The ugly content censors are raising their heads again.
Just stop it and dont spend any more funds on this.
I understand between the lines that it was stopped in order to protect the fundraiser from unwanted discussions in the public.
Give as a clear message, that Wikipedia/Wikimedia will never assist in hiding knowledge.
Carsten Möller Hamburg Germany
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:00 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi MZ and all --
Project development was put on hold over the winter in favor of more pressing priorities, with the agreement of the Board. There is currently an open proposal on the table for the Board to vote on whether to continue with our original request for an image hiding feature; and the ED will take direction from the Board on
the matter.
We have put that vote off however due to the more time-sensitive and generally all-consuming financial discussions of the past couple of months. I haven't reported on it one way or the other because the timeline for a revote hasn't yet been set.
-- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 6493 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
The Professional version does not have this message
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
Give as a clear message, that Wikipedia/Wikimedia will never assist in hiding knowledge.
The day that Wiki*edia changes its mission from providing access to free knowledge to "enforcing our view of knowledge on you", would be a saddening day.
Tom
It does that already, in a lot of ways. As catholic as it attempts to be, the "knowledge paradigm" that Wikimedia represents is only a small sliver of the sum of knowledge in the world. That's just one way in which it enforces its view of knowledge; acceding to or refusing to filter content in any way is also enforcing a particular view of both knowledge and the world. It would do both sides well to approach this argument with a little less arrogance and self-righteousness.
Nathan
And it misses the point that the purpose of providing knowledge is for it to be used. Wikimedia projects will be unavailable to those who would benefit from them if they continue to provide content that is unsuitable or unwanted with no mechanism for the consumer to control it.
If you ran a charity store committed to providing educational products free to all who needed them you wouldn't get many children as customers if you put hardcore sex products right by the entrance. You also wouldn't manage to give anything away if nobody could find what they wanted
Wikimedia is not supposed to be some kind of exercise in perfection for perfection's sake. It's supposed to be open, accessible and useful.
Neil / QuiteUnusual@Wikibooks
-----Original Message----- From: Nathan nawrich@gmail.com Sender: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:50:57 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
Give as a clear message, that Wikipedia/Wikimedia will never assist in hiding knowledge.
The day that Wiki*edia changes its mission from providing access to free knowledge to "enforcing our view of knowledge on you", would be a saddening day.
Tom
It does that already, in a lot of ways. As catholic as it attempts to be, the "knowledge paradigm" that Wikimedia represents is only a small sliver of the sum of knowledge in the world. That's just one way in which it enforces its view of knowledge; acceding to or refusing to filter content in any way is also enforcing a particular view of both knowledge and the world. It would do both sides well to approach this argument with a little less arrogance and self-righteousness.
Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yes, this is the critical thing.
We work reasonably well as a repository of *all knowledge*. As Nathan says, that is still imperfect, but out of scope of this discussion (I'd certainly recommend looking into it though).
We also work quite well as a filter of information. And it is improving this that we are currently discussing.
Improving the filtering of information is a critical facet of making it accessible to as many people as possible. If a Muslim refuses to go to Wikipedia because of our image policy - which we (realistically) impose on him - then we have failed in our core objective.
@Nathan;
It does that already, in a lot of ways.
True, but that is not the intended mission. They day that happens, that is a terrible day.
Tom
On 9 March 2012 14:06, Neil Babbage neil@thebabbages.com wrote:
And it misses the point that the purpose of providing knowledge is for it to be used. Wikimedia projects will be unavailable to those who would benefit from them if they continue to provide content that is unsuitable or unwanted with no mechanism for the consumer to control it.
If you ran a charity store committed to providing educational products free to all who needed them you wouldn't get many children as customers if you put hardcore sex products right by the entrance. You also wouldn't manage to give anything away if nobody could find what they wanted
Wikimedia is not supposed to be some kind of exercise in perfection for perfection's sake. It's supposed to be open, accessible and useful.
Neil / QuiteUnusual@Wikibooks
-----Original Message----- From: Nathan nawrich@gmail.com Sender: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:50:57 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List < foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
Give as a clear message, that Wikipedia/Wikimedia will never assist in hiding knowledge.
The day that Wiki*edia changes its mission from providing access to free knowledge to "enforcing our view of knowledge on you", would be a
saddening
day.
Tom
It does that already, in a lot of ways. As catholic as it attempts to be, the "knowledge paradigm" that Wikimedia represents is only a small sliver of the sum of knowledge in the world. That's just one way in which it enforces its view of knowledge; acceding to or refusing to filter content in any way is also enforcing a particular view of both knowledge and the world. It would do both sides well to approach this argument with a little less arrogance and self-righteousness.
Nathan _______________________________________________ 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
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 02:17:28PM +0000, Thomas Morton wrote:
Improving the filtering of information is a critical facet of making it accessible to as many people as possible. If a Muslim refuses to go to Wikipedia because of our image policy - which we (realistically) impose on him - then we have failed in our core objective.
Hmm, well ar.wikipedia (who probably have a large number of muslim editors) does have an image hiding template; apparently adequate for their needs. They introduced it to a very small number of pages, but that number has halved over time.
AFAICT The people who are pushing for filtering are mostly from what we traditionally regard as being the West.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On 9 March 2012 14:17, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
We also work quite well as a filter of information. And it is improving this that we are currently discussing.
Improving the filtering of information is a critical facet of making it accessible to as many people as possible. If a Muslim refuses to go to Wikipedia because of our image policy - which we (realistically) impose on him - then we have failed in our core objective.
I had sworn off commenting on these discussions some time back, but I want to chime in to support this point - the way in which our community handles controversial content is itself a viewpoint position, and potentially a flawed one.
Opposing changes to the way we handle and display this content isn't as simple as defending "neutrality"; it's arguing for retaining the status quo, and thus enforcing our communities' current systemic biases and perspectives on what is acceptable, what is normal, what is appropriate.
Those perspectives may be "better" than the alternatives - sometimes I think so, sometimes I don't - but by not doing anything, we're in real danger of privileging the editing community's belief that people should be exposed to things over a reader's desire not to be exposed to them.
The image filter may not be a good solution, but too much of the response involves saying "we're fine, we're neutral, we don't need to do anything" and leaving it there; this isn't the case, and we do need to think seriously about these issues without yelling "censorship!" any time someone tries to discuss the problem.
On 10 March 2012 22:15, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The image filter may not be a good solution, but too much of the response involves saying "we're fine, we're neutral, we don't need to do anything" and leaving it there; this isn't the case, and we do need to think seriously about these issues without yelling "censorship!" any time someone tries to discuss the problem.
There are theoretical objections, and then there are the actual objectors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Gay_pornography
The objector here earnestly and repeatedly compares the words "gay pornographic" in *text* on the page to images of child pornography.
- d.
On 11 March 2012 00:23, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 March 2012 22:15, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The image filter may not be a good solution, but too much of the response involves saying "we're fine, we're neutral, we don't need to do anything" and leaving it there; this isn't the case, and we do need to think seriously about these issues without yelling "censorship!" any time someone tries to discuss the problem.
There are theoretical objections, and then there are the actual objectors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Gay_pornography
The objector here earnestly and repeatedly compares the words "gay pornographic" in *text* on the page to images of child pornography.
Well, yes, and everyone else involved in that discussion is (at some length) telling them they're wrong.
There are *other* actual objections, and ones with some sense behind them; the unexpected Commons search results discussed ad nauseam, for example. I don't think one quixotic and mistaken complaint somehow nullifies any other objection people can make about entirely different material...
Am 12.03.2012 23:14, schrieb Andrew Gray:
On 11 March 2012 00:23, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 March 2012 22:15, Andrew Grayandrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The image filter may not be a good solution, but too much of the response involves saying "we're fine, we're neutral, we don't need to do anything" and leaving it there; this isn't the case, and we do need to think seriously about these issues without yelling "censorship!" any time someone tries to discuss the problem.
