(As > example: the only 2 girls who commented here - phoebe and me - are in opposite sides. ...)
-*B?ria Lima*
Technically, you, Sarah Stierch, Phoebe, and Sue have all commented -- at least 4 women, not just 2.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 15:54, Sumana Harihareswara sumanah@wikimedia.org wrote:
(As > example: the only 2 girls who commented here - phoebe and me - are in opposite sides. ...)
-*B?ria Lima*
Technically, you, Sarah Stierch, Phoebe, and Sue have all commented -- at least 4 women, not just 2.
One more, but forgot her name and too lazy to search. German females in discussion on German Wikipedia should be also checked.
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US (Brazil/Portugal) is against.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US (Brazil/Portugal) is against.
Hope we're not going to call this a poll. :)
Cheers Bishakha
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
One more, but forgot her name and too lazy to search. German females in discussion on German Wikipedia should be also checked.
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US (Brazil/Portugal) is against.
Oh yes, I'm so tactical! (LOL) Regardless, you'll be delighted to know that after mulling about the image filter and getting all bent out of shape about it, I've come to this conclusion:
"I don't give a shit about the image filter."
And it's an extremely freeing feeling.
-Sarah
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:23, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
One more, but forgot her name and too lazy to search. German females in discussion on German Wikipedia should be also checked.
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US (Brazil/Portugal) is against.
Oh yes, I'm so tactical! (LOL) Regardless, you'll be delighted to know that after mulling about the image filter and getting all bent out of shape about it, I've come to this conclusion:
"I don't give a shit about the image filter."
And it's an extremely freeing feeling.
As a member of one feminist organization, I understand dominant position among feminists toward pornography. It's generally personal (thus, not an ideological position), but as the main stream pornography is male-centric and historically connected with women abuse, they generally oppose it, but without hard stance on it. Softening stance has happened especially after widening ideology to the LGBT movement and identity theory.
Now, if we translate it into the frame of US culture, where every nudity is seen as "pornography", general position of American feminists is more clear. And you showed that ambiguous position, including inside of your last post: "In principle yes because it looks like one of the showings of the society dominated by men, but not sure what exactly; would be more happy not to think about it."
In other words, my point is that your (and Bishakha's) motivation is not the same to the motivation of others who are in favor of the image filter. As mentioned in some of the previous posts, I think that it is much more feminist to defend right of girls to be sexually educated, even if it would mean secretly browsing Wikipedia articles on sexuality, than to insist on comfort of adult females in offices and questionable background of one pseudo-ideological position.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
As a member of one feminist organization, I understand dominant position among feminists toward pornography. It's generally personal (thus, not an ideological position), but as the main stream pornography is male-centric and historically connected with women abuse, they generally oppose it, but without hard stance on it. Softening stance has happened especially after widening ideology to the LGBT movement and identity theory.
Now, if we translate it into the frame of US culture, where every nudity is seen as "pornography", general position of American feminists is more clear. And you showed that ambiguous position, including inside of your last post: "In principle yes because it looks like one of the showings of the society dominated by men, but not sure what exactly; would be more happy not to think about it."
Uh, ok. I'm pansexual and I like pornography. I'm also a feminist (I believe in equality). I'm also tired of being accused of being a prudish American because I think it's stupid that we have to have a mediocre photograph of a naked woman as the man shot for pregnancy. I also figure that if people want to censor what the hell goes on in their own home, they should have the power to do that. Smart kids learn to get around it anyway, if they really need to see a decapitation or a pair of breasts on Wikipedia.
Being called names and being lumped into a "oh all Americans are pro filter, blahblahblah, think nudity is bad" is really tiresome.
That quote also isn't mine.
In other words, my point is that your (and Bishakha's) motivation is
not the same to the motivation of others who are in favor of the image filter. As mentioned in some of the previous posts, I think that it is much more feminist to defend right of girls to be sexually educated, even if it would mean secretly browsing Wikipedia articles on sexuality, than to insist on comfort of adult females in offices and questionable background of one pseudo-ideological position.
I have never said, *ever*, led on I don't think "girls should not be educated" about sexuality. I also grew up in a time when I had to find "sexual content" by way of a pile of Playboys in my cousins bathroom, watching MTV, and stealing my sisters copy of Madonna's "SEX." Knowing how I was as a child (and I had a computer when I was 11, in my bedroom), I wouldn't be looking on Wikipedia to learn about sex. I'd be looking for some juicy image and videos and frankly you can't find that on Wikipedia (because we all know that Commons porn is really bad quality).
And I'm sure there are plenty of other people, regardless of gender, nationality, sexuality or other demographics that probably would feel the same way.
It's funny that you just turned this into a "think about the children" feminism "thing." I guess in your eyes I'm a failed feminist. ;)
-Sarah Who learned more about sexuality from Madonna then she ever did from school books or the internet.
Hi Sarah
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
As a member of one feminist organization, I understand dominant position among feminists toward pornography. It's generally personal (thus, not an ideological position), but as the main stream pornography is male-centric and historically connected with women abuse, they generally oppose it, but without hard stance on it. Softening stance has happened especially after widening ideology to the LGBT movement and identity theory.
Now, if we translate it into the frame of US culture, where every nudity is seen as "pornography", general position of American feminists is more clear. And you showed that ambiguous position, including inside of your last post: "In principle yes because it looks like one of the showings of the society dominated by men, but not sure what exactly; would be more happy not to think about it."
Uh, ok. I'm pansexual and I like pornography. I'm also a feminist (I believe in equality). I'm also tired of being accused of being a prudish American because I think it's stupid that we have to have a mediocre photograph of a naked woman as the man shot for pregnancy. I also figure that if people want to censor what the hell goes on in their own home, they should have the power to do that. Smart kids learn to get around it anyway, if they really need to see a decapitation or a pair of breasts on Wikipedia.
I have no idea about your personal stance, but correct me if I am wrong. Weren't you the one surprised to find an "in your face photo of a vagina" on an article about Vagina? You know where you said it was up-front and at the top unlike the article about penis where a "big giant penis in one's face upon opening it" ? just in case here it is [1]. Also, there is no difference between the pictures on the articles on these anatomical parts, the article you needed to compare it to was [[Human penis]] where is does have an "in you face photo" at the exact same place as the one about Vagina. I have a hard time understanding how you can claim to have either of those positions and resolve it with your earlier statements, but to each his own. I would even go as far as to say, that your original comments didn't appear very feminist at first glance.
You are correct that if "people want to censor what the hell goes on in their own home, they should have the power to do that", The question here is, who should develop such a way? people here are mostly arguing, if there is a need, someone would do it.
Being called names and being lumped into a "oh all Americans are pro filter, blahblahblah, think nudity is bad" is really tiresome.
That quote also isn't mine.
In other words, my point is that your (and Bishakha's) motivation is
not the same to the motivation of others who are in favor of the image filter. As mentioned in some of the previous posts, I think that it is much more feminist to defend right of girls to be sexually educated, even if it would mean secretly browsing Wikipedia articles on sexuality, than to insist on comfort of adult females in offices and questionable background of one pseudo-ideological position.
I have never said, *ever*, led on I don't think "girls should not be educated" about sexuality. I also grew up in a time when I had to find "sexual content" by way of a pile of Playboys in my cousins bathroom, watching MTV, and stealing my sisters copy of Madonna's "SEX." Knowing how I was as a child (and I had a computer when I was 11, in my bedroom), I wouldn't be looking on Wikipedia to learn about sex. I'd be looking for some juicy image and videos and frankly you can't find that on Wikipedia (because we all know that Commons porn is really bad quality).
