From: WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com>
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, 15 October 2011, 9:41
Subject: [Foundation-l] An image filter proposal from German Wikipedia
Hi Andreas, that's certainly an interesting proposal, but I'm not sure it
meets our needs as a community.
Firstly this would censor images for all logged in users whether they want
this or not. If we need a filter it must be one that individuals can opt in
to, but which does not impose one person's filter on another.
Thanks for your comments. You're right, this is an opt-out filter; a point that has
also been raised on de:WP. I've posted an opt-in version on Meta. This would change
the proposal as follows:
All users would initially see all images. Images with the "hidden" attribute
would have an additional caption though, saying "(You can opt out of viewing images
like this. To do so click here.)"
After that, all images with the "hidden" attribute would be hidden, with a note
saying, "(You can opt in to viewing images like this. To do so click here.)"
Secondly it would involve all editors in decisions as to which images should
be hidden - this puts the burden of censor on us all,
even those who don't
want to be censors. We need a system that has no impact on those who do not
choose to participate in it.
Ironically, this is what editors (notably Carbidfischer) on de:WP *like* about this
proposal, because it maintains their editorial autonomy. They, the community, can decide
which images should offer this option. Editorial autonomy is something that is *really*
important to them.
Thirdly by working at the level of an image in an article we are
collectively making a decision for everyone, and rarer
phobias or more
extreme positions will not be catered for - each project would in effect
have to decide where to draw lines. If one person is not bothered about
seeing penises, another is OK providing they are flaccid and a third does
not want to see penises then in this system only one can get the result they
want.
Again, everybody sees the images by default to begin with. There is not that much of a
pay-off in warring over something like this. We're in the same boat here as everyone –
Google, Flickr, YouTube – who do not provide this level of filter customisation either,
because it is simply to complicated. I don't think we have to be better than them in
this respect. Sometimes, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Fourthly we are asking people to make their private concerns public, and
some people may be uncomfortable with that. If someone
has a fear of heights
and wants to filter out aerial photographs, views down from the tops of
cliffs, towers or minarets then this system would firstly require them to
disclose that phobia, and secondly to convince other editors that it was
sufficiently serious and widespread that an image should be hidden. Even
when they've done that, if their's is a rare phobia they would have that
argument on each image they wanted to hide. Whereas we could give them a
system where they could choose to default image to hidden, unhide or confirm
their decision when they read the description or alt text and if others
share their phobia the system would eventually pickup on that and hide or
display images according to the filter choices of others who make the same
choices on images.
I appreciate your concern, though I would add that again, this is one point that
Carbidfisher described as a positive. (I invited him to participate here, but he
declined.)
My belief is that many of us would be OK with a filtering system for use by
people with an aversion to images of spiders, penises,
gore or whatever
their phobia or cultural aversion is; Provided they don't impose their
concerns on others, or create undue work for others. I think this fails both
tests. Though as the author of a rival option at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter I may be a
little biased.
WereSpielChequers
That's okay. :) Your proposal is very clever; my main concerns are that it would be a
lot of work for casual users to get it to work, and that it does not comply with the
requirement, highlighted both in the board resolution and the referendum, that the filter
should be available for both registered and unregistered users.
Andreas
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:40:28 +0100 (BST)
From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: [Foundation-l] An image filter proposal from German Wikipedia
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<1318635628.69020.YahooMailNeo(a)web29616.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
An editor on the German Wikipedia has proposed an alternative approach to
the personal image filter -- I provided a translation here?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#.C3.9Cbersetzung
---o0o---
1. There is?no?central
categorisation of all images in different filter categories.
2. Instead, a new "hidden" attribute is
introduced in Mediawiki when adding an image. "hidden" has the
following effects:
? ?- Unregistered users see the image
"hidden", meaning it is not visible.
? ?- One click on a show/hide button displays the
image, another click renders it invisible again.
3. For registered users, there is a new option for
"hidden images" in the user preferences: a) invisible, b) visible.
4. There are?no?separate
categories.
5. One and the same image can be "hidden"
in one article, and "not hidden" in another (principle of least
surprise).
6. The same image can be "hidden" in an
article in one language version (e.g. Arabic Wikipedia) and "not
hidden" in an article in another language version (e.g. French Wikipedia).
Each language version has its own community and can determine the use of
the
attribute according to its own guidelines and policies. Cultural aspects
can
thus be given due consideration. This is exactly analogous to the current
principles informing article illustration.
7. This solution would leave it to the individual
wikis to decide which images are encyclopaedically relevant (informative,
illustrative) ? but still "critical/controversial" ? in which
articles. Images of spiders could be handled in the same way as images of
Muhammad, sex or violence.
8. The presentation of images outside of the article
context ? e.g. in galleries for Commons categories or Commons search
results ?
would require a separate solution, perhaps to be implemented in a
subsequent
phase.
?
---o0o---
What I like about this proposal is its simplicity and elegance.?It has the
great benefit of leaving the communities and content writers in charge of
where and to what extent they use the filter, and it also includes
non-logged-in users.?
Andreas?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l