Forking and creating "safe" versions of all our wikis has the same
disadvantage of any other fork, the wisdom of crowds is dissipated if the
crowd is ever further divided. In that sense this would be as much a mistake
as it was to spin Outreach, Strategy and Ten off as separate wikis rather
than projects on meta. Better to encompass both "safe" and existing wikis
within the same wiki by making the image filter an opt in user choice, that
way you achieve all the advantages of "safe" and unsafe wikis without any of
the overheads. I think you'll find that was always the intention, I don't
recall anyone arguing for it to be compulsory for everyone to opt in to the
filter and pick at least one thing they object to.
Commons is a different matter, and I can understand the concern there that
this might lead to arguments as to the categorisation of particular
articles. Personally I think that it would be progress to replace arguments
as to whether an image is within scope with arguments about the category.
But this does depend on the way in which the filter is implemented; If we
implement a filter which offers 8-15 broad choices to those who opt in to
it, then those filters probably don't currently exist on Commons, so by
implication we as a community are vetting all of commons to see what fits
into those filters. Such a system also conflicts with other things we are
doing, in particular the GLAM collaborations and the large releases of
images that we are getting from various institutions. But if we go down the
more flexible personal image filter route then there is far less reason to
fork Commons as it makes no difference on Commons whether an image is
blocked by one reader on their personal preferences or by one million. There
would still be the issue that not everything is categorised, but if we
release this in beta test and don't over promise its functionality that
should not be a problem - we just need to make clear that it is currently x%
efficient and will improve as people identify stuff they don't want to see
again, and categories where they want to first check the caption or alt text
in order to decide whether to view them.
WereSpielChequers
------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 03:47:07 +0200
> From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAHPiQ2HLhuFYiMKoKBDo1i9=1QA-8U0z8cPSTm3Mep3w2++ncA(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I am serious now, please read below as a serious proposal.
>
> I was talking today with a friend about the image filter, and we came
> to the possible solution. Of course, if those who are in favor of
> censorship have honest intentions to allow to particular people to
> access Wikipedia articles despite the problems which they have on
> workplace or in country. If they don't have honest intentions, this is
> waste of time, but I could say that I tried.
>
> * Create en.safe.wikipedia.org (ar.safe.wikiversity.org and so on).
> Those sites would have censored images and/or image filter
> implemented. The sites would be a kind of proxies for equivalent
> Wikimedia projects without "safe" in the middle. People who access to
> those sites would have the same privileges as people who accessed to
> the sites without "safe" in the domain name. Thus, everybody who wants
> to have "family friendly Wikipedia" would have it on separate site;
> everybody who wants to keep Wikipedia free would have it free.
>
> * Create safe.wikimedia.org. That would be the site for
> censoring/categorizing Commons images. It shouldn't be Commons itself,
> but its virtual fork. The fork would be consisted of hashes of image
> names with images themselves. Thus, image on Commons with the name
> "Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg" would be
> "fd37dae713526ee2da82f5a6cf6431de.jpg" on safe.wikimedia.org. The
> image preview located on upload.wikimedia.org with the name
>
> "thumb/8/80/Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg/800px-Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg";
> it would be translated as "thumb/a1f3216e3344ea115bcac778937947f1.jpg"
> on safe.wikimedia.org. (Note: md5 is not likely to be the best hashing
> system; some other algorithm could be deployed.)
>
> * Link from the real image name and its hash would be just inside of
> the Wikimedia system. It would be easy to find relation image=>hash;
> but it would be very hard to find relation into other direction. Thus,
> no entity out of Wikimedia would be able to build its censorship
> repository in relation to Commons; they would be able to do that just
> in relation to safe.wikimedia.org, which is already censored.
>
> Besides the technical benefits, just those interested in censoring
> images would have to work on it. Commons community would be spared of
> that job. The only reason why such idea would be rejected by those who
> are in favor of censorship would be their wet dreams to use Commons
> community to censor images for themselves. If they want to censor
> images, they should find people interested in doing that; they
> shouldn't force one community to do it.
>
> Drawbacks are similar to any abuse of censorship: companies, states
> etc. which want to use that system for their own goals would be able
> to do that by blocking everything which doesn't have "safe" infix.
> But, as said, that's drawback of *any* censorship mechanism. Those who
> access through the "safe" wrapper would have to write image names in
> their hash format; but that's small price for "family friendliness", I
> suppose.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
Hi all;
I have written an essay (my first one)[1] about the idea "There is a
deadline". It is opposite to the old essay (from 2006) which holds that
there is no deadline.
I hope my redaction is good enough to explain my opinion about this topic.
Please, if you find errors, fix them, I'm not very fluent in English.