Now, please inform me, if you would want the kids today or a younger version of yourself to learn about "sexual content" from Playboys or Madonna's "SEX" (both are pretty antiquated today) or an Encyclopedia? you know where you and half the people here edit. It might have a couple of graphic images of body parts we all have but it has a other things to like important information, text, statistics, some even consider that educational. Now I don't know how playboy or Madonna's "SEX" are looked at by feminists, but I would always prefer an encyclopedia over it (even with an in your face picture of a human anatomical part).
Regards Theo
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/067980.html
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
I have no idea about your personal stance, but correct me if I am wrong. Weren't you the one surprised to find an "in your face photo of a vagina" on an article about Vagina? You know where you said it was up-front and at the top unlike the article about penis where a "big giant penis in one's face upon opening it" ? just in case here it is [1]. Also, there is no difference between the pictures on the articles on these anatomical parts, the article you needed to compare it to was [[Human penis]] where is does have an "in you face photo" at the exact same place as the one about Vagina. I have a hard time understanding how you can claim to have either of those positions and resolve it with your earlier statements, but to each his own. I would even go as far as to say, that your original comments didn't appear very feminist at first glance.
I understand that vaginas, penises, breasts, butts, etc need to be "visually shown." I just laughed when I put "vagina" in the en.Wikipedia search box a spread vagina is shown with all the much needed descriptors to the part. When I search in en.Wikipedia "penis" I get a collection of penises preserved in jars.
There is a "human penis" article, again with all of the bits explained and shown. You just have to search for "human penis" or follow the links to it to find it. But frankly, if I'm going to look up "penis" on Wikipedia, I'm sure most people are looking for the human penis, not animal penises. I'm also sure more than a few of them pass over the direct for the human penis article.
I think it's entertaining. Again, I know that a vagina needs to be shown in an article about a vagina, but, I was, for 5 seconds, taken aback. ::shrugs::
Now, please inform me, if you would want the kids today or a younger version
of yourself to learn about "sexual content" from Playboys or Madonna's "SEX" (both are pretty antiquated today) or an Encyclopedia? you know where you
"Encyclopedias are boring," is what I would have said as a kid. When I was a kid I wanted juicy, fun, colorful, exciting content. Not a bunch of writing. I don't have children, but, I work in museums, and I worked at the world's largest children's museum, I have a little bit of knowledge about children's education (but nothing compared to others). Kids seek things out. They're sneaky, and parents aren't idiots - you can't hide things from your kids. I was one of those kids - I was going to to the bookshop in 1989 looking for Dr. Ruth books, I was sneaking off to the art books to look at Nan Goldin books.
But, again, that's just my personal experience.
And as a side note (and this goes to a number of people on this list): I don't need anyone, of any gender, questioning my feminism. It's as insulting as being called a censor. There are no rule books.
But if there was... ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique
-Sarah
On 09/30/11 9:41 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
I have never said, *ever*, led on I don't think "girls should not be educated" about sexuality. I also grew up in a time when I had to find "sexual content" by way of a pile of Playboys in my cousins bathroom, watching MTV, and stealing my sisters copy of Madonna's "SEX." Knowing how I was as a child (and I had a computer when I was 11, in my bedroom), I wouldn't be looking on Wikipedia to learn about sex. I'd be looking for some juicy image and videos and frankly you can't find that on Wikipedia (because we all know that Commons porn is really bad quality).
Now, please inform me, if you would want the kids today or a younger version of yourself to learn about "sexual content" from Playboys or Madonna's "SEX" (both are pretty antiquated today) or an Encyclopedia? you know where you and half the people here edit. It might have a couple of graphic images of body parts we all have but it has a other things to like important information, text, statistics, some even consider that educational. Now I don't know how playboy or Madonna's "SEX" are looked at by feminists, but I would always prefer an encyclopedia over it (even with an in your face picture of a human anatomical part).
So I agree, Madonna may be a little antiquated. Lady Gaga represents a more contemporary picture. Playboy has given way to far more explicit material on porn sites. Dead tree media like Playboy and Britannica are facing similar challenges in their respective audiences. Encyclopedic sex seems a little nerdy, and if you depend entirely on that your sex life must be damned boring. Adolescents will look at these words for a giggle, the same reason that they look in a dictionary to see if "fuck" is in there. They don't look in the dictionary to find its meaning; they already know that.
The sexual revolution is not just about feminism. That movement has helped to propel it forward, but sometimes I think that it has also contributed to obscuring the bigger picture... particularly when it incorporates winning, a feature of the masculine world, into its policies. Few of us, male or female, do well when it comes to living with paradox. The LGBT movement has helped. It has helped to dispel the absolute polarity that has excluded the middle from the gender gap. There's a lot of variety in that gap.
Editorial judgement is about sensitivities. There is a role for penis pictures, but once you see too many of them they all become pricks. I'm not wise enough to know when that line is crossed. Are any of us?
Sorry, but I have been warned twice that a glass of wine has been poured for me. I'll nee to come back to my literary flight at a later time.
Ray
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:07, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Uh, ok. I'm pansexual and I like pornography. I'm also a feminist (I believe in equality). I'm also tired of being accused of being a prudish American because I think it's stupid that we have to have a mediocre photograph of a naked woman as the man shot for pregnancy. I also figure that if people want to censor what the hell goes on in their own home, they should have the power to do that. Smart kids learn to get around it anyway, if they really need to see a decapitation or a pair of breasts on Wikipedia.
Being called names and being lumped into a "oh all Americans are pro filter, blahblahblah, think nudity is bad" is really tiresome.
That quote also isn't mine.
I didn't see any prominent poster on foundation-l to call someone "prudish American" or so. I mentioned a couple of times that majority of American Wikipedians actually don't want that filter or, at most, don't care about it. And your position is clearly different than the position of other proponents of image filter.
However, it is true that proponents of image filter issue are dominantly Americans and that the number of involved Americans doesn't correlate with their share in the number of editors. So, that's the issue of particular part of American society, not the issue of all Americans.
You should also note that we aren't talking here about mediocre photos, Second Life pornography, and tons of penises, but about *all* depictions, including very useful ones and, most importantly, about shorter or longer movies on sexual education. Once a filter -- always a filter. If censorship becomes acceptable once, we would just talk about its nuances, not about its existence. Ultimate passive censorship goal is exactly to forbid everything related sex to their children, including access to sexual education. Ultimate active goal is to have filtered Wikipedia by default and access to nudity just with ID card or social security number.
Note what Tim Starling said about this tool: No pro-censorship person would be happy with it if it assumes non-censored Wikipedia by default. They want hard lock and they won't leave us alone until they get it.
Issues raised by German Wikipedians are also very relevant. In principle, the proposed filter is not bad at all. However, everything behind the filtering is more or less problematic. Most importantly, that would make a mess on Commons and give possibility to software companies which make censorship software to use Wikimedian work for their tools.
I have never said, *ever*, led on I don't think "girls should not be educated" about sexuality. I also grew up in a time when I had to find "sexual content" by way of a pile of Playboys in my cousins bathroom, watching MTV, and stealing my sisters copy of Madonna's "SEX." Knowing how I was as a child (and I had a computer when I was 11, in my bedroom), I wouldn't be looking on Wikipedia to learn about sex. I'd be looking for some juicy image and videos and frankly you can't find that on Wikipedia (because we all know that Commons porn is really bad quality).
And I'm sure there are plenty of other people, regardless of gender, nationality, sexuality or other demographics that probably would feel the same way.
