On May 16, 2011 1:32 PM, "Paul Houle" <paul@ontology2.com> wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 11:07 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
>> I don't know how well such a censored subset would work, given that every
>> organisation's content policies I am aware of are different to each other,
>> and the technical challenges associated with censorship, but I am no
>> expert.
> I've actually implemented a "censored subset" of Wikimedia Commons
> so I've got some insight into this. One of my projects has partners
> that won't work with web sites that have nudity, so I've had to remove
> potentially offensive content from a sample of nearly a million images.
> This site has also has a large audience in K-12 education so I'm
> sensitive to people's concerns in that area.
>
> Considering images that are used in actually Wikipedia, I'd say
> that a bit less than 0.1% (about 1 in 1000) of images contain nudity
> that "somebody" could find offensive. That includes pictures of ancient
> pots from Persia that show couples having intercourse, pictures taken
> at nude beaches that aren't conceivably lascivious as well as pictures
> of body modifications that you might bot believe until you saw them.
>
> Oddly, people tend to think of Wikipedia as a place that's good
> for K-12 use despite the fact that it's not officially "family
> friendly." A lot of that is because you can use Wikipedia for a very
> long time and not find anything offensive, unless you go looking for it.
>
> If the picture of the day was truly a random sample of what was in
> Wikipedia, I suppose we'd get something offensive and a big argument
> about it every three years or so -- so maybe this is all just par for
> the course.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l