"a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica representative (unidentified)
http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/03/25/podcast47-in-defense-of-encyclop...
G'day Matthias,
"a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica representative (unidentified)
http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/03/25/podcast47-in-defense-of-encyclop...
If "Good authors are always welcome" fails in its bid to become our new tagline, this one's my 2nd preference.
(Americans! Preferential voting rawks!)
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:10:21 +0200, you wrote:
"a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica representative (unidentified)
He could always nominate some of the porn articles for deletion. Start with the "actresses" for who we have no real name, no date of birth, no biographical data outside of their entries on add-it-yourself porn fansites, and who have appeared in a small number of films released straight to video.
I wish them luck. Porn seems to be one area where "verifiable" is taken as meaning more than one Google hit... Guy (JzG)
On 3/26/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:10:21 +0200, you wrote:
"a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica representative (unidentified)
He could always nominate some of the porn articles for deletion. Start with the "actresses" for who we have no real name, no date of birth, no biographical data outside of their entries on add-it-yourself porn fansites, and who have appeared in a small number of films released straight to video.
I wish them luck. Porn seems to be one area where "verifiable" is taken as meaning more than one Google hit... Guy (JzG)
Please don't do anything to annoy our young single male demographic. Userboxians will have been a mear picnic by comparison.
-- geni
I have no particular attachment to pornstar bios, but 'for who we have no real name' does not seem a valid objection to me - most if not all of our entertainment industry bios use the person's 'stage name' as the title of the article, and only mention their 'real name' briefly in passing, if at all, so the lack of a 'real name' doesn't make the article dramatically different
Cynical
geni wrote:
On 3/26/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:10:21 +0200, you wrote:
"a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica representative (unidentified)
He could always nominate some of the porn articles for deletion. Start with the "actresses" for who we have no real name, no date of birth, no biographical data outside of their entries on add-it-yourself porn fansites, and who have appeared in a small number of films released straight to video.
I wish them luck. Porn seems to be one area where "verifiable" is taken as meaning more than one Google hit... Guy (JzG)
Please don't do anything to annoy our young single male demographic. Userboxians will have been a mear picnic by comparison.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I find it very curious that of all the things they can attack wikipedia for, the fact that wikipedia is not censored is the one they focus on. Very strange indeed.
On 3/26/06, Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de wrote:
"a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica representative (unidentified)
http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/03/25/podcast47-in-defense-of-encyclop... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What on earth does 'a large portion' mean anyway? In an encyclopedia with over a million articles a couple of dozen pornstar bios hardly qualifies as 'a large portion'
Cynical
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
I find it very curious that of all the things they can attack wikipedia for, the fact that wikipedia is not censored is the one they focus on. Very strange indeed.
On 3/26/06, Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de wrote:
"a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica representative (unidentified)
http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/03/25/podcast47-in-defense-of-encyclop... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
What on earth does 'a large portion' mean anyway?
It means that Britannica is trolling. Don't feed them.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
What on earth does 'a large portion' mean anyway?
It means that Britannica is trolling. Don't feed them.
Can we accuse them of having a (insert currently unpopular POV) bias?
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Can we accuse them of having a (insert currently unpopular POV) bias?
Well, is it unpopular to examine the links between the CIA and Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc? Some of their editors worked in covert operations for the US administration (according to a presidential library with declassified documents).
More or less. :)
On 3/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I find it very curious that of all the things they can attack wikipedia for, the fact that wikipedia is not censored is the one they focus on. Very strange indeed.
All the more reason to tag Wikipedia articles as kidsafe/worksafe.
Steve
"Steve Bennett" wrote
All the more reason to tag Wikipedia articles as kidsafe/worksafe.
Oh. I don't think so. That presents a challenge to posters of obscenities and unacceptable images. Since we cannot prevent such postings, it is all rather futile to make claims we are in no position to give any kind of warranty for.
Charles
On 3/26/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Oh. I don't think so. That presents a challenge to posters of obscenities and unacceptable images. Since we cannot prevent such postings, it is all rather futile to make claims we are in no position to give any kind of warranty for.
Sorry, I'm not talking about shock images, but rather, porn stars, anatomy and so forth.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/26/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Oh. I don't think so. That presents a challenge to posters of obscenities and unacceptable images. Since we cannot prevent such postings, it is all rather futile to make claims we are in no position to give any kind of warranty for.
Sorry, I'm not talking about shock images, but rather, porn stars, anatomy and so forth.
Oh wow. Naked bits of bodies need to be censored, eh? Perhaps we should just remove this evil "eee-vo-lushion" thing while we're at it?
On 3/27/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Oh wow. Naked bits of bodies need to be censored, eh?
Sure, especially if the person looking is 12 and is using school equipment.
Perhaps we should just remove this evil "eee-vo-lushion" thing while
we're at it?
Sure, especially if the person looking is 12, and is using school equipment in Kansas.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/27/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Oh wow. Naked bits of bodies need to be censored, eh?
Sure, especially if the person looking is 12 and is using school equipment.
Perhaps we should just remove this evil "eee-vo-lushion" thing while
we're at it?
Sure, especially if the person looking is 12, and is using school equipment in Kansas.
It occurs to me that we should block all schools then.
On Mar 27, 2006, at 4:41 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
It occurs to me that we should block all schools then.
Clearly this is the most rational policy for an educational website.
G'day Phil,
On Mar 27, 2006, at 4:41 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
It occurs to me that we should block all schools then.
Clearly this is the most rational policy for an educational website.
Students able to learn, but not teach (about penis piercings and stuff being ON WHEELS)? Somehow this doesn't strike me as a grave injustice.
Yeah, I don't see why (for example) Wikipedia articles could not be 'tagged' with ICRA-style PICS labels. These are machine-readable metadata that give information on whether the article contains certain types of content e.g. profanity, nudity, substance abuse, and the 'severity' of that content (e.g. ranging from passionate kissing to close-up explicit sexual acts for the nudity category).
Of course it would require some noticeable software changes, but I don't see why it couldn't be done on a semi-automatic basis using the category system. For example, any article put into the 'articles with a nude image' category (I believe this category already exists) could be tagged with the appropriate metadata for nudity. It wouldn't be censorship - all content would still be available to those users who wanted it, but where a user (or their parents in the case of kids) decides they do not want to view a particular type of content, this would give them that choice.
Cynical
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I find it very curious that of all the things they can attack wikipedia for, the fact that wikipedia is not censored is the one they focus on. Very strange indeed.
All the more reason to tag Wikipedia articles as kidsafe/worksafe.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Yeah, I don't see why (for example) Wikipedia articles could not be 'tagged' with ICRA-style PICS labels. These are machine-readable metadata that give information on whether the article contains certain types of content e.g. profanity, nudity, substance abuse, and the 'severity' of that content (e.g. ranging from passionate kissing to close-up explicit sexual acts for the nudity category).
Please provide a titanium hardened defintion of these terms.
-- geni
On 3/26/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Please provide a titanium hardened defintion of these terms.
We try to use some common sense. Yes, I know that's difficult for you, being a cynic... ;-)
-- Sam
On 3/26/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Please provide a titanium hardened defintion of these terms.
We try to use some common sense. Yes, I know that's difficult for you, being a cynic... ;-)
-- Sam
Do you really belive that after the autofellatio incerdent that something as logical indefencible as common sense will get very far?
-- geni
On 3/26/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Do you really belive that after the autofellatio incerdent that something as logical indefencible as common sense will get very far?
If you have objective categorising, yes, yes it could.
-- Sam
See 'icra.org' for an example - but the labels are divided into different categories, and each category has a set of 'definitions' which you can select
e.g. nudity - visible genitals, bare buttocks, exposed breasts, none of the above sexual material - erotica, erections/explicit sexual acts, explicit sexual language, visible sexual touching, obscured or implied sexual acts, passionate kissing, none of the above
the other categories - violence, potentially harmful activities etc. proceed on much the same lines
incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably qualify as
Cynical
geni wrote:
On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Yeah, I don't see why (for example) Wikipedia articles could not be 'tagged' with ICRA-style PICS labels. These are machine-readable metadata that give information on whether the article contains certain types of content e.g. profanity, nudity, substance abuse, and the 'severity' of that content (e.g. ranging from passionate kissing to close-up explicit sexual acts for the nudity category).
Please provide a titanium hardened defintion of these terms.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably qualify as
I can't call our porn star articles educational, or even attempting to be.
-- Sam
They would be - since the goal of the page is educational ('sum total of all human knowledge' yada yada) - the purpose of any page on Wikipedia is not to provide sexual release for unpopular teen males, but to inform people about the subject of that page - whether the subject is Paris, France or a pornstar
Cynical
Sam Korn wrote:
On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably qualify as
I can't call our porn star articles educational, or even attempting to be.
-- Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/26/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably qualify as
I can't call our porn star articles educational, or even attempting to be.
-- Sam
They are however an extreamly rich source of copyvios.
-- geni
G'day Sam,
On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably qualify as
I can't call our porn star articles educational, or even attempting to be.
Now, now. Those galleries of fairuse DVD covers can teach us a *lot* about copyright law ...
Presumably we should also remove the screenshots from the Harry Potter films from the article on Daniel Radcliffe?
Cynical
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Sam,
On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably qualify as
I can't call our porn star articles educational, or even attempting to be.
Now, now. Those galleries of fairuse DVD covers can teach us a *lot* about copyright law ...
Look we've been sown this path many times before, and it's never gotten us anywhere, infact, all it's done is make people fight and occasionally force good contributors out because of the hostile mood of the discussion (Wikipedians for decency/encyclopedic merit and WP:TOBY for instance). The fact is, far too many wikipedians think that this kind of censorship is wrong, so you'll NEVER get consensus on it. This is a discussion that should be killed before it has any chance to do more harm.
It's never gonna happen. If you really, really want a clean WP, create a fork and convince people to help you clean it up.
--Oskar
On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
See 'icra.org' for an example - but the labels are divided into different categories, and each category has a set of 'definitions' which you can select
e.g. nudity - visible genitals, bare buttocks, exposed breasts, none of the above sexual material - erotica, erections/explicit sexual acts, explicit sexual language, visible sexual touching, obscured or implied sexual acts, passionate kissing, none of the above
the other categories - violence, potentially harmful activities etc. proceed on much the same lines
incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably qualify as
Cynical
geni wrote:
On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Yeah, I don't see why (for example) Wikipedia articles could not be 'tagged' with ICRA-style PICS labels. These are machine-readable metadata that give information on whether the article contains certain types of content e.g. profanity, nudity, substance abuse, and the 'severity' of that content (e.g. ranging from passionate kissing to close-up explicit sexual acts for the nudity category).
Please provide a titanium hardened defintion of these terms.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mar 26, 2006, at 4:35 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Look we've been sown this path many times before, and it's never gotten us anywhere, infact, all it's done is make people fight and occasionally force good contributors out because of the hostile mood of the discussion (Wikipedians for decency/encyclopedic merit and WP:TOBY for instance). The fact is, far too many wikipedians think that this kind of censorship is wrong, so you'll NEVER get consensus on it. This is a discussion that should be killed before it has any chance to do more harm.
This has nothing to do with censoring Wikipedia. This is about tagging content so schools (for instance) and filtering software used by schools can discriminate between Wikipedia articles. Or would you rather Wikipedia be inaccessible in schools and libraries?
Regardless of what you call it, the discussion has been held many times. There simply isn't anything near consensus for any sort of censorship in the community (and it is censorship, don't kid yourself, just read the first sentance in [[Censorship]]). The discussion has been had, lets just levae it at that.
And frankly, while I agree that some sort of voluntary content control might be nice, I sorta like the idea that wikipedia will give you the facts straight up, without any spin, no matter how ugly or morally reprehensive they may be. Our responsibility is not to make a school safe version of the facts, our responsibility is to always give the facts with a neutral point of view. If some schools and libraries can't agree with that point of view, that's too bad.
On 3/27/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Mar 26, 2006, at 4:35 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Look we've been sown this path many times before, and it's never gotten us anywhere, infact, all it's done is make people fight and occasionally force good contributors out because of the hostile mood of the discussion (Wikipedians for decency/encyclopedic merit and WP:TOBY for instance). The fact is, far too many wikipedians think that this kind of censorship is wrong, so you'll NEVER get consensus on it. This is a discussion that should be killed before it has any chance to do more harm.
This has nothing to do with censoring Wikipedia. This is about tagging content so schools (for instance) and filtering software used by schools can discriminate between Wikipedia articles. Or would you rather Wikipedia be inaccessible in schools and libraries?
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/27/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless of what you call it, the discussion has been held many times. There simply isn't anything near consensus for any sort of censorship in the community (and it is censorship, don't kid yourself, just read the first sentance in [[Censorship]]). The discussion has been had, lets just levae it at that.
First sentence of [[Censorship]]: "Censorship is the control of speech and other forms of human expression, often by (but not limited to) government intervention. " Certainly interesting, but doesn't have a lot to do with this discussion, which is about tagging articles "Nudity 3, Sexual themes 4".
If we've had serious discussions about that before, can you point us to some examples? I would like to see the objections. Of course, nothing stops us having the same discussion again.
And frankly, while I agree that some sort of voluntary content control might be nice, I sorta like the idea that wikipedia will give you the facts straight up, without any spin, no matter how ugly or morally reprehensive they may be. Our responsibility is not to make a school safe version of the facts, our responsibility is to always give the facts with a neutral point of view. If some schools and libraries can't agree with that point of view, that's too bad.
Yes, it really is too bad. And I don't think your characterisation of Wikipedia is quite correct. It doesn't always give a "facts straight up" version, sometimes it gives a "facts with some bonus eye candy" version, and sometimes they're not even facts.
Saying "if schools don't agree with the idea that their kids can be looking at pictures of erect penises on an educational site, then too bad" is, well, not helpful. We could do much better by making an effort to avoid that happening, even while the rest of us enjoy our erect penises (so to speak) to our heart's content.
Steve
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 08:40:25AM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/27/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless of what you call it, the discussion has been held many times. There simply isn't anything near consensus for any sort of censorship in the community (and it is censorship, don't kid yourself, just read the first sentance in [[Censorship]]). The discussion has been had, lets just levae it at that.
First sentence of [[Censorship]]: "Censorship is the control of speech and other forms of human expression, often by (but not limited to) government intervention. " Certainly interesting, but doesn't have a lot to do with this discussion, which is about tagging articles "Nudity 3, Sexual themes 4".
There are lots of reasons that censorship rating schemes are no good for Wikipedia ... and, indeed, are against our current rules. For future reference I've given these reasons code-names and taglines.
First off, such rating schemes contravene Wikipedia _core_ policy, namely our Neutral Point of View policy.
NPOV.1 -- Rating schemes are designed to reflect the opinions of those who object to sexual content (and a few other categories). They fail to represent the views of those who are tolerant of that content, but object to different content. For instance, some people are tolerant of nudity but intolerant of (say) particular political positions; particular religious views; _criticism_ of particular religious views; and so on.
(It's worth noting that censorware systems _have_ been written that discriminate against, e.g. "cult" teachings, "extreme" political views (such as the National Organization for Women), and even in one case, against criticism of the Church of Scientology. Are we going to support that wide range of points of view as to what should be censored? Or are we going to just support the anti-sex POV?)
NPOV.1 == "Any rating system has inherent biases (POV)."
NPOV.2 -- Grading any particular content on a rating scale is itself a matter of opinion. It involves making a judgment call on how "bad" or "explicit" an image or a paragraph is. Different people will have different opinions about any given work, but posting a rating requires saying that one of these opinions is right and the others are wrong.
