OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the objections that I'm aware of. Just as importantly it should actually work. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter
WereSpielChequers
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:55:46PM +0100, WereSpielChequers wrote:
OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the objections that I'm aware of. Just as importantly it should actually work. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter
Hmm, how would it fare against a marblecake attack? ;-)
http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/15/inside-the-precision-hack/
sincerely, Kim Bruning
I just lost The Game! (yet again)
On 11 October 2011 21:51, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:55:46PM +0100, WereSpielChequers wrote:
OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the objections that I'm aware of. Just as importantly it should actually
work.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter
Hmm, how would it fare against a marblecake attack? ;-)
http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/15/inside-the-precision-hack/
I agree on the one hand that anything is potentially gameable but:
a) Wikipedia is notoriously gameable and yet, fingers crossed, we have not had a mass Anon. attack. One day we might; it could be an image filter that triggers it, or it could be trying to delete non-notable programming languages (yep - that triggered much discussion, and the IRC rooms we monitor were awash with suggestions to attack WP for it..).
b) The Time "hack" was rudimentary at every step - no matter how the media (or this blog) portray it. The root cause of the hack was a technical ineptness at a several levels in the Time poll which allowed it to be maninpulated on a number of levels.
On the face of it any such system might be gameable; but no specific implementation details have been laid out (beyond the basic framework). So the concern "it might be hacked to force a certain result" is one of the most easily addressed :)
More problematic with your blithe dismissal is that the proposed implementation is inherently not all that gameable. This is because, as described, working out the filter for any individual is a P=NP (travelling salesman) problem.
This is the more critical problem; assessing similar filter requirements for individual person->image by comparing your preferences with others is a non-trivial process that would have to occur on a per-image basis.
That's not to say that it isn't a good idea - I quite like it (because it addresses the extant issues on both sides). There could be a way to rework the suggestion to one more capable of quickly deciding whether you wish to see an image or not (which, of course is the situation we are all striving for).
Tom
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:20:15PM +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 11 October 2011 21:51, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:55:46PM +0100, WereSpielChequers wrote:
OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the objections that I'm aware of. Just as importantly it should actually
work.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter
Hmm, how would it fare against a marblecake attack? ;-)
http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/15/inside-the-precision-hack/
I agree on the one hand that anything is potentially gameable but:
a) Wikipedia is notoriously gameable and yet, fingers crossed, we have not had a mass Anon. attack.
Actually, we've had all kinds of attacks. Anonymous is essentially our friend though. The folks going after us are <name suppressed to protect the guilty>.
Thanks to our anti-gaming policy (aka IAR), they don't often succeed }:-)>
b) The Time "hack" was rudimentary at every step - no matter how the media (or this blog) portray it. The root cause of the hack was a technical ineptness at a several levels in the Time poll which allowed it to be maninpulated on a number of levels.
Quite so. This means that we should learn from their ineptness, rather than -say- copying it ;-)
On the face of it any such system might be gameable; but no specific implementation details have been laid out (beyond the basic framework). So the concern "it might be hacked to force a certain result" is one of the most easily addressed :)
General rule of thumb: If you leak value preferences between users, with no intermediate (soft) security, your system might be game-able.
More problematic with your blithe dismissal
I didn't dismiss anything, I asked how it would fare against a marblecake attack!
is that the proposed implementation is inherently not all that gameable. This is because, as described, working out the filter for any individual is a P=NP (travelling salesman) problem.
And this is an interesting and constructive answer to that question. \o/
:-)
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:55 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the objections that I'm aware of. Just as importantly it should actually work. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter
I really read that with a huge deal of thought. I keep coming to the same conclusion here that the people who don't not only believe a workable system is desireable, but actively ignore the fact that what they are proposing is not real world workable seem to dominate the side in favor of some filtering scheme.
Case in point: (from your proposal)
"Whilst almost no-one objects to individuals making decisions as to what they want to see, as soon as one person decides what others on "their" network or IP can see you have crossed the line into enabling censorship. However as Wikimedia accounts are free, a logged in only solution would still be a free solution that was available to all."
No, that is just simply not logically sound. Period. Wikipedia has no control over what happens to content or the formats or abilities of their scripts or whatever, as soon as it goes out of a intarweb pipe. Period. Not tenable, even if you believe a non-censorship enabling implementation is a good thing (I don't, but I am trying to address the insanity of believing that it could ever be accomplished.)
In general I think this is the best and most practical proposal so far. Having filter users do the classifying is the only practical option. In my opinion, it is unfortunately still problematic.
1. It is quite complicated from the user's point of view. Not only do they have to register an account, but they have to find and understand these options. For the casual reader who just doesn't want to see any more penises, or pictures of Mohammed, that is quite a lot to ask. The effort it would take to implement a system like this might outweigh the benefit to the small number of readers who would actually go through this process.
2. It is obviously subject to gaming. How long would it take 4chan to figure out they can create new accounts, and start thumbs-upping newly-uploaded pictures of penises while mass thumbs-downing depictions of Mohammed?
3. How can we prevent the use of this data for censorship purposes? Would we keep the reputation information of each image secret? I imagine many Wikipedians would want to access that data for legitimate editorial reasons.
Cheers,
Andrew (Thparkth) On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:55 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the objections that I'm aware of. Just as importantly it should actually work. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter
WereSpielChequers _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org