Clearly some editors hate this. on DE 86% oppose it. Though there are also some "committed core editors" amongst those who think that such a system is both workable and possible to harmonise with our core values.
One of the objections is that we don't want a Flickr style system which involves images being deleted, accounts being suspended and the burden of filtering being put on the uploader.
Another objection is that we don't want a system that gives extra work to those who don't want the filter.
One of my objections that I hope some others share is that an IP based system inevitably means one person deciding what others may see - which to my mind is the point where an image filter becomes a censor.
For obvious reasons we don't want a system that creates a publicly available set of filters that net nannies of various descriptions could use to stop other people from seeing things that they deemed inappropriate.
So here's my proposal for a system which I think could work:
- If, and only if, you are a logged in user, there is an image filter option that you can opt into. - This filter gives you four basic options, with the description and caveat:
Wikimedia does not censor legal images on its sites. But you can choose not to have certain images shown to you.
1. Hide all images and just show caption and description. (recommended for users with slow internet connections) 2. Show all images except ones I decide not to see again 3. Show all images except ones that I or another editor have decided not to see again 4. Show all images
- Advanced options
Warning! This feature is new and many images have not yet been checked. Hopefully, like a spam filter it will get more effective as participants decide to filter out images they don't want to see. Don't worry that others might be offended by material you find educational, once you've seen the caption and description of a filtered image you can still override the filter and see the image.
- Advanced options would only work in combination with options 2 and 3. If clicked it would enable the user to pick various categories from the Commons category menu to exclude or include from their personal filter (this would not affect other people's filters the same way as an editor blocking an image). But it could prompt people with options such as twenty most frequent categories that other editors have chosen to block, and other people who chosen to block that category have often chosen to block x, y and z as well. - Anyone with a registered account will be able to use this, even if they never edit. - This is purely to enable people to make choices as to what they see - no-one can force their choices on others, make suggestions yes but not choices. - Whether or not you have chosen to use the filter and if so the settings you choose is private and personal to you. Statistics will be collected on an anonymised basis showing how many are using the filter and what in general it is used for, and anonymised data will be available so that users can choose to filter out images that others have decided to filter.
So is there a simpler way to do this, is there some flaw in this that would prevent it working, or is this the flying unicorn option?
WeeSpielChequers
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:50:31 +0300 From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: <CAJ9-EK+oL3rvUrEPZzja2v3GBSovb6=b_MzJzv6fATJd06QPtA@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Look, the committed core editors that would be necessary to keep any filtering scheme from being two Titanics heading for each other, just hate the whole idea, so it isn't going to fly, folks!
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 22 September 2011 12:19, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
So is there a simpler way to do this, is there some flaw in this that would prevent it working, or is this the flying unicorn option?
I believe it was envisioned as working for anonymous casual readers as well.
There *should* be some way to at least have the no-images option for anonymous readers without ruining caching ...
- d.
On 22 September 2011 12:23, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 September 2011 12:19, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
So is there a simpler way to do this, is there some flaw in this that would prevent it working, or is this the flying unicorn option?
I believe it was envisioned as working for anonymous casual readers as well.
There *should* be some way to at least have the no-images option for anonymous readers without ruining caching ...
Cookies? It would work on at least a per-session basis, I'd think.
One issue here is that if we make it registered-user-only we need to work out how this interacts with account creation - and IP blocks. It clearly will cause problems if people *want* to turn on the filter, go to create an account, and discover one of our famed cryptic block messages telling them they can't...
WSC, looks to me like most of your suggested functionality could be offered as a relatively short userscript rather than a WMF funded change sweeping across all the projects and wasting years of volunteer effort in pointless debate.
Estimated development cost, 2 biscuits and a cup of coffee. WMF involvement none, thus avoiding the obvious pitfall of setting itself against 50%+ of open movement supporters.
Cheers, Fae
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:19 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
One of my objections that I hope some others share is that an IP based system inevitably means one person deciding what others may see - which to my mind is the point where an image filter becomes a censor.
The system is still supposed to be such that anyone can switch a filter off at any time, so I don't see how anyone 'decides what others may see'. Still, an IP-based system does not sound like a good idea, because some IPs may be shared by several people accessing Wikimedia at the same time, causing strange cases of filters being switched on or off without the person themselves realizing why. However, this does not mean a priori that we have to restrict it to logged-in users. We could use cookies instead.
* WereSpielChequers wrote:
For obvious reasons we don't want a system that creates a publicly available set of filters that net nannies of various descriptions could use to stop other people from seeing things that they deemed inappropriate.