NPOV.2 == "A rating is merely some person's opinion (POV)."
Second, they are in violation of our policy against self-censorship, and the underlying _reason_ we don't want self-censorship: it would produce a worse encyclopedia.
CENS.1 -- The only real proposed purpose of these rating systems is to enable censorship of Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia has a policy against self-censorship (see [[WP:NOT]]), adding material to Wikipedia articles for the purpose of getting those articles censored is against the rules.
This was a major ground for the rejection of [[WP:TOBY]]; you should see that discussion for details on the rationale.
CENS.1 == "Helping others to censor Wikipedia is wrong."
CENS.2 -- Writers want their work to be read. Any censorship system will tend to discourage people from writing on the censored topics. If sex is censored, our coverage on sexual topics will become relatively worse. (And I don't mean porn; I mean anatomy and sexual behavior.)
Likewise, among writers who _do_ still write on those topics, they will be less likely to include accurate detail, for fear of getting slapped with a worse rating. This self-censorship will, again, worsen our coverage of important subjects. Promoting it is, again, a [[WP:NOT]] violation.
CENS.2 == "Censoring Wikipedia will make it worse."
Third, they violate our policies against incivility and personal attacks.
PERS.1 -- Giving something a high rating on a censorship system comes across as saying that it is unworthy (or less worthy) of being read. Usually, this means it is wicked or harmful or the like. Claims that a work should be censored are almost always linked to claims that the writer is immoral. If your work is smut, then you are a smutmonger; if your work is blasphemy, you are a blasphemer. These are personal attacks; we must not make them.
PERS.1 == "Calling my work evil is calling me an evildoer."
PERS.2 -- Even assuming that censorship ratings are not _meant_ as attacks on the morals of the writers whose work is being censored, they are likely to be _taken_ as such. They are predictably likely to cause acrimonious personal disputes. (In a way, rating someone's work as smut is _trolling_.) Civility requires that we try to avoid starting fights.
PERS.2 == "Marking my work for censorship is picking a fight."
If we've had serious discussions about that before, can you point us to some examples? I would like to see the objections. Of course, nothing stops us having the same discussion again.
Please consult the archives of this mailing list. I believe they're full-text searchable ... if not, they darn well should be. Keywords might include "censorship" and "rating system". These points have been made time and again.
Hello, I have to say, I find some of these objections a bit spurious. In particular:
On 3/27/06, Karl A. Krueger kkrueger@whoi.edu wrote:
NPOV.1 -- Rating schemes are designed to reflect the opinions of those who object to sexual content (and a few other categories). They fail to represent the views of those who are tolerant of that content, but object to different content. For instance, some people are tolerant of nudity but intolerant of (say) particular political positions; particular religious views; _criticism_ of particular religious views; and so on.
Well, no one's proposing censorship of religious views. I think you're arguing against some blanket "this page is bad" censorship. I would too. However, labelling a page "image of doggy style, supports terrorism" would be completely different.
NPOV.2 -- Grading any particular content on a rating scale is itself a matter of opinion. It involves making a judgment call on how "bad" or "explicit" an image or a paragraph is. Different people will have different opinions about any given work, but posting a rating requires saying that one of these opinions is right and the others are wrong.
I think that's a problem that has been well and truly solved by many censorship bodies world wide. Whether nipples are exposed or not is not particular subjective.
Second, they are in violation of our policy against self-censorship, and the underlying _reason_ we don't want self-censorship: it would produce a worse encyclopedia.
Our policy against self censorship is not a core policy. There's therefore no reason not to change it if we had the means.
CENS.1 -- The only real proposed purpose of these rating systems is to enable censorship of Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia has a policy against self-censorship (see [[WP:NOT]]), adding material to Wikipedia articles for the purpose of getting those articles censored is against the rules.
You're saying that if we could rate articles to say they have certain offensive material, then people would deliberately add offensive material to more articles to avoid people seeing them? Assume good faith, n'est-ce pas?
CENS.2 -- Writers want their work to be read. Any censorship system will tend to discourage people from writing on the censored topics. If sex is censored, our coverage on sexual topics will become relatively worse. (And I don't mean porn; I mean anatomy and sexual behavior.)
Writers will be discouraged from writing on topics which people don't want to read? The coverage of [[pornography]] will be worse because now children won't be reading it? (or writing it???) I don't understand this argument.
PERS.1 -- Giving something a high rating on a censorship system comes across as saying that it is unworthy (or less worthy) of being read. Usually, this means it is wicked or harmful or the like. Claims that a work should be censored are almost always linked to claims that the writer is immoral. If your work is smut, then you are a smutmonger; if your work is blasphemy, you are a blasphemer. These are personal attacks; we must not make them.
Ok, labelling [[penis]] "graphic images and description of sexual anatomy" amounts to a personal attack on the contributors of that article? You've totally lost me.
PERS.2 == "Marking my work for censorship is picking a fight."
How bizzarre.
Please consult the archives of this mailing list. I believe they're full-text searchable ... if not, they darn well should be. Keywords might include "censorship" and "rating system". These points have been made time and again.
I will do this, thanks.
Steve
The facts WOULD NOT BE CHANGED - all it would do is say to a user 'OK, this page contains this type of content, do you still want to look at it?'
Cynical
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Regardless of what you call it, the discussion has been held many times. There simply isn't anything near consensus for any sort of censorship in the community (and it is censorship, don't kid yourself, just read the first sentance in [[Censorship]]). The discussion has been had, lets just levae it at that.
And frankly, while I agree that some sort of voluntary content control might be nice, I sorta like the idea that wikipedia will give you the facts straight up, without any spin, no matter how ugly or morally reprehensive they may be. Our responsibility is not to make a school safe version of the facts, our responsibility is to always give the facts with a neutral point of view. If some schools and libraries can't agree with that point of view, that's too bad.
On 3/27/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Mar 26, 2006, at 4:35 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Look we've been sown this path many times before, and it's never gotten us anywhere, infact, all it's done is make people fight and occasionally force good contributors out because of the hostile mood of the discussion (Wikipedians for decency/encyclopedic merit and WP:TOBY for instance). The fact is, far too many wikipedians think that this kind of censorship is wrong, so you'll NEVER get consensus on it. This is a discussion that should be killed before it has any chance to do more harm.
This has nothing to do with censoring Wikipedia. This is about tagging content so schools (for instance) and filtering software used by schools can discriminate between Wikipedia articles. Or would you rather Wikipedia be inaccessible in schools and libraries?
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/27/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Wasn't that the crux of [[WP:TOBY]], which failed miserably?
Toby was pretty sophisticated: "Click here if you want other people to decide what you can see".
Leveraging existing user-side content filtering software we can probably do ever so slightly better than that.
Steve
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Regardless of what you call it, the discussion has been held many times. There simply isn't anything near consensus for any sort of censorship in the community (and it is censorship, don't kid yourself, just read the first sentance in [[Censorship]]). The discussion has been had, lets just levae it at that.
And frankly, while I agree that some sort of voluntary content control might be nice, I sorta like the idea that wikipedia will give you the facts straight up, without any spin, no matter how ugly or morally reprehensive they may be. Our responsibility is not to make a school safe version of the facts, our responsibility is to always give the facts with a neutral point of view. If some schools and libraries can't agree with that point of view, that's too bad.
I would take it one step further, and say that schools have a responsibility to show kids how to protect themselves on line. The parents who go too far in hiding this sort of thing from their kids may just be breeding the next generation of victims.
Ec
On 3/27/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I would take it one step further, and say that schools have a responsibility to show kids how to protect themselves on line. The parents who go too far in hiding this sort of thing from their kids may just be breeding the next generation of victims.
That's an interesting point, but not one Wikipedia should be proclaiming. "Wikipedia, where kids get to deal with porn first-hand!"
(pun, ugh, intended...)