It's funny that you just turned this into a "think about the children" feminism "thing." I guess in your eyes I'm a failed feminist. ;)
-Sarah Who learned more about sexuality from Madonna then she ever did from school books or the internet.
I didn't say that you are against education in sexuality, as you stated that clearly a week or two ago. I said that your small comfort (not to learn how to turn off images in web browser and think about it when you browse articles about pregnancy and similar) means a lot to those who don't know where to search for information. In other words, I think that your comfort is a small price to allow a daughter of religious fundamentalists to educate herself on issues related to sex.
I don't think that you are a failed feminist :) That's a common and not particularly important motif in feminism. The difference is that the most of feminists are not in position to influence censoring Wikipedia, unlike you. That means that, as a feminist, you should analyze the situation better than just having preference toward a couple of photos and general position toward freedom of choice.
On 9/30/2011 8:53 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
As mentioned in some of the previous posts, I think that it is much more feminist to defend right of girls to be sexually educated, even if it would mean secretly browsing Wikipedia articles on sexuality, than to insist on comfort of adult females in offices and questionable background of one pseudo-ideological position.
From a feminist perspective, I would think there's clear reason for concern that the kind of sexual education (not just) girls would receive while browsing Wikipedia articles is built upon and reinforces many social elements connected with the oppression of women, and that the selection and presentation of images is a big part of the problem. Having divergent approaches starting with such basic topics as penises and vaginas suggests that that the difference in treatment is pretty pervasive. It's good to support education for girls, but if the kind of education provided is just going to perpetuate the problem, it's fair to question whether it's being conducted appropriately.
On this score, it seems likely that we are failing to live up to one of our core principles, that of neutrality. I think we need significantly better editorial judgment applied to many of these articles to address it. That will be a challenge as long as we have a male-dominated community that lacks much appreciation for the nature of the problem, and often fails to recognize how diverse its manifestations are. But I suspect that if we were substantially closer to a neutral approach in our coverage of these topics, there might be much less pressure around the principle of resistance to censorship.
--Michael Snow
On 30 September 2011 20:04, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
On this score, it seems likely that we are failing to live up to one of our core principles, that of neutrality. I think we need significantly better editorial judgment applied to many of these articles to address it. That will be a challenge as long as we have a male-dominated community that lacks much appreciation for the nature of the problem, and often fails to recognize how diverse its manifestations are. But I suspect that if we were substantially closer to a neutral approach in our coverage of these topics, there might be much less pressure around the principle of resistance to censorship.
I have heard *many* laments about the quality of our coverage of feminist issues from women. This suggests even to my relatively privileged white male brain that there may be an actual problem here. Possibly a strike force of feminist academics, armed with print references out to *here*?q
- d.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 21:12, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2011 20:04, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
On this score, it seems likely that we are failing to live up to one of our core principles, that of neutrality. I think we need significantly better editorial judgment applied to many of these articles to address it. That will be a challenge as long as we have a male-dominated community that lacks much appreciation for the nature of the problem, and often fails to recognize how diverse its manifestations are. But I suspect that if we were substantially closer to a neutral approach in our coverage of these topics, there might be much less pressure around the principle of resistance to censorship.
I have heard *many* laments about the quality of our coverage of feminist issues from women. This suggests even to my relatively privileged white male brain that there may be an actual problem here. Possibly a strike force of feminist academics, armed with print references out to *here*?q
I wanted to say the same. Hm. I'll talk with others from my organization and see is it possible to mobilize a couple of European feminist organizations to work on those articles.
On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US (Brazil/Portugal) is against.
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from the US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such posts in the future.
Risker
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US (Brazil/Portugal) is against.
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from the US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such posts in the future.
Risker _______________________________________________
I think you're reading too much into this - he was replying to two other posts on the subject purely by adding information. The question of "what do women think about the image filter? What about women in different regions?" is of some relevance - it's useful to try to understand both the ways in which men and women see this issue differently, and the impact of cultural origins on views. Not sure why he said "tactically" re Sarah, but he probably has a reason, and I think Millosh is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Nathan
On 30 September 2011 10:36, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US (Brazil/Portugal) is against.
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
about
in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
to
others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
seeing
the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from
the
US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a woman
from
the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such posts in the future.
Risker _______________________________________________
I think you're reading too much into this - he was replying to two other posts on the subject purely by adding information. The question of "what do women think about the image filter? What about women in different regions?" is of some relevance - it's useful to try to understand both the ways in which men and women see this issue differently, and the impact of cultural origins on views. Not sure why he said "tactically" re Sarah, but he probably has a reason, and I think Millosh is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point, Nathan. The blog post was about two basic issues:
*How Wiki[mp]edians are interacting with each other , and
*The role of editorial judgment in selecting which content is most educational, informative, appropriate and (in the case of images) aesthetic in the content that the various projects present to the world at large in our shared, collaborative quest to provide useful and educational information and media to the entire world.
There has been a fair amount of nastiness aimed at specific individuals and belittling of the opinions of others throughout this discussion. Just as importantly, there has been a fair amount of unjustified categorization of, and assumptions about, people's opinions (both pro and con) on the issue of an image filter. We all are aware that this sort of behaviour detracts from effective resolution of disputes. Xenophobia, sexism, and elitism do not help us to meet our collective goals, nor does an insistence on the discussion encompassing only very narrow parameters.
As to editorial judgment, we all know that just about every edit made to any of our projects requires some degree of judgment. Even editors who focus exclusively on vandal control have to exercise such judgment to ensure that they do not reinsert inappropriate information when reverting an apparent vandal. Projects have countless policies and guidelines that direct editors in their selection of material to be included, and under what circumstances. Article improvement processes on each Wikipedia are geared toward assisting editors to select the best and most subject-appropriate content, to present it in a well-written and visually attractive way, and to ensure that key information on the topic is included, while trivia is limited or eliminated.
"Wikipedia is not censored" is not a reason to include or exclude information within a specific article: it is the philosophy that makes it clear that Wikipedia provides educational and informative articles on subjects whether or not that subject may be censored by external forces. That is why we have articles about the Tiananmen Square protests, and the Dalai Lama, and Aung San Suu Kyi and frottage and vulva and Mohammed. Our job is to present the information, regardless of whether these articles could be censored somewhere in the world. How we present that information, however, is a matter of editorial judgment.
Risker
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point, Nathan. The blog post was about two basic issues:
*How Wiki[mp]edians are interacting with each other , and
*The role of editorial judgment in selecting which content is most educational, informative, appropriate and (in the case of images) aesthetic in the content that the various projects present to the world at large in our shared, collaborative quest to provide useful and educational information and media to the entire world.
There has been a fair amount of nastiness aimed at specific individuals and belittling of the opinions of others throughout this discussion. Just as importantly, there has been a fair amount of unjustified categorization of, and assumptions about, people's opinions (both pro and con) on the issue of an image filter. We all are aware that this sort of behaviour detracts from effective resolution of disputes. Xenophobia, sexism, and elitism do not help us to meet our collective goals, nor does an insistence on the discussion encompassing only very narrow parameters.
As to editorial judgment, we all know that just about every edit made to any of our projects requires some degree of judgment. Even editors who focus exclusively on vandal control have to exercise such judgment to ensure that they do not reinsert inappropriate information when reverting an apparent vandal. Projects have countless policies and guidelines that direct editors in their selection of material to be included, and under what circumstances. Article improvement processes on each Wikipedia are geared toward assisting editors to select the best and most subject-appropriate content, to present it in a well-written and visually attractive way, and to ensure that key information on the topic is included, while trivia is limited or eliminated.
