I am serious now, please read below as a serious proposal.
I was talking today with a friend about the image filter, and we came to the possible solution. Of course, if those who are in favor of censorship have honest intentions to allow to particular people to access Wikipedia articles despite the problems which they have on workplace or in country. If they don't have honest intentions, this is waste of time, but I could say that I tried.
* Create en.safe.wikipedia.org (ar.safe.wikiversity.org and so on). Those sites would have censored images and/or image filter implemented. The sites would be a kind of proxies for equivalent Wikimedia projects without "safe" in the middle. People who access to those sites would have the same privileges as people who accessed to the sites without "safe" in the domain name. Thus, everybody who wants to have "family friendly Wikipedia" would have it on separate site; everybody who wants to keep Wikipedia free would have it free.
* Create safe.wikimedia.org. That would be the site for censoring/categorizing Commons images. It shouldn't be Commons itself, but its virtual fork. The fork would be consisted of hashes of image names with images themselves. Thus, image on Commons with the name "Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg" would be "fd37dae713526ee2da82f5a6cf6431de.jpg" on safe.wikimedia.org. The image preview located on upload.wikimedia.org with the name "thumb/8/80/Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg/800px-Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg"; it would be translated as "thumb/a1f3216e3344ea115bcac778937947f1.jpg" on safe.wikimedia.org. (Note: md5 is not likely to be the best hashing system; some other algorithm could be deployed.)
* Link from the real image name and its hash would be just inside of the Wikimedia system. It would be easy to find relation image=>hash; but it would be very hard to find relation into other direction. Thus, no entity out of Wikimedia would be able to build its censorship repository in relation to Commons; they would be able to do that just in relation to safe.wikimedia.org, which is already censored.
Besides the technical benefits, just those interested in censoring images would have to work on it. Commons community would be spared of that job. The only reason why such idea would be rejected by those who are in favor of censorship would be their wet dreams to use Commons community to censor images for themselves. If they want to censor images, they should find people interested in doing that; they shouldn't force one community to do it.
Drawbacks are similar to any abuse of censorship: companies, states etc. which want to use that system for their own goals would be able to do that by blocking everything which doesn't have "safe" infix. But, as said, that's drawback of *any* censorship mechanism. Those who access through the "safe" wrapper would have to write image names in their hash format; but that's small price for "family friendliness", I suppose.
Thoughts?
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Thoughts?
I am against anything that validates the image filter.
I still believe that the filter is against the mission of the foundation.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Fajro faigos@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Thoughts?
I am against anything that validates the image filter.
I still believe that the filter is against the mission of the foundation.
-- Fajro
+1
+1 _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 21 September 2011 08:11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Fajro faigos@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
Thoughts?
I am against anything that validates the image filter.
I still believe that the filter is against the mission of the foundation.
-- Fajro
+1
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:19:48PM +0100, B?ria Lima wrote:
+1 On 21 September 2011 08:11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.comwrote:
+1
Please, enough with the plussing!
This isn't G+ or /. . It is not conducive to a consensus debate. :-/
sincerely, Kim Bruning
+1
2011/9/21 Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com
+1 _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 21 September 2011 08:11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Fajro faigos@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
Thoughts?
I am against anything that validates the image filter.
I still believe that the filter is against the mission of the
foundation.
-- Fajro
+1
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Such "school" and "safesearch" variations already exist. Why waste donor's money creating more?
I find it significant that the WMF has been unable to tell us how much the exercise has cost so far apart from informal vague claims that it was "tiny" or a couple of week's of someone's time. Projects using charitable monies without budgets or accounts concern me greatly.
Fae
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 16:27, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Such "school" and "safesearch" variations already exist. Why waste donor's money creating more?
Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be easily assumed that at least 10% of ~$10M given by US citizens and corporations want to have a kind of "family friendly" Wikipedia. Thus, $1M/year is fair price for creating something which would please them.
On 23 September 2011 21:44, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 16:27, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Such "school" and "safesearch" variations already exist. Why waste donor's money creating more?
Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be easily assumed that at least 10% of ~$10M given by US citizens and corporations want to have a kind of "family friendly" Wikipedia. Thus, $1M/year is fair price for creating something which would please them.
What? My point had nothing to do with how much money is raised in the US and there is no evidence apart from vague guesswork and assumptions of who wants or would use such features. Rather than building something that someone else already created, just give all the WMF staff a huge bonus and a nice holiday instead, that would be much better value for money.
Fae
Milos Rancic wrote:
Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be easily assumed that at least 10% of ~$10M given by US citizens and corporations want to have a kind of "family friendly" Wikipedia. Thus, $1M/year is fair price for creating something which would please them.
Assuming that the "10%" figure is accurate, it has no bearing on the feature's relative importance.
The same people/corporations might care more about numerous other potential uses of the money (including different unimplemented features), so your mathematical equation is invalid.
And I reject the premise that it's reasonable to base fund allocations on popular opinion, with donors' views carrying extra (all?) weight. Our mission is to disseminate information to the world, not to "please" donors by catering to their preferences.
David Levy
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 00:51, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be easily assumed that at least 10% of ~$10M given by US citizens and corporations want to have a kind of "family friendly" Wikipedia. Thus, $1M/year is fair price for creating something which would please them.
Assuming that the "10%" figure is accurate, it has no bearing on the feature's relative importance.
The same people/corporations might care more about numerous other potential uses of the money (including different unimplemented features), so your mathematical equation is invalid.
And I reject the premise that it's reasonable to base fund allocations on popular opinion, with donors' views carrying extra (all?) weight. Our mission is to disseminate information to the world, not to "please" donors by catering to their preferences.
In principle yes, but Board wants to please or "please" them.
On 09/21/2011 03:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
- Create en.safe.wikipedia.org […]
Then governments/ISPs/institutions could block unsafe-Wikipedia via DNS blocks. This is, compared to DPI, quite easy. Using en.wikipedia.org/safe/ might resolve this issue.
- Create safe.wikimedia.org. That would be the site for
censoring/categorizing Commons images. It shouldn't be Commons itself, but its virtual fork. The fork would be consisted of hashes of image names with images themselves. Thus, image on Commons with the name "Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg" would be "fd37dae713526ee2da82f5a6cf6431de.jpg" on safe.wikimedia.org. The image preview located on upload.wikimedia.org with the name "thumb/8/80/Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg/800px-Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg"; it would be translated as "thumb/a1f3216e3344ea115bcac778937947f1.jpg" on safe.wikimedia.org. (Note: md5 is not likely to be the best hashing system; some other algorithm could be deployed.)
You're counting on there being too many hashes to go through, which is correct. But there are far fewer images to go through. You'd only have to create a list of all hashes of all 11 million or so images on Commons and compare that list to the list of unsafe images on safe.wikimedia.org. Which is not easy (if you have to download all the files, i.e. if the files themselves are used for hashing, not only the file name), but arguably doable.
So, in effect, I don't think your proposal properly achieves what it tries to accomplish. (Sorry if I misunderstood your proposal)
-- Tobias
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 17:18, church.of.emacs.ml church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com wrote:
On 09/21/2011 03:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
- Create en.safe.wikipedia.org […]
Then governments/ISPs/institutions could block unsafe-Wikipedia via DNS blocks. This is, compared to DPI, quite easy. Using en.wikipedia.org/safe/ might resolve this issue.
Governments about which we are talking have methods to filter particular images, not just domain names. But, I am fine with .../safe/ as an option.
The other issue is that those who want to censor actually want to block non-censored access. If so, let's them give that, but not on the main site, so they could actually block en.wikipedia.org if they are so insane. Bottom line is to protect more permissive cultures. If some group really wants to have Wikipedia censored and it's so powerful to push WMF Board to do something beyond reasonable involvement in content issues, sexual education of their children is around the bottom of my concerns.
You're counting on there being too many hashes to go through, which is correct. But there are far fewer images to go through. You'd only have to create a list of all hashes of all 11 million or so images on Commons and compare that list to the list of unsafe images on safe.wikimedia.org. Which is not easy (if you have to download all the files, i.e. if the files themselves are used for hashing, not only the file name), but arguably doable.
So, in effect, I don't think your proposal properly achieves what it tries to accomplish. (Sorry if I misunderstood your proposal)
I am not sure what do you object at the end. If you have better technical idea or have an idea for better design, I am fine with it as long as it doesn't affect the main site.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org