Sydney Poore wrote:
The idea of offering imagine filters on WMF project is much more controversial than it is on other internet websites. So, I I think that it is fair to suggest that we examine why we are having conflicts over this topic when other website don't. One possible reason is that our base of editors is different from other websites.
Websites like Flickr (an example commonly cited) are commercial endeavors whose decisions are based on profitability, not an obligation to maintain neutrality (a core element of most WMF projects). These services can cater to the revenue-driving majorities (with geographic segregation, if need be) and ignore minorities whose beliefs fall outside the "mainstream" for a given country. We mustn't do that.
One of the main issues regarding the proposed system is the need to determine which image types to label "potentially objectionable" and place under the limited number of optional filters. Due to cultural bias, some people (including a segment of voters in the "referendum," some of whom commented on its various talk pages) believe that this is as simple as creating a few categories along the lines of "nudity," "sex," "violence" and "gore" (defined and populated in accordance with arbitrary standards).
For a website like Flickr, that probably works fairly well; a majority of users will be satisfied, with the rest too fragmented to be accommodated in a cost-effective manner. Revenues are maximized. Mission accomplished.
The WMF projects' missions are dramatically different. For most, neutrality is a nonnegotiable principle. To provide an optional filter for "image type x" and not "image type y" is to formally validate the former objection and not the latter. That's unacceptable.
An alternative implementation, endorsed by WMF trustee Samuel Klein, is discussed here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Categories#ge... or http://goo.gl/t6ly5
David Levy