Anthere is entirely right about RK's notification -- I botched it badly, and have apologized about four times, but I'll do it again if necessary. No sanctions should apply to RK for any editing of Judaism-related articles prior to his having been informed upon his return. However, RK, I hope you will consider calming your rhetoric about the allegedly unusual punishment levied against you. Theresa has given you excellent advice which I hope you will take. If you don't want to appeal to the AC, talk to Jimbo -- if he feels you were unfairly treated (which I think you implied in your comment about an email you received from him), surely he has the right (some would say the responsibility) to reverse the decision. Either way, I am sure that both the AC and Jimbo would appreciate your handling the matter as calmly as possible -- I certainly wasn't "out to get you" when I voted on the arbitration decision against you, and I doubt other arbitrators were either. If we truly erred in our decision, I have faith it will be remedied.
Regarding the recent brouhaha over the photos, what I'll say is this. If Wikipedia decides as a community it will display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to (normally families with bright teenage children, given my work in a high school). You can call me, my friends, and my acquaintances all the names you like (compare us to Nazis, if Godwin will let you), but those are the cold hard facts.
And I have to be honest: I will probably not choose to introduce my students to Wikipedia with a class project (as I had hoped to do) if the photos are displayed inline. Too many questions to have to answer to administrators (real-life school ones) about. Again, you can call us censorious or narrow-minded or anything you like, but as long as I want to call myself employed, I'll have to live that way. I don't know if you think Wikipedia will lose much by my ceasing to advocate it to every man, woman, and child I talk to. I'll let you decide for yourself: certainly I don't think it's much of a threat in strictly numerical terms (it won't affect Wikipedia's pocketbook or editor population by more than a few hundred bucks or a few editors either direction)! But it's the reality of the situation, and I think all the talk about browsers, etc. (frankly, I think 90%+ of our reader population either doesn't know how to shut off photos or considers it too great a hassle for WP to be worthwhile, but that's unsubstantiated guesswork) ignores the truth of the situation.
Noble principles are fine and all that, but even the most remarkably open free speech laws recognize that there are some kinds of speech not suitable to all occasions. Now go ahead and yell at me -- if you want ammo, I use IE and subscribe to Christian moral and ethical principles. I'm sure someone can make use of those against me. :-)
All my best to all of you, who keep my inbox full and my brain moving. I wish you good fortune this cold February,
James W. Rosenzweig jwrosenzweig@yahoo.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
James Rosenzweig said:
And I have to be honest: I will probably not choose to introduce my students to Wikipedia with a class project (as I had hoped to do) if the photos are displayed inline. Too many questions to have to answer to administrators (real-life school ones) about. Again, you can call us censorious or narrow-minded or anything you like, but as long as I want to call myself employed, I'll have to live that way.
I think that's pretty much what I'd expect from any responsible schoolteacher. In my opinion we should just stick it into "What Wikipedia is not". Wikipedia is not a classroom-friendly environment.
James Rosenzweig (jwrosenzweig@yahoo.com) [050216 09:36]:
Regarding the recent brouhaha over the photos, what I'll say is this. If Wikipedia decides as a community it will display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to (normally families with bright teenage children, given my work in a high school). You can call me, my friends, and my acquaintances all the names you like (compare us to Nazis, if Godwin will let you), but those are the cold hard facts.
What other classes of photos would you require be links rather than inline in this case, and would the planned option to have images as either links or inline be of use in this context?
- d.
On 15 Feb 2005, at 10:36 pm, James Rosenzweig wrote:
If Wikipedia decides as a community it will display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to (normally families with bright teenage children, given my work in a high school).
If they're bright I'm sure they'll make their own way here.
Christiaan
James Rosenzweig a écrit:
Regarding the recent brouhaha over the photos, what I'll say is this. If Wikipedia decides as a community it will display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to (normally families with bright teenage children, given my work in a high school). You can call me, my friends, and my acquaintances all the names you like (compare us to Nazis, if Godwin will let you), but those are the cold hard facts.
And I have to be honest: I will probably not choose to introduce my students to Wikipedia with a class project (as I had hoped to do) if the photos are displayed inline. Too many questions to have to answer to administrators (real-life school ones) about. Again, you can call us censorious or narrow-minded or anything you like, but as long as I want to call myself employed, I'll have to live that way. I don't know if you think Wikipedia will lose much by my ceasing to advocate it to every man, woman, and child I talk to. I'll let you decide for yourself: certainly I don't think it's much of a threat in strictly numerical terms (it won't affect Wikipedia's pocketbook or editor population by more than a few hundred bucks or a few editors either direction)! But it's the reality of the situation, and I think all the talk about browsers, etc. (frankly, I think 90%+ of our reader population either doesn't know how to shut off photos or considers it too great a hassle for WP to be worthwhile, but that's unsubstantiated guesswork) ignores the truth of the situation.