Thanks.
Regards,
emijrp
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_a_deadline
Clearly some editors hate this. on DE 86% oppose it. Though there are also
some "committed core editors" amongst those who think that such a system is
both workable and possible to harmonise with our core values.
One of the objections is that we don't want a Flickr style system which
involves images being deleted, accounts being suspended and the burden of
filtering being put on the uploader.
Another objection is that we don't want a system that gives extra work to
those who don't want the filter.
One of my objections that I hope some others share is that an IP based
system inevitably means one person deciding what others may see - which to
my mind is the point where an image filter becomes a censor.
For obvious reasons we don't want a system that creates a publicly available
set of filters that net nannies of various descriptions could use to stop
other people from seeing things that they deemed inappropriate.
So here's my proposal for a system which I think could work:
- If, and only if, you are a logged in user, there is an image filter
option that you can opt into.
- This filter gives you four basic options, with the description and
caveat:
Wikimedia does not censor legal images on its sites. But you can choose not
to have certain images shown to you.
1. Hide all images and just show caption and description. (recommended
for users with slow internet connections)
2. Show all images except ones I decide not to see again
3. Show all images except ones that I or another editor have decided not
to see again
4. Show all images
- Advanced options
Warning! This feature is new and many images have not yet been checked.
Hopefully, like a spam filter it will get more effective as participants
decide to filter out images they don't want to see. Don't worry that others
might be offended by material you find educational, once you've seen the
caption and description of a filtered image you can still override the
filter and see the image.
- Advanced options would only work in combination with options 2 and 3.
If clicked it would enable the user to pick various categories from the
Commons category menu to exclude or include from their personal filter (this
would not affect other people's filters the same way as an editor blocking
an image). But it could prompt people with options such as twenty most
frequent categories that other editors have chosen to block, and other
people who chosen to block that category have often chosen to block x, y and
z as well.
- Anyone with a registered account will be able to use this, even if they
never edit.
- This is purely to enable people to make choices as to what they see -
no-one can force their choices on others, make suggestions yes but not
choices.
- Whether or not you have chosen to use the filter and if so the settings
you choose is private and personal to you. Statistics will be collected on
an anonymised basis showing how many are using the filter and what in
general it is used for, and anonymised data will be available so that users
can choose to filter out images that others have decided to filter.
So is there a simpler way to do this, is there some flaw in this that would
prevent it working, or is this the flying unicorn option?
WeeSpielChequers
------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:50:31 +0300
> From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAJ9-EK+oL3rvUrEPZzja2v3GBSovb6=b_MzJzv6fATJd06QPtA(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Look, the committed core editors that would be necessary to keep any
> filtering scheme from being two Titanics heading for each other, just
> hate the whole idea, so it isn't going to fly, folks!
>
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
>
>
Greetings everyone,
I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of WIkinews' contributor base has forked into its own project (http://theopenglobe.org) after becoming deeply dissatisfied with Wikinews. The new wiki has finished its creation stage and is about ready to publish news articles.
At least nine users have pledged to support this fork, and several others (including non-WN Wikimedians) are interested - more than there are active remaining Wikinews contributors.
-Tempodivalse
Bjoern has pointed out a flaw in that some filterers might get trigger
happy, but that can be resolved by giving people the option when they decide
to click on an image A not to filter that image in future and B to disregard
everything else filtered out by the person who thought that image
problematic. We could also slightly complicate the system by splitting
option 3 into a cautious and a very cautious button - very cautious filters
anything that any other filterer thought problematic, and cautious ignores
filterers who have often been ignored by other filterers.
I would have thought that a Bot trawling all images to see which have been
objected to by somebody would probably be blocked as a denial of service
attack, afterall how many readers actually read more than 100,000 articles a
year?
Re Stephen Bain's point re Flickr, I raised Flickr in a previous thread as
proof that whether or not this is theoretically possible it has been done in
practice. Fae then criticised the way Flickr operates its filters, hence my
design which I hope would work and I believe would avoid the problems we
would have in using the Flickr approach.
Re Andrew's point re readers on blocked IPs, we have ways of creating
accounts for people who are caught up by IP range blocks. If the overlap
between readers wanting to create an account in order to filter images and
readers caught up in IP range blocks becomes excessive then we could
probably create a filter only account for them.
I'm uncomfortable about a session cookie based system for IP readers, many
of our readers are in Internet Cafes and I'm not sure if PCs in those sorts
of environments get rebooted and the session cookies wiped between
customers.
