So, we are going to have virtually two cloned German Wikipedias, one with image filter extension enabled and other disabled. Not very useful, but it is your choice. I hope you enable the Semantic MediaWiki extension in the new fork. Good luck. 2011/10/22 Dirk Franke<dirkingofranke(a)googlemail.com> _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Dirk Franke <dirkingofranke(a)googlemail.com> wrote: Thanks for the update, Dirk. I think it's good that people are seriously discussing what it would mean to fork and how it would be done. Forking the project if WMF policies or decisions are considered unacceptable is one of the fundamental ways in which Wikimedia projects are different from most of the web; it's a key freedom, one which should be exercised judiciously but which should be preserved and protected nonetheless. With that said, I also think it's important to remember that Sue has explicitly affirmed that the development of any technical solution would be done in partnership with the community, including people who've expressed strong opposition to what's been discussed to date. [1] The vote in German Wikipedia, and most of the discussions to date, have focused on the specific ideas and mock-ups that were presented as part of the referendum. But as Sue has made clear, those ideas and mock-ups are just that, and the Board resolution creates room for different ideas as well, ranging from the simple (disabling/blurring all images) to the complex (like a category-based filtering system). Some of these ideas are explored here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en#Potent… Is there a similar brainstorming page on dewiki already? If not, would you be interested in organizing some community discussion on whether there are solutions within the scope of the resolution that the dewiki community would find acceptable, or whether the prevailing view is that the resolution itself should be scrapped altogether? Thanks, Erik [1]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069472.html _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

There has always been a consensus that what you are proposing is evil and against what we as a non-profit free content site stand for.

No one said it would be evil. But since we already have working solutions for this projects, why do we need another, now global, solution, based on categories? Thats when it becomes hairy.

What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?

A show/hide all images function is likely too drastic to serve some of these use cases well. So for example, if you're at work, you might not want to have autofellatio on your screen by accident, but you'd be annoyed at having to un-hide a fabulous screenshot of a wonderful piece of open source software in order to mitigate that risk.

With that said, the mobile site already has a generic "Disable images" view and something similar would definitely make sense on the main site as well.

If both options were available (marking images as collapsible in a standard way, & show/hide all for all media), communities could evolve standards and practices within that framework as they see fit.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: A show/hide all images function is likely too drastic to serve some of these use cases well. So for example, if you're at work, you might not want to have autofellatio on your screen by accident, but you'd be annoyed at having to un-hide a fabulous screenshot of a wonderful piece of open source software in order to mitigate that risk.

I do wish that this discussion can just move to implementation. This is about what I get to filter for what I get to see, or when I get to see it. I have had enough of other people believing that they get to make their choices for me.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Clearly Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia found a "show/hide all" solution inadequate. Are folks from those communities on the list? It would be interesting to hear from them as to why they ended up with the collapsing approach they took.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 03:36:18PM -0700, Erik Moeller wrote: That's actually just POV-pushing :-( , albeit very politely. :-)

On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 22:56 +0100, David Gerard wrote: Are you even trying to pretend to be serious? Use case: me reading an article. It is my impression that you are pushing for this hide/show all solution because you know it will be useless and thus no one will be using it.

A cookie-based "hide all images"/"show all images" toggle clearly visible in the toolbar at the top of pages. together with ... I'd be interested in any arguments that might be made against such a proposal.

On 23 October 2011 11:50, Fae <fae(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

The Foundation considers de:wp's careful and thoughtful decision to put [[:de:vulva]] on the front page of de:wp with a picture was a clear failure of community judgement sufficient to justify the imposition of a filter from outside.

On 23 October 2011 12:30, Fae <fae(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

An opinion held by several staff on the matter, including the Executive Director. I consider this significant, you may not.

Having checked the original blog post<http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/…y/>, I think it's either a rare exception of poorly chosen wording, or shows a judgment within WMF that I can't agree with. I remember when the director of featured articles on enwiki scrupulously treated all topics equal - whether shocking, controversial, mundane, or taboo -- because the job of the front page of an *encyclopedia* is to showcase high quality knowledge, not present value judgments on it. Value judgments on topics are the role of members of the public and end users, who legitimately hold views that they like math and hate politics, love politics but hate pornography, love porn but oppose images of religious figures, as they individually choose. The job of *encyclopedists* however is to treat these all as knowledge and not to color or pre-filter them by considering some topics more "worthy" than others or less "suitable" to be included as knowledge or showcased as high quality writing. Does that include front page exposure? In the view of the previous en:wp Director of Featured Articles, definitely yes. His rationale at the time this came up on en:wp was that to do otherwise is to be ashamed apologists of content that our community has created. He also observed that making the point publicly of our utter neutrality had value in itself. If de:wiki (or any project) put [[vulva]] on its front page, and the article was of high enough quality to do so - and it would have been heavily scrutinized before as a controversial topic - then at that point it's a topic like any other and it goes there on its own merits. *It is core to our ethos* that we are neutral in our views on topics, whether mundane, obscure or emotive to some people. We could not honestly claim neutrality if we signal via our content nomination process that some topics are not as "valid" as others or are more "shameful" or less "acceptable" to learn about, or to be made visible. In this case, [[vulva]] is of more than academic interest to 1/2 the human race as a normal lifelong body part --- one that is often strikingly lacking in information (cultural taboos on women's education and sexual knowledge are still very common globally and cause untold harm!) Should this be outweighed in the balance by the fact that the other (usually male!) half of humanity sees in it a source of purile humor or an "ONOES! THE CHILDREN"..... especially when fully half of those under-16 children have one of the said body parts and have as much right to it being treated as valid knowledge as they would treat an eyeball, an arm, a cancer or a method of DNA sequencing... and without us signalling it as "shameful" to learn about by virtue of exclusion from equal handling. I know which of these stances I respect more. FT2 On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:02 PM, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?