Noble principles are fine and all that, but even the most remarkably open free speech laws recognize that there are some kinds of speech not suitable to all occasions. Now go ahead and yell at me -- if you want ammo, I use IE and subscribe to Christian moral and ethical principles. I'm sure someone can make use of those against me. :-)
All my best to all of you, who keep my inbox full and my brain moving. I wish you good fortune this cold February,
James W. Rosenzweig
Nod, I entirely agree with you as well. I am currently in contact with some people to try to see what we could do in schools (this would be in Burkina Faso for example). They are thinking of "certified" version on cd rom. And when they mean "certified", they do not really mean validation, they mean "leaving aside content inapropriate for kids".
I cannot really blame them. I do not let my kids freely read the encyclopedia as well. Our project is great, and I have no fear with regards to a clitoris picture personnaly, but would not want to stumble on a severed head, or even worse goatse.
Call me freaking mother, but still, it is hard fact.
Wikipedia with such multimedia ressource is just not for kids. I proposed several months ago that we move toward filtering system (a parent system to exclude display of certain pictures). Some people have already worked something on meta on the topic. I am still interested. If only, this could be unabled in school. Right now, with no filter, making a second version with no shocking pictures would just take too much time for anyone. So, unless there is a filtering system which might be unable, I will myself discorage use of wikipedia in schools.
Anthere
On 2/16/05 2:13 AM, "Anthere" anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
James Rosenzweig a écrit:
Regarding the recent brouhaha over the photos, what I'll say is this. If Wikipedia decides as a community it will display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to (normally families with bright teenage children, given my work in a high school). You can call me, my friends, and my acquaintances all the names you like (compare us to Nazis, if Godwin will let you), but those are the cold hard facts.
Ooh! If Wikipedia decides as a community it will not display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to.
Pretty soon, no matter what we do, *noone* is going to recommend Wikipedia.
Pretty much all we have to do for filtering is to take advantage of the categorization schema. This does not need to be a big deal.
--- The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
... Pretty soon, no matter what we do, *noone* is going to recommend Wikipedia. ...
I wouldn't be so sure. You might see company executives, legislators, lawyers, doctors, elected officials, newspaper editors-in-chief still quite interested in telling their peers.
And geeks. Don't forget the 600,000,000 geeks out there. (1 in 10, roughly)
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@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
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
... Pretty soon, no matter what we do, *noone* is going to recommend Wikipedia. ...
I wouldn't be so sure. You might see company executives, legislators, lawyers, doctors, elected officials, newspaper editors-in-chief still quite interested in telling their peers.
And geeks. Don't forget the 600,000,000 geeks out there. (1 in 10, roughly)
This geek won't be recommending Wikipedia anytime soon.
The Cunctator a écrit:
On 2/16/05 2:13 AM, "Anthere" anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
James Rosenzweig a écrit:
Regarding the recent brouhaha over the photos, what I'll say is this. If Wikipedia decides as a community it will display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to (normally families with bright teenage children, given my work in a high school). You can call me, my friends, and my acquaintances all the names you like (compare us to Nazis, if Godwin will let you), but those are the cold hard facts.
Ooh! If Wikipedia decides as a community it will not display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to.
Pretty soon, no matter what we do, *noone* is going to recommend Wikipedia.
Pretty much all we have to do for filtering is to take advantage of the categorization schema. This does not need to be a big deal.
Ya.
Ant
There is a middle ground that satisfies the great majority of the Earth's population. An extreme "left" position that insists on videos of intercourse is just as far from that middle ground as a "right" position that eliminates all information about birth control.
Fred
Ooh! If Wikipedia decides as a community it will not display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to.
Pretty soon, no matter what we do, *noone* is going to recommend Wikipedia.
Fred Bauder wrote:
There is a middle ground that satisfies the great majority of the Earth's population. An extreme "left" position that insists on videos of intercourse
I'm rather extreme left-wing with all that entails relative to the vast majority of the Earth's and Wikipedia's population, and you certainly don't see me insisting on any such thing.
I'll defend its right to exist with my life if absolutely neccessary, but I'm certainly not going to insist that it either exist or be placed on Wikipedia.
Nicholas Knight wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
There is a middle ground that satisfies the great majority of the Earth's population. An extreme "left" position that insists on videos of intercourse
I'm rather extreme left-wing with all that entails relative to the vast majority of the Earth's and Wikipedia's population, and you certainly don't see me insisting on any such thing.
I'll defend its right to exist with my life if absolutely neccessary, but I'm certainly not going to insist that it either exist or be placed on Wikipedia.
Some people will go overboard by allocating everything along a left-right spectrum. This puts Fred in the uncharacteristic position of suggesting that the extreme left supports extreme freedom.
I would suggest that if either Hitler or Stalin were the one deciding about the status of the autofellation picture on Wikipedia, he would have insisted that it is immoral and not tolerated it at all.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Nicholas Knight wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
There is a middle ground that satisfies the great majority of the Earth's population. An extreme "left" position that insists on videos of intercourse
I'm rather extreme left-wing with all that entails relative to the vast majority of the Earth's and Wikipedia's population, and you certainly don't see me insisting on any such thing.
