> From: Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l]
>
>
> The literal translation of what was being voted on:
>
> "Pers?nliche Bildfilter
> (Filter, die illustrierende Dateien anhand von
> Kategorien der Wikipedia verbergen und vom Leser an- und abgeschaltet
> werden k?nnen, vgl. den vorl?ufigen [[Entwurf]] der Wikimedia
> Foundation)
> sollen entgegen dem Beschluss des Kuratoriums der
> Wikimedia Foundation in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia nicht
> eingef?hrt werden und es sollen auch keine Filterkategorien f?r auf
> dieser Wikipedia lokal gespeicherte Dateien angelegt werden."
>
> "Personal image filters
> (filters, which hide illustrating files based
> on categories and which can be turned on and off by the reader, see
> the preliminary [[draft]] by the Wikimedia Foundation)
> should, contrary to the Board's decision, not be introduced in the German
> Wikipedia, and no filter categories should be created for locally
> uploaded content."
>
Erik,
I dont think you are stupid, but the ( ) clearly indicates that the main wording is the outer text.
But in order that you a understand it better, i have reformated it for you.
I know that, the German wikipedia knows that and the voters have known that.
It is time, that everyone with a wikimedia.org email accepts that fact that there is no way to go forward with this image filter nonsense if you dont realise the general opposition and the still growing distrust.
You are still try to march forward, not knowing where to go. I still think ist the way to content censorship.
Carsten
--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 4088 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
The Professional version does not have this message
> Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:58:03 -0700
> From: Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l]
>
> The vote in German Wikipedia, and most of the discussions to
> date, have focused on the specific ideas and mock-ups that
> were presented as part of the referendum.
Erik,
You are wrong. The vote in the German Wikipedia was against _any_ imagefilter.
The mockups are considered just as part of the general plan to keep the communities quiet and dilute the resistance into as much aspects as possible.
The other idea put forward was to run the fundraiser with slogans like: "Your money for imagefilters" or "We have to pay the Harris report" in the German wikipedia. As that is what the foundation wants to do with the money, nobody can argue against that.
Carsten
--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 4088 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
The Professional version does not have this message
------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 02:57:51 +0200
> From: Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] category free image filtering
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <4EA3668F.5010004(a)googlemail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Am 23.10.2011 01:49, schrieb WereSpielChequers:
> > Hi Tobias,
> >
> > Do youhave any problems with this category free proposal
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter
> >
> > WereSpelChequers
> The idea isn't bad. But it is based on the premise that there are enough
> users of the filter to build such correlations. It requires enough input
> to work properly and therefore enough users of the feature, that have
> longer lists. But how often does an average logged in user find such an
> image and handle accordingly? That would be relatively seldom, resulting
> in a very short own list, by relatively few users, which makes it hard
> to start the system (warm up time).
>
> Since i love to find ways on how to exploit systems there is one simple
> thing on my mind. Just login to put a picture of penis/bondage/... on
> the list and than add another one of the football team you don't like.
> Repeat this step often enough and the system will believe that all users
> that don't like to see a penis would also not like to see images of that
> football team.
>
> Another way would be: "I find everything offensive." This would hurt the
> system, since correlations would be much harder to find.
>
> If we assume good faith, then it would probably work. But as soon we
> have spammers of this kind, it will lay in ruins, considering the amount
> of users and corresponding relatively short lists (in average).
>
> Just my thoughts on this idea.
>
> Greetings
> nya~
>
>
Hi Tobias,
Yes if it turned out that almost no-one used this then only the "Hide all
image - recommended for users with slow internet connections" and the "Never
show me this image again" options would be effective. My suspicion is that
even if globally there were only a few thousand users then it would start to
be effective on the most contentious images in popular articles in the most
widely read versions of wikipedia (and I suspect that many of the same image
will be used on other language versions). The more people using it the more
effective it would be, and the more varied phobias and cultural taboos it
could cater for. We have hundreds of millions of readers, if we offer them
a free image filter then I suspect that lots will signup, but in a sense it
doesn't matter how many do so - one of the advantages to this system is that
when people complain about images they find offensive we will simply be able
to respond with instructions as to how they can enable the image filter on
their account.
I'm pretty confident that huge numbers, perhaps millions with slow internet
connections would use the hide all images option, and that enabling them to
do so would be an uncontentious way to further our mission by making our
various products much more available in certain parts of the global south.
As far as I'm concerned this is by far the most important part of the
feature and the one that I'm most confident will be used, though it may
cease to be of use in the future when and if the rest of the world has North
American Internet speeds.