This cannot be prevented. You just need a bot that emulates a reader who has the desired filter settings enabled and then load all the images or articles or whatever and check what is blocked and then you have a list.
- Hide all images and just show caption and description. (recommended
for users with slow internet connections)
(I note that it's trivial to blur images on the client side and reveal them on hover or tapping or whatever input method would be appropriate.)
- Show all images except ones that I or another editor have decided not
to see again
This will not work unless you introduce some process to block editors who put too much on their filter list for some definition of "too much".
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:19 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote: <snip>
For obvious reasons we don't want a system that creates a publicly available set of filters that net nannies of various descriptions could use to stop other people from seeing things that they deemed inappropriate.
<snip>
Funny, I thought it was obvious that any filtering system should be made available to schools and similar institutional platforms.
I have had the impression that the oh-my-god-think-of-the-children crowd was at least 95% of the reason we were discussing this entire endeavor.
Teachers are wary of Wikipedia, and one of the reasons (justifiable or not) is that our content is too adult. I recall hearing anecdotes of Wikipedia reading being blocked in some schools because of this. Having a "safe" version for schools could potentially address that, and I'd always assumed that this was one of the major underlying motivations.
-Robert Rohde
On 22 September 2011 12:50, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
Teachers are wary of Wikipedia, and one of the reasons (justifiable or not) is that our content is too adult. I recall hearing anecdotes of Wikipedia reading being blocked in some schools because of this. Having a "safe" version for schools could potentially address that, and I'd always assumed that this was one of the major underlying motivations.
The Schools Wikipedia does precisely this job and does it well. It's enormously popular with teachers around the world.
Its main problem is that it is labour-intensive. It's a selection from Wikipedia, so it's just like compiling a 15-volume encyclopedia.
Just as the anticipated audience for the filter is entirely anecdotal, the underlying motivations are also entirely anecdotal. The one survey has had ridiculously awful questions that were not reviewed by *anyone* who would reasonably be expected to know how to design a survey, even though such were readily available.
The two bits of solid data we do have indicate that de:wp will not stand for such filtering. However, there have been no moves that I know of to do similar comprehensive surveys on other projects. (Has anyone tried on en:wp?)
I don't think anyone has been deliberately trying not to gather data, but I think this would be a not unreasonable conclusion for an outsider to reach looking at their actions.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 04:50:03AM -0700, Robert Rohde wrote:
I have had the impression that the oh-my-god-think-of-the-children crowd was at least 95% of the reason we were discussing this entire endeavor.
So how about the folks who don't want to see kids exposed to filters? (serious question!)
An occaisional annoying image or icky text will happen from time to time, but filters just grind and grind on you day in and day out.
That's not going to be good for the mental health of developing minds.
Well, perhaps that's drifting slightly off-topic for foundation-l but to stay on topic: be aware that the position is reversible:
"Think of the children, don't filter!"
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:19 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
One of the objections is that we don't want a Flickr style system which involves images being deleted, accounts being suspended and the burden of filtering being put on the uploader.
When have any of those things been part of the proposal?
On 22 September 2011 12:19, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
One of the objections is that we don't want a Flickr style system which involves images being deleted, accounts being suspended and the burden of filtering being put on the uploader.
The objection to a flickr-style concept was to the "one size fits all" safe/not-safe rating done by a central staff.
As Stephen notes, Flickr's specific approach does involve deletion, suspension, etc etc etc, but none of the proposals for the filter have suggested anything like this - there's no desire to remove the images, just to label them for display [or not] in articles.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:20:06PM +0100, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 22 September 2011 12:19, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
One of the objections is that we don't want a Flickr style system which involves images being deleted, accounts being suspended and the burden of filtering being put on the uploader.
The objection to a flickr-style concept was to the "one size fits all" safe/not-safe rating done by a central staff.
As Stephen notes, Flickr's specific approach does involve deletion, suspension, etc etc etc,
but none of the proposals for the filter have suggested anything like this - there's no desire to remove the images, just to label them for display [or not] in articles.
And that labelling is the problem. It doesn't go so far as censorship, agreed, but a labelling scheme _would_ seem to create a set of censorship tools.
For some people that's over the line, for others it's not.
Some people are debating how many angels will fit on the head of the needle "Where do we draw the line"
Others feel offended in their core moralities, and are getting more disgusted and angry every day that this lasts, (And I do recognize that there are many different core moralities).
I don't think we can say that our readers are more important than our writers or vice versa. Personally, I don't believe we should make a difference anyway. But on the other hand, it's a stupid argument even if they're not. Without _both_ readers and writers (or reaters? wriders? prosumers!) we don't have a wikipedia.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org