"Wikipedia is not censored" is not a reason to include or exclude information within a specific article: it is the philosophy that makes it clear that Wikipedia provides educational and informative articles on subjects whether or not that subject may be censored by external forces. That is why we have articles about the Tiananmen Square protests, and the Dalai Lama, and Aung San Suu Kyi and frottage and vulva and Mohammed. Our job is to present the information, regardless of whether these articles could be censored somewhere in the world. How we present that information, however, is a matter of editorial judgment.
Risker
We may be misunderstanding each other, because I don't disagree with anything you've written. Where we might part ways is in classifying certain things as, in this case, sexism; I don't believe Millosh was being sexist at all. Understanding gender differences, and using data (even basically anecdotal data, in this case) is not the same as being sexist, and I think its likely that this is an example of "unjustified categorization of, and assumptions about, people's opinions." We should keep in mind that there are language and culture barriers even on this list, and that these influence not just word choice and grammar but also the context in which ideas are articulated and understood.
Nathan
I must confess I completely fail to understand how the discussions in this thread, especially the last several dozens or so posts, advance our mission.
Cheers Yaroslav
Am 30.09.2011 16:24, schrieb Risker:
The implication of your post is "if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such posts in the future.
Weird. I've only seen a post where Milos has been crunching some numbers. Don't you think you're assuming a bit too much to make such implications?
Regards, Oliver
On 30 September 2011 10:44, Oliver Koslowski o.nee@t-online.de wrote:
Am 30.09.2011 16:24, schrieb Risker:
The implication of your post is "if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such posts in the future.
Weird. I've only seen a post where Milos has been crunching some numbers. Don't you think you're assuming a bit too much to make such implications?
My question to you is why anyone would want to participate in a discussion
where their opinions are going to be classified by their sex or their geographic location rather than their input.
Risker
Am 30.09.2011 16:46, schrieb Risker:
My question to you is why anyone would want to participate in a discussion where their opinions are going to be classified by their sex or their geographic location rather than their input.
There's absolutely no harm in coming to a finding that, say, 80% of the US-American female contributors prefer the filter while only 30% of the non-US-American female contributors do. Just like there is no harm in stating that 86% of the core contributors to de-WP do not want to see the filter in their project.
It really depends on what you do with these numbers. If you use them and try to understand why the two groups feel in such a drastically different way and how you wan to deal with that, then there can't be anything wrong with that, can there?
You claim that Milos implied that "if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid", and I have not seen anything like that. It strikes me as funny that you would complain about his post being aggressive and alienating when your post could be construed as exactly that.
Regards, Oliver
I do think that one needs to have spent some time in Germany to understand that things *are* different there. Nudity is no big deal. To give some examples, municipal swimming pools may have times set aside for nude bathing. They may have mixed saunas, or changing rooms used by females, males, and children at the same time. Male and female full frontal nudity occurs on the covers of mainstream publications. No one bats an eyelid.
At the same time, Germany has some of the most stringent online youth protection laws when it comes to pornography, rather than nudity. Pornographic content on the internet is legal only if technical measures prohibit minors from getting access to the object (AVS = Age Verification System or Adult-Check-System).
That's typically a credit card-based system. A similar system is used e.g. to prevent minors' access to cigarette vending machines. (The reason this doesn't apply to us is that our servers are in the US, outside German jurisdiction.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-09-26/Op...
So I never saw the vulva appearance on the de:WP main page as a significant problem, when seen in the German cultural context. German kids look at images like that in school.
Andreas
--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Oliver Koslowski o.nee@t-online.de wrote:
From: Oliver Koslowski o.nee@t-online.de Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 16:02
Am 30.09.2011 16:46, schrieb Risker:
My question to you is why anyone would want to participate in a discussion where their opinions are going to be classified by their sex or their geographic location rather than their input.
There's absolutely no harm in coming to a finding that, say, 80% of the US-American female contributors prefer the filter while only 30% of the non-US-American female contributors do. Just like there is no harm in stating that 86% of the core contributors to de-WP do not want to see the filter in their project.
It really depends on what you do with these numbers. If you use them and try to understand why the two groups feel in such a drastically different way and how you wan to deal with that, then there can't be anything wrong with that, can there?
You claim that Milos implied that "if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid", and I have not seen anything like that. It strikes me as funny that you would complain about his post being aggressive and alienating when your post could be construed as exactly that.
Regards, Oliver
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from the US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such posts in the future.
As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how does it correlate with cultures.
On 30 September 2011 12:15, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
about
in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
to
others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
seeing
the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from
the
US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a woman
from
the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such posts in the future.
As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how does it correlate with cultures.
I'm sorry to tell you, though, that you will not get this answer from this mailing list. Only a tiny number of Wiki[mp]edians subscribe to this list, even fewer women subscribe to it, fewer still post to it, and your message incorrectly characterized the views of at least two American women based on their own posts to this list. Thus, it becomes a disincentive to share opinions when those opinions are first mischaracterized and secondly broken down by reported sex and geographic origin. Simply put, whatever happens on this list is statistically insignificant and cannot, even in the tiniest way, be considered representative of the views of either Wiki[mp]edians or our readership, let alone extrapolated to determine the opinions of a non-homogeneous country with 300 million residents.
I think there is much that can be discussed on the range of topic areas covered in this thread. But we must keep in mind that the views expressed here are those of the individuals, and there is absolutely insufficient information for any of us to assume that those individual views are representative of any particular demographic. The sample size is far too small.
Risker
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:29, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think there is much that can be discussed on the range of topic areas covered in this thread. But we must keep in mind that the views expressed here are those of the individuals, and there is absolutely insufficient information for any of us to assume that those individual views are representative of any particular demographic. The sample size is far too small.
Thus, I asked for positions of female editors of German Wikipedia. And, generally, to try to find the answer available data.
On 30 September 2011 12:32, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:29, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think there is much that can be discussed on the range of topic areas covered in this thread. But we must keep in mind that the views expressed here are those of the individuals, and there is absolutely insufficient information for any of us to assume that those individual views are representative of any particular demographic. The sample size is far too small.
Thus, I asked for positions of female editors of German Wikipedia. And, generally, to try to find the answer available data.
Do you have any reason to believe that a statistically significant number and percentage of female editors of the German Wikipedia are active participants in this mailing list?
Risker
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:46, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Do you have any reason to believe that a statistically significant number and percentage of female editors of the German Wikipedia are active participants in this mailing list?
No, but there are German Wikipedians who could research that issue.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
about
in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
to
others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
seeing
the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from
the
US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a woman
from
the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such posts in the future.
As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how does it correlate with cultures.
I am not convinced that all women feel the same way about the filter, nor all men - similarly, cultures are not homogenous. It is hard to generalize on any of these bases (plural of 'basis'), because there is no simple correlation.
Different individuals can have different responses, regardless of gender or culture. It doesn't tie in so neatly.
Speaking for myself, no, I can't see myself using the filter. So what? That doesn't mean I use myself as a proxy for the rest of the world to decide that no one else should, or that anyone who does is somehow a lesser human. And yes, I'm against censorship, but as I've said before, I don't see the filter as proposed as censorship.
The world is made up of different folks, whether we like it or not. And just as we provide for the person who doesn't flinch when seeing a vulva, why is it so wrong to even think about the person who does flinch when he or she sees a vulva? That's what I don't get.
Cheers Bishakha
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
about
in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
to
others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
seeing
the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or
from
the
US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a woman
from
the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making
such
posts in the future.
As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how does it correlate with cultures.
