Mailing List Archive: Re: Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Re: Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

May 15, 2009, 11:26 AM

Post #1 of 4 (998 views)

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your really didn't address my question. Â Why do you think WMF resources are best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for *any* of different of audiences in the world that find various different things unacceptable?

I don't, and I'm not sure why you think I do. I explicitly stated
that I favored a categorization system whereby users can filter out
whatever content they personally find objectionable, and display
whatever they don't. I also never said WMF resources should be spent
on anything, and I definitely don't support creating entire mirrors
just for the sake of image content when you could just hide or display
the images inline. So I'm not sure what you mean at all.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [ In reply to ]

birgitte_sb at yahoo

May 15, 2009, 11:40 AM

Post #2 of 4 (927 views)

Permalink

--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 1:26 PM
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:33 AM,
> Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Your really didn't address my question. Why do you
> think WMF resources are best used to create and support a
> mirror for people who are disgusted by sexuality rather than
> making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for *any*
> of different of audiences in the world that find various
> different things unacceptable?
>
> I don't, and I'm not sure why you think I do. I
> explicitly stated
> that I favored a categorization system whereby users can
> filter out
> whatever content they personally find objectionable, and
> display
> whatever they don't. I also never said WMF resources
> should be spent
> on anything, and I definitely don't support creating entire
> mirrors
> just for the sake of image content when you could just hide
> or display
> the images inline. So I'm not sure what you mean at
> all.

Well you now snipped it all, but someone suggested creating mirror under a different domain name for schools. I replied to that saying how I thought resources were best spent. Then you replied to me.

If you weren't replying to me to disagree with me, I have no idea what you intended. But I thought disagreement with me was a pretty safe assumption from the tone of your message.

Birgitte SB

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [ In reply to ]

Simetrical+wikilist at gmail

May 15, 2009, 11:49 AM

Post #3 of 4 (929 views)

Permalink

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well you now snipped it all, but someone suggested creating mirror under a different domain name for schools. Â I replied to that saying how I thought resources were best spent. Â Then you replied to me.
>
> If you weren't replying to me to disagree with me, I have no idea what you intended. Â But I thought disagreement with me was a pretty safe assumption from the tone of your message.

The beginning of my post was directed toward the general thread, and
wasn't replying to anyone. I don't normally top-post on mailing
lists. The part after the quote was replying to your specific point,
and was supportive ("It would definitely be a good start . . .").

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [ In reply to ]

birgitte_sb at yahoo

May 15, 2009, 12:37 PM

Post #4 of 4 (935 views)

Permalink

--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 1:49 PM
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:40 PM,
> Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Well you now snipped it all, but someone suggested
> creating mirror under a different domain name for schools.
> I replied to that saying how I thought resources were best
> spent. Then you replied to me.
> >
> > If you weren't replying to me to disagree with me, I
> have no idea what you intended. But I thought disagreement
> with me was a pretty safe assumption from the tone of your
> message.
>
> The beginning of my post was directed toward the general
> thread, and
> wasn't replying to anyone. I don't normally top-post
> on mailing
> lists. The part after the quote was replying to your
> specific point,
> and was supportive ("It would definitely be a good start .
> . ..").

I didn't see that there was anything besides the top-posted part. I am sorry for being careless about it and then making it a big deal :P

Birgitte SB

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l