Steve
Personally, I'd rather it be an either/or choice. I don't want to help people enforce arbitrary limits on knowledge (if you don't think it is arbitrary, consider the difference in which a partially-exposed female breast is considered on American television in comparison to images of gratuitous violence). I think the principle stands whether it is pornography or subversive politics, whether the censor is a school board in Ohio or the Ayatollah.
Practically all great works of knowledge have been at one point officially banned, including the granddaddy of encyclopedias, the Encyclopedie. We should expect to be controversial to the point of being blacklisted by some people, no matter how we try to bend backwards to accommodate. Let's not start down that path unless we have to.
FF
On 3/26/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Mar 26, 2006, at 4:35 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Look we've been sown this path many times before, and it's never gotten us anywhere, infact, all it's done is make people fight and occasionally force good contributors out because of the hostile mood of the discussion (Wikipedians for decency/encyclopedic merit and WP:TOBY for instance). The fact is, far too many wikipedians think that this kind of censorship is wrong, so you'll NEVER get consensus on it. This is a discussion that should be killed before it has any chance to do more harm.
This has nothing to do with censoring Wikipedia. This is about tagging content so schools (for instance) and filtering software used by schools can discriminate between Wikipedia articles. Or would you rather Wikipedia be inaccessible in schools and libraries?
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fastfission wrote:
Personally, I'd rather it be an either/or choice. I don't want to help people enforce arbitrary limits on knowledge (if you don't think it is arbitrary, consider the difference in which a partially-exposed female breast is considered on American television in comparison to images of gratuitous violence). I think the principle stands whether it is pornography or subversive politics, whether the censor is a school board in Ohio or the Ayatollah.
I think actively censoring Wikipedia is a problem, yes, but providing more accurate metadata to our reusers, and ideally using some of it to give visitors to wikipedia.org more options, serves a number of purposes.
I wouldn't turn any filtering on by default, but I have often wished for some way to filter which images are shown, usually simply because I find them distracting than because I'm actually offended by them. For example, on occasion I've looked up species of insects on Wikipedia, and if I already know what they look like, I don't usually want to have to read the whole article while staring at a close-up view of a mandible. I of course would like images to be available, but I'd like to be able to say, "don't show me insect pictures unless I ask for them", because I find it distracting. Others might want them shown, but it would be nice if logged-in users had some options. As it stands now, I have to screw around with firefox to turn off images, which is a hassle.
-Mark
On 3/29/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I wouldn't turn any filtering on by default, but I have often wished for some way to filter which images are shown, usually simply because I find them distracting than because I'm actually offended by them. For example, on occasion I've looked up species of insects on Wikipedia, and if I already know what they look like, I don't usually want to have to read the whole article while staring at a close-up view of a mandible. I of course would like images to be available, but I'd like to be able to say, "don't show me insect pictures unless I ask for them", because I find it distracting. Others might want them shown, but it would be nice if logged-in users had some options. As it stands now, I have to screw around with firefox to turn off images, which is a hassle.
There are extensions, bookmarklets, user javascript hacks, rewrite proxies and greasemonkeys for these kinds of things, but I also agree that making good metadata available in standard formats is a sensible thing to do -- as long as it's not specifically limited to "potentially offensive" content. That would be POV. While some say that this kind of filtering is an evil we have to accept to make people happy, and I've shared this view in the past, I am now utterly convinced that there are very valid slippery slope concerns.
The kind of people who want offending material to be filtered will take every little gesture we make as a concession to ask for ever more filtering. And they don't want it to be filtered just for themselves. They want it to be filtered for _everyone_. Tolerance for different points of view is very alien thinking to many of the people who would install NannySitter, CyberPest or whatever they are called. What you might see as a reasonable compromise, they would see as a step on the road towards a better, cleaner InterWeb.
Erik
There's NO censorship involved here - it would not removing any content from Wikipedia, it would not involve putting any 'warning this link is to a sexually explicit page' templates on links. This would be wrong, and against WP principles. The meta-labelling would simply allow that, where a user has stated in their browser/filtering software preferences that 'I dont want to see pages with content X', Wikipedia respects that choice. Allowing individual internet users to CHOOSE not to view particular types of content is not censorship - censorship is the state- or PC-imposed forced removal or 'cleaning' of content against the will of the creator
--Cynical
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Look we've been sown this path many times before, and it's never gotten us anywhere, infact, all it's done is make people fight and occasionally force good contributors out because of the hostile mood of the discussion (Wikipedians for decency/encyclopedic merit and WP:TOBY for instance). The fact is, far too many wikipedians think that this kind of censorship is wrong, so you'll NEVER get consensus on it. This is a discussion that should be killed before it has any chance to do more harm.
It's never gonna happen. If you really, really want a clean WP, create a fork and convince people to help you clean it up.
--Oskar
On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
See 'icra.org' for an example - but the labels are divided into different categories, and each category has a set of 'definitions' which you can select
e.g. nudity - visible genitals, bare buttocks, exposed breasts, none of the above sexual material - erotica, erections/explicit sexual acts, explicit sexual language, visible sexual touching, obscured or implied sexual acts, passionate kissing, none of the above
the other categories - violence, potentially harmful activities etc. proceed on much the same lines
incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably qualify as
Cynical
geni wrote:
On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Yeah, I don't see why (for example) Wikipedia articles could not be 'tagged' with ICRA-style PICS labels. These are machine-readable metadata that give information on whether the article contains certain types of content e.g. profanity, nudity, substance abuse, and the 'severity' of that content (e.g. ranging from passionate kissing to close-up explicit sexual acts for the nudity category).
Please provide a titanium hardened defintion of these terms.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/26/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Yeah, I don't see why (for example) Wikipedia articles could not be 'tagged' with ICRA-style PICS labels. These are machine-readable metadata that give information on whether the article contains certain types of content e.g. profanity, nudity, substance abuse, and the 'severity' of that content (e.g. ranging from passionate kissing to close-up explicit sexual acts for the nudity category).
Please provide a titanium hardened defintion of these terms.
Any system we come up with is likely to have some flaws, and is likely to occasionally fail, when someone deliberately breaks it to shock unsuspecting youngsters.
I suspect, however, that if we change our motto from "Wikipedia is uncensored" to "Wikipedia is not guaranteed safe for kids, but we try", then this would generally be a good thing.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I find it very curious that of all the things they can attack wikipedia for, the fact that wikipedia is not censored is the one they focus on. Very strange indeed.
All the more reason to tag Wikipedia articles as kidsafe/worksafe.
Steve
Unfortunately, that's easier said than done -- "child-safe" and "worksafe" are concepts that are impossible to define in a way that everyone can agree on. What one parent or community regards as acceptable may be unacceptable in another; what a parent wants their ten-year-old child to be able to see will probably differ from what they want their sixteen-year-old child to be able to see, and so on.
For some examples of edge cases: consider pictures of men wearing shorts, which are regularly banned by the censors in some of the more conservative Middle-Eastern states: do we mark all articles showing images of uncovered arms or legs as "unsafe"? How about pictures of women with uncovered hair? Do we mark the [[Holocaust]] article, which is extremely upsetting, as "unsafe" for children to read? How about [[death]], which is upsetting for very small children? What about pictures of [[Bahá'u'lláh]], which observant Bahá'ís prefer not to see in public, or even in their own homes?
I recommend reading RFC 3675 for a full and detailed discussion of all the issues involved: its authors conclude that broad-brush attempts at content filtering as "ill considered [...] from the legal, philosophical, and particularly, the technical points of view."
Rather than attempting to define "safe" and "unsafe" categories, we should instead concentrate on assigning all Wikipedia articles to meaningful fine-grained descriptive categories, without any implied judgment that a category is "safe" or "unsafe" for any given viewer. Downstream users who want to filter Wikipedia's content can then use this information to make their own choices.
-- Neil
On 3/27/06, Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Unfortunately, that's easier said than done -- "child-safe" and "worksafe" are concepts that are impossible to define in a way that everyone can agree on. What one parent or community regards as acceptable may be unacceptable in another; what a parent wants their ten-year-old child to be able to see will probably differ from what they want their sixteen-year-old child to be able to see, and so on.