I am not convinced that all women feel the same way about the filter, nor all men - similarly, cultures are not homogenous. It is hard to generalize on any of these bases (plural of 'basis'), because there is no simple correlation.
Different individuals can have different responses, regardless of gender or culture. It doesn't tie in so neatly.
Speaking for myself, no, I can't see myself using the filter. So what? That doesn't mean I use myself as a proxy for the rest of the world to decide that no one else should, or that anyone who does is somehow a lesser human. And yes, I'm against censorship, but as I've said before, I don't see the filter as proposed as censorship.
The world is made up of different folks, whether we like it or not. And just as we provide for the person who doesn't flinch when seeing a vulva, why is it so wrong to even think about the person who does flinch when he or she sees a vulva? That's what I don't get.
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The strongest argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which use 1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe.
Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and they decide on removing things that make them flinch - how different would we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict access to Wikipedia for all the people that do flinch? I can point to Indian I&B ministry issues or Film censor board of India, but you probably know more about them than me.
Regards Theo
On Friday 30 September 2011 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Dattabishakhadatta@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancicmillosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Riskerrisker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
about
in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
to
others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
seeing
the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or
from
the
US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a woman
from
the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making
such
posts in the future.
As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how does it correlate with cultures.
I am not convinced that all women feel the same way about the filter, nor all men - similarly, cultures are not homogenous. It is hard to generalize on any of these bases (plural of 'basis'), because there is no simple correlation.
Different individuals can have different responses, regardless of gender or culture. It doesn't tie in so neatly.
Speaking for myself, no, I can't see myself using the filter. So what? That doesn't mean I use myself as a proxy for the rest of the world to decide that no one else should, or that anyone who does is somehow a lesser human. And yes, I'm against censorship, but as I've said before, I don't see the filter as proposed as censorship.
The world is made up of different folks, whether we like it or not. And just as we provide for the person who doesn't flinch when seeing a vulva, why is it so wrong to even think about the person who does flinch when he or she sees a vulva? That's what I don't get.
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The strongest argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which use 1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe.
Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and they decide on removing things that make them flinch - how different would we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict access to Wikipedia for all the people that do flinch? I can point to Indian I&B ministry issues or Film censor board of India, but you probably know more about them than me.
There is a big difference between *ratings* and *censorship*, a difference which the Indian government has routinely ignored or deliberately overlooked, as, I suspect is happening here in this discussion. Naturally, there are circumstances where ratings systems can be used to create effective censorship, but this doesn't have to be the case, and indeed isn't in various parts of the world - evidenced by the fact that virtually every country in the world has a ratings system for film. (Including Germany, by the way).
Regards Theo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.comwrote:
On Friday 30 September 2011 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Datta<bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancicmillosh@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Riskerrisker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
about
in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is
intimidating
to
others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
seeing
the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or
from
the
US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a woman
from
the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making
such
posts in the future.
As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how does it correlate with cultures.
I am not convinced that all women feel the same way about the filter,
nor
all men - similarly, cultures are not homogenous. It is hard to
generalize
on any of these bases (plural of 'basis'), because there is no simple correlation.
Different individuals can have different responses, regardless of gender
or
culture. It doesn't tie in so neatly.
Speaking for myself, no, I can't see myself using the filter. So what?
That
doesn't mean I use myself as a proxy for the rest of the world to decide that no one else should, or that anyone who does is somehow a lesser
human.
And yes, I'm against censorship, but as I've said before, I don't see
the
filter as proposed as censorship.
The world is made up of different folks, whether we like it or not. And just as we provide for the person who doesn't flinch when seeing a vulva, why
is
it so wrong to even think about the person who does flinch when he or
she
sees a vulva? That's what I don't get.
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see
and
what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The
strongest
argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which
use
1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe.
Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and they decide on removing things that make them flinch - how different
would
we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict access to Wikipedia for all the people that do flinch? I can point to Indian I&B ministry issues
or
Film censor board of India, but you probably know more about them than
me.
There is a big difference between *ratings* and *censorship*, a difference which the Indian government has routinely ignored or deliberately overlooked, as, I suspect is happening here in this discussion. Naturally, there are circumstances where ratings systems can be used to create effective censorship, but this doesn't have to be the case, and indeed isn't in various parts of the world - evidenced by the fact that virtually every country in the world has a ratings system for film. (Including Germany, by the way).
How about an encyclopedia? Anywhere?
Are you suggesting a rating system for an encyclopedia?
Theo
On Friday 30 September 2011 11:19 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabhala@gmail.comwrote:
On Friday 30 September 2011 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Datta<bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancicmillosh@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Riskerrisker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
about
in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is
intimidating
to
others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
seeing
the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or
from
the
US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a woman
from
the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making
such
posts in the future.
As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how does it correlate with cultures.
I am not convinced that all women feel the same way about the filter,
nor
all men - similarly, cultures are not homogenous. It is hard to
generalize
on any of these bases (plural of 'basis'), because there is no simple correlation.
Different individuals can have different responses, regardless of gender
or
culture. It doesn't tie in so neatly.
Speaking for myself, no, I can't see myself using the filter. So what?
That
doesn't mean I use myself as a proxy for the rest of the world to decide that no one else should, or that anyone who does is somehow a lesser
human.
And yes, I'm against censorship, but as I've said before, I don't see
the
filter as proposed as censorship.
The world is made up of different folks, whether we like it or not. And just as we provide for the person who doesn't flinch when seeing a vulva, why
is
it so wrong to even think about the person who does flinch when he or
she
sees a vulva? That's what I don't get.
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see
and
what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The
strongest
argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which
use
1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe.
Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and they decide on removing things that make them flinch - how different
would
we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict access to Wikipedia for all the people that do flinch? I can point to Indian I&B ministry issues
or
Film censor board of India, but you probably know more about them than
me.
There is a big difference between *ratings* and *censorship*, a difference which the Indian government has routinely ignored or deliberately overlooked, as, I suspect is happening here in this discussion. Naturally, there are circumstances where ratings systems can be used to create effective censorship, but this doesn't have to be the case, and indeed isn't in various parts of the world - evidenced by the fact that virtually every country in the world has a ratings system for film. (Including Germany, by the way).
How about an encyclopedia? Anywhere?
Are you suggesting a rating system for an encyclopedia?
No.
I'm suggesting that:
Ratings are different from censorship.
Sometimes, ratings can be used to create censorship.
Often, ratings do just that - rate.
For film.
In several countries around the world, including India, and Germany.
Theo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.comwrote:
On Friday 30 September 2011 11:19 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhala<aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
How about an encyclopedia? Anywhere?
Are you suggesting a rating system for an encyclopedia?
No.
I'm suggesting that:
Ratings are different from censorship.
Actually, it's a matter of perspective if you consider that. If you read the history Censorship in United States, it has an entire section about Film censorship[1], also of relevance might be the MPAA crticism section [2] or Tipper gore led Parent's Music resource center [3]. My question was, has there been an instance of an encyclopedia being censored or even rated?
Sometimes, ratings can be used to create censorship.
Often, ratings do just that - rate.
They actually restrict access, those ratings limit who can see a certain movie, depending upon the classification. Again, it is a matter of perspective.
For film.
In several countries around the world, including India, and Germany.
Theo
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States#Film_censorship [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rati... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center
On Friday 30 September 2011 11:47 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabhala@gmail.comwrote:
On Friday 30 September 2011 11:19 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhala<aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
How about an encyclopedia? Anywhere?
Are you suggesting a rating system for an encyclopedia?
No.
