[Foundation-l] Board resolutions on controversial content and images of identifiable people

[David Goodman]

If this should succeed I shall work as I do now,  in other areas. I
want to add content and keep out spam,  not to dispute whether , for
example, the "images that show a human penis" should include ones
where the anatomical details are blurred, or only the outline visible.
 There is no point in discussing the details of censorship with
censors; there is point is discussing the concept of  censorship with
the people who are inclined to support it.

Labeling designed to accomodate censorship is censorship, as Kim says.
This labeling is proposed to be done on the basis not of the regular
commons categories, but of special ones designed for the purpose; not
on the regular WP  editors, but a special committee. (There is a valid
argument that the present manner of categorizing images needs some
major improvements) As Lodewiijk says, anyone who wants to make use of
these categories -for any purpose, is free to do so outside WP. f they
want to design a filter imposed on access to WP using them, they are
free to do so. If they want to use their own categories for this, they
are free to do so. If they want to use computer image analysis for
this, they are free to do so;, I personally consider these at best
unproductive things to do, but anyone else is free to think & act
otherwise.

The key question remains. ''Why on  wikipedia'' when it even gives the
appearance of being opposed to our principles.

As fr the slippery slope, Kim gives one way it can happen.There are
others, which I think are pretty obvious to those who would support
them.  It would take very little to change the wording or appearance
on the button to make it more obtrusive, or to initially hide the
image.  It would be easily possible to have the hide preference panel
set to hide particular classes of images unless changed, instead of
being blank.  It would take the flip of a single bit to change the
default to "hide," whether for  anon users, or everyone.  It wouldn't
be that hard to make changing the default for some classes of images a
two-step process, with the second being "are you sure?" , or even "are
you of legal age in your jurisdiction?". All of these steps are under
the control of the people who imposed the system in the first place.

This is why I asked the question, what more drastic proposals are
being supported. at the board? The very fact that they were suggested
at the board level implies there are some there who would do these
things, and proves the slippery slope argument to be real. .
Eventually we may not have someone as sensible as phoebe to stop them
(and the others who feel this way. (but as they are not commenting it
is not appropriate to not name them--I give them my apologies.) . Now,
if I am wrong, and there  were not any more drastic alternatives
considered, I will need to retract this--but it was described as a
compromise.

-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG