Am 16.09.2011 21:57, schrieb Andre Engels:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Tobias Oelgarte< tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com> wrote:
I would not have any problems if we would not play in the hands of censors (local ISPs, a simple proxy, regimes, institutions, ...) by actually labeling content as objectionable. Which gives away the control over the content by the user itself, while no one would invest the money if he would need to label the content itself.
So how do you expect those censors to use this?
Just ask yourself what our Wikipedia interface would do. The server provide the images (HTML-Documents with <img> tag) along with labels. Depending on the settings of the user some kind of Javascript will hide the images. This "passed along" labels could simply be used to exclude the image as the whole, making the "show image" button disappear. Since Wikipedia serves more or less static pages, due to seriously needed caching, the labels will need to be passed that way.
Now you should think about topic and try to understand why this opens for a new kind of censorship. Blocking Wikipedia as a whole is a problem for most providers. This will cause users to change the provider or to insist to have access to it. This is a pressure put onto the access provider. The provider itself isn't able to filter the image or the content, since this is a lot of working time and time costs money. But if we choose to label the content for no fee, we open a new field for partial censorship. The users could still access it, but they won't see anything. In the result there would be some complaints. But way less complaints as if Wikipedia wasn't present at all.
A good compromise for a censor.
How would you expect to find a good compromise in decisions on what to filter and what not? Do you intend to put an extremist conservative Arab and and the most liberal German inside the same room, close the door, go away, come back after two weeks and look if they could find a compromise about Yes or No? How should this work?
Quite simple: add one filter for each, and describe for each what they filter, then let every user for themself decide whether to filter the
one,
the other, neither or both.
You should know that there are hundreds of phobias, cultural conflicts and other categories of possibly objectionable content. Do you expect us to manage all this categories of filtering, or would you say that it will be narrowed down to be user friendly and manageable, while leaving out some categories and ignore the complies of some minorities?
The referendum showed that cultural neutrality is important for the voters. But how do you think to find a compromise between hell and heaven, without having hell and heaven inside the discussions at commons at earth?
See above - if your filters are not almost the same, don't use the same filter, but create two different ones.
See above at my comment. Maybe we should put this questioning together as one fact.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l