I'm suggesting that:
Ratings are different from censorship.
Actually, it's a matter of perspective if you consider that. If you read the history Censorship in United States, it has an entire section about Film censorship[1], also of relevance might be the MPAA crticism section [2] or Tipper gore led Parent's Music resource center [3]. My question was, has there been an instance of an encyclopedia being censored or even rated?
Sometimes, ratings can be used to create censorship.
Often, ratings do just that - rate.
They actually restrict access, those ratings limit who can see a certain movie, depending upon the classification. Again, it is a matter of perspective.
No. It's a matter of fact. Ratings can sometimes lead to censorship, often don't, and definitely do not have to. For film. And the same logic can apply here on Wikipedia or with any other kind of media. Wikipedia already has extensive internal and external quality ratings; this does not mean that stubs are being censored.
For film.
In several countries around the world, including India, and Germany.
Theo
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States#Film_censorship [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rati... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 30 September 2011 18:24, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and what not.
That is just completely untrue. The image filter will allow people to choose what to see and what not to see. We won't be making the decisions...
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On 30 September 2011 18:24, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see
and
what not.
That is just completely untrue. The image filter will allow people to choose what to see and what not to see. We won't be making the decisions...
Actually, "we" will be. Depending upon how such a system is implemented, it will use the editors or categories to find out which images go where and what is offensive. If you look at the mock-ups used in the referendum page[1][2], you will see switchable content filters based on categories or something similar. What picture goes under which content tab, would probably be decided by the categories.
People won't get to pick what goes under 'sexual content' or 'other controversial content' - for all we know, those 2 filters can occupy 90% of commons. I never got the impression that viewers would get a choice to pick and choose every single image they deem offensive, which brings the inevitable conundrum what is offensive to you, might not be for me.
Then, there also Kim's challenge to break such a filtering system.
Theo
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PIF-Proposal-Workflow-Anon-FromNav-Step2... [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PIF-Proposal-Workflow-Anon-FromNav-Step3...
On 30 September 2011 19:41, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Then, there also Kim's challenge to break such a filtering system.
Kim doesn't need to do a damn thing. There are enough *actual* trolls on the Internet to mess with it just for the lulz.
- d.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
That is just completely untrue. The image filter will allow people to choose what to see and what not to see. We won't be making the decisions...
Actually, "we" will be. Depending upon how such a system is implemented, it will use the editors or categories to find out which images go where and what is offensive. If you look at the mock-ups used in the referendum page[1][2], you will see switchable content filters based on categories or something similar. What picture goes under which content tab, would probably be decided by the categories.
No, we won't be. We will be putting certain categories/tags/classifications on images, but it will still be the readers themselves who decide whether or not they see the tagged images.
People won't get to pick what goes under 'sexual content' or 'other controversial content' - for all we know, those 2 filters can occupy 90% of commons. I never got the impression that viewers would get a choice to pick and choose every single image they deem offensive, which brings the inevitable conundrum what is offensive to you, might not be for me.
There might well be an option to show a certain image even though it's under the filter. Apart from that, if we were of the opinion that we should do something perfectly or not at all, we would not have any of our projects.
André Engels wrote:
We will be putting certain categories/tags/classifications on images, but it will still be the readers themselves who decide whether or not they see the tagged images.
But _we_ will need to determine the categories/tags/classifications to use and the images to which they're applied.
As previously discussed, unless we implement an "unveiled women" category (which is highly unlikely), readers who object to such images will be discriminated against.
And for a hypothetical "nudity" category, we'll have to decide what constitutes "nudity." This will trigger endless debate, and whatever definition prevails will fail to jibe that held by a large number of readers.
We will be putting certain categories/tags/classifications on images, There might well be an option to show a certain image even though it's under the filter. Apart from that, if we were of the opinion that we should do something perfectly or not at all, we would not have any of our projects.
As I pointed out to you in a previous reply, an alternative image filter implementation has been proposed (and is endorsed by WMF trustee Samuel Klein). It would accommodate everyone and require no determinations on the part of the community (let alone analysis/tagging of millions of files, with thousands more uploaded every day).
Please see the relevant discussion: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Categories#ge... or http://goo.gl/t6ly5
David Levy
I wrote:
And for a hypothetical "nudity" category, we'll have to decide what constitutes "nudity." This will trigger endless debate, and whatever definition prevails will fail to jibe that held by a large number of readers.
The above should read "jibe _with_ that held by a large number of readers."
David Levy
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:10:37PM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
No, we won't be. We will be putting certain categories/tags/classifications on images, but it will still be the readers themselves who decide whether or not they see the tagged images.
Well, those tags would be public, so *anyone* can decide whether or not downstream can see the tagged images.
Semantically and technically there's very little difference between our current proposed implementation and that of intermediate parties. The consequences are both obvious and chilling.
We might be just a little too close to the edge on this one. We need some other options. :)
Fortunately, people like Erik Moeller have been considering other implementations, where no central categories or lists are used.
Those seem MUCH more sane, and are probably the way forward here. :-)
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2011 18:24, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and what not.
That is just completely untrue. The image filter will allow people to choose what to see and what not to see. We won't be making the decisions...
Since the filter doesn't exist yet, nor are there any technical descriptions of how it might work, it's impossible to make definitive pronouncements. Even so, readers won't be the ones making the crucial decisions about categorization - and readers might be at the mercy of libraries, schools, workplaces, governments, etc. that make use of the filter non-optional.
We should assume that any system that relies on editor-generated categories will be a long-term battleground; as we've always seen, those with the most extreme positions come to dominate the most contentious areas - requiring the intervention of many others over extended periods of time to reach incremental compromises. The image filter will likely be no different.
Nathan
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and what not.
Theo: they are different things, and given the premium on accuracy and precision at wikipedia, I don't think we can claim that editorial judgments and censorship are the same.
It should not be our job to censor our own content.
We're not suggesting that as far as I know. Nothing is being removed from the sites. [1]
The strongest argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which use 1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe.
Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and they decide on removing things that make them flinch -
how different would
we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict access to Wikipedia for all the people that do flinch?
There is no proposal to remove anything from the sites; as I understand it, it is proposed that users can click on a button to turn off some images - those who want to continue to see everything can continue to do so. Nothing goes.
But when the Indian government bans Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses or James Lane's book on Shivaji, that is censorship.[2]
I can point to Indian I&B ministry issues or
Film censor board of India, but you probably know more about them than me.
Yes, I know from personal experience - had a huge brush with the Censor
Board in 2001 and refused to remove any content from my docu as demanded by them. [3]
Cheers Bishakha
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_India
[3] http://infochangeindia.org/agenda/the-limits-of-freedom/the-secret-life-of-f...
Hiya Bishakha
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see
and
what not.
Theo: they are different things, and given the premium on accuracy and precision at wikipedia, I don't think we can claim that editorial judgments and censorship are the same.
I have said, it is a matter of perspective how you view them. But if we go by the assumption that editorial judgement is a separate thing, whose job is it to exercise it? WMF has long held the position that the project are independent and it has not editorial control over what the community decides- this would not be the case if we consider the filter an editorial judgement. Keeping in mind the reaction that has been shown by different communities, would it mean, WMF would be exercising that control? using an already existing structure of categories created earlier, possibly by editors who don't agree with the filter, to implement the said editorial control? What about editorial independence[1]?
It should not be our job to censor our own content.
We're not suggesting that as far as I know. Nothing is being removed from the sites. [1]
No, it is only being hidden. Based on an arbitrary system of categories that can be exploited. We are indeed hiding our content, same as any dictatorial regime who chooses to hide works of literature, art or knowledge (I hope the last one is not us) from its people.