There are theoretical objections, and then there are the actual objectors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Gay_pornography
The objector here earnestly and repeatedly compares the words "gay pornographic" in *text* on the page to images of child pornography.
Well, yes, and everyone else involved in that discussion is (at some length) telling them they're wrong.
There are *other* actual objections, and ones with some sense behind them; the unexpected Commons search results discussed ad nauseam, for example. I don't think one quixotic and mistaken complaint somehow nullifies any other objection people can make about entirely different material...
At the same time we have a huge amount of search terms that give the expected results, while we only see the examples where it goes wrong. I remember that Andreas picked "drawing style" as an example.[1] Was this just an coincidence? No it wasn't. He actually knew about an image that I uploaded some time ago, he attacked it later on and now used it's file description to construct an example.[2] That's how this examples are created.
Additionally I proposed a solution for the search a while ago, that would avoid any problems from both sides entirely.[3] If we, the board or the foundation would put some heart into it, then we would have one less problem, even so I don't see it as problem as it currently is. But i would also benefit from this kind of improved search. (no tagging, no rating, no extra work for users, still better)
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Buttons_t... [2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg [3] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/improving_sea...
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Neil Babbage neil@thebabbages.com wrote:
If you ran a charity store committed to providing educational products free to all who needed them you wouldn't get many children as customers if you put hardcore sex products right by the entrance.
^^^ This. ^^^
Am 09.03.2012 18:15, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Neil Babbageneil@thebabbages.com wrote:
If you ran a charity store committed to providing educational products free to all who needed them you wouldn't get many children as customers if you put hardcore sex products right by the entrance.
^^^ This. ^^^
The little difference is that we aren't a store and have no front or back room. We are a skyscraper with an elevator and hundreds of buttons for every floor, while kids tend to press on any button at once.
On 9 March 2012 17:34, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
The little difference is that we aren't a store and have no front or back room. We are a skyscraper with an elevator and hundreds of buttons for every floor, while kids tend to press on any button at once.
No, we are a gigantic media-funfair carousel with 10,000 people forced to ride on demonic wooden horses, the sound of the screams of their terrified children unable to be heard due to blaring music speeding out of control, while a hundred angry chimpanzees wearing fezzes take random pot shots with "badsite" sponsored air rifles. Do I win the cuddly toy?
I think this thread is officially off-topic, or at least as likely to reach a new destination as a carousel.
Cheers, Fae
On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Neil Babbage neil@thebabbages.com wrote:
If you ran a charity store committed to providing educational products free to all who needed them you wouldn't get many children as customers if you put hardcore sex products right by the entrance.
A better description would be Wikimedia a warehouse of educational products collecting and disbursing informational products freely. Without any barriers of proving the need of the product, nor setup as consumer-focused store.
The charity stores for children in need should stock there shelves from Wikimedia's warehouse.
Yes this means Wikimedia will see less growth on the consumption side, but the choice is between losing ground on consumption and losing ground on creation/curation. Other groups can handle a successful kid-friendly shop much more likely than other groups can successfully handle our contributors.
Wikimedia can't be everything to everyone. It would be best to aim to be where our strengths lie.
BirgitteSB
On 03/09/12 6:06 AM, Neil Babbage wrote:
Wikimedia is not supposed to be some kind of exercise in perfection for perfection's sake. It's supposed to be open, accessible and useful.
"Useful", like "notable" is another of those words that cannot be easily defined. In many otherwise non-controversial articles we have pictures that do not further the contents of the articles. They may have a loose connection with the article's topic, but they don't add any information to the topic. They do, however, break up solid blocks of text, and make it more readable.
Ray
On 10 March 2012 00:57, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 03/09/12 6:06 AM, Neil Babbage wrote:
Wikimedia is not supposed to be some kind of exercise in perfection for perfection's sake. It's supposed to be open, accessible and useful.
