1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy's actions over the past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving. That's mostly happened here and on meta.

My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the "scope of Jimmy's authority" question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about what's happened over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less angry.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Censorship#Some_reflexions_following_th…

I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France wherever. I think the world has moved on a bit from the one country, one religion / set of values / morals.

I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France wherever. I think the world has moved on a bit from the one country, one religion / set of values / morals.

2010/5/10 Marcus Buck <me(a)marcusbuck.org>rg>: The alternative is to not censor, in any circumstance, to any kind of audience whatsoever. I must confess I find this particular alternative brilliant. It is imperfect, as any other form of freedom of thought and expression. But other options are more imperfect, not less, in my opinion. I think some projects (like the English Wikipedia) already reached consensus on this issue.

Create a tool (e.g. a JavaScript gadget) that allows a logged-in user to block images from Commons or local categories they don't want to see images from. Then it's each individual's discretion as to what they want not to see, and uses the existing category systems. Popular unpopular categories can be offered as a package.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/05/2010 07:56, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote: I don't understand exactly your thoughts. What happens to someone who wants to navigate Wikipedia or use Commons but doesn't want to reach offending (according to his/her personal sensibility) pages? If this person wants a protecting tool, what is your answer? You give me the impression that you're saying: ignore him, let's let him be offended. In this case even if you're think you're right theoretically, you're alienating part of humanity from the big project that is reaching them all. Creating negligently a strong feeling of rejection with a few month of obliviousness to their culture can take dozen of years to repair. I don't think the topic should be solved so lighly and bluntly. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Milos Rancic wrote: I'm sure you mean "sacred" instead of "sacral" :-) .

We want to facilitate private decisions, not make them for people.

Censoring by default puts us back in the same old conflict of having to decide what to censor.  Given a random 100 penis pictures we perhaps need to ask questions like what distinguishes penis picture #27 from penis picture #82.  The same could be asked about numerous photographs of national penises like the Washington Monument or Eiffel Tower.

Voting is evil, particularly when it entrenches the tyranny of the majority.

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: I've just went to Wikipedia [1] (accidentally, instead of Wiktionary) to see the difference between "sacral" and "sacred" and I've seen that those words are synonyms. Anyhow, it is good to know that "sacral" is at leas ambiguous. ("Sacral" is a borrowed word in Serbian, too; and Latin words make life easier to one native speaker of Serbian when he speaks English [and some other languages] :) )

... People should be able to choose categories and to vote about them.

That part of proposal is not about denying to anyone to see something, but to put defaults on what not logged in users could see. There should be a [very] visible link, like on Google images search, which would easily overwrite the default rules. Personal permission would overwrite them, too. (If I was not clear up to now, "cultural censorship" won't forbid to anyone to see anything. It would be just *default*, which could be easily overwritten.)

The point is that "cultural censorship" should reflect dominant position of one culture. My position is that we shouldn't define that one of our goals is to enlighten anyone. We should build knowledge repository and everyone should be free to use it. However, if some culture is oppressive and not permissive, it is not up to us to *actively* work on making that culture not oppressive and permissive. The other issue is that I strongly believe that free and permissive cultures are superior in comparison with other ones.

So, basically, if residents of Texas decide to censor all images of Bay Area, including the Golden Gate Bridge, because they worry that Bay Area values are transmissible via Internet (as they are), I don't have anything against it. If more than 50% of Wikipedia users from Texas think so, let it be. Other inhabitants of Texas would need just to simply click on "I don't want to be censored" if they are not logged in, or they could adjust their settings as they like if they are logged in.

But, I would be, of course, completely fine if we implement censorship just on [voluntary] personal basis and thus just for logged in users. (As well as we don't implement censorship at all.)

Even more than what  Ray says:

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 4:53 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Ditto. Another principle to state related to this (that I've been trying to think about how to expand upon): no resource that is compatibly-licensed is our adversary, and we should encourage that sort of "competition".

