There are several issues here. One is that we are an open source site, “The
idea we discussed was that NetSpark would either donate or heavily discount
the cost of the filter for Wikipedia." Surely Sanger knows us well enough
to know not to suggest that we ditch open source and work with a software
supplier who boasts of "proprietary algorithms" on their website?
Secondly "The company says its technology is a “learning engine” that can
analyze the components of an image precisely enough to determine the
difference between a pornographic image and an advertorial image that has
models wearing swimwear or lingerie." Which might be OK if we were a
monocultural site that deemed topless women not OK and bikini clad women
OK. But we are aiming for a global audience with a series of products that
include an encyclopaedia in some of whose pages it is entirely appropriate
to show images of women wearing less than a bikini.
Thirdly if we do introduce a filter it needs to work across multiple
cultures - including for people who don't want to see models wearing
swimwear or lingerie.
Also isn't it a bit rich for Fox News to be talking about porn? Afterall as
a Murdoch company they are in the same corporate stable as
page3.com.
I'm sufficiently sold on the idea of an image filter to have drafted one of
the options myself, but it really doesn't help the case to have people
suggesting systems that are so incompatible with our values. If Sanger
really wanted us to introduce an image filter he'd be far more effective if
he lobbied for solutions that are compatible with our ethos and values.
Regards
WSC
On 10 September 2012 19:51, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/09/10/wikipedia-slow-to-filter-graphic-ima…
"Wikipedia has turned down a more or less free offer for software
that would keep minors and unsuspecting web surfers from
stumbling upon graphic images of sex organs, acts and emissions,
FoxNews.com has learned -- sexually explicit images that remain
far and away the most popular items on the company's servers."
Funny, I didn't realize we (or commons, which is what they're
really talking about) were a porn site, but I guess they wouldn't
print it if it wasn't true...
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l