I agree completely that defining such concepts in a global way is not possible. However, concepts such as "covered nipples", "men in shorts" or "photographs of genitalia" are objective. Individuals with appropriate software can then filter as they see fit.
For some examples of edge cases: consider pictures of men wearing shorts, which are regularly banned by the censors in some of the more conservative Middle-Eastern states: do we mark all articles showing images of uncovered arms or legs as "unsafe"? How about pictures of
No, we mark them "men with uncovered arms or legs".
women with uncovered hair? Do we mark the [[Holocaust]] article, which is extremely upsetting, as "unsafe" for children to read? How about
Ditto.
[[death]], which is upsetting for very small children? What about pictures of [[Bahá'u'lláh]], which observant Bahá'ís prefer not to see in public, or even in their own homes?
Currently, we have no "offensiveness" markup whatsoever. If and when we implement such a system, someone can create a tag called "pictures of Bahaullah", which can be used and filtered against as appropriate.
I recommend reading RFC 3675 for a full and detailed discussion of all the issues involved: its authors conclude that broad-brush attempts at content filtering as "ill considered [...] from the legal, philosophical, and particularly, the technical points of view."
I agree. Which is why I'm not proposing broad-brush content filtering, but instead fine-brush content *tagging*.
Rather than attempting to define "safe" and "unsafe" categories, we should instead concentrate on assigning all Wikipedia articles to meaningful fine-grained descriptive categories, without any implied judgment that a category is "safe" or "unsafe" for any given viewer. Downstream users who want to filter Wikipedia's content can then use this information to make their own choices.
Ok, I now see that you were actually replying to my original message where I glibly used the terms "kidsafe" and "worksafe". My bad.
Steve
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
On 3/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I find it very curious that of all the things they can attack wikipedia for, the fact that wikipedia is not censored is the one they focus on. Very strange indeed.
All the more reason to tag Wikipedia articles as kidsafe/worksafe.
You are welcome to develop your own external labelling service. Placeopedia acts as a linkage between Wikipedia and Google: why not set up something of your own for content labelling? Useful information can be found here: http://www.w3.org/PICS/#Developers
Hosting this stuff within the Foundations purview would IMNHSO be foolish. Actually incorporating it into Mediawiki would be suicidal. Imagine the edit wars which could be provoked.
HTH HAND
On 3/27/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
You are welcome to develop your own external labelling service. Placeopedia acts as a linkage between Wikipedia and Google: why not set up something of your own for content labelling? Useful information can be found here: http://www.w3.org/PICS/#Developers
Scalability would be the problem. We have a million articles, but a large editor pool too. To tag pages, we would need to harness that editor pool.
Hosting this stuff within the Foundations purview would IMNHSO be foolish.
Oh? Why?
Actually incorporating it into Mediawiki would be suicidal. Imagine the edit wars which could be provoked.
Yeah? We have edit wars about silly stuff now. You really think labelling a page "contains images of naked bodies" is so contentious?
Steve
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
On 3/27/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Actually incorporating it into Mediawiki would be suicidal. Imagine the edit wars which could be provoked.
Yeah? We have edit wars about silly stuff now. You really think labelling a page "contains images of naked bodies" is so contentious?
You are obviously in the happy state of having forgotten the "War of Kate's Nipple" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_%281997_film%29
Oh yes, contentious, dear me...
On Mar 27, 2006, at 6:47 AM, Phil Boswell wrote:
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
On 3/27/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Actually incorporating it into Mediawiki would be suicidal. Imagine the edit wars which could be provoked.
Yeah? We have edit wars about silly stuff now. You really think labelling a page "contains images of naked bodies" is so contentious?
You are obviously in the happy state of having forgotten the "War of Kate's Nipple" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_%281997_film%29
Oh yes, contentious, dear me...
As far as I can tell, that was a dispute over whether to include certain content, not a dispute over whether, in fact, that content was of a certain nature.
On 3/27/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
You are welcome to develop your own external labelling service. Placeopedia acts as a linkage between Wikipedia and Google: why not set up something of your own for content labelling? Useful information can be found here: http://www.w3.org/PICS/#Developers
Scalability would be the problem. We have a million articles, but a large editor pool too. To tag pages, we would need to harness that editor pool.
Hosting this stuff within the Foundations purview would IMNHSO be foolish.
Oh? Why?
Actually incorporating it into Mediawiki would be suicidal. Imagine the edit wars which could be provoked.
Yeah? We have edit wars about silly stuff now. You really think labelling a page "contains images of naked bodies" is so contentious?
Steve
Yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo%27s_David
Does this one contain naked buttocks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donatello_david_plaster_replica_right_100...
Or what tags would you use on this image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C31893-101.jpg
-- geni
On 3/27/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo%27s_David
Does this one contain naked buttocks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donatello_david_plaster_replica_right_100...
What would most internet filtering software packages say?
Or what tags would you use on this image:
That depends on what tags existed.
-- Sam
On 3/27/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo%27s_David
Does this one contain naked buttocks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donatello_david_plaster_replica_right_100...
What would most internet filtering software packages say?
No idea. Who cares? If we want to do this we would want to do a reasonable job.
Or what tags would you use on this image:
That depends on what tags existed.
What tags should exist? -- geni
On 3/27/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo%27s_David
Does this one contain naked buttocks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donatello_david_plaster_replica_right_100...
What would most internet filtering software packages say?
No idea. Who cares? If we want to do this we would want to do a reasonable job.
Well, if the idea of tagging is to work with internet filtering packages, as I presume it is, finding out what works best with them would not be a bad idea in the slightest.
Or what tags would you use on this image:
That depends on what tags existed.
What tags should exist?
See above. ;-)
-- Sam
On 3/27/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo%27s_David
Does this one contain naked buttocks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donatello_david_plaster_replica_right_100...
What would most internet filtering software packages say?
No idea. Who cares? If we want to do this we would want to do a reasonable job.
Well, if the idea of tagging is to work with internet filtering packages, as I presume it is, finding out what works best with them would not be a bad idea in the slightest.
The last time I looked into this, what works best with internet filtering packages is broad-brush yes-or-no labeling designed to keep kids away from pornography and other subjects that could lead to awkward questions. In short, we could reasonably use it to keep kids away from Wikipedia entirely, or for the better software, [[List of sex positions]], but it can't provide the fine control to selectively block one or the other of (note: neither image particularly work-safe) [[Image:Human-woman.png]] and [[Image:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg]].
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
There is an 'artistic' tag - so the Michelangelo's David image would be tagged as 'images of naked buttocks' and 'this material appears in an artistic context'
Cynical
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 3/27/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo%27s_David
Does this one contain naked buttocks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donatello_david_plaster_replica_right_100...
What would most internet filtering software packages say?
No idea. Who cares? If we want to do this we would want to do a reasonable job.
Well, if the idea of tagging is to work with internet filtering packages, as I presume it is, finding out what works best with them would not be a bad idea in the slightest.
The last time I looked into this, what works best with internet filtering packages is broad-brush yes-or-no labeling designed to keep kids away from pornography and other subjects that could lead to awkward questions. In short, we could reasonably use it to keep kids away from Wikipedia entirely, or for the better software, [[List of sex positions]], but it can't provide the fine control to selectively block one or the other of (note: neither image particularly work-safe) [[Image:Human-woman.png]] and [[Image:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg]].
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Alexander Russell stated for the record:
There is an 'artistic' tag - so the Michelangelo's David image would be tagged as 'images of naked buttocks' and 'this material appears in an artistic context'
Cynical
"Artistic" according to whose Point Of View? Some people think a crucifix soaking in urine is "artistic."
