On Sun Mar 26 19:08:45 UTC 2006 Steve Bennett stevage at gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very curious that of all the things they can attack wikipedia for, the fact that wikipedia is not censored is the one they focus on. Very strange indeed.
All the more reason to tag Wikipedia articles as kidsafe/worksafe.
It occurs to me that this entire debate about tagging articles is entirely moot. If a school or workplace wishes to filter Wikipedia content by articles, we have already provided the means for them to identify unwanted material: use the article category.
It should be a straightforward task for any computer technician to create a filter to keep out all of the articles marked [[Category:Sex]], [[Category:Porn star]], & even [[Category:Pokemon]], if a school or workplace desires. Explicit metatags duplicate information that is already part of the article & thus is unneeded -- unless some person starts making contributions that confuse this categorization, for example adding pictures of naked bodies to articles like [[Triangle]] & [[George W. Bush]]. In that case these edits would be vandalism & dealt with accordingly.
The means to bar information on Wikipedia that is not safe for children & the workplace already exists. How they could make this work is thankfully not our concern.
Geoff
On 3/29/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@rdrop.com wrote:
On Sun Mar 26 19:08:45 UTC 2006 Steve Bennett stevage at gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very curious that of all the things they can attack wikipedia for, the fact that wikipedia is not censored is the one they focus on. Very strange indeed.
All the more reason to tag Wikipedia articles as kidsafe/worksafe.
It occurs to me that this entire debate about tagging articles is entirely moot. If a school or workplace wishes to filter Wikipedia content by articles, we have already provided the means for them to identify unwanted material: use the article category.
It should be a straightforward task for any computer technician to create a filter to keep out all of the articles marked [[Category:Sex]], [[Category:Porn star]], & even [[Category:Pokemon]], if a school or workplace desires. Explicit metatags duplicate information that is already part of the article & thus is unneeded -- unless some person starts making contributions that confuse this categorization, for example adding pictures of naked bodies to articles like [[Triangle]] & [[George W. Bush]]. In that case these edits would be vandalism & dealt with accordingly.
What about articles like [[Latin profanity]]? Last I checked, that article had an image near the top that's certain to trigger comments and questions from co-workers, but at the same time, no red-flag categories, and a title that sounds linguistics-related.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
Mark Wagner wrote:
What about articles like [[Latin profanity]]? Last I checked, that article had an image near the top that's certain to trigger comments and questions from co-workers, but at the same time, no red-flag categories, and a title that sounds linguistics-related.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
Surely [[Category:Profanity]] would do the trick?
John
On 29/03/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@rdrop.com wrote:
It should be a straightforward task for any computer technician to create a filter to keep out all of the articles marked [[Category:Sex]], [[Category:Porn star]], & even [[Category:Pokemon]], if a school or workplace desires. Explicit metatags duplicate information that is already part of the article & thus is unneeded -- unless some person starts making contributions that confuse this categorization, for example adding pictures of naked bodies to articles like [[Triangle]] & [[George W. Bush]]. In that case these edits would be vandalism & dealt with accordingly.
Smart one. We also have the nice (though oddly motivated) people who've put together little galleries of all the nekkid pictures on Wikipedia. It'd be a little tricker, but certainly not impossible, to come up with on-the-fly page filtering based on the inclusion of those images, or by sporadically generating Special:Whatlinkshere references, or something...
This is stuff we're already doing. Regardless of the merits of actually including filtering aids, tagging images and so on, it might be worth creatively thinking about how someone can use features already present in the live version to come up with filtering *at their end*.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 29/03/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@rdrop.com wrote:
It should be a straightforward task for any computer technician to create a filter to keep out all of the articles marked [[Category:Sex]], [[Category:Porn star]], & even [[Category:Pokemon]], if a school or workplace desires. Explicit metatags duplicate information that is already part of the article & thus is unneeded -- unless some person starts making contributions that confuse this categorization, for example adding pictures of naked bodies to articles like [[Triangle]] & [[George W. Bush]]. In that case these edits would be vandalism & dealt with accordingly.
Smart one. We also have the nice (though oddly motivated) people who've put together little galleries of all the nekkid pictures on Wikipedia. It'd be a little tricker, but certainly not impossible, to come up with on-the-fly page filtering based on the inclusion of those images, or by sporadically generating Special:Whatlinkshere references, or something...
