On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Bob the Wikipedian <bobthewikipedian(a)gmail.com> wrote: Really? Wikipedia is the best porn site you can imagine? Welcome to the Internets, Bob, take a look around.

In reality, many businesses and individuals have filtering in place to prevent access to pages that include certain keywords. I've sometimes been stymied when following a legitimate link when I'm on a computer that has some form of net nanny software. As it turns out, it seems that software isn't all that great and can significantly affect performance. And certainly we don't know much about what expectations they had if WMF projects accepted the "free" offer. Risker On 10 September 2012 16:08, Bob the Wikipedian <bobthewikipedian(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

It's telling that Fox News are using the Simple English Wikipedia. Also someone should let them know you only need to type in one of the search boxes to do a search, not both. <sarcasm>These sound like exactly the people we need to be working with.</sarcasm> Pete / the wub On 10 September 2012 19:51, Steve Summit &lt;scs(a)eskimo.com&gt; wrote:

"Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger has launched a campaign against the online encyclopedia for content filters to be put in place." Part of being a reference work. There are aspects of reality that are offensive or disturbing. I think we've made considerable progress on this matter in terms of removing or offering tools to prevent surprising people with gratuitous salacious material, but a refractory remnant of simple fact will always remain a part of Wikipedia. Some of it very important information even for children. Fred

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 &lt;scs(a)eskimo.com&gt; wrote:

On Sep 10, 2012, at 3:35 PM, WereSpielChequers &lt;werespielchequers(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Could we get an official statement to the effect that third-party censorship controls such as this are contrary to the clear and explicit wishes of the Wikipedia communities and Foundation that content decisions be an internal and openly decided matter? It is no more appropriate for Wikipedia to be so filtered by those guys than Fox News. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone

Wow, that's definitely not biased at all. /s I guess this is to be expected of Fox News. -- ~~yutsi Sent from my iPhone. On Sep 10, 2012, at 2:51 PM, scs(a)eskimo.com (Steve Summit) wrote: