See slashdot thread:
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/13/2018210
My school blocked Wikipedia in February.
The Sheila Broflofski-like head of IT (i.e. more focused on profanity than pornography or violence, demonstrated in me nearly getting expelled for use of the word fuck in a forum, while people who looked at porn and uploaded graphical violence to youtube got nothing) then decided to blame all the vandalism and abuse of it on me (even though the school had been blocked for eight months, and I was the only prolific editor), causing me to get a load of harassment from other students.
Will
Interesting. Our IT people have (temporarily at least) blocked everything *but* the English Wikipedia and bbc.co.uk. Incredibly foolish because you cannot now check references or anything external (unless it's at *.bbc.co.uk of course).
On 14/04/07, Will sceptre@tintower.co.uk wrote:
My school blocked Wikipedia in February.
The Sheila Broflofski-like head of IT (i.e. more focused on profanity than pornography or violence, demonstrated in me nearly getting expelled for use of the word fuck in a forum, while people who looked at porn and uploaded graphical violence to youtube got nothing) then decided to blame all the vandalism and abuse of it on me (even though the school had been blocked for eight months, and I was the only prolific editor), causing me to get a load of harassment from other students.
Will _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/13/07, Will sceptre@tintower.co.uk wrote:
My school blocked Wikipedia in February.
The Sheila Broflofski-like head of IT (i.e. more focused on profanity than pornography or violence, demonstrated in me nearly getting expelled for use of the word fuck in a forum, while people who looked at porn and uploaded graphical violence to youtube got nothing) then decided to blame all the vandalism and abuse of it on me (even though the school had been blocked for eight months, and I was the only prolific editor), causing me to get a load of harassment from other students.
Will
Wow. That's terrible. Have you tried saying something to the school board (or whoever oversees the schools in the UK) ?
~~~~
On 14/04/07, Will sceptre@tintower.co.uk wrote:
My school blocked Wikipedia in February.
The Sheila Broflofski-like head of IT (i.e. more focused on profanity than pornography or violence, demonstrated in me nearly getting expelled for use of the word fuck in a forum, while people who looked at porn and uploaded graphical violence to youtube got nothing) then decided to blame all the vandalism and abuse of it on me (even though the school had been blocked for eight months, and I was the only prolific editor), causing me to get a load of harassment from other students.
My school used a service which blocked access to websites containing particular words. One such word was "gay" which meant that students couldn't access gay-advocacy sites. Schools tend to overvalue censorship and control.
On 4/14/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/04/07, Will sceptre@tintower.co.uk wrote:
My school blocked Wikipedia in February.
The Sheila Broflofski-like head of IT (i.e. more focused on profanity than pornography or violence, demonstrated in me nearly getting expelled for use of the word fuck in a forum, while people who looked at porn and uploaded graphical violence to youtube got nothing) then decided to blame all the vandalism and abuse of it on me (even though the school had been blocked for eight months, and I was the only prolific editor), causing me to get a load of harassment from other students.
My school used a service which blocked access to websites containing particular words. One such word was "gay" which meant that students couldn't access gay-advocacy sites. Schools tend to overvalue censorship and control.
Well... My school blocked 'www.essex.ac.uk', as the URL contains the word "sex". Actually, such behaviour will probably never change. You have to live with it or become very persuasive in dealing with network administrators... Michael
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well... My school blocked 'www.essex.ac.uk', as the URL contains the word "sex". Actually, such behaviour will probably never change. You have to live with it or become very persuasive in dealing with network administrators...
Please tell me you were at Essex University at the time - that would make my day.
Oldak Quill wrote:
My school used a service which blocked access to websites containing
particular words. One such word was "gay" which meant that students couldn't access gay-advocacy sites. Schools tend to overvalue censorship and control.
That presumably also blocks sites that use "gay" in its more traditional sense.
ec
On 4/15/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
My school used a service which blocked access to websites containing
particular words. One such word was "gay" which meant that students couldn't access gay-advocacy sites. Schools tend to overvalue censorship and control.
That presumably also blocks sites that use "gay" in its more traditional sense.