WereSpielChequers
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:44:09 +0200
> From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi(a)gmx.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A possible solution for the image filter
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <1c7m771u12n25l5tdkdcafdo1kvf49sm79(a)hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> * WereSpielChequers wrote:
> >For obvious reasons we don't want a system that creates a publicly
> available
> >set of filters that net nannies of various descriptions could use to stop
> >other people from seeing things that they deemed inappropriate.
>
> This cannot be prevented. You just need a bot that emulates a reader who
> has the desired filter settings enabled and then load all the images or
> articles or whatever and check what is blocked and then you have a list.
>
> > 1. Hide all images and just show caption and description. (recommended
> > for users with slow internet connections)
>
> (I note that it's trivial to blur images on the client side and reveal
> them on hover or tapping or whatever input method would be appropriate.)
>
> > 3. Show all images except ones that I or another editor have decided
> not
> > to see again
>
> This will not work unless you introduce some process to block editors
> who put too much on their filter list for some definition of "too much".
> --
> Bj?rn H?hrmann ? mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de ? http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 ? Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ? http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dageb?ll ? PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ? http://www.websitedev.de/
>
>
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:08:45 +1000
> From: Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A possible solution for the image filter
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAO5b2fv=85w2wJa9nsFFGFoXicHgL_1BEq+gL8QtR2jPMTh1Wg(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:19 PM, WereSpielChequers
> <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > One of the objections is that we don't want a Flickr style system which
> > involves images being deleted, accounts being suspended and the burden of
> > filtering being put on the uploader.
>
> When have any of those things been part of the proposal?
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain(a)gmail.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:16:16 +0100
> From: Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A possible solution for the image filter
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAE4f==fnQ2R59zUkwDMrQ_kA8t8Xubyzcw=bwcBaTMet_NkudA(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 22 September 2011 12:23, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 22 September 2011 12:19, WereSpielChequers
> > <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So is there a simpler way to do this, is there some flaw in this that
> would
> >> prevent it working, or is this the flying unicorn option?
> >
> > I believe it was envisioned as working for anonymous casual readers as
> well.
> >
> > There *should* be some way to at least have the no-images option for
> > anonymous readers without ruining caching ...
>
> Cookies? It would work on at least a per-session basis, I'd think.
>
> One issue here is that if we make it registered-user-only we need to
> work out how this interacts with account creation - and IP blocks. It
> clearly will cause problems if people *want* to turn on the filter, go
> to create an account, and discover one of our famed cryptic block
> messages telling them they can't...
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> ? andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 90, Issue 135
> *********************************************
>
Dear readers
Yesterday, on September 15th 2011, the German Wikipedia closed the poll
(Meinungsbild) "Einführung persönlicher Bildfilter". [1] It asked the
question if the personal image filter can be introduced or if it should
not be introduced.
A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
introduce the feature.
The questions are:
* Will the board or the WMF proceed with the introduction of the
personal image filter against the will of it's second largest community?
* If the WMF/board does not care about the first question. Will it
affect the way the personal image filter will be implemented? For
example: Not for all projects. A different implementation as suggested
inside the "image filter referendum".
* Will there be an attempt to follow this example and to question other
communities the same question?
Greetings from
Tobias Oelgarte
[1]
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%…
[2]
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%…
I get the idea that there are theoretical reasons why image filters can't
work, and I share the view that the proposal which was consulted on needs
some improvement. An individual choice made at the IP level was a circle
that looked awfully difficult to square.
But since Flickr has already proven that something like this can work in
practice, can we agree to classify Image filters as one of those things that
work in practice but not in theory? Then we can concentrate on the practical
issue of if we decide to implement this, how do we do it better than Flickr
has?
NB I would not want us to implement this the way Flickr has
http://www.flickr.com/help/filters/#258 And not only because I'm not totally
convinced that our community would share their view that Germany is the
country that needs the tightest restrictions.
Hugs
WereSpielChequers
PS My niece absolutely wants that magical flying unicorn pony for the winter
solstice, especially if it s***s rainbows. Would you mind telling me where I
can order one?
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:00:18 +0100
> From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAJ0tu1H+haRDH_Hjj_tvmbsL8bxu+h=h1JhV0L3dZEkSS84_JQ(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 21 September 2011 11:41, Kim Bruning <kim(a)bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > While surveys show that a small majority finds this option
> > (marginally) acceptable, current best analysis suggests that this
> > particular option may not be implementable within the intersecting
> > frames of the wikimedia movement and the laws of physics[1].
>
>
> The board resolution specifies a magical flying unicorn pony that
> shits rainbows. A wide-ranging survey has been conducted on the
> precise flight patterns and the importance of which way round the
> rainbow spectrum goes. These tiresome people who keep calling this
> "impossible" just do not understand that the high-level decision for a
> magical flying unicorn pony that shits rainbows has been set in stone.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>