Mailing List Archive

Techman224 wrote:
> http://www.macworld.com/article/142148/2009/08/ninjawords_schiller.html?lsrc=twt_macworld
>
> I found this news article on Macworld that Phil Schiller contacted the
> developer of the Ninjawords dictionary app for the iPhone/iPod Touch.
> He said that the application was blocked because the app pulled the
> information from Wiktionary, which he says it contains offensive
> "urban slang" terns that traditional dictionaries (like paper) don't
> have. He said that putting a 17+ rating would be all that he needed to
> do. So I starting to wonder if Apple is starting to censor apps that
> can access "offensive" words, not just Wiktionary, but all of the
> Wikimedia Foundation projects.
>
This sort of stuff has been circulating for several weeks, and my
understanding is that it's a general policy Apple's app store is
applying to all unfiltered internet content. So there have been reports
involving Wikipedia apps as well, but also plenty of others that have
nothing to do with us. What Apple chooses to do in this regard is its
business, I would think, and how developers and consumers respond to
that is their business. So I won't presume to express an opinion right
now on how Apple should run its business, or whether anybody should do
business with them.

--Michael Snow

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

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote:

> This sort of stuff has been circulating for several weeks, and my
> understanding is that it's a general policy Apple's app store is
> applying to all unfiltered internet content.


That'd make sense, I think. From the article linked, it sounds like giving
the application in question might be approved with a "17+" rating. That's
probably reasonable where the application and its designer are drawing from
unrated content beyond their control. I'm sure many of us are familiar with
that game-rating euphemism, "Experience may change during online play." This
sounds like a similar idea to me.

Accepting the article at face value, I'm just confused why it seems to have
taken so much trouble to get Apple to say so.

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

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Luna<lunasantin@gmail.com> wrote:

> That'd make sense, I think. From the article linked, it sounds like giving
> the application in question might be approved with a "17+" rating. That's
> probably reasonable where the application and its designer are drawing from
> unrated content beyond their control. I'm sure many of us are familiar with
> that game-rating euphemism, "Experience may change during online play." This
> sounds like a similar idea to me.


Personally, I think any person under 17 who can afford an iPhone
should be exposed to as many swear words as possible. I would be only
too willing to deliver them by voice.

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

2009/8/6 Luna <lunasantin@gmail.com>:
> That'd make sense, I think. From the article linked, it sounds like giving
> the application in question might be approved with a "17+" rating. That's
> probably reasonable where the application and its designer are drawing from
> unrated content beyond their control. I'm sure many of us are familiar with
> that game-rating euphemism, "Experience may change during online play." This
> sounds like a similar idea to me.

I the case of wikipedia anything less than a 17+ experience would be
something of a change. Heh it could be argued that about the about the
only country wikipedia is actually legal in is the US.

--
geni

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

geni wrote:
> 2009/8/6 Luna <lunasantin@gmail.com>:
>> That'd make sense, I think. From the article linked, it sounds like giving
>> the application in question might be approved with a "17+" rating. That's
>> probably reasonable where the application and its designer are drawing from
>> unrated content beyond their control. I'm sure many of us are familiar with
>> that game-rating euphemism, "Experience may change during online play." This
>> sounds like a similar idea to me.
>
> I the case of wikipedia anything less than a 17+ experience would be
> something of a change. Heh it could be argued that about the about the
> only country wikipedia is actually legal in is the US.
>
>

Maybe not even in the US. Does all the sexual imagery contain all the
documentation required by the 2257 Regulations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protection_and_Obscenity_Enforcement_Act


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