Like: http://www.westsidestory.com/site/level2/lyrics/pretty_movie.html
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
While wikipedia isn't the most reliable source, I'd say that most of the other pages that come up on a google search are less accurate (i.e. Bob and Jane's Geocities Page about Chemistry).
This is related to a banned editor [[User:Andries]] claiming in Citizendium that as the main contributor to a Wikipedia article, if he removes the contributions of others from that article, he can than re-post that content in CZ without giving credit to Wikipedia (and bypass the GFDL)
---- My comment: Articles posted in Wikipedia are licensed under the GFDL and need to be attributed to Wikipedia, regardless of how many editors contributed to these articles. Jossi 12:44, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
Larry Sanger's response: Your opinion is incorrect, Jossi. If a person contributed a piece of content to WP, that person may contribute the same content to CZ under CZ's terms. According to WP itself, contributors to WP are the ones who license their edits; they do not donate their copyrights to WP. In this case, since Andries presumably still has copyright in the content he created and contributed to WP, he may contribute the same material to CZ.
This said, we ought to investigate Andries' claim and ensure that in fact he really is the only [contributor to the material that he has transferred here. See [1]; on the strength of that, I am checking the "Content is from Wikipedia?" box. --Larry Sanger 14:03, 13 April 2007 (CDT) ----
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba_Movement
Is this the case? Are editors "licensing their edits to WP and retaining copyright"?
-- Jossi
On 14/04/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
This is related to a banned editor [[User:Andries]] claiming in
You appear to be repeating a libel here.
- d.
On 4/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/04/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
This is related to a banned editor [[User:Andries]] claiming in
You appear to be repeating a libel here.
Andries is only banned from the Wikipedia article on [[Sathya Sai Baba]] and related, not from the site, per the arbcom ruling this year.
-Matt
On 14/04/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Andries is only banned from the Wikipedia article on [[Sathya Sai Baba]] and related, not from the site, per the arbcom ruling this year.
Note the attempt by Sathya Sai Baba's followers to remove the material from elsewhere on a pretext. The ArbCom thoroughly messed up this one.
- d.
On 4/14/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba_Movement
Is this the case? Are editors "licensing their edits to WP and retaining copyright"?
-- Jossi
No editors are releaseing their edits under the GFDL and retaining copyright. Nothing to do with wikipedia whick simply choses to host some of the material.
On 4/14/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
Is this the case? Are editors "licensing their edits to WP and retaining copyright"?
Yes. However, edits that modify text already in existence are derived works and if they incorporate parts of someone else's text, Andries cannot relicense.
-Matt
On Saturday 14 April 2007 11:09, Matthew Brown wrote:
On 4/14/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
Is this the case? Are editors "licensing their edits to WP and retaining copyright"?
Yes. However, edits that modify text already in existence are derived works and if they incorporate parts of someone else's text, Andries cannot relicense.
He can as long as he only uses content he himself wrote, stripping out everything contributed by others.
On 4/13/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
See slashdot thread:
I wonder if they also block http://www.answers.com/.
Not to mention the cached versions :-)
Anyway, I've been reading some of the comments, and they seem to indicate something of a Wikipedia-backlash-backlash.
All-in-all, very interesting.
~~~~
On 14/04/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, I've been reading some of the comments, and they seem to indicate something of a Wikipedia-backlash-backlash.
This means, of course, that Wikipedia is now Punk Rock.
- d.
On 4/14/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/13/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
See slashdot thread:
I wonder if they also block http://www.answers.com/.
Not to mention the cached versions :-)
Anyway, I've been reading some of the comments, and they seem to indicate something of a Wikipedia-backlash-backlash.
I'm hesitatnt to get too worked up about for now, since: 1. Slashdot submitter Londovir has no link to any page/email. 2. No reference to where "our school board" is 3. No link to any article describing this
Frankly, I'm surprised Slashdot editors accepted a posting like this.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 4/14/07, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I'm hesitatnt to get too worked up about for now, since:
- Slashdot submitter Londovir has no link to any page/email.
- No reference to where "our school board" is
- No link to any article describing this
Frankly, I'm surprised Slashdot editors accepted a posting like this.
It's one of those unreliable user-generated content sites.. they should probably be blocked in schools.