Mediawiki also works in a similar fashion, it hides revisions rather than delete it outright when an article is deleted - Irony?
The strongest argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which
use
1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe.
Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and they decide on removing things that make them flinch -
how different would
we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict access to Wikipedia for all the people that do flinch?
There is no proposal to remove anything from the sites; as I understand it, it is proposed that users can click on a button to turn off some images - those who want to continue to see everything can continue to do so. Nothing goes.
I never said there was. I said "restrict access to Wikipedia for all the people that do flinch". There is a big gap on how this system would be implemented, if we go by the proposed system in the mock-up, it would be using categories to implement what is deemed offensive. The problem is, when you click on a filter the decision on what is offensive might not be a users alone, but a standardized one across the board.
But when the Indian government bans Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses or James Lane's book on Shivaji, that is censorship.[2]
I can point to Indian I&B ministry issues or
Film censor board of India, but you probably know more about them than
me.
Yes, I know from personal experience - had a huge brush with the Censor
Board in 2001 and refused to remove any content from my docu as demanded by them. [3]
Depending on the perspective, one can argue that they only wanted the content hidden, not visible to those who do flinch. Would it be different if they argued that they were only exercising editorial control? for the children, the general public and all the people who do flinch.
Regards Theo
--- On Sat, 1/10/11, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
From: Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, 1 October, 2011, 1:58
We're not suggesting that as far as I know. Nothing is being removed from the sites. [1]
No, it is only being hidden. Based on an arbitrary system of categories that can be exploited. We are indeed hiding our content, same as any dictatorial regime who chooses to hide works of literature, art or knowledge (I hope the last one is not us) from its people.
You are aware, aren't you, that content is only hidden if the user specifically says they would like to hide content in that category? That is why it is an opt-in filter. If you don't make a point of opting in, you won't even know it's there.
Unless you go into your account set-up and take the trouble to specify that you personally do not wish to see a particular category of images, you will see everything that you see now. Even if you have switched the filter on, you can still change your mind and view any image. One click on it is enough to show it. So what you are describing simply bears no relation to reality.
If you want to make a valid counterargument, say that you are worried that some censorious ISPs and countries might use our category definitions as a starting point for a bolt-on censorship system that restricts access to these images. However, be clear that then it would be *them* who would be hiding our content, not us. The worst you can accuse us of is that we made it easier for them. We'd still be in good company, as all other major websites, including Google, YouTube and Flickr, use equivalent systems, systems that are widely accepted. If I google for images of cream pies in my office in the lunch break, because I want to bake one, I'm quite happy not to have dozens of images of sperm-oozing rectums and vaginas pop up on my screen. Thanks, Google.
The point has been made that some people might be too inclusive in categorising, adding media to "controversial" categories that others would feel are not controversial at all. If this happens, the effect will simply be that fewer people will elect to use the filter. If a user switches the filter on, and finds that 9 out of 10 images the filter greys are images that they would really like to see, they'll simply get fed up with the filter and switch it off again. So it is in the interest of those wishing to offer people a useful filter not to go overboard in assigning media to any of the filter categories.
Andreas
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
If you want to make a valid counterargument, say that you are worried that some censorious ISPs and countries might use our category definitions as a starting point for a bolt-on censorship system that restricts access to these images. However, be clear that then it would be *them* who would be hiding our content, not us. The worst you can accuse us of is that we made it easier for them.
That does worry me though.
We'd still be in good company, as all other major websites, including Google, YouTube and Flickr, use equivalent systems, systems that are widely accepted.
I thought youtube had community guidelines where users could report images they found offensive and those were removed from the site - although from these guidelines it is not clear how many users need to complain before something is taken down. 1? 10? 100? 1000?
I can't link the guidelines, they're coming in Korean at Seoul airport, where I am.
So I thought we were actually proposing something quite different from youtube, for instance.
Cheers Bishakha
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
We'd still be in good company, as all other major websites, including Google, YouTube and Flickr, use equivalent systems, systems that are widely accepted.
I'm going to simply copy and paste one of my earlier replies (from a different thread):
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
If I google for images of cream pies in my office in the lunch break, because I want to bake one, I'm quite happy not to have dozens of images of sperm-oozing rectums and vaginas pop up on my screen. Thanks, Google.
Are you suggesting that a comparable situation is likely to arise at a WMF website?
David Levy
David,
You say that these organisations do what they do to maximise their profits. I would counter that they maximise their profits by serving their customers as well as they can do. Serving customers well is something that we should aspire to as well, regardless of whether our customers are paying us or not. We are providing a service; it is a well-established adage of quality management that the quality of a service is defined by the customer, not the provider. Providers who insist that they know better than the customer population go out of business. You'll probably say now that no one surveyed the customer population, and I would agree with you -- as far as I am concerned, the referendum should have targeted readers. But going by what commercial companies do is not a bad method to gauge customer preferences. While we're not out of pocket if we fail to respond to customer wishes, these companies are, and they do and pay for research to prevent that.
As for your question about the creampie example, some Wikipedians have said they might use the image filter at work, just so they don't have explicit images popping up on screen. Speaking for myself, my wife and son do sometimes give me a funny look when they walk past me and I'm on some page with in-your-face explicit media content, like the creampie article -- the point is I'm not on there to look at the juvenile and embarrassing picture on that page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act)%C2%A0),%C2%A0but to sort out some issue with the text. Yet that is not apparent to someone walking past you. I might well use the image filter, just to stop freaking out my son when he comes out of the kitchen.
Andreas
--- On Sat, 1/10/11, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, 1 October, 2011, 13:42
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
We'd still be in good company, as all other major websites, including Google, YouTube and Flickr, use equivalent systems, systems that are widely accepted.
I'm going to simply copy and paste one of my earlier replies (from a different thread):
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
If I google for images of cream pies in my office in the lunch break, because I want to bake one, I'm quite happy not to have dozens of images of sperm-oozing rectums and vaginas pop up on my screen. Thanks, Google.
Are you suggesting that a comparable situation is likely to arise at a WMF website?
David Levy
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Hiya Bishakha
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
I have said, it is a matter of perspective how you view them. But if we go by the assumption that editorial judgement is a separate thing, whose job is it to exercise it? WMF has long held the position that the project are independent and it has not editorial control over what the community decides- this would not be the case if we consider the filter an editorial judgement. Keeping in mind the reaction that has been shown by different communities, would it mean, WMF would be exercising that control? using an already existing structure of categories created earlier, possibly by editors who don't agree with the filter, to implement the said editorial control? What about editorial independence[1]?
Good point - I don't think WMF is trying to take editorial control. WMF is trying to develop a software feature.
Yes, editorial independence is part of editorial judgement and editing. (Am at Seoul airport, not slept all night, so pardon my fuzziness).
No, it is only being hidden.
Not being hidden for everyone - you hide if you want, I don't if I don't want.
Based on an arbitrary system of categories that can be exploited.
Agree that there has been a good discussion on categorization, and the issues related to this, both on this list and on meta - and useful models proposed.
Best Bishakha
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_independence _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:24, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The strongest argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project already somewhere.
That argument is all too convenient.
The WMF shouldn't do X because nobody else has successfully done X.
And the only reason nobody else has done X successfully is because they don't *really* want it.
(Not because they actually do want it but don't have the resources. Not because it is hard for an external body to do but might be easier for the WMF to do. No, those aren't possible at all.)