From: David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Wednesday, 12 May, 2010, 21:50 Even more than what  Ray says: if we do not offer comprehensive free uncensored but reliable information, who will?  Other sites may feel they have to censor; other  uncensored sites may and mostly do have little standards of reliability. Some uncensored reliable sites are likely to require some form of payment, either directly or through advertising or government support.   If there is a audience for compromised sources of information, there are many organizations eager to provide it. Other free uncensored reliable projects can be very important in their sphere, but we have an almost universal range. We're at present unique, which we owe  to the historical fact  of having been able to attract a large community, committed to free access in every sense, operating in a manner which requires no financial support beyond what can be obtained from voluntary contributions, and tied to no groups with pre-existing agendas--except the general agenda of free information.   That we alone have been able to get there is initially the courage and vision of the founders, their correct guess that the conventional wisdom that this would be unworkable was erroneous, the general world-wide attractiveness of the notion of free information, and, at this point , the Matthew effect, that we are of such size and importance that working here is likely to be more attractive and more effective than working elsewhere--and thus our continuing ability to attract very large numbers of volunteer workers of many cultural backgrounds. We have everything to lose by compromising any of the principles. To the extent we ever become commercial, or censored , or unreliable, we will be submerged in the mass of better funded information providers. On the contrary, they have an interest in supporting what we do, because we provide  what they cannot and give the basis for specialized endeavors. If there is a wish for a similar but censored service, this can be best done  by forking ours; if there is a wish to abandon NPOV or permit commercialism, by expanding on our basis. We do not discourage these things; our licensing is in fact tailored to permitting them--but we should stay distinct from them. We have provided a general purpose feed and suitable metadata, and what the rest of the world does is up to them--our goal is not to monopolize the provision of information. We need not provide specialized hooks--just continue our goal for improved quality and organization of the content and the metadata. That China has chosen to take parts of our model and develop independently in line with its government's policy, rather than forking us,  is possible because of the size of the government effort and, like us, the very large potential number of interested and willing highly literate and well-educated participants. All we can do in response is continue our own model, and hope that at some point their social values will change to see the virtues of it. If some other countries do similarly, we will at least have contributed the idea of a workable very large scale intent encyclopedia with user input. All information is good, though free information is better. If those in the Anglo-american sphere wish to censor, they know at least they have a potent uncensored competitor that it practice will also be available, which cannot but induce therm to a more liberal policy than if we did not have our standards. I wish very much Citizendium had succeeded--the existence of intellectual coopetition is a good thing. Even as it is, I think they have been a strong force in causing us to improve our formerly inadequate standards of reliability--as well as demonstrating by their failure the need for a very large committed group to emulate what we have accomplished, and also demonstrating the unworkability of excessively rigid organization and an exclusively expert-bound approach to content. I'm glad Larry did what he did in founding it--had it achieved more ,so would we have also. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: important. nature of Wikimedia, this related to sexual content, "offensive imagery" if we want :-) . instead of Wiktionary) "sacred" and I've seen that know that "sacral" is Serbian, too; and of Serbian when he as "sacred" tends to applicable to, anthropology and religion. too well, and in the I only too easily of individuals. :-D old conflict of having to penis pictures we perhaps penis picture #27 from about numerous photographs Monument or Eiffel Tower. entrenches the tyranny of the majority. vote about them. categories would itself where one lives could not be easily direction on the anyone to see something, could see. There images search, which permission would now, "cultural anything. It would be just that choice needs to see dirty actively look for reflect dominant shouldn't define that build knowledge However, if some not up to us to oppressive and permissive. free and permissive ones. and in the extreme great inquisition ourselves to strictly choice of which century likely thought Battle of Kosovo is group might not centuries ago and our tasks.  We make a fuss when projects. That's up alter our their version of would view a censor all images of because they worry that they are), I don't Wikipedia users from Texas would need just if they are not they like if they in 1846. The city views than most of standards do not any differently implement censorship for logged in users. all.) what is available to so.  They can't do this for it's up to the _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Even more than what Ray says: if we do not offer comprehensive free uncensored but reliable information, who will? Other sites may feel they have to censor; other uncensored sites may and mostly do have little standards of reliability. Some uncensored reliable sites are likely to require some form of payment, either directly or through advertising or government support. If there is a audience for compromised sources of information, there are many organizations eager to provide it. Other free uncensored reliable projects can be very important in their sphere, but we have an almost universal range. We're at present unique, which we owe to the historical fact of having been able to attract a large community, committed to free access in every sense, operating in a manner which requires no financial support beyond what can be obtained from voluntary contributions, and tied to no groups with pre-existing agendas--except the general agenda of free information. That we alone have been able to get there is initially the courage and vision of the founders, their correct guess that the conventional wisdom that this would be unworkable was erroneous, the general world-wide attractiveness of the notion of free information, and, at this point , the Matthew effect, that we are of such size and importance that working here is likely to be more attractive and more effective than working elsewhere--and thus our continuing ability to attract very large numbers of volunteer workers of many cultural backgrounds. We have everything to lose by compromising any of the principles. To the extent we ever become commercial, or censored , or unreliable, we will be submerged in the mass of better funded information providers. On the contrary, they have an interest in supporting what we do, because we provide what they cannot and give the basis for specialized endeavors. If there is a wish for a similar but censored service, this can be best done by forking ours; if there is a wish to abandon NPOV or permit commercialism, by expanding on our basis. We do not discourage these things; our licensing is in fact tailored to permitting them--but we should stay distinct from them. We have provided a general purpose feed and suitable metadata, and what the rest of the world does is up to them--our goal is not to monopolize the provision of information. We need not provide specialized hooks--just continue our goal for improved quality and organization of the content and the metadata. That China has chosen to take parts of our model and develop independently in line with its government's policy, rather than forking us, is possible because of the size of the government effort and, like us, the very large potential number of interested and willing highly literate and well-educated participants. All we can do in response is continue our own model, and hope that at some point their social values will change to see the virtues of it. If some other countries do similarly, we will at least have contributed the idea of a workable very large scale intent encyclopedia with user input. All information is good, though free information is better. If those in the Anglo-american sphere wish to censor, they know at least they have a potent uncensored competitor that it practice will also be available, which cannot but induce therm to a more liberal policy than if we did not have our standards. I wish very much Citizendium had succeeded--the existence of intellectual coopetition is a good thing. Even as it is, I think they have been a strong force in causing us to improve our formerly inadequate standards of reliability--as well as demonstrating by their failure the need for a very large committed group to emulate what we have accomplished, and also demonstrating the unworkability of excessively rigid organization and an exclusively expert-bound approach to content. I'm glad Larry did what he did in founding it--had it achieved more ,so would we have also. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I don't know that reaching everybody was ever a stated goal. Being theoretically available to everybody is a different matter...

David (a real thought leader) Goodman wrote: > If there is a wish for a similar but censored > service, this can be best done by forking ours;