Isn't that the same as putting some images inside the category "inappropriate content"? Will it not leave the impression to the reader that "we" think that this is something not anybody should see? Can it be easily used by providers to filter out this images?

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Tobias Oelgarte &lt;tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: 1) Add a "collapsible" [*] parameter to the File: syntax, e.g. [[File:Lemonparty.jpg|collapsible]]. 2) When present, add a notice [*] to the top of the page enabling the reader to collapse collapsible images (and to make that the default setting for all pages if desired). 3) When absent, do nothing.

wrote:

With that in mind, I would humbly propose that we kill with fire at d/sp

This would appear to indicate the opposition is to *any* personal image filter per the Board resolution, and the category-based proposal additionally as an example of such rather than as the main topic of the vote. I think that says "should be scrapped" pretty blindingly clearly.

Unless nuances of the translation are inaccurate - is this the case? Do you see wiggle room in the original German phrasing?

I suspect (I have no direct evidence) that the glaring lack of the "should we actually have this at all?" question on the referendum generated a backlash. It's not clear to me how to correct this mistake - I fully accept and understand the process by which the referendum questions were generated (quickly dashed-off by three people without running them past anyone else), and that there was no intent whatsoever to spin the result - but from the outside view, having people take them as intended in bad faith is, unfortunately, entirely natural.

I also have to note that Sue's blog post was profoundly ill-considered at best - it has left a lot of people feeling highly insulted, and reads like an official staff stance to ignore opposition to the filter. Using the tone argument was, I think, the fatal element - when the powerful side of a dispute pulls out the tone argument, it may not actually neatly divide the powerless side; instead, the claimed non-targets may get just as offended by it as the claimed targets (and this is what happened), and take it as the nuclear option it is (and this is what has happened). It is not clear in what world any of this was ever a good idea. - d.

I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it, if I want to use it?

A neutral all-or-nothing image filter would not have such side effects (and would also neatly help low bandwidth usage).

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM, David Gerard&lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: It would also make the project useless. I don't want to see the 0.01% (yes, rhetorical statistics again) images of medical procedures, and I'd avoid seeing the (much higher) X% of images that are NSFW while in public. That does not mean that I want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and not see any images whatsoever. Given the choice, I would not use such a filter. We have the technology and the capacity to allow users to make nuanced decisions about what they do and don't want to see. Why is this a problem?

Am 22.10.2011 23:23, schrieb Nikola Smolenski: Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you

this judgment before you have even looked at it. Additionally it can be

easily exploited by your local provider to hide labeled content, so that you don't have any way to view it, even if you want to.

If you want a filter so badly, then install parental software, close

your eyes or don't visit the page. That is up to you. That is your

PS: If it wasn't at this place i would call your contribution trolling.

But feel free to read the arguments: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%…

Am 23.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Nikola Smolenski: It is not the user of the filter that decides *what* is hidden or not. That isn't his decision. If it is the case that the filter does not meet his expectations and he does not use it, then we gained nothing, despite the massive effort taken by us to flag all the images. You should know

If your provider is a bit clever he would block https and filter the rest. An relatively easy job to do. Additionally most people would not know the difference between https and http, using the default http version.

Well, we don't have to agree on this point. I think that this is possible with very little effort. Especially since images aren't provided inside the same document and are not served using https.

Same would go for a category/preset based filter. You and I mentioned it above, that it isn't necessary better from the perspective of the user, leading to few users, but wasting our time over it.

That is the point where a hide all/nothing filter would jump in. He would let you read the page without any worries. No faulty categorized image would show up and you still would have the option to show images in which you are interested.

None of the arguments is based on a filter that would be enabled as default. It is particularly about any filter that uses categorization to distinguish the good from evil. It's about the damage such an approach would do the project and even to users that doesn't want or need the feature.

The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool.

We are the majority of the contributers that make up the community. We decided that it won't be good for the project and it's goals. We don't forbid you to use an *own* filter. But we don't want a filter to be imposed at the project, because we think, that it is not for the benefit of the project. Point. nya~

Who is this "we" you are talking about? No one is going to force anyone to categorize images. If some people want to categorize images, and if their effort turns out to be in vain, again that is Their Problem and not Your Problem.

Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to use a piece of software? I want to use this category based filter, even if it is unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool. And now what?

On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:16 +0100, David Gerard wrote: I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it, if I want to use it? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Dirk Franke &lt;dirkingofranke(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: think Thanks for the update, Dirk. I think it's good that people are seriously discussing what it would mean to fork and how it would be done. Forking the project if WMF policies or decisions are considered unacceptable is one of the fundamental ways in which Wikimedia projects are different from most of the web; it's a key freedom, one which should be exercised judiciously but which should be preserved and protected nonetheless. With that said, I also think it's important to remember that Sue has explicitly affirmed that the development of any technical solution would be done in partnership with the community, including people who've expressed strong opposition to what's been discussed to date. [1] The vote in German Wikipedia, and most of the discussions to date, have focused on the specific ideas and mock-ups that were presented as part of the referendum. But as Sue has made clear, those ideas and mock-ups are just that, and the Board resolution creates room for different ideas as well, ranging from the simple (disabling/blurring all images) to the complex (like a category-based filtering system). Some of these ideas are explored here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en#Potent… Is there a similar brainstorming page on dewiki already? If not, would you be interested in organizing some community discussion on whether there are solutions within the scope of the resolution that the dewiki community would find acceptable, or whether the prevailing view is that the resolution itself should be scrapped altogether?

Thanks, Erik [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069472.html _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

With that said, I also think it's important to remember that Sue has explicitly affirmed that the development of any technical solution would be done in partnership with the community, including people who've expressed strong opposition to what's been discussed to date.