- -- Sean Barrett | The other side to the Wikipedia that nobody really sean@epoptic.org | likes to talk about... is that a large portion of | the content is fairly pornographic, and actually | quite lewd. --Encyclopedia Britannica spokesman
Probably should be along the lines of the ICRA's label generator - I think the 'tags' that can be included in a PICS label are actually defined in the format specification so I don't think we could do it any differently from the ICRA
Cynical
geni wrote:
On 3/27/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo%27s_David
Does this one contain naked buttocks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donatello_david_plaster_replica_right_100...
What would most internet filtering software packages say?
No idea. Who cares? If we want to do this we would want to do a reasonable job.
Or what tags would you use on this image:
That depends on what tags existed.
What tags should exist?
geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/27/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Label it the same way as everyone else.
Does this one contain naked buttocks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donatello_david_plaster_replica_right_100...
I'm at work, so won't check.
Or what tags would you use on this image:
If there is a need for labelling such images "bare woman's arms", then we'll use the appropriate tag. Or do you mean, John Travolta is offensive?
Steve
On 3/27/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Label it the same way as everyone else.
Which is?
Does this one contain naked buttocks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donatello_david_plaster_replica_right_100...
I'm at work, so won't check.
Oh it's probably safe for work unless you are working in some islamic countries in which case there is the theoretical posibilty it may break some of their anti israel laws even then doubtful.
Or what tags would you use on this image:
If there is a need for labelling such images "bare woman's arms", then we'll use the appropriate tag. Or do you mean, John Travolta is offensive?
Steve
Remeber the "bare arms and Qur'an" fight?
-- geni
On 3/27/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Remeber the "bare arms and Qur'an" fight?
If there was a "bare arms" tag, then yes, I suppose that would fall under the category.
But the discussion you are talking about was not on account of the bare arms per se, but rather their juxtaposition.
-- Sam
On Mar 27, 2006, at 8:38 AM, Sam Korn wrote:
On 3/27/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Remeber the "bare arms and Qur'an" fight?
If there was a "bare arms" tag, then yes, I suppose that would fall under the category.
But the discussion you are talking about was not on account of the bare arms per se, but rather their juxtaposition.
I think Wikipedia should uphold the right to bare arms.
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:45:06 +0200, you wrote:
If there is a need for labelling such images "bare woman's arms", then we'll use the appropriate tag. Or do you mean, John Travolta is offensive?
"Warning: may contain 1980s hairstyles" Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:45:06 +0200, you wrote:
If there is a need for labelling such images "bare woman's arms", then we'll use the appropriate tag. Or do you mean, John Travolta is offensive?
"Warning: may contain 1980s hairstyles"
*goes to tag [[Category:1980s music groups]]*
I don't see how it would cause edit wars - IMHO it is fairly difficult (impossible even) to disagree about the content of a PICS label, since it contains objective statements of fact. For example, I appreciate it may be possible to have an edit war about whether some particular statement is NPOV, how do you have an edit war as to whether an article contains an image of bare buttocks? (sure, you could edit war about whether the image SHOULD be there, but you couldn't edit war about whether it IS there or not , which is what a PICS label is about
Cynical
Phil Boswell wrote:
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
You are welcome to develop your own external labelling service. Placeopedia acts as a linkage between Wikipedia and Google: why not set up something of your own for content labelling? Useful information can be found here: http://www.w3.org/PICS/#Developers
Hosting this stuff within the Foundations purview would IMNHSO be foolish. Actually incorporating it into Mediawiki would be suicidal. Imagine the edit wars which could be provoked.
HTH HAND
"large portion" is in the eye of the beholder. For some people, this statement is true. And this is, in fact, one of the key differences between Wikipedia and more traditional publications.
SJ
On 3/26/06, Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de wrote:
"a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica representative (unidentified)
http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/03/25/podcast47-in-defense-of-encyclop... _______________________________________________ WikiDE-l mailing list WikiDE-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikide-l
-- ++SJ
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mathias Schindler stated for the record:
"a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica representative (unidentified)
http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/03/25/podcast47-in-defense-of-encyclop...
You say that like it's a bad thing....
- -- Sean Barrett | Knowledge is power, and power sean@epoptic.org | corrupts. So study hard and be evil.
Sean Barrett wrote:
"a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica representative (unidentified)
http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/03/25/podcast47-in-defense-of-encyclop...
You say that like it's a bad thing....
Hmm, my next press release will contain the following sentence:
"The reason why Encyclopaedia Britannica is failing in the Internet is because a large portion of it is not pornographic."
Mathias
Nothing to do with the fact that Britannica Online has about 100,000 articles and the English Wikipedia (Britannica's direct competitor) has over a million?
Cynical
Mathias Schindler wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
"a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica representative (unidentified)
http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/03/25/podcast47-in-defense-of-encyclop...
You say that like it's a bad thing....
Hmm, my next press release will contain the following sentence:
"The reason why Encyclopaedia Britannica is failing in the Internet is because a large portion of it is not pornographic."
Mathias _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Alexander Russell wrote:
Nothing to do with the fact that Britannica Online has about 100,000 articles and the English Wikipedia (Britannica's direct competitor) has over a million?
Out of all figures, the raw number of "articles" (including those pages which are in namespace=0 and lack any attribute of an article, such as lists) is the worst and most ignorable number. EB.com's 100K are shrinking to some 20.000 "articles" when you look at what's online without subscription.
Out of this 20K, there are stubs, substubs and subsubstubs.
Some of the more veteran internet users might be able to remember the Britannica Online desaster when their business plan collided with reality.
If any, an Wikipedia that accepts fancruft and unverifiable information about the unreleased demo tape of a gothic band that stopped to exist before releasing any other medium as a single article should not start to see large numbers of articles as a sign of quality.
Mathias
I realise that raw numbers are of little use in and of themselves, but it is a sign of how extensive Wikipedia's coverage is compared to Britannica's. Think of anything you like. If it's worthy of being in an encyclopedia, chances are Wikipedia has an article on it, and the chances are that Britannica doesn't. People will use Wikipedia more because they know that there's a fair chance Wikipedia will be able to tell them what they want to know - and the article numbers are an indication of that breadth, not necessarily important in their own right
Cynical
Mathias Schindler wrote:
David Alexander Russell wrote:
Nothing to do with the fact that Britannica Online has about 100,000 articles and the English Wikipedia (Britannica's direct competitor) has over a million?
Out of all figures, the raw number of "articles" (including those pages which are in namespace=0 and lack any attribute of an article, such as lists) is the worst and most ignorable number. EB.com's 100K are shrinking to some 20.000 "articles" when you look at what's online without subscription.
Out of this 20K, there are stubs, substubs and subsubstubs.
Some of the more veteran internet users might be able to remember the Britannica Online desaster when their business plan collided with reality.
If any, an Wikipedia that accepts fancruft and unverifiable information about the unreleased demo tape of a gothic band that stopped to exist before releasing any other medium as a single article should not start to see large numbers of articles as a sign of quality.
Mathias _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day David,
Nothing to do with the fact that Britannica Online has about 100,000 articles and the English Wikipedia (Britannica's direct competitor) has over a million?
Wikipedia is Britannica's direct competitor? Where does that leave /World Book/ and /Encarta/? And why can't I think of more than four encyclopaedias at the moment? Gah.
We're not *exactly* competing with Britannica. We're providing a free, detailed, comprehensive encyclopaedia ... where "encyclopaedia" is a very broad description, and can include anything on any topic with pretensions to the name (George Lucas gets his /Star Wars/ ideas from us!). We're *more* than Britannica. Much, much more.
At the same time, we're much, much less. Wikipedia's greatest strength --- our openness --- is also a weakness. The damage left by edit wars, our tolerance of insane amounts of cruft, even the constant vandalism isn't that big a deal --- but inaccuracy *is*. And Wikipedia is very vulnerable to inaccuracy. Where we're inaccurate about real people, like John "have I spelled his name right yet" Siegenthaler, we can cause actual pain in real life. That's an issue we're trying to deal with, with WP:NOR to cut down on kookery, WP:V to cut down on outright lies, and WP:OFFICE to mop up anything we've missed ... but it's going to take time.
