This comment is intended to supplement Alec's, in the matter of labeling.
Those who are interested in restricting information are free to censor Wikipedia content to meet their requirements, but there is no reason why Wikipedia should do the job for them in any version of the project, or by any functionality within the project. What we can and should do is give all images accurate factual descriptors , which benefits everyone, and promotes intellectual freedom by letting people select the material they wish to see. Like all of our content, it can also be used for what many of us think less desirable purposes, such as some people selecting what others will be allowed to see. We can't prevent it in practice, and by our license we permit derivatives, including derivative POV labeling. This is as it should be: our job is to provide information, not tell people how to use it.
But labeling ourselves is directly opposed by NPOV, which applied to all foundation projects: we do not draw conclusions. We can describe all pictures of humans by what the people are wearing, by their sex, their apparent age, the activities they are engaged in. But we shouldn't do this with sexual concerns primarily in view: If we have a descriptor to indicate that someone in an image is engaged in fornication, we should also have one for someone who is engaged in running or reading. If we say a person in an image has a bare breast, we should also have a descriptor for having a bare head, and apply both to all images, male or female. It is reasonable to have descriptors for humans in far more detail than other animals, because we have far more pictures and articles about them than any other species. We can have descriptors giving legal status--if we know for a fact that a particular image has been banned in a certain jurisdiction, we should say so, but we should not predict whether a particular image is likely to be banned.
Even if we did want to facilitate censorship, we are not qualified to do so--the censors set their own rules and apply them in their own manner, which is rarely fully public. But how can we consider ourselves able to say that some particular content is pornography? We can not make decisions about whether anything is good or bad, or beneficial or detrimental--we do report what others say about them. We can do so here also, with attention to all viewpoints.
If we want a child-safe version, or labeling as child-safe, the question arises who is to censor? I do not think it useful to add to our current discussions the need to dispute each image proposed to be in a restricted category. How can I tell someone else what will be safe for their children? If a parent wants to censor, they are free to do so. If there is sufficient demand for someone or some group to on their own establish some sort of browser add-on that translates our neutral descriptors into a set that will limit the result as they want it, they are free to do so, even if 99% of us were to disapprove. But even if 99% of us were to approve, we still should not incorporate this into our projects.
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Sue Gardner susanpgardner@gmail.com wrote:
I've been posting quite a bit today, so I think I'll stop for a while. (I'd hate to trigger the limits ;-)
But Alec, thanks for _your_ note, and don't worry about expressing skepticism (even if it was mostly hyperbole to make a point). Vigilance is healthy :-)
Thanks, Sue
-----Original Message----- From: Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:19:01 To: susanpgardner@gmail.com; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions forPotentially-Objectionable Content
Hi Sue-- Thank you so so much for that reply, it was really really appreciated.
I also wanted to say -- you know in your post where you speculate about why this is happening now, is it because of the fundraising, has someone offered board members jobs, etc. (I know you were mostly non-serious about the jobs.) That is a totally legitimate set of questions.
Well, I think you're being way too charitable with me-- I'm not sure even I consider those questions legitimate. Thus, I did try to inject a lot of silliness (e.g. Extraterrestrials and fundamentalist financiers) into those sorts of scenarios because I didn't want to convey any genuine-conspiracy-theory of ulterior motives-- I just kinda wanted to express a vague sense of exasperation and confusion and not-knowing-what-to-think-or-who-to-trust. Because, ya know, when you care about an movement and things get rough, your mind does go through all kinds of scenarios to try to make sense of it, and maybe sharing those crazy thoughts will help you recognize and intercept them when they occur in others. :)
If my concerns seemed legitimate, then I probably owe you and anyone else involved a big apology for accidentally making it seem even remotely legitimate. A far better description would be "an illegitimate, unfounded concern that crossed my mind cause I couldn't make sense of what was going on."
I passed it on because in the hope it might be a little helpful just to see where some of our thoughts are going. The downside in even expressing stuff like that is it sort of involves distrusting a group of total strangers, most of whose names I don't even know without looking them up, all because they agreed to do work for my all-time favorite non-profit. Raw deal for ya'll.
It doesn't get said enough, but thank you to all who have done such a wonderful job running things all these years. I never could have done your jobs one-tenth as well as you all have. In particular, last year's fundraising work was just phenomenal, and I really do apologize for even suggesting, in passing, and in theory, that that work might somehow really be tied to anything negative. I had no basis for such a statement, I didn't sincerely believe it then, I still don't.
Thanks again for reply :) Alec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l