"Useful", like "notable" is another of those words that cannot be easily
defined. In many otherwise non-controversial articles we have pictures that do not further the contents of the articles. They may have a loose connection with the article's topic, but they don't add any information to the topic. They do, however, break up solid blocks of text, and make it more readable.
But isn't that an equally subjective matter; I know several editors who consider such images (to break up prose) a hindrance and they remove them with vigour.
To me you're just making an argument for a "Images used in a decorative capacity" category, so those people can read undisturbed :)
Tom
On 03/09/12 10:00 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 10 March 2012 00:57, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 03/09/12 6:06 AM, Neil Babbage wrote:
Wikimedia is not supposed to be some kind of exercise in perfection for perfection's sake. It's supposed to be open, accessible and useful.
"Useful", like "notable" is another of those words that cannot be easily
defined. In many otherwise non-controversial articles we have pictures that do not further the contents of the articles. They may have a loose connection with the article's topic, but they don't add any information to the topic. They do, however, break up solid blocks of text, and make it more readable.
But isn't that an equally subjective matter; I know several editors who consider such images (to break up prose) a hindrance and they remove them with vigour.
To me you're just making an argument for a "Images used in a decorative capacity" category, so those people can read undisturbed :)
It*is* equally subjective. I can understand where those editors with a passion for removing decorative images are coming from, but they suffer from an excess of zeal. But then too there is a point (which I can't define) where the decorative images can become excessive. Editorial judgement involves finding balances in this as well as in matters of sexually explicit pictures.
We get into trouble when we allow rules or software be the substitute for editorial judgement. However the rules and software are written, there will always be valid exceptions.
I think that where this whole debate got off the rails was with a one rule fits all resolution by the Board.
Ray
Thomas Morton wrote:
Give as a clear message, that Wikipedia/Wikimedia will never assist in hiding knowledge.
The day that Wiki*edia changes its mission from providing access to free knowledge to "enforcing our view of knowledge on you", would be a saddening day.
You've excluded Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikispecies, Wikisource, etc. there. I guess it would be less sad for them.
MZMcBride
Hoi, With all due respect, there are plenty of images that do not particularly add to the sum of all wisdom. There are plenty of images in that category that do not add anything at all to what is already there.
Commons has as its motto: "a database of 12,349,098http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics freely usablehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia media files to which anyone can contributehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Welcome ." This is valid however it needs a lot of work before it is the database of freely usable media files where you can actually find what you are looking for. Add to this the real hesitation people have to advertise it as the quality repository it more or less is because of problematic imagery it includes and you have a situation where you have to ask yourself: What is Commons there for.
- it is the repository for images used on the WMF projects - it is a repository of images that is made optimally available to all seekers
I am sure that there can be an option that allows you or someone else to see "everything", good luck with that. I am equally sure that because of there not being the filters we have discussed all too often many people will continue to refrain from using Commons.
The question you have to ask yourself, where is the value in Commons when we do not optimise it as much as possible so that it will be the repository of choice of freely licensed imagery. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 March 2012 11:24, Möller, Carsten c.moeller@wmco.de wrote:
The ugly content censors are raising their heads again.
Just stop it and dont spend any more funds on this.
I understand between the lines that it was stopped in order to protect the fundraiser from unwanted discussions in the public.
Give as a clear message, that Wikipedia/Wikimedia will never assist in hiding knowledge.
Carsten Möller Hamburg Germany
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:00 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi MZ and all --
Project development was put on hold over the winter in favor of more pressing priorities, with the agreement of the Board. There is currently an open proposal on the table for the Board to vote on whether to continue with our original request for an image hiding feature; and the ED will take direction from the Board on
the matter.
We have put that vote off however due to the more time-sensitive and generally all-consuming financial discussions of the past couple of months. I haven't reported on it one way or the other because the timeline for a revote hasn't yet been set.
-- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 6493 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
The Professional version does not have this message
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Am 09.03.2012 15:34, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
The question you have to ask yourself, where is the value in Commons when we do not optimise it as much as possible so that it will be the repository of choice of freely licensed imagery. Thanks, GerardM
That's right. But why did the current approaches only had one goal - the exclusion/hiding of controversial media - in mind?
nya~
On 9 March 2012 14:47, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.comwrote:
Am 09.03.2012 15:34, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
The question you have to ask yourself, where is the value in Commons when
we do not optimise it as much as possible so that it will be the repository of choice of freely licensed imagery. Thanks, GerardM
That's right. But why did the current approaches only had one goal - the exclusion/hiding of controversial media - in mind?
Partly because it is the low hanging fruit (i.e. the thing that will have the most impact in forwarding our goals of accessible knowledge).
Partly because of the old adage that things that people complain about the most are those that get noticed.
It is unfortunate that the board chose to cast the initiative in this light; because I can entirely see why some factions would find it unpalatable (as presented).
Tom
On 9 March 2012 14:50, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Partly because it is the low hanging fruit (i.e. the thing that will have the most impact in forwarding our goals of accessible knowledge).
Citation needed.
- d.
Am 09.03.2012 15:50, schrieb Thomas Morton:
On 9 March 2012 14:47, Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelgarte@googlemail.comwrote:
Am 09.03.2012 15:34, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
The question you have to ask yourself, where is the value in Commons when
we do not optimise it as much as possible so that it will be the repository of choice of freely licensed imagery. Thanks, GerardM
That's right. But why did the current approaches only had one goal - the exclusion/hiding of controversial media - in mind?
Partly because it is the low hanging fruit (i.e. the thing that will have the most impact in forwarding our goals of accessible knowledge).
In other words, it was the first topic that came to mind (Fox+Larry), followed by the first approach that they could think of. Like a child that did something bad and tries to hide it in the hope that the parents would not find out.
Partly because of the old adage that things that people complain about the most are those that get noticed.
Perfectly right. But this behaviour has nothing to do with tackling the problem or to grab it at the root.
It is unfortunate that the board chose to cast the initiative in this light; because I can entirely see why some factions would find it unpalatable (as presented).
It's not only the presentation. It is the actual way of thought how to handle problems or to look at things that might be a problem.
nya~
Hoi, Forget about Mr Larry Fox, I have never met him and I do not care really what he has to say. It is not even relevant if it is the first question to be tackled, it is an issue that is being tackled. The one thing that is relevant is: is this something that prevents the use of Commons. If this is not the case we can continue with other issues and implement tags and ditch categories for instance. If it is the case, lets get the show on the road and get ready for the next thing.
It is often good to concentrate on an issue and then tackle the next. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 March 2012 16:01, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.comwrote:
Am 09.03.2012 15:50, schrieb Thomas Morton:
On 9 March 2012 14:47, Tobias Oelgarte<tobias.oelgarte@**googlemail.comtobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com
wrote:
Am 09.03.2012 15:34, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
The question you have to ask yourself, where is the value in Commons when
we do not optimise it as much as possible so that it will be the repository of choice of freely licensed imagery. Thanks, GerardM
That's right. But why did the current approaches only had one goal -
the exclusion/hiding of controversial media - in mind?
Partly because it is the low hanging fruit (i.e. the thing that will
have the most impact in forwarding our goals of accessible knowledge).
In other words, it was the first topic that came to mind (Fox+Larry), followed by the first approach that they could think of. Like a child that did something bad and tries to hide it in the hope that the parents would not find out.
Partly because of the old adage that things that people complain about the
most are those that get noticed.
Perfectly right. But this behaviour has nothing to do with tackling the problem or to grab it at the root.
It is unfortunate that the board chose to cast the initiative in this
light; because I can entirely see why some factions would find it unpalatable (as presented).
It's not only the presentation. It is the actual way of thought how to handle problems or to look at things that might be a problem.
nya~
______________________________**_________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.**org foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/foundation-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org