On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 October 2011 21:26, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Risker,
The net nanny software could have been doing a keyword filter on the word "Sex", which would reject every page and image in [[Category:Sexual positions]] because it contains the word "sex". That is not a category based filter. If you believe it was a category based filter, I would definitely like to know the name of the software in order to verify your assertion.
I don't have the funniest notion what the software is; these are systems on which I have no control and no rights above first level user, and they are not open systems.
It may be that they are using keywords, but many obvious keywords are legitimately used as category names on our projects. Therefore, it makes no difference whether they're using keywords that match our categories, or the categories themselves: the effect is exactly the same.
Risker _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
As long as we're brainstorming, I added this to the page on Meta.
"...,a viable alternative to not relying blindly on the categorization system, would be implementing a new "image reviewer" flag on en.wp and maybe in commons. This method would create a list of reviewed images that can be considered objectionable, that could be filtered/black-listed. The difference is, 1) this system already works "article reviewer", 2) does not rely on the existing categorization system and would create 3) a new process that won't be fool-proof but probably harder to exploit for vandals. The technical implementation of this would probably be easier too, and the community can decide on the offensive-ness on its own through a request for review or something similar, in case of contentious decisions. Whether other projects can have this should of course remain their decision, they can choose to completely opt-out of this flag similar to "article reviewer", and for that very reason, enwp community should vote on this itself- not random readers but a straight forward vote on wiki."
It's an alternative, albeit a slower process to mark offensive images, without relying on the current categorization system.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#A_new_gro...
Regards Theo