I'll defend its right to exist with my life if absolutely neccessary, but I'm certainly not going to insist that it either exist or be placed on Wikipedia.
Some people will go overboard by allocating everything along a left-right spectrum. This puts Fred in the uncharacteristic position of suggesting that the extreme left supports extreme freedom. I would suggest that if either Hitler or Stalin were the one deciding about the status of the autofellation picture on Wikipedia, he would have insisted that it is immoral and not tolerated it at all.
That's not a "left" thing, anyway. With all the leftists running around calling libertarians "right wing extremists", it should be fairly obvious that supporting the right to distribute pictures of autofellation isn't left-wing since that's pretty well libertarian canonical opinion. That aside, though . . .
I've been deleting large sections of this series of threads without reading them, because I've had to do some actual work and would never get caught up if I read them all. Has there been any significant progress on the idea of developing code that will create an opt-in/opt-out solution to the problem of inlining controversial images?
-- Chad
Chad Perrin wrote:
I've been deleting large sections of this series of threads without reading them, because I've had to do some actual work and would never get caught up if I read them all. Has there been any significant progress on the idea of developing code that will create an opt-in/opt-out solution to the problem of inlining controversial images?
AFAICT, the consensus is that it's an acceptable compromise. Design is reasonably simple, The Cunctator noted the category system can be exploited to take care of the actual tagging mechanism. The rest is just a filter. When the system goes to load an image it checks the image's categories against the user's preferences, if it's "allowed", it loads as normal, if not, it's replaced with one of two mechanisms (should let the user choose a preferred mechanism in their preferences; may be neccessary if the user allows some Javascript operations but not others).
1) If the user has Javascript enabled, a Javascript mechanism is used; this would allow the decision to be fast and entirely client-side. If the user clicks the link/button, the browser will load the image straight up without having to reload the entire page.
2) If the user doesn't have Javascript enabled, a link is provided that leads back to the current page with a URL parameter (something like 'allowimg=$imgid') that the filter picks up.
Just need someone to write the code (well, two someones, a PHP coder isn't neccessarily going to know Javascript).
There is a middle ground that satisfies the great majority of the Earth's population. An extreme "left" position that insists on videos of intercourse is just as far from that middle ground as a "right" position that eliminates all information about birth control.
Fred
Ooh! If Wikipedia decides as a community it will not display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to.
Pretty soon, no matter what we do, *noone* is going to recommend Wikipedia.
Anthere wrote:
I am currently in contact with some people to try to see what we could do in schools (this would be in Burkina Faso for example). They are thinking of "certified" version on cd rom. And when they mean "certified", they do not really mean validation, they mean "leaving aside content inapropriate for kids".
Has Benin ever come under consideration? Its unusually high level of press freedom for Africa (see http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/freedom_of_press.htm ) suggests that they might be more open to a product like ours. Does anyone have any contacts there?
Wikipedia with such multimedia ressource is just not for kids. I proposed several months ago that we move toward filtering system (a parent system to exclude display of certain pictures). Some people have already worked something on meta on the topic. I am still interested. If only, this could be unabled in school. Right now, with no filter, making a second version with no shocking pictures would just take too much time for anyone. So, unless there is a filtering system which might be unable, I will myself discorage use of wikipedia in schools.
Couldn't the category system be used as the basis for a filtering system. Thus something like [[Category:XXX]] could be applied to an article with a strongly objectionable picture that could be filtered out.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Has Benin ever come under consideration? Its unusually high level of press freedom for Africa (see http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/freedom_of_press.htm ) suggests that they might be more open to a product like ours. Does anyone have any contacts there?
I think, regardless of the level of press freedom, parents won't be very happy about certain things in their schools. Even famously liberal western Europeans might not like their school-age children to encounter a photograph of autofellatio while at school...
-Mark
Ray Saintonge a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
I am currently in contact with some people to try to see what we could do in schools (this would be in Burkina Faso for example). They are thinking of "certified" version on cd rom. And when they mean "certified", they do not really mean validation, they mean "leaving aside content inapropriate for kids".
Has Benin ever come under consideration? Its unusually high level of press freedom for Africa (see http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/freedom_of_press.htm ) suggests that they might be more open to a product like ours. Does anyone have any contacts there?
Yes
I
But not for a school :-)
I see that Burkina Faso is quite low About Burkina... it is no use trying to make textbooks for kids, the governement controls the content AND the printing of textbooks. The NGO I am in contact with chose to gather resources, to be able to purchase them over there.
Wikipedia with such multimedia ressource is just not for kids. I proposed several months ago that we move toward filtering system (a parent system to exclude display of certain pictures). Some people have already worked something on meta on the topic. I am still interested. If only, this could be unabled in school. Right now, with no filter, making a second version with no shocking pictures would just take too much time for anyone. So, unless there is a filtering system which might be unable, I will myself discorage use of wikipedia in schools.
Couldn't the category system be used as the basis for a filtering system. Thus something like [[Category:XXX]] could be applied to an article with a strongly objectionable picture that could be filtered out.
Nod.
Ant