I'm not sure how spammers would try to use this, but I accept that vandals
will try various techniques from liking penises to finding pigs and
particular politicians equally objectionable. Those who simply use this to
"like" picture of Mohammed would not be a problem, the system should easily
be able to work out that things they liked would be disliked by another
group of users. The much more clever approach of disliking both a particular
type of porn and members of a particular football team is harder to cater
for, but I'm hoping that it could be coded to recognise not just where
preferences were completely unrelated, as in the people with either
arachnaphobia or vertigo, or partially related as in one person having both
arachnaphobia and vertigo. Those who find everything objectionable and tag
thousands of images as such would easily be identified as having dissimilar
preferences to others, as their preferences would be no more relevant to
another filterer as those of an Arachnaphobe would be to a sufferer of
vertigo.
Of course it's possible that there are people out there who are keen to tag
images for others not to see. In this system there is room for them, if your
preferences are similar to some such users then the system would pick that
up. If your preferences are dissimilar or you don't opt in to the filter
then they would have no effect on you. The system would work without such
self appointed censors, but why not make use of them? I used to live with an
Arachnaphobe, if I was still doing so I'd have no problem creating an
account and tagging a few hundred images of spiders so that they and other
Arachnaphobes would easily be able to use the image filter and the system
would be able to identify those who had a similar preference to that
account.
I was tempted to augment the design by giving filterers the option of having
multiple filter lists with their own private user filter labels. This would
complicate the user experience, but if a user had two lists, one that
triggered their vertigo and the other their arachnaphobia it would then be
much easier for the system to match them with others who shared either of
their phobias. It would also be easier for the system to use either of their
lists to assist the filters of others who shared that preference. However it
would also give anyone who hacked into the filter database a handy key to
the meaning of the various preferences, and it would put us at the top of a
slippery slope - if the data existed then sooner or later someone would
suggest looking at the user filter labels and the images that came up in
them. So I thought it safest to omit that feature.
Regards
WereSpielChequers
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 23:51:14 +0200
> From: Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking
> about a fork
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <4EA33AD2.6070005(a)googlemail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Am 22.10.2011 23:44, schrieb Erik Moeller:
> > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
> > <tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> No one said it would be evil. But since we already have working
> >> solutions for this projects, why do we need another, now global,
> >> solution, based on categories? Thats when it becomes hairy.
> > The Board of Trustees didn't pass a resolution asking for the
> > implementation of a filter based on categories.
> >
> > The Board asked Sue "in consultation with the community, to develop
> > and implement a personal image hiding feature that will enable readers
> > to easily hide images hosted on the projects that they do not wish to
> > view, either when first viewing the image or ahead of time through
> > preference settings."
> >
> > Based on the consultation and discussion that's taken place so far, I
> > think it's pretty safe to say that a uniform approach based on
> > categories has about a snowball's chance in hell of actually being
> > widely adopted, used and embraced by the community, if not triggering
> > strong opposition and antagonism that's completely against our goals
> > and our mission.
> >
> > With that in mind, I would humbly propose that we kill with fire at
> > this point the idea of a category-based image filtering system.
> >
> > There are, however, approaches to empowering both editors and readers
> > that do not necessarily suffer from the same problems.
> >
> > Erik
> I gladly agree that category based filtering should be off the table. It
> has way to many problems that we could justify it in any way.
>
> What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and
> the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?
>
> nya~
>
>
>
>
>
Hi Tobias,
Do youhave any problems with this category free proposal
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter
WereSpelChequers
Considering many uprisings in the world against corrupt governments, now is a good time to introduce a new wiki reference that could revolutionize politics and government.
This new reference is called WikiArguments. It combines the collaborative power behind Wikipedia with the branch of mathematics called game theory. I'd appreciate any suggestions and comments. Please check it out at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiArguments
Carmen Yarrusso
It's impossible to reason people out of something they have never been reasoned into--Jonathan Swift
Dear Wikimedia community,
First, I want to thank the 24,000 editors who participated in the
Wikimedia Foundation's referendum on the proposed personal image hiding
feature. We are particularly grateful to the nearly seven thousand
people who took the time to write in detailed and thoughtful comments.
Thank you.
Although the Board did not commission the referendum (it was
commissioned by our Executive Director), we have read the results and
followed the discussions afterwards with great interest. We discussed
them at our Board meeting in San Francisco, in October. We are
listening, and we are hearing you.
The referendum results show that there is significant division inside
the Wikimedia community about the potential value and impact of an image
hiding feature.
The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed. Some of
those people say there is no problem, and that anyone who is offended is
wrong and should be ignored. Some say that regardless of whether there
is a problem, it's not ours to solve: our job is to make knowledge
available to everyone, not to participate in screening or filtering it.
And some say that even if there is a problem, a category-based image
hiding feature is the wrong solution, because it would enable censorship
by third parties, and would also create significant new work for editors
in creating and maintaining categories. Some of you say these are
editorial issues, and the Wikimedia Foundation has no business being
involved with them.
