very entertaining, well-argued, and salient post. > While I don't find that line of argument to be a fully fledged straw-horse argument, it does appear to me to be a cherry-picked argument to *attempt* to refute. There are much stronger arguments, both practical and philosophical, at any attempt to elide controversial content. Even as such, I am not convinced by the argumentation, but would not prefer to rebut an argument that does not address the strongest reasons for opposing elision of controversial content, by choice or otherwise. -- -- --(Continue reading)
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 03:34, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@...> wrote: > > While I don't find that line of argument to be a fully fledged > straw-horse argument, it > does appear to me to be a cherry-picked argument to *attempt* to > refute. There are > much stronger arguments, both practical and philosophical, at any > attempt to elide > controversial content. Even as such, I am not convinced by the > argumentation, but > would not prefer to rebut an argument that does not address the > strongest reasons > for opposing elision of controversial content, by choice or otherwise. > My point was not to provide an argument for or against any particular implementation. It was a response to one particularly god-awful argument. -- -- Tom Morris <http://tommorris.org/> _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@... Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l(Continue reading)
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Tom Morris <tom@...> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 03:34, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > <cimonavaro@...> wrote: >> >> While I don't find that line of argument to be a fully fledged >> straw-horse argument, it >> does appear to me to be a cherry-picked argument to *attempt* to >> refute. There are >> much stronger arguments, both practical and philosophical, at any >> attempt to elide >> controversial content. Even as such, I am not convinced by the >> argumentation, but >> would not prefer to rebut an argument that does not address the >> strongest reasons >> for opposing elision of controversial content, by choice or otherwise. >> > > My point was not to provide an argument for or against any particular > implementation. It was a response to one particularly god-awful > argument. > I honestly didn't intend to make a full rebuttal of your line of reasoning, but I do feel you are forcing my hand a bit. So here goes. "People who create photos or music or anything else and license it [under a free licence] and the risk that someone they don’t like ends up using “their” content. I wouldn’t be too pleased if I found that one of the articles I’d written for Wikinews or one of the photos I’d put on Commons turned up on websites affiliated with, say, the British(Continue reading)
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@... Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@...> wrote: > ... The "downstream > use" objection > was *never* about downstream use of _content_ but downstream use of _labels_ and > the structuring of the semantic data. That is a real horse of a > different colour, and not > of straw. Tom thinks that this horse is real, but it has bolted. I agree with Tom that it is very simple for a commercial filter provider, or anyone else who is sufficiently motivated, to find most naughty content on WP and filter it. Risker said she had experienced something like this. Universities and schools have this too. I would prefer that we do build good metadata/labels, but that we (wikimedia) do not incorporate any general purpose use of them for filtering from readers. Hiding content is the easy way out. The inappropriate content on our projects is of one of two types: 1. inappropriate content that is quickly addressed, but it is seen by some people as it works its way through our processes. Sometimes it is the public that sees the content; sometimes it is only the community members who *choose* to patrol new pages/files while on the train. 2. content which is appropriate for certain contexts, is known to be problematic but concensus is that the content stays, however readers stumble on it unawares.(Continue reading)
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Tom Morris <tom@...> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 03:34, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > <cimonavaro@...> wrote: >> >> While I don't find that line of argument to be a fully fledged >> straw-horse argument, it >> does appear to me to be a cherry-picked argument to *attempt* to >> refute. There are >> much stronger arguments, both practical and philosophical, at any >> attempt to elide >> controversial content. Even as such, I am not convinced by the >> argumentation, but >> would not prefer to rebut an argument that does not address the >> strongest reasons >> for opposing elision of controversial content, by choice or otherwise. >> > > My point was not to provide an argument for or against any particular > implementation. It was a response to one particularly god-awful > argument. > "English Wikipedia already has the “bad image list”: a list of shocking images that can only be included in the article it is listed for on the list. If you want to use it elsewhere, an admin has to update the list. It’s basically to prevent that delightful image “Autofellatio6.jpg” from being inserted into My Little Pony articles and other amusing bits of vandalism. Does the bad image list enable censorware? Yes. But it has kind of an important and useful function: preventing vandalism. Similarly, the doctrine of double effect can be(Continue reading)
RSS Feed479 | |
|---|---|
694 | |
602 | |
475 | |
502 | |
391 | |
339 | |
337 | |
312 | |
332 | |
616 | |
489 | |
218 | |
116 | |
548 | |
577 | |
576 | |
517 | |
425 | |
1034 | |
1385 | |
612 | |
490 | |
732 | |
508 | |
426 | |
765 | |
517 | |
432 | |
534 | |
713 | |
817 | |
406 | |
544 | |
570 | |
951 | |
999 | |
187 | |
525 | |
200 | |
196 | |
224 | |
517 | |
325 | |
791 | |
1041 | |
758 | |
595 | |
665 | |
428 | |
792 | |
709 | |
1250 | |
671 | |
864 | |
558 | |
693 | |
510 | |
627 | |
951 | |
1166 | |
1695 | |
1696 | |
702 | |
1535 | |
1273 | |
1041 | |
1091 | |
798 | |
477 | |
1225 | |
427 | |
853 | |
1069 | |
678 | |
649 | |
926 | |
1260 | |
559 | |
606 | |
1084 | |
834 | |
631 | |
836 | |
453 | |
297 | |
429 | |
257 | |
257 | |
346 | |
537 | |
379 | |
247 | |
460 | |
198 | |
227 | |
349 | |
288 | |
328 | |
386 | |
314 | |
139 | |
138 | |
329 | |
244 | |
122 | |
262 | |
256 | |
268 | |
37 | |
2 |