We aren't out there to create a new Britannica. We're creating something different. We should look to Britannica, and its competitors, as something to emulate. We should *aspire* to be as good as them. But, in the end, we're *not*. There's always a niche market for creatures like Britannica --- for people who are worried about accuracy (but not money) and are not prepared to put in the effort required to find out if a Wikipedia article is true or not, for example.
Of course, unintentionally, we're hurting Britannica. And we're hurting the other encyclopaedias out there as well. We're bringing an encyclopaedia into the homes of people who couldn't afford the fees charged by the others. Decent and free will always trump excellent and bloody expensive. It's only natural that Britannica, whose management presumably know one or two things about business, will see this and get scared. They don't want to peddle to a niche subset of the 'paedia audience, and they don't want to risk going under if it doesn't work.
And frankly, that's not just Britannica's problem --- it's ours as well. "Decent and free" is fine when there are better encyclopaedias out there. If we're the best the world can offer, then we *have* to be great, not good, not decent, but *great*. We'd owe it to the world, after taking away their best encyclopaedias, to provide a valid alternative.
Cheers,
On 3/27/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day David,
Nothing to do with the fact that Britannica Online has about 100,000 articles and the English Wikipedia (Britannica's direct competitor) has over a million?
Wikipedia is Britannica's direct competitor? Where does that leave /World Book/ and /Encarta/? And why can't I think of more than four encyclopaedias at the moment? Gah.
Because Encarta drove most of the others into bancrupcy? -- geni
G'day Geni,
On 3/27/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day David,
Nothing to do with the fact that Britannica Online has about 100,000 articles and the English Wikipedia (Britannica's direct competitor) has over a million?
Wikipedia is Britannica's direct competitor? Where does that leave /World Book/ and /Encarta/? And why can't I think of more than four encyclopaedias at the moment? Gah.
Because Encarta drove most of the others into bancrupcy?
They did? I wonder what their pornography-to-article ratio is.
geni wrote:
On 3/27/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day David,
Nothing to do with the fact that Britannica Online has about 100,000 articles and the English Wikipedia (Britannica's direct competitor) has over a million?
Wikipedia is Britannica's direct competitor? Where does that leave /World Book/ and /Encarta/? And why can't I think of more than four encyclopaedias at the moment? Gah.
Because Encarta drove most of the others into bancrupcy?
While I can't be sure that Encarta was specifically responsible for this, in principal that's what happened. For Britannica, Encarta was the first shoe to drop, and Wikipedia was the second. Among other general encyclopedias there were Collier's, Funk and Wagnalls, Encylopedia Americana and I could find many others if I chose to research it. We are now at the point where we treat subjects in such depth that even the topically specialized encyclopedias can feel threatened.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
While I can't be sure that Encarta was specifically responsible for this, in principal that's what happened. For Britannica, Encarta was the first shoe to drop, and Wikipedia was the second. Among other general encyclopedias there were Collier's, Funk and Wagnalls
... Encarta *is* Funk and Wagnalls. MS bought the content and refurbished it a little bit. Their consideration was that F&W's image and band name was not that important, so "Encarta" was created as a MS brand name.
Except for the Dutch Encarta, all other versions stem from this.
Mathias Schindler wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
While I can't be sure that Encarta was specifically responsible for this, in principal that's what happened. For Britannica, Encarta was the first shoe to drop, and Wikipedia was the second. Among other general encyclopedias there were Collier's, Funk and Wagnalls
... Encarta *is* Funk and Wagnalls. MS bought the content and refurbished it a little bit. Their consideration was that F&W's image and band name was not that important, so "Encarta" was created as a MS brand name.
Except for the Dutch Encarta, all other versions stem from this.
As we learn from [[Encarta]], it also subsumes Collier's material. :-)
Always nice to be able to eat in one's own restaurant without getting ptomaine poisoning...
Stan
Sorry, I meant Britannica ONLINE. should have made that clearer. My point is that Wikipedia, as a freely-accessible online encyclopedia, is a direct competitor to Britannica Online, a subscription-based online encyclopedia: this is in the same way that (for example) Wordpress.com is a direct competitor to Typepad.
Cynical
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day David,
Nothing to do with the fact that Britannica Online has about 100,000 articles and the English Wikipedia (Britannica's direct competitor) has over a million?
Wikipedia is Britannica's direct competitor? Where does that leave /World Book/ and /Encarta/? And why can't I think of more than four encyclopaedias at the moment? Gah.
We're not *exactly* competing with Britannica. We're providing a free, detailed, comprehensive encyclopaedia ... where "encyclopaedia" is a very broad description, and can include anything on any topic with pretensions to the name (George Lucas gets his /Star Wars/ ideas from us!). We're *more* than Britannica. Much, much more.
At the same time, we're much, much less. Wikipedia's greatest strength --- our openness --- is also a weakness. The damage left by edit wars, our tolerance of insane amounts of cruft, even the constant vandalism isn't that big a deal --- but inaccuracy *is*. And Wikipedia is very vulnerable to inaccuracy. Where we're inaccurate about real people, like John "have I spelled his name right yet" Siegenthaler, we can cause actual pain in real life. That's an issue we're trying to deal with, with WP:NOR to cut down on kookery, WP:V to cut down on outright lies, and WP:OFFICE to mop up anything we've missed ... but it's going to take time.
We aren't out there to create a new Britannica. We're creating something different. We should look to Britannica, and its competitors, as something to emulate. We should *aspire* to be as good as them. But, in the end, we're *not*. There's always a niche market for creatures like Britannica --- for people who are worried about accuracy (but not money) and are not prepared to put in the effort required to find out if a Wikipedia article is true or not, for example.
Of course, unintentionally, we're hurting Britannica. And we're hurting the other encyclopaedias out there as well. We're bringing an encyclopaedia into the homes of people who couldn't afford the fees charged by the others. Decent and free will always trump excellent and bloody expensive. It's only natural that Britannica, whose management presumably know one or two things about business, will see this and get scared. They don't want to peddle to a niche subset of the 'paedia audience, and they don't want to risk going under if it doesn't work.
And frankly, that's not just Britannica's problem --- it's ours as well. "Decent and free" is fine when there are better encyclopaedias out there. If we're the best the world can offer, then we *have* to be great, not good, not decent, but *great*. We'd owe it to the world, after taking away their best encyclopaedias, to provide a valid alternative.
Cheers,
charles matthews wrote:
"Mark Gallagher" wrote
We're not *exactly* competing with Britannica.
Indeed. If you looked at Alexa, you'd say our main rival was blogger.com.
Wrong metrics will lead to wrong conclusions.
Texaco-manager 1: Our competitor is BP.
Texaco-manager 2: We are not *exactly* competing with BP.
Texaco-manager 3: Look at finance.google.com, our main rival is Oracle as their revenue almost matches ours.
And yes, all CNN, Warner Brothers, NASCAR, Playboy, Wikipedia and Nintendo are competing in terms of spare time of its users.
"Mathias Schindler" wrote
charles matthews wrote:
"Mark Gallagher" wrote
We're not *exactly* competing with Britannica.
Indeed. If you looked at Alexa, you'd say our main rival was blogger.com.
Wrong metrics will lead to wrong conclusions.
I don't think my comment was inane. People have a choice between writing about themselves, their opinions, pets and so on; or of contributing factual material to Wikipedia. There is an overlap, which may only increase.
Charles
Mark Gallagher wrote:
We aren't out there to create a new Britannica. We're creating something different. We should look to Britannica, and its competitors, as something to emulate. We should *aspire* to be as good as them. But, in the end, we're *not*. There's always a niche market for creatures like Britannica --- for people who are worried about accuracy (but not money) and are not prepared to put in the effort required to find out if a Wikipedia article is true or not, for example.