I, and the other Board members, and Sue, are paying attention to what
you've told us.
We believe there is a problem. The purpose of the Wikimedia movement is
to make information freely available to people all around the world, and
when material on the projects causes grave offence, those offended don't
benefit from our work. We believe that exercising editorial judgment to
mitigate that offence is not censorship. We believe we need, and should
want, to treat readers with respect. Their opinions and preferences are
as legitimate as our own, and deliberately offending or provoking them
is not respectful, and is not okay.
We are not going to revisit the resolution from May, for the moment: we
let that resolution stand unchanged.
But, we are asking Sue and the staff to continue the conversation with
editors, and to find a solution that strikes the best balance between
serving our readers, empowering and supporting editors, and dedicating
an appropriate amount of effort to the problem. I believe that is
possible within the language of the resolution the Board already passed,
which leaves open most details of how implementation should be achieved.
We realize this is an important issue for the Wikimedia movement, and in
many ways it goes to the heart of who we are. I think church.of.emacs
expressed this fairly well on foundation-l, when he described this as a
conflict between two visions of our work: “a project of pure
enlightenment, which ignores the biased/prejudiced reader and accepts
the resulting limited distribution” versus “a project of praxis, which
seeks a balance between the goals of enlightenment and the reader's
interests, aiming at a high distribution.” I would quibble with some of
his choice of words, but I agree with the general gist of what he said.
I believe we can find an answer that is right for us. I ask you to work
with us, to do that.
Sincerely,
Ting Chen
--
Ting Chen
Member of the Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
E-Mail: tchen(a)wikimedia.org
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:00:26 +0100
> From: Fae <fae(a)wikimedia.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial
> Content
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAHRYMYVZGEqXtxmW78+A71os9DP12HMquAsKVWfQnnVsYYnOrg(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Sorry to take a tangential point from Tom's email, but is the random
> article tool truly random or does it direct to only stable articles or
> some other sub-set of article space?
>
> Thanks
> Fae
>
>
>
>
Hi Fae, I don't know about other projects, but on EN wki random article
means just that. There have been a number of proposals to skew things and
filter certain things out, but these have foundered on the twin concerns
that including everything in Random articles best serves those who want to
intersperse some random reading with things that they can easily improve,
and that it would be dishonest to tell someone that these were random
articles when actually we'd filtered out stubs or the unreferenced.
There may well be demand for "random Good Article" as an additional option,
but that would be an extra not something we could describe as random
article.
WereSpielChequers
------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:03:25 +0200
> From: Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial
> Content
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <4E9FFFFD.8010303(a)googlemail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Am 19.10.2011 23:19, schrieb Philippe Beaudette:
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Tobias Oelgarte<
> > tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I ask Sue and Philippe again: WHERE ARE THE PROMISED RESULTS - BY
> PROJECT?!
> >>
> >>
> > First, there's a bit of a framing difference here. We did not initially
> > promise results by project. Even now, I've never promised that. What
> I've
> > said is that we would attempt to do so. But it's not solely in the WMF's
> > purview - the election had a team of folks in charge of it who came from
> the
> > community and it's not the WMF's role to dictate to them how to do their
> > job.
> >
> > I (finally) have the full results parsed in such a way as to make it *
> > potentially* possible to release them for discussion by project.
> However,
> > I'm still waiting for the committee to approve that release. I'll
> re-ping
> > on that, because, frankly, it's been a week or so. That will be my next
> > email. :)
> >
> > pb
> >
> Don't get me wrong. But this should have been part of the results in the
> first place. The first calls for such results go back to times before
> the referendum even started. [1] That leaves an very bad impression, and
> so far the WMF did nothing to regain any trust. Instead you started to
> loose even more. [2]
>
> [1]
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/Archive1#Quanti…
> [2]
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WereSpielChequers/filter#Thanks_fo…
>
> nya~
>
>
>
> Hi nya,
At the point when you sent the link to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WereSpielChequers/filter#Thanks_fo…
only people commenting in that section were myself and Sue Gardner. I
don't know how you interpreted that discussion as the Foundation losing more
trust, but as the only non Foundation person commenting there I would like
to put it on record that neither Sue nor the foundation lost my trust in
that discussion, rather the reverse. To me building consensus means
discussing our differences and working to accommodate each others concerns,
I see Sue's acceptance that "a category-based solution is a non-starter" as
a major step from the Foundation towards those who opposed the previous
image filter proposal. As far as I'm concerned one gains trust by listening
to those you disagree with and accepting those of their arguments that you
find convincing. That doesn't mean that it will now be easy to get a
consensus based solution, but in my opinion it will be easier than it was as
a major disagreement is resolved.
WereSpielChequers