This is stuff we're already doing. Regardless of the merits of actually including filtering aids, tagging images and so on, it might be worth creatively thinking about how someone can use features already present in the live version to come up with filtering *at their end*.
Thanks. It's clearly something for our ambassadors to say when a jourmalist repeats the claim that Wikipedia has this collection of pr0n beneath the surface. Say, along the lines of "I'm not aware of that allegation, & while I doubt its accuracy anyone concerned can easily filter out objectionable material by looking at the article's category."
But what puzzles me is how did my email end up becoming nothing more than an attachment of a perl script? Those in the know can contact me off-list.
Geoff
On 3/30/06, Geoffrey Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
Thanks. It's clearly something for our ambassadors to say when a jourmalist repeats the claim that Wikipedia has this collection of pr0n beneath the surface. Say, along the lines of "I'm not aware of that allegation, & while I doubt its accuracy anyone concerned can easily filter out objectionable material by looking at the article's category."
Filtering on category is a very broad brush. You would end up wiping out straight forward sexual education material with no objectional images, in the same blow as porn or sex positions or whatever. Content tagging the pages or images themselves would work a lot better.
Steve
Whether something is child- or worksafe is entirely subjectional and someone's opinion on what is and isn't objectionable shouldn't be forced on all other Wikipedia users. Use your own filter software to control what comes in on your end. Don't try to filter Wikipedia from the source.
Mgm
On 3/30/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Whether something is child- or worksafe is entirely subjectional and someone's opinion on what is and isn't objectionable shouldn't be forced on all other Wikipedia users. Use your own filter software to control what comes in on your end. Don't try to filter Wikipedia from the source.
Hi, You're probably about the third person to make this point. Can you point out who actually suggested filtering Wikipedia at the source?
Steve
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
Can you point out who actually suggested filtering Wikipedia at the source?
That would be you, on 26-03-2006:
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
On 3/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I find it very curious that of all the things they can attack wikipedia for, the fact that wikipedia is not censored is the one they focus on. Very strange indeed.
All the more reason to tag Wikipedia articles as kidsafe/worksafe.
Steve
HTH HAND -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%28No-subject%29-t1365372.html#a3668461 Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.
On 3/30/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
Can you point out who actually suggested filtering Wikipedia at the source?
<snip>
All the more reason to tag Wikipedia articles as kidsafe/worksafe.
filter <> tag
Tagging allows people to install client side (or proxy-level) software to filter pages based on the tags. Filtering "at the source" would mean preventing *everyone* from seeing certain content. This latter idea seems to be causing a lot of distress, despite the fact that no one has actually suggested it.
Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Yes, what you say is true. However, PICS labelling (the ICRA stuff I suggested a few days ago) is an accepted W3C standard, supported by every filtering software there is. On the other hand, your solution would require the school to employ a skilled IT technician to reprogram the filtering software. It would be hard for a school to justify spending that amount of public money to give students safe access to one website - the most likely result is that the whole site will get blocked.
With PICS labels, however, individual Wikipedia pages would be automatically filtered by the settings of the filtering software.
Cynical
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Sun Mar 26 19:08:45 UTC 2006 Steve Bennett stevage at gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very curious that of all the things they can attack wikipedia for, the fact that wikipedia is not censored is the one they focus on. Very strange indeed.
All the more reason to tag Wikipedia articles as kidsafe/worksafe.
It occurs to me that this entire debate about tagging articles is entirely moot. If a school or workplace wishes to filter Wikipedia content by articles, we have already provided the means for them to identify unwanted material: use the article category.
It should be a straightforward task for any computer technician to create a filter to keep out all of the articles marked [[Category:Sex]], [[Category:Porn star]], & even [[Category:Pokemon]], if a school or workplace desires. Explicit metatags duplicate information that is already part of the article & thus is unneeded -- unless some person starts making contributions that confuse this categorization, for example adding pictures of naked bodies to articles like [[Triangle]] & [[George W. Bush]]. In that case these edits would be vandalism & dealt with accordingly.
The means to bar information on Wikipedia that is not safe for children & the workplace already exists. How they could make this work is thankfully not our concern.
Geoff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l