A slight reductio ad absurdum of the argument:
In 2001, Jimmy and Larry and Ben Kovitz are sitting around deciding whether to install wiki software. One of them remarks "well, if someone really wanted a wiki-based encyclopedia, they would have done it already." Following this impeccable logic, they decide that it's probably not something anybody wants, and continue pressing on with Nupedia...
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:24, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see
and
what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The
strongest
argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project already somewhere.
That argument is all too convenient.
The WMF shouldn't do X because nobody else has successfully done X.
And the only reason nobody else has done X successfully is because they don't *really* want it.
(Not because they actually do want it but don't have the resources. Not because it is hard for an external body to do but might be easier for the WMF to do. No, those aren't possible at all.)
A slight reductio ad absurdum of the argument:
In 2001, Jimmy and Larry and Ben Kovitz are sitting around deciding whether to install wiki software. One of them remarks "well, if someone really wanted a wiki-based encyclopedia, they would have done it already." Following this impeccable logic, they decide that it's probably not something anybody wants, and continue pressing on with Nupedia...
First, that is really not my argument. If anyone, I would attribute it to MzMcbride on an earlier post titled 'Personal image filter: leave it to third parties' [1]. I only subscribed to that outlook. There is also an argument to be had based on, Necessity being the mother of Invention. The fact is, a sanitized version of Wikipedia or in your analogy, X does exist [2], it is not successful or in high demand. You are trying to make his argument against innovation, I doubt that was the intention at all. I believe MzMcbride's point was along the lines that, Wikimedia should remain neutral in the matter. The content is available and could be filtered or forked by other parties/free market but Wikimedia itself should focus on gathering the sum of all human knowledge instead of the sum minus controversial content.
In case we choose to call this filter 'editorial control' or 'editorial judgement' who should have the responsibility to enact and run it? WMF's long-standing position has been to only facilitate the community and not take any editorial control over the projects. If WMF enables the said-filter, the work done by the community before would be used to enact and run the filter through categories or some similar structure, a decision not agreed on by the community. Would it mean WMF will be taking an editorial or an authoritative position when it comes to content?
Theo
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/068211.html [2]http://schools-wikipedia.org/
Tom Morris wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:24, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The strongest argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project already somewhere.
That argument is all too convenient.
The WMF shouldn't do X because nobody else has successfully done X.
And the only reason nobody else has done X successfully is because they don't *really* want it.
(Not because they actually do want it but don't have the resources. Not because it is hard for an external body to do but might be easier for the WMF to do. No, those aren't possible at all.)
Can you explain how investing resources into an opt-in image filter is a good idea? What's the virtue of such a project? Does it serve Wikimedia's mission? Does diverting resources from other projects and activities in favor of this one do more harm than good?
I think it makes more sense to focus on these questions, rather than inventing silly tales.
MZMcBride
(Not because they actually do want it but don't have the resources. Not because it is hard for an external body to do but might be easier for the WMF to do. No, those aren't possible at all.)
Well, given that an image filter is a technically easy proposition, no, its not because of lack of resources that the wiki's haven't implemented one. If the community had wanted one it would have been developed and ready to go years ago.
The WMF foundation has no business doing X if the community already has the ability do X. They were created to do what we can not, manage servers and legal.
We have already seen top down control fail with Nupedia and Citizendium.
Jorgenev
On 30 September 2011 09:15, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from the US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid.
I just want to point out quickly that I am not American, and my position on all these issues is actually a very Canadian one. Ray and Risker and other Canadians will recognize this.
Canada doesn't really feel itself to have a fixed national identity. We makes jokes about the fact that that IS our identity -- that we are continually renegotiating and stretching the boundaries of what it means to be Canadian. We believe our culture is the aggregation and accumulation of all the views and experiences and attitudes of our citizenry. Each wave of immigration --the French and the British, the Chinese, the Italians, the Indians, the Jamaicans, and so forth-- has influenced what Canada is, and how it understands itself.
That's what I'm used to, as a Canadian -- it's normal for me to listen to minorities and find ways to incorporate their perspectives into mine.
Thanks, Sue
-- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 19:59, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
I just want to point out quickly that I am not American, and my position on all these issues is actually a very Canadian one. Ray and Risker and other Canadians will recognize this.
Canada doesn't really feel itself to have a fixed national identity. We makes jokes about the fact that that IS our identity -- that we are continually renegotiating and stretching the boundaries of what it means to be Canadian. We believe our culture is the aggregation and accumulation of all the views and experiences and attitudes of our citizenry. Each wave of immigration --the French and the British, the Chinese, the Italians, the Indians, the Jamaicans, and so forth-- has influenced what Canada is, and how it understands itself.
That's what I'm used to, as a Canadian -- it's normal for me to listen to minorities and find ways to incorporate their perspectives into mine.
Most importantly, you are a manger :P
There is a line between protecting autonomy of particular community and protecting the whole: * When community around Arabic Wikipedia doesn't want to show Muhammad depictions, that's their right. * When community around Aceh Wikipedia wants to delete all Muhammad depictions from Commons, that's not their right. * When a person wants to remove whichever images from his or her Wikipedia interface, that's his or her right. * When implementation of that feature affects everybody, that's not his or her right.
Without solutions like "safe.en.wikipedia.org", I confess that I don't know how that should be solved. However, as successful manager, I am sure that you'll find a solution.
On 09/30/11 11:15 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 19:59, Sue Gardnersgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
That's what I'm used to, as a Canadian -- it's normal for me to listen to minorities and find ways to incorporate their perspectives into mine.
Most importantly, you are a manger :P
The trough of civilization????
Ray
On 09/30/11 10:59 AM, Sue Gardner wrote:
On 30 September 2011 09:15, Milos Rancicmillosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Riskerrisker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from the US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid.
I just want to point out quickly that I am not American, and my position on all these issues is actually a very Canadian one. Ray and Risker and other Canadians will recognize this.
Canada doesn't really feel itself to have a fixed national identity. We makes jokes about the fact that that IS our identity -- that we are continually renegotiating and stretching the boundaries of what it means to be Canadian. We believe our culture is the aggregation and accumulation of all the views and experiences and attitudes of our citizenry. Each wave of immigration --the French and the British, the Chinese, the Italians, the Indians, the Jamaicans, and so forth-- has influenced what Canada is, and how it understands itself.
That's what I'm used to, as a Canadian -- it's normal for me to listen to minorities and find ways to incorporate their perspectives into mine.
The Canadian lack of identity is an important part of Canadian identity, and we have no difficulty laughing at it. The "I am Canadian" ad by Molsen's beer had a lot of Canadians saying, "YES, that's it." William Shatner's description of Canadianism at the last Winter Olympics showed how much we can laugh at ourselves. An American talking that way about his country could risk a lynching. Many of us have embraced multiculturalism as essential element of building a mosaic; this is in great contrast to a melting pot that mixes scraps of paints of many colours into a single uniformally dull pallor.
Listening to minorities is important. Incorporating their views avoids the Tyranny of which De Tocqueville so eloquently wrote. As Wikipedians we do not always do that well. If there is one mentality that must be abandoned on the road to enlightenment it is that of winners and losers.
Ray
The huge problem here seems to be that the argument is being framed in terms of editorial judgement, but the means seems to the thinking public aimed at sidestepping editorial judgement by supposedly giving a viewing public more choice, but infact enabling gatekeepers when they want to keep you from seeing things... Period.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:12:37PM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US (Brazil/Portugal) is against.
This is not entirely true. At least one other .us female is against. (To wit, the one who asked me to post on foundation-l on this matter in the first place. ;-) )
sincerely, Kim "TINC" Bruning
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org