WikiEN-l February 2005

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

122 participants
191 discussions

Naughty/violent pictures
by Arno M 17 Feb '05

17 Feb '05

--- Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote: ... > It is not an encycopedia's task to do PR for terrorists, > especially > ones who are as ruthless as these. Chris Mahan replied: Then Auschwitz pics are out of the question, right? ----- Wrong. There are plenty of pictures of that atrocity that are not excessively violent. Further, many violent pictures and movies (eg people beng strangled with piano wire) were made by the Nazis themselves for their own gratification. It was not propaganda for public consumption. This contrasts strongly with Berg's murder. That was meant to be circulated by those who made it. y publihing it here, wikipedia untimately played into their hands. -- _______________________________________________ Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…

2 1

An encyclopedia without a miniskirt?
by Daniel P.B.Smith 17 Feb '05

17 Feb '05

> From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> > Fred Bauder said: > >> It is clear to me that some of what we do does violate American >> mores. It is >> the young who consult encyclopedia and if what we do must be shielded >> from children then we are failing. > > The above seems to be a recipe for a rather glum document. No > miniskirts, > no bikinis, no women's bare faces, no uncovered female hair. An encyclopedia _without a miniskirt?_ An encyclopedia without a miniskirt would be like a symphony without a banjo. -- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)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/

2 1

Shock sites (was Naughty/violent pictures)
by Arno M 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

"I agree that we shouldn't be displaying links to the beheadings [of Nick erg]. We've done it in around six articles. One of the websites we give the URL for (though not as a live link) is the ogrish site, which also shows young women having sex with horses. The fact that we have to crawl into the gutter to find these videos ought to tell us something. I wish we'd show more maturity as a community when it comes to stuff like this. Sarah" I agree with slimvirgin - the page referred to, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shock_sites), is also a disgrace. At least its existance is being debated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_shock_sites/delete I am not against the idea of a shock sites article, but providing samples and links is ridiculous. -- _______________________________________________ Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…

1 0

Re: Top posting
by Michael Snow 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

<dpbsmith(a)verizon.net> wrote: >Is it better to leave your computer on 24/7 or shut it down when you won't be using it for a while? > > Don't use computers at all, you might catch a virus. >Does the Spirit proceed from the Father or from the Father _and_ the Son? > > Neither. The Spirit is a separate personage from the other two. >Is it acceptible to split an infinitive? > > By its nature, infinity is impossible to split. >Did Neil Armstrong say "That's one small step for man" or "That's one small step for _a_ man?" > > Since the moon's gravity is much weaker than Earth's, his steps there weren't particularly small. >Do you see a greater portion of your face in the mirror on a compact when you hold it further a way from you? > > It depends whether you're looking on the driver's side or the passenger's side, which is slightly convex and therefore carries the familiar warning "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear". (If you're not American and don't understand what I'm going on about, see [[compact]].) >Should toilet paper be installed so the loose end hangs toward you or away from you? > > Use a bidet instead. >Will a tray of ice cubes freeze faster if you fill it with cold water or hot water? > > Neither. It won't freeze at all until you put it in the freezer. >There, _that_ should clog up this list for a day or so. > > I'm afraid not, but it was more entertaining than the other discussions going on. --Michael Snow

2 1

Offensive content
by Anthere 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

Though I have seen similar discussions on the topic for more than three years now, and expect no consensus anytime soon, I propose those interested to read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Offensive_content And possibly comment Or come with new ideas. Thanks Anthere

2 2

Re: We should not not abide by personal and secret decisions
by zero 0000 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

I wrote: > Who is going to enforce the ruling? Nicholas Knight <nknight(a)runawaynet.com> replied: > The ban from editing Judaism related articles was stayed Ok, sorry to raise a false alarm. Zero. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: We should not not abide by personal and secret decisions
by zero 0000 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

I wish to bring to your attention that RK is continuing to edit Judaism-related articles in open contempt of the Arbitration Committee ruling that forbids him to. This is despite that fact that the AC has agreed to hear an appeal. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=RK Who is going to enforce the ruling? Zero. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

2 1

Re: Writing about sexual topics responsibly is not censorship
by Robert 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

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. I wouldn't have any problem with someone making a Wiki sex instruction site, a Wiki-cooking and baking site, or a Wiki-anything-else kind of site. I just wish to diffentiate between the role of an encyclopedia, and the role of, well, other things that are not encyclopedias. Skyring writes: > 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. This is an excellent idea (and is in no way censorship.) This is not only a good idea for sex-related articles, it also would be a good idea for any surgery-related articles, or articles on forensics. I don't want to see one of my students loosing their lunch...again. I have taught many high school students about fertilization, fetal development and birth. (It is shocking how little so many of our 16 year olds actually know about their own bodies.) Most students were alright with all of it, even the videos, but some students screamed with genuine horror at seeing a woman actually give birth. One of them threw up! Granted, this wouldn't happen in some other cultures where birth is treated as just another fact of life, but where I live most people don't see such things, and some do not want to! If I read an article where something "really gross" might be explained in a photo, I'd want an option to see it, and not have it forced on me. Given my student's reactions, I am not alone! Finally, professional line-drawings (as opposed to photos) are apparently less of a problem. They are nearly universally considered less offensive (and/or gross) and are more often perceived as academic and professional (when drawn and labeled well.) Robert (RK) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com

17 160

Re: [WikiEN-l] new user
by S.M.Sabri S.M.Ismail 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

From: "NSK" <nsk2(a)wikinerds.org> > On Wednesday 16 February 2005 18:29, Karl A. Krueger wrote: >> It's a sign of recognition to other neo-Nazis. >> For other numerical examples, compare 420, 93, 42, 23, or 17. > I suggest that all users using neo-Nazi numbers be monitored by the sysops, > and in case we find they are inserting Nazi POV, or displaying Nazi symbols, > or generally promoting Nazism in Wikipedia, then they should be banned > forever (and notify authorities etc if possible). Ooh, 23 and 42. Just the numbers I like to use online. regards, sabre23t =^.^= -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14.02.05

3 2

new user
by zero 0000 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

Look what the cat dug up: [[User:NSM88]] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

6 7

← Newer
1
...
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
...
20
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l February 2005