John,From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
> (Searching for "levee" in Commons brings up an image of a
> naked Suicide Girl called Levee in third place.)
Its a thumbnail for !@#$ sake, and anyone who finds that image
offensive should turn off their internet connection.
It's a perfectly nice image, but does it answer the user's need? In most cases probably not. If I google levee, I see levees, not nude girls:If I want to google for pictures of Levee, I google for "Levee Suicide Girls", and there she is:I guess Commons should give more weight to categories, and less weight to file names. So when I google cucumber, it should show me images in the cucumber category first of all, and not images that happen to have cucumber in the title.Brandon, is there something developers could do in this regard?I am sure you'll be appalled that libraries include nude pictures in
their search results, often when searching for something else.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/picture/result?q=contemporary+north+america+20th+century
fix the metadata.
create a gallery page.
create a category and populate it.
etc
p.s. abstract art offends me. Can we please remove media related to
John Levee's from the Commons search results for the term 'Levee'. ;-)
> We should be under no illusion that we can find all search terms whose
> results violate the principle of least surprise, presenting adult images for
> everyday search terms.
>
> New such situations arise on a daily basis, each time someone uploads an
> explicit file that has a plausible search term in its name and
> description (try searching Commons for "eating", and then search for
> "drinking"; or try finding images of Prince Albert).
The ordering of the search results isnt ideal. Have you raised a bug?The thing is, John, it's not a bug. How is it a bug? The image is called "Drinking urine" or whatever, and so it's a valid search result for "drinking". No doubt, a bunch of people would argue that it would be non-neutral to exclude it from the search results for drinking, because Wikipedia is not censored, and we don't care if people are unhappy with our service, because that would be non-neutral. ;)<Imagine rant here.>It puts too much weight on the filename, which isnt good becauserecommend against rename, so the current search results are gamable by
the uploader.
> We should simply offer safe search, like Google does.
Google provides safe search. They need to convert 'the internet' into
a search results page that their customer wants to see, and the
Internet has a whole lot of stuff that 99% of the world never wants to
see.
Wikipedia provides encyclopedic information.
Commons provides a depository of media, and if you search for keywords
in the metadata you'll see thumbnails of the matching media.I find Google safe search seriously useful, because it gives me a choice, and enables me to tailor my search to my requirements. If I want to see porn, I can see porn. If I'm looking for something else, I can prevent my search being flooded with porn.If I am a researcher looking for images of Prince Albert on Commons, I would appreciate not being forced to wade through dozens of images of penises with rings in them to find the image I'm looking for.We will not attract a more mature audience until we get our act together.Andreas
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap