[Foundation-l] Image filter - Wikimedia-l

Kim Bruning

23 Sep 23 Sep

1:25 p.m.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 02:03:00PM +0200, me(a)marcusbuck.org wrote:

After some thinking I come to the conclusion that this whole discussion is a social phenomenon. I think the same is happening here. The majority of people probably think that an optional opt-in filter is a thing that does no harm to non-users and has advantages for those who choose to use it. (Ask your gramma whether "You can hide pictures if you don't want to see them" sounds like a threatening thing to her.) But the scepticists voice their opinions loudly and point out every single imaginable problem.

However, poll data suggests otherwise (taking the de.wikipedia sample). AFAIK it's a minority that want filters, with a majority that doesn't. But let's say that you are correct. I don't think many people are opposed to opt-in filters, because they think such a filter will have no side effects. They're also not generally opposed to unicorn ponies, because they think such ponies won't make a mess. In fact, I think lots of people would be all for Sharks with laser Beams on their heads- provided they are Mostly Harmless. Filters without Side Effects, Ponies that don't Make A Mess, Laser Sharks that are Mostly Harmless. All of these would be *priceless*. Unfortunately, there's some things that money simply can't buy For everything else, there's wikimedia. sincerely, Kim Bruning --

Reply

Kim Bruning

3:17 p.m.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:57:01PM +1000, Stephen Bain wrote:

...

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Kim Bruning <kim(a)bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote:

However, poll data suggests otherwise (taking the de.wikipedia sample). AFAIK it's a minority that want filters, with a majority that doesn't.

The dewiki poll had 300 participants, the one on meta over 23,000.

Hmm, one of us is mistaken, I think. So far, AFAICT we had an implemetation preferences survey via a reliable external third party, and a poll on de.wikipedia. The survey was not a poll or referendum, and did not address the fundamental question of whether this feature is wanted. The only actual poll I am aware of which asked this question was on de.wikipedia. There is also a discussion on meta, but no poll so far that I can tell. Are there any polls or surveys we have missed? If so, please link! sincerely, Kim Bruning --

Reply

Kim Bruning

6:46 p.m.

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:43:14AM +1000, Stephen Bain wrote:

...

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Kim Bruning <kim(a)bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote:

The survey was not a poll or referendum, and did not address the fundamental question of whether this feature is wanted. The only actual poll I am aware of which asked this question was on de.wikipedia.

My point is that the dewiki poll being worded in a manner that is pleasing to people who have critiqued the Foundation-wide survey does not render it representative, when it was participated in by at most one eightieth of the members of the community whom we know to have an opinion on the matter.

The de poll -however deficient you might consider it- is the only poll we have held on the question of whether an implementation will be accepted. (In this case, for the de community) The larger survey did not ask this question at all. So it is useless for answering this question. This much is obvious. So we can either go with the de sample, we do more polls, or we don't do either and (in that case) we can state that we don't know of any acceptable statistics. I think the latter (saying we have no statistics) is somewhat cowardly, because I think we have a good idea what a larger sample will look like. sincerely, Kim Bruning --

Reply

David Gerard

11:46 p.m.

On 24 September 2011 22:40, ???? <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

...

The last I heard the German people, as expressed through their lawmakers, DO NOT want their kids looking at porn or images that are excessively violent. They go so far as periodically getting Google to filter the search results for Germans.

Analogously, tell me about your personal endorsement of the Digital Economy Act and justify each provision. - d.

Reply

Tobias Oelgarte

12:33 a.m.

Am 25.09.2011 00:15, schrieb ????:

...

On 24/09/2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:

On 24 September 2011 22:40, ????<wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

The last I heard the German people, as expressed through their lawmakers, DO NOT want their kids looking at porn or images that are excessively violent. They go so far as periodically getting Google to filter the search results for Germans.

Analogously, tell me about your personal endorsement of the Digital Economy Act and justify each provision.

Last I heard in the real world Germans did not want their kids looking a images of porn or excessive violence online. That sites that were targeted at Germans required age filters, that Google was frequently asked to remove pages from theor index, and that ISPs were instructed to disallow access to such sites. Under such circumstances the opinions of 300 self selecting Germans is unlikely to be indicative of German opinion.

Please provide some valid, notable sources for such claims. Otherwise i find it hard to believe.

Reply

Fajro

1:02 a.m.

All this discussion is useless. The image filter is a violation of the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation. "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." If the editors of a project put an image in an article is because the image is relevant/educational/illustrative and therefore is content that the Foundation must "disseminate effectively and globally." "freely share in the sum of all knowledge" remember? -- Fajro

Reply

Tobias Oelgarte

1:40 a.m.

Am 25.09.2011 01:10, schrieb Jussi-Ville Heiskanen:

...

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Phil Nash<phnash(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

???? wrote:

On 24/09/2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:

On 24 September 2011 22:40, ????<wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote: > The last I heard the German people, as expressed through their > lawmakers, DO NOT want their kids looking at porn or images that are > excessively violent. They go so far as periodically getting Google > to filter the search results for Germans. Analogously, tell me about your personal endorsement of the Digital Economy Act and justify each provision.

Last I heard in the real world Germans did not want their kids looking a images of porn or excessive violence online. That sites that were targeted at Germans required age filters, that Google was frequently asked to remove pages from theor index, and that ISPs were instructed to disallow access to such sites. Under such circumstances the opinions of 300 self selecting Germans is unlikely to be indicative of German opinion.

Unless I've missed something of importance, the stance of parents in Germany is little different from those in any other country. The USA and UK have both tried, and failed, to impose such censorship, even through licensing or grading schemes; but the bottom line is that the internet doesn't work that way, and in my experience there is no common denominator jurisdiction that has the will or the power to impose any restrictions on a global medium. Local jurisdictions may attempt to do so, but experience over the last thirty years tends to suggest that such restrictions are easily circumvented. That's why TOR, to name only one, exists. Optimistically, global censorship is just not going to happen.

Personally my understanding of the German position on censorship is that it shouldn't happen, pretty much like in Finland, Sweden, Norway, France and the Netherlands. Can't really speak for Austria, Belgium, Switcherland or the staunchly mediterranean european countries (suspect the mediterraneans are heavily beset by cognitive dissonance -- "think of the children" but when one like Berlusconi thinks of the children the wrong way and gets caught, it is all just a political witch-hunt; and when it is Carnivale, anything goes, it is just a little bit of fun, plenty of time to be offended when Carnivale is over.<rolls eyes> )

Censorship, as it is, is forbidden by the German constitution, with extra rights to allow open (even violent) protest if the constitution is in danger to be ignored or abolished. That goes for many other European countries as well. You will really have a hard time to offend European people with sexual or violent images, especially when used in educational context. Just go in a super market and you will unwillingly stop at the checkout counter and look at bare breasts on the title page of the BILD newspaper.[1] The same picture applies for the other countries as well. That Italy has such an grudge against Berlusconi is not based on his bunga-bunga-parties alone. It's basically against the money he and his political party wastes, while the country itself has it's problems. Of course it is a political witch-hunt. If you speak about Canivale (a mostly German tradition) then it "just" the combination of satire and a party. While the party stops, satire is still a daily element. You will find it on the second page of newspapers (mostly about politics), in the daily TV-shows or at the local theater. If politicians, minorities or majorities would be easily to offend, then it would really be big show. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild - The article has a good example on how it looks like.

Reply

Milos Rancic

23 Sep 23 Sep

6:52 p.m.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 18:43, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

My point is that the dewiki poll being worded in a manner that is pleasing to people who have critiqued the Foundation-wide survey does not render it representative, when it was participated in by at most one eightieth of the members of the community whom we know to have an opinion on the matter.

A person who made 4 edits in each of 2004, 2005 and 2007 is not a member of community. German poll is consistent with their turn out on Board elections.

Reply

Nikola Smolenski

4:22 p.m.

On 23/09/11 16:08, David Gerard wrote:

...

On 23 September 2011 14:57, Stephen Bain<stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The dewiki poll had 300 participants, the one on meta over 23,000.

There was a poll on meta which asked "do you want the filter"? I'd love a link to it.

Surely, if a significant percentage of the 23,000 did not want the filter, they would find a way to tell us that?

Reply

Marcus Buck

5:02 p.m.

Zitat von Kim Bruning <kim(a)bruning.xs4all.nl>nl>:

...

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 02:03:00PM +0200, me(a)marcusbuck.org wrote:

...

I think the same is happening here. The majority of people probably think that an optional opt-in filter is a thing that does no harm to non-users and has advantages for those who choose to use it. (Ask your gramma whether "You can hide pictures if you don't want to see them" sounds like a threatening thing to her.) But the scepticists voice their opinions loudly and point out every single imaginable problem.

However, poll data suggests otherwise (taking the de.wikipedia sample). AFAIK it's a minority that want filters, with a majority that doesn't.

I don't want to engage in long arguments, because I know you have your opinion made and I have too and none of us is probable to change them. But one more comment: I think there's a heavy bias at work. When I spoke of "majority" I meant people in general (like if you were going to a mall, pedestrian area, market or similar and asking for people's opinions there). The 300 participants of the Meinungsbild are a small, heavily self-selected group. People participating in Wikipedia are usually well-educated, liberty-loving, censorship-hating, altruistic etc. Even among Wikipedians only a small group is committed enough to participate in such polls. And the whole poll was an action dedicated to stop the filter. So the result is just another form of expression of the phenomenon I sketched in my original post of this thread. People who self-selected themselves to fight for the cause of the minority of scepticists. Of course you'll have a good argument with saying that the opinion of people who spent much reflection on the topic is more relevant than the gut opinion of random people. But there are also good arguments for it and people who have reflected about them and liked them. Oliver Koslowski said something I found interesting: "Are we really likely to get more readers, more donations and - much more importantly - more authors?" These are all community-focussed goals. But the image filter is not for the benefit of the community. The image filter is for the readers. So they can avoid looking at images that repel them. That's just a nice thing to do. Or to use a word more serious word than "nice": an ethical thing to do. Not shoving down things people's throats when people have chosen not to get them shoved down their throat. The arguments that the filter could aid in censorship for evil governments or organizations seems a bit overinflated looking at the advanced methods of censorship they've already developed. And the selection process the community has to do feels not to be much different than what the community already does now. Marcus Buck User:Slomox

Reply

Sarah Stierch

2:19 p.m.

+1 You've just posted what many of us think and feel. I read the transcript for office hours with Sue from yesterday and it was the same thing. 45 minutes of image filter skepticism and more. I'm glad I couldn't attend it, seemed like a painful and unintellectual experience to sit through. And if i had a dollar for the mentioning of "Germans" I'd be rich. And here people are arguing about lack of coverage about other projects and languages. So tired of the "Us vs. Them" mentality. I'd rather talk about GMOs, JFK, Creationism and the end of the world next year....at this point. Sarah Stierch Who is never bored and is surely not mainstream, but is happy to be called so right now. Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :) On Sep 23, 2011, at 8:03 AM, me(a)marcusbuck.org wrote:

...

After some thinking I come to the conclusion that this whole discussion is a social phenomenon. You probably know how some topics when mentioned in newspaper articles or blogs spur wild arguments in the comments sections. When the article mentions climate change commentators contest the validity of the collected data, if it mentions religions commentators argue that religion is the root of all evil in the world, if it is about immigration commentators start to rant how immigrants cause trouble in society, if it is about renewable energies commentators tell us how blind society is to believe in its ecologicalness. It's always the same pattern: the topic is perceived well in the general society (most sane people think that climate change is real, that renewable energies are the way to go, that religious freedom is good and that most immigrants are people as everybody else who do no harm), but a small or not so small minority experiences these attitudes as a problem and tries to raise awareness to the problems of the trend (usually exaggerating them). The scepticists give their arguments and the non-scepticists answer them. The non-scepticists usually have not much motivation to present their arguments (because their position is already the mainstream, so not much incentive to convince more people, just trying to not let the scepticists' opinions stand unwithspoken) while the scepticists have much motivation to present their arguments (if they don't society will presumedly face perdition). This difference in the motivation leads to a situation where both groups produce a similar content output leading to the semblence that both groups represent equal shares of society. I think the same is happening here. The majority of people probably think that an optional opt-in filter is a thing that does no harm to non-users and has advantages for those who choose to use it. (Ask your gramma whether "You can hide pictures if you don't want to see them" sounds like a threatening thing to her.) But the scepticists voice their opinions loudly and point out every single imaginable problem. I just want to point out that an idea like a free community-driven everybody-can-edit-it encyclopedia with no editorial or peer-review process would never have been created if a long discussion would have preceded its creation. The scepticists would have raised so many seemingly valid concerns that they'd buried the idea deep. I'm feeling that a group of worst-case scenarioists are leading the discussion to a point where the image filter is buried just because everybody is bored about the discussion. Marcus Buck User:Slomox PS: Please don't understand this as a longish version of "You guys opposing my opinion are trolls!". I don't think that the points raised by scepticists should be neglected. But I think that many people reject the image filter because of very theoretical concerns for the sake of it completely removed from pragmatical reasons and that the length of the discussion is in no way indicative of the real problematicness of the topic. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply

Sarah Stierch

3:01 p.m.

All that I'm saying is that I THINK the majority of the people on this mailing list are bored and tired of the conversation and it's the same 10 people who seem to be arguing it and I think that many people on this list probably have no strong opinion, or fairly mainstream beliefs, about the filter. Mainstream meaning that the filter can be beneficial to those who desire it and many of us don't care how it's executed as long as we don't have to anything technical to make it happen. Have fun though running in circles! I trust WMF will make the decision on what to do for the community (god forbid! trust!) and I also trust that they're taking all of your concerns, citations, facts, arguments, ideas and concepts into consideration. I'll be comfortable with whatever is decided on upon by WMF, and usually I'm not one to give up so easily. But isn't there some old saying about arguing on the internet? Perhaps someone needs to plan an "Image Filter Conference" to break it all down offline. Also, people are extremely rude, in classic poor-manners Wikimedia style, and *I* believe that many people on this list have no desire to participate, because, like so much of the environment on Wikimedia, they are uncomfortable and not-interested in being drilled drilled drilled until they break down, give in, or can't stand up for themselves anymore. Or be called a name, or twelve. And all the data in the world right now is not going to change the way I feel, and this stuff just frustrates me. And I'm a researcher for a living who spends the hours of her day "citing sources" and gathering data and information. And all the cries of censorship isn't either. I'm also a person who likes hardcore fetish photography that is illegal in some states, goes by a pseudonym due to of my hobbies, and who's favorite band is Skinny Puppy. I saw Marilyn Manson in concert when he was ripping off SPK for chopping the heads off of chickens on stage and putting partially nude children in cages (with permission of their parents, heh) during his shows. The only thing that offends me more on Commons and Wikipedia and whatever is bad quality porn and self-indulgent cockshots (aka I want better sexual content that actually is awesome looking and worth using in articles!) And I know I'm not the only one here. But, I also don't have a problem with people wanting to control what they, their kids, their grandmas, their cats, their classrooms, whatevers see. And I'm not the only one, and again, I'M PUTTING MY TRUST, in WMF to make the decision. That's what I make donations to the foundation every month for. That's why I donate my time to contributing to Wikimedia projects. I'm over commenting about this subject. I'm going to go back to thinking of ways to have more women and men create better sexual content for Commons as a project and go attend my "Feminists, Technology and Museums" conference. -Sarah (Missvain, SarahStierch) Who would move to Berlin in a heartbeat to be an unpaid intern for Einstürzende Neubauten. So don't think I don't love my Germans ;-) (and Bayern Munich is my favorite team!) On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Tobias Oelgarte < tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

Please don't do the rhetorical trick that a mass of users would support some point of view without actual proof. ("You've just posted what many of us think and feel.") The chat was of course dominated by the word "German". It's the one and only poll that states the opposite to the view of the board. But you could just leave out the comments from Ottava and it would be the half amount of use of this word. The main problems/questions remain: * Is the filter any good? * Is there a big audience that would enjoy and need a filter? * How do we decide what will be hidden considering NPOV? * ... None of this questions where followed before the decision. Actually the questions where raised after the decisions in combination with the referendum. Thats one of things i really wonder about. Am 23.09.2011 14:19, schrieb Sarah Stierch:

+1 You've just posted what many of us think and feel. I read the transcript

for office hours with Sue from yesterday and it was the same thing. 45 minutes of image filter skepticism and more. I'm glad I couldn't attend it, seemed like a painful and unintellectual experience to sit through.

And if i had a dollar for the mentioning of "Germans" I'd be rich. And

here people are arguing about lack of coverage about other projects and languages. So tired of the "Us vs. Them" mentality.

I'd rather talk about GMOs, JFK, Creationism and the end of the world

next year....at this point.

Sarah Stierch Who is never bored and is surely not mainstream, but is happy to be

called so right now.

Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :) On Sep 23, 2011, at 8:03 AM, me(a)marcusbuck.org wrote:

After some thinking I come to the conclusion that this whole discussion is a social phenomenon. You probably know how some topics when mentioned in newspaper articles or blogs spur wild arguments in the comments sections. When the article mentions climate change commentators contest the validity of the collected data, if it mentions religions commentators argue that religion is the root of all evil in the world, if it is about immigration commentators start to rant how immigrants cause trouble in society, if it is about renewable energies commentators tell us how blind society is to believe in its ecologicalness. It's always the same pattern: the topic is perceived well in the general society (most sane people think that climate change is real, that renewable energies are the way to go, that religious freedom is good and that most immigrants are people as everybody else who do no harm), but a small or not so small minority experiences these attitudes as a problem and tries to raise awareness to the problems of the trend (usually exaggerating them). The scepticists give their arguments and the non-scepticists answer them. The non-scepticists usually have not much motivation to present their arguments (because their position is already the mainstream, so not much incentive to convince more people, just trying to not let the scepticists' opinions stand unwithspoken) while the scepticists have much motivation to present their arguments (if they don't society will presumedly face perdition). This difference in the motivation leads to a situation where both groups produce a similar content output leading to the semblence that both groups represent equal shares of society. I think the same is happening here. The majority of people probably think that an optional opt-in filter is a thing that does no harm to non-users and has advantages for those who choose to use it. (Ask your gramma whether "You can hide pictures if you don't want to see them" sounds like a threatening thing to her.) But the scepticists voice their opinions loudly and point out every single imaginable problem. I just want to point out that an idea like a free community-driven everybody-can-edit-it encyclopedia with no editorial or peer-review process would never have been created if a long discussion would have preceded its creation. The scepticists would have raised so many seemingly valid concerns that they'd buried the idea deep. I'm feeling that a group of worst-case scenarioists are leading the discussion to a point where the image filter is buried just because everybody is bored about the discussion. Marcus Buck User:Slomox PS: Please don't understand this as a longish version of "You guys opposing my opinion are trolls!". I don't think that the points raised by scepticists should be neglected. But I think that many people reject the image filter because of very theoretical concerns for the sake of it completely removed from pragmatical reasons and that the length of the discussion is in no way indicative of the real problematicness of the topic. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch> and Sarah Stierch Consulting *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.* ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.sarahstierch.com/

Reply

Tobias Oelgarte

3:29 p.m.

Am 23.09.2011 15:01, schrieb Sarah Stierch:

...

All that I'm saying is that I THINK the majority of the people on this mailing list are bored and tired of the conversation and it's the same 10 people who seem to be arguing it and I think that many people on this list probably have no strong opinion, or fairly mainstream beliefs, about the filter. Mainstream meaning that the filter can be beneficial to those who desire it and many of us don't care how it's executed as long as we don't have to anything technical to make it happen.

How can a filter be beneficial for us, the ones who don't care to have one? We only loose resources as soon some admins are forced to control the mob at the new battlefield we created aside from articles. Will that help the normal editor that ask that admin for help in another topic?

...

Have fun though running in circles! I trust WMF will make the decision on what to do for the community (god forbid! trust!) and I also trust that they're taking all of your concerns, citations, facts, arguments, ideas and concepts into consideration.

I don't try to run in cycles and I don't belief in god or trust. The referendum and the communication process already showed that this is/wasn't the case. How can you ask for trust? Trust is made by communication and fair progress. The WMF and the board will have to work to reestablish what is already lost.

...

I'll be comfortable with whatever is decided on upon by WMF, and usually I'm not one to give up so easily. But isn't there some old saying about arguing on the internet? Perhaps someone needs to plan an "Image Filter Conference" to break it all down offline. Also, people are extremely rude, in classic poor-manners Wikimedia style, and *I* believe that many people on this list have no desire to participate, because, like so much of the environment on Wikimedia, they are uncomfortable and not-interested in being drilled drilled drilled until they break down, give in, or can't stand up for themselves anymore. Or be called a name, or twelve.

If that is already the point and no one has the guts to stand up, then it is over already. We need to discus the issues. Only thats the way to solve them. What *I* see is a WMF that is not happy with what happend, but no one is able to admit mistakes and to start things over, to do them the right way. "We made a decision and we won't step down, no matter how wrong our initial thoughts were", is no option.

...

And all the data in the world right now is not going to change the way I feel, and this stuff just frustrates me. And I'm a researcher for a living who spends the hours of her day "citing sources" and gathering data and information. And all the cries of censorship isn't either. I'm also a person who likes hardcore fetish photography that is illegal in some states, goes by a pseudonym due to of my hobbies, and who's favorite band is Skinny Puppy. I saw Marilyn Manson in concert when he was ripping off SPK for chopping the heads off of chickens on stage and putting partially nude children in cages (with permission of their parents, heh) during his shows. The only thing that offends me more on Commons and Wikipedia and whatever is bad quality porn and self-indulgent cockshots (aka I want better sexual content that actually is awesome looking and worth using in articles!) And I know I'm not the only one here.

Will a filter be a solution for exactly this problem? What do we try to achieve with it? The WMF spoke that there is a huge demand for such a filter. The most participants don't see a demand for itself, but argument that we are geeks and rest of the world would think different. Thats a point where we really should insert a big {{citation needed}}, because all we have are the OTRS mails and some complaints. But is this the opinion of big majority/minority?

...

But, I also don't have a problem with people wanting to control what they, their kids, their grandmas, their cats, their classrooms, whatevers see. And I'm not the only one, and again, I'M PUTTING MY TRUST, in WMF to make the decision. That's what I make donations to the foundation every month for. That's why I donate my time to contributing to Wikimedia projects.

I trusted the WMF to this point. I donated my part and i also create content (articles, illustrations, etc.). But as soon it was decided, that *we* should decide what is seen as objectionable by the readers it was over. Thats not *our* job.

...

I'm over commenting about this subject. I'm going to go back to thinking of ways to have more women and men create better sexual content for Commons as a project and go attend my "Feminists, Technology and Museums" conference.

I'm also in favor to create better content and I'm surely in favor to have a good selection of quality as a huge mass of trash. But I'm against the removal (hiding or deleting) of content, because it might be objectionable. I'm not really in favor of Bayern München, but im also a fan of football. ;-)

...

-Sarah (Missvain, SarahStierch) Who would move to Berlin in a heartbeat to be an unpaid intern for Einstürzende Neubauten. So don't think I don't love my Germans ;-) (and Bayern Munich is my favorite team!) On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Tobias Oelgarte< tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

Please don't do the rhetorical trick that a mass of users would support some point of view without actual proof. ("You've just posted what many of us think and feel.") The chat was of course dominated by the word "German". It's the one and only poll that states the opposite to the view of the board. But you could just leave out the comments from Ottava and it would be the half amount of use of this word. The main problems/questions remain: * Is the filter any good? * Is there a big audience that would enjoy and need a filter? * How do we decide what will be hidden considering NPOV? * ... None of this questions where followed before the decision. Actually the questions where raised after the decisions in combination with the referendum. Thats one of things i really wonder about. Am 23.09.2011 14:19, schrieb Sarah Stierch:

+1 You've just posted what many of us think and feel. I read the transcript

for office hours with Sue from yesterday and it was the same thing. 45 minutes of image filter skepticism and more. I'm glad I couldn't attend it, seemed like a painful and unintellectual experience to sit through.

And if i had a dollar for the mentioning of "Germans" I'd be rich. And

here people are arguing about lack of coverage about other projects and languages. So tired of the "Us vs. Them" mentality.

I'd rather talk about GMOs, JFK, Creationism and the end of the world

next year....at this point.

Sarah Stierch Who is never bored and is surely not mainstream, but is happy to be

called so right now.

Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :) On Sep 23, 2011, at 8:03 AM, me(a)marcusbuck.org wrote:

After some thinking I come to the conclusion that this whole discussion is a social phenomenon. You probably know how some topics when mentioned in newspaper articles or blogs spur wild arguments in the comments sections. When the article mentions climate change commentators contest the validity of the collected data, if it mentions religions commentators argue that religion is the root of all evil in the world, if it is about immigration commentators start to rant how immigrants cause trouble in society, if it is about renewable energies commentators tell us how blind society is to believe in its ecologicalness. It's always the same pattern: the topic is perceived well in the general society (most sane people think that climate change is real, that renewable energies are the way to go, that religious freedom is good and that most immigrants are people as everybody else who do no harm), but a small or not so small minority experiences these attitudes as a problem and tries to raise awareness to the problems of the trend (usually exaggerating them). The scepticists give their arguments and the non-scepticists answer them. The non-scepticists usually have not much motivation to present their arguments (because their position is already the mainstream, so not much incentive to convince more people, just trying to not let the scepticists' opinions stand unwithspoken) while the scepticists have much motivation to present their arguments (if they don't society will presumedly face perdition). This difference in the motivation leads to a situation where both groups produce a similar content output leading to the semblence that both groups represent equal shares of society. I think the same is happening here. The majority of people probably think that an optional opt-in filter is a thing that does no harm to non-users and has advantages for those who choose to use it. (Ask your gramma whether "You can hide pictures if you don't want to see them" sounds like a threatening thing to her.) But the scepticists voice their opinions loudly and point out every single imaginable problem. I just want to point out that an idea like a free community-driven everybody-can-edit-it encyclopedia with no editorial or peer-review process would never have been created if a long discussion would have preceded its creation. The scepticists would have raised so many seemingly valid concerns that they'd buried the idea deep. I'm feeling that a group of worst-case scenarioists are leading the discussion to a point where the image filter is buried just because everybody is bored about the discussion. Marcus Buck User:Slomox PS: Please don't understand this as a longish version of "You guys opposing my opinion are trolls!". I don't think that the points raised by scepticists should be neglected. But I think that many people reject the image filter because of very theoretical concerns for the sake of it completely removed from pragmatical reasons and that the length of the discussion is in no way indicative of the real problematicness of the topic. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply

Tobias Oelgarte

2:31 p.m.

Am 23.09.2011 14:03, schrieb me(a)marcusbuck.org:

...

After some thinking I come to the conclusion that this whole discussion is a social phenomenon. You probably know how some topics when mentioned in newspaper articles or blogs spur wild arguments in the comments sections. When the article mentions climate change commentators contest the validity of the collected data, if it mentions religions commentators argue that religion is the root of all evil in the world, if it is about immigration commentators start to rant how immigrants cause trouble in society, if it is about renewable energies commentators tell us how blind society is to believe in its ecologicalness. It's always the same pattern: the topic is perceived well in the general society (most sane people think that climate change is real, that renewable energies are the way to go, that religious freedom is good and that most immigrants are people as everybody else who do no harm), but a small or not so small minority experiences these attitudes as a problem and tries to raise awareness to the problems of the trend (usually exaggerating them). The scepticists give their arguments and the non-scepticists answer them. The non-scepticists usually have not much motivation to present their arguments (because their position is already the mainstream, so not much incentive to convince more people, just trying to not let the scepticists' opinions stand unwithspoken) while the scepticists have much motivation to present their arguments (if they don't society will presumedly face perdition). This difference in the motivation leads to a situation where both groups produce a similar content output leading to the semblence that both groups represent equal shares of society. I think the same is happening here. The majority of people probably think that an optional opt-in filter is a thing that does no harm to non-users and has advantages for those who choose to use it. (Ask your gramma whether "You can hide pictures if you don't want to see them" sounds like a threatening thing to her.) But the scepticists voice their opinions loudly and point out every single imaginable problem. I just want to point out that an idea like a free community-driven everybody-can-edit-it encyclopedia with no editorial or peer-review process would never have been created if a long discussion would have preceded its creation. The scepticists would have raised so many seemingly valid concerns that they'd buried the idea deep. I'm feeling that a group of worst-case scenarioists are leading the discussion to a point where the image filter is buried just because everybody is bored about the discussion. Marcus Buck User:Slomox PS: Please don't understand this as a longish version of "You guys opposing my opinion are trolls!". I don't think that the points raised by scepticists should be neglected. But I think that many people reject the image filter because of very theoretical concerns for the sake of it completely removed from pragmatical reasons and that the length of the discussion is in no way indicative of the real problematicness of the topic. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I agree with that. But i also have to mention that we have same repeating patterns in the claims that we would need a filter, because there is a huge mass of users demanding it. Actually i don't see this mass of users in all samples that i have taken over time. Even in theoretical support that there are much more complains then actually are written down at the discussion pages, it's still below 1% or less. Thats make me think that the arguments for the introduction of a filter are already based on a loud minority view.

Reply

Oliver Koslowski

23 Sep 23 Sep

3:41 p.m.

Am 23.09.2011 14:03, schrieb me(a)marcusbuck.org:

...

I think the same is happening here. The majority of people probably think that an optional opt-in filter is a thing that does no harm to non-users and has advantages for those who choose to use it. (Ask your gramma whether "You can hide pictures if you don't want to see them" sounds like a threatening thing to her.) But the scepticists voice their opinions loudly and point out every single imaginable problem.

It's hard to know what the silent majority of people is thinking. But it's become fairly obvious what 86% of de-WP's active users are thinking. And you cannot simply brush their concerns aside. Andf even those 14% who did not object didn't appear to really support it at least as far as I've read their comments. Usually it's a simple 'Meh, as long as it's purely opt-in'. But let's not repeat the arguments here because they have already been exchanged. It really boils down to the notion that people who reject the filter idea as it's been decided by the WMF /will/ mean a lot of work and even more controversy to realize a feature that doesn't really promise much benefit. So yeah, I am going to receive fewer tickets from people who demand we remove pictures of Mohammed, but what's the actual benefit there? Are we really likely to get more readers, more donations and - much more importantly - more authors? Regards, Oliver

Reply

David Gerard

5:20 p.m.

On 23 September 2011 16:17, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Obviously, majority of those who have small number of edits -- who represent specific part of readers, those who have opinion toward Wikipedia articles, but who don't want to spend their time on editing Wikipedia -- they are in favor.

Er, what do you base this statement on? - d.

Reply

David Levy

8:42 p.m.

Marcus Buck wrote:

...

The majority of people probably think that an optional opt-in filter is a thing that does no harm to non-users and has advantages for those who choose to use it. (Ask your gramma whether "You can hide pictures if you don't want to see them" sounds like a threatening thing to her.)

In attempting to explain Wikipedia's neutrality to my father, I mentioned that we don't condemn the acts of Adolf Hitler. (We document the widespread condemnation, but we don't deem it correct.) No matter what I said, my father refused to accept that there was any valid reason for Wikipedia to refrain from stating as a fact that Hitler was evil. This, I believe, is a fairly "mainstream" attitude. If questioned, most people probably wouldn't object to that type of content. But persons familiar with Wikipedia's mission feel differently (and routinely revert such edits). The idea behind a category-based image filter feature comes across as incredibly simple. ("You want to provide the option to block objectionable images? Sure, what could be the harm in that?") To a typical respondent, this might seem as straightforward as adding checkboxes labeled "sex," "nudity," "violence," "gore" and "blasphemy." That those classifications are subjective and non-inclusive of images that others regard as objectionable probably isn't even a passing thought. That volunteers would need to analyze and tag millions of images (with thousands more uploaded every day) is an alien concept. To borrow David Gerard's metaphor, it's like soliciting opinions on the introduction of "a magical flying unicorn pony that shits rainbows" (or as a less absurd example, "free ice cream for everyone"). Among those who needn't worry about the logistics, it sounds highly appealing. I find it odd that some are inclined to discount the German Wikipedia's poll on the basis that it reflects the views of editors (as opposed to readers as a whole). Setting aside the general public's ignorance of the WMF projects' core principles, let's keep in mind that a category-based filter system would depend upon _editors_ to function. David Levy

Reply

Milos Rancic

10:40 p.m.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 21:20, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

There are around 300M of readers and less than 30k of the extended poll of editors, which brings number of 0,01%. Thus, not just

poll => pool

Reply

Milos Rancic

1:05 a.m.

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 00:51, David Levy <lifeisunfair(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Milos Rancic wrote:

There are around 300M of readers and less than 30k of the extended pool of editors, which brings number of 0,01%. Thus, not just irrelevant, but much less than the margin of statistical error.

You appear to have ignored my points regarding non-editors' unfamiliarity with the WMF projects' core principles and the proposed feature's logistics. (Most members of the general public might support the introduction of a magical flying unicorn pony that shits rainbows, but that won't cause it to spring into existence.)

But, we'll know that they want magical flying unicorn pony. In this case we don't know, as there is no relevant methodology behind the sample.

...

You also declined to address my point that a category-based filter system, irrespective of its popularity among readers, could not function without the support of editors.

Agreed. Those who want to implement it should do that by themselves. If Board insists on censorship system, better out of Commons than on Commons.

...

And you seem to suggest that *any* on-wiki poll is inherently "irrelevant."

No. One thing is referendum, the other is survey. Editor who edited Wikipedia ten times two years ago is not qualified for referendum. Contrary to that, everybody who reads Wikipedia is relevant for survey, but then survey has to have methodology behind it. (In other words: As a user of Gmail, my vote is not relevant in managing programmers behind Gmail, but I could be relevant as a part of statistical sample in a survey made by Gmail team.) Would the referendum be held on wiki or via some other communication channel, is irrelevant ;)

Reply