Of course, unintentionally, we're hurting Britannica. And we're hurting the other encyclopaedias out there as well. We're bringing an encyclopaedia into the homes of people who couldn't afford the fees charged by the others. Decent and free will always trump excellent and bloody expensive. It's only natural that Britannica, whose management presumably know one or two things about business, will see this and get scared. They don't want to peddle to a niche subset of the 'paedia audience, and they don't want to risk going under if it doesn't work.
And frankly, that's not just Britannica's problem --- it's ours as well. "Decent and free" is fine when there are better encyclopaedias out there. If we're the best the world can offer, then we *have* to be great, not good, not decent, but *great*. We'd owe it to the world, after taking away their best encyclopaedias, to provide a valid alternative.
Cheers,
That's why we should now, after hitting the psychologically important 1,000,000 article mark in the en: encyclopedia, be focusing on quality improvement, not growth.
-- Neil * *
On 3/27/06, Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
That's why we should now, after hitting the psychologically important 1,000,000 article mark in the en: encyclopedia, be focusing on quality improvement, not growth.
*'''Support'''
Steve
On 27 Mar 2006, at 13:18, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/27/06, Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
That's why we should now, after hitting the psychologically important 1,000,000 article mark in the en: encyclopedia, be focusing on quality improvement, not growth.
*'''Support'''
You obviously hang around in different subject areas than I do. We are missing tens of thousands of articles completely, not even stubs. Our coverage of architecture is scanty to say the least, just as one example.
Not to say we shouldnt be improving things.
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 27 Mar 2006, at 13:18, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/27/06, Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
That's why we should now, after hitting the psychologically important 1,000,000 article mark in the en: encyclopedia, be focusing on quality improvement, not growth.
*'''Support'''
You obviously hang around in different subject areas than I do. We are missing tens of thousands of articles completely, not even stubs. Our coverage of architecture is scanty to say the least, just as one example.
Not to say we shouldnt be improving things.
Justinc
I don't believe that a drive for quality is incompatible with the complementary goal of comprehensively covering all known specialist topics. It's more a matter of focus, since our topic coverage is now undeniably better than any general encyclopedia (and continuing to get better rapidly), but our article quality is currently much more patchy.
-- Neil
"Neil Harris" wrote
I don't believe that a drive for quality is incompatible with the complementary goal of comprehensively covering all known specialist topics.
I don't, either. But I would make a small bet that discussion of this topic will veer into issues of article creation, in most circumstances.
Charles
On 3/27/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
You obviously hang around in different subject areas than I do. We are missing tens of thousands of articles completely, not even stubs. Our coverage of architecture is scanty to say the least, just as one example.
Very much agreed. To pick an example in my own chosen field, look at the sea of red links in [[List of interurbans]]. There are many such undercovered subjects. Fashion is another, as picked up when the Guardian did their survey.
-Matt
"Neil Harris" wrote
That's why we should now, after hitting the psychologically important 1,000,000 article mark in the en: encyclopedia, be focusing on quality improvement, not growth.
How about a voluntary tariff: 10 edits improving quality for each email to this list. And so on: we should charge higher for adding an article about no-hoper bands, basketball coaches not known further than the next town, etc.
Charles
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day David,
Nothing to do with the fact that Britannica Online has about 100,000 articles and the English Wikipedia (Britannica's direct competitor) has over a million?
Wikipedia is Britannica's direct competitor? Where does that leave /World Book/ and /Encarta/? And why can't I think of more than four encyclopaedias at the moment? Gah.
I suspect that EB will be the last dinosaur. It is no longer economical to produce such beasts. Anything new in the future is likely to be limited to one or two volume desktop works that highlight convenient quick look-ups without the need to go on line. Plugging "encyclopedia" into an amazon.com search just gave me 100,874 hits with a young readers' novel about "Encyclopedia Brown" at the top of the list, followed by specialized works about dinosaurs (a pop-up book), folk remedies, counselling, ordinary life, natural medicine, history, DC Comics and mortgages. I thumbed through the first 100 entries, and only the World Book showed up in 68th place, there were a couple of children's encyclopedias, and a large assortment of books covering an amazing range of specialized topics. The attractiveness of these may be that they can summarize the essentials of a subject in a single volume. They have nothing to worry about from us until we can start producing printed single volumes.
We're not *exactly* competing with Britannica. We're providing a free, detailed, comprehensive encyclopaedia ... where "encyclopaedia" is a very broad description, and can include anything on any topic with pretensions to the name (George Lucas gets his /Star Wars/ ideas from us!). We're *more* than Britannica. Much, much more.
Absolutely.
At the same time, we're much, much less. Wikipedia's greatest strength --- our openness --- is also a weakness. The damage left by edit wars, our tolerance of insane amounts of cruft, even the constant vandalism isn't that big a deal --- but inaccuracy *is*. And Wikipedia is very vulnerable to inaccuracy. Where we're inaccurate about real people, like John "have I spelled his name right yet" Siegenthaler,
No; it's "Sei..." The old rule of "'i' before 'e' ..." dies hard.
we can cause actual pain in real life. That's an issue we're trying to deal with, with WP:NOR to cut down on kookery, WP:V to cut down on outright lies, and WP:OFFICE to mop up anything we've missed ... but it's going to take time.
The risk with rules that are too tightly observed is that we could easily lose our competitive and innovative edge. Striving for accuracy is very important, but we need to be mindful of what it means when that tossed coin lands tails up.
We aren't out there to create a new Britannica. We're creating something different. We should look to Britannica, and its competitors, as something to emulate. We should *aspire* to be as good as them. But, in the end, we're *not*. There's always a niche market for creatures like Britannica --- for people who are worried about accuracy (but not money) and are not prepared to put in the effort required to find out if a Wikipedia article is true or not, for example.
Indeed, with all the implicit irony!
Of course, unintentionally, we're hurting Britannica. And we're hurting the other encyclopaedias out there as well. We're bringing an encyclopaedia into the homes of people who couldn't afford the fees charged by the others. Decent and free will always trump excellent and bloody expensive. It's only natural that Britannica, whose management presumably know one or two things about business, will see this and get scared. They don't want to peddle to a niche subset of the 'paedia audience, and they don't want to risk going under if it doesn't work.
There is a point when knowing a thing or two about business is not enough. They have already had to deviate significantly from the encyclopedia model of the pre-electronic age, and that does not appear to have been enough.
And frankly, that's not just Britannica's problem --- it's ours as well. "Decent and free" is fine when there are better encyclopaedias out there. If we're the best the world can offer, then we *have* to be great, not good, not decent, but *great*. We'd owe it to the world, after taking away their best encyclopaedias, to provide a valid alternative.
Whenever I read yet another trivial debate about whether we should have pictures of bare breasts or the like it makes me wonder whether we are up to the task. It is very much our problem. Catching up to Britannica was a problem that could be easily put into concrete terms. Britannica was Number One, and a clear target. There is a huge ethical and moral dimension to being number one, and I'm not sure if enough of us have grasped that.
Ec
On 3/28/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
They have nothing to worry about from us until we can start producing printed single volumes.
That would be the general idea of the Wikijunior project. We are still looking for an expert in dead tree technology for the final phase.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 3/28/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
They have nothing to worry about from us until we can start producing printed single volumes.
That would be the general idea of the Wikijunior project. We are still looking for an expert in dead tree technology for the final phase.
*points at de:*
On 3/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 3/28/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
They have nothing to worry about from us until we can start producing printed single volumes.
That would be the general idea of the Wikijunior project. We are still looking for an expert in dead tree technology for the final phase.
*points at de:*
I though they had halted the dead tree project for now?
-- geni
It's such a great quote, I thought I would transcribe it properly so we can use it everywhere :)
"The other side to the Wikipedia [sic] that nobody really likes to talk about is that..it's a touchy issue but, is that a large portion of the content is fairly pornographic, and actually quite lewd."
Steve
On 3/26/06, Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de wrote:
"a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica representative (unidentified)
http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/03/25/podcast47-in-defense-of-encyclop... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l