So apparently part of the fallout from the Controversial Content study is a recommendation "that the Wikimedia Foundation develop a feature to allow Wikimedia project users to opt into a system that would allow them to easily hide classes of images from their own view"
Rather than developing a significant new feature I would suggest using Adblock Plus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus
Adblock Plus is under the MPL so a stripped down or streamlined version could be produced if required. Adblock Plus already makes it easy to block predefined sets of images. For example if a user were to dislike pictures of giant isopods they could download the filter that blocked all the giant isopod images. If these filters were to be stored localy we would probably need a new namespace or perhaps project. In the case of the giant isopod filter the content of the filter would look something like:
[Adblock] ! Checksum: l4nEGmZz7f1kh8Pfszr2rg *Giant_isopod.jpg* *Bathynomus_giganteus.jpg* *Bathynomus_giganteus_NOAA.jpg* *Front_View_Isopod_West_Sirius_Rig_GOM.JPG* *Isopod_from_West_Sirius_Rig_GOM.JPG*
although the average user should never see that.
There are a number of advantages to this approach: 1)It is entirely under the users control. They can chose what filters to install, edit any filters they install and turn them off on a page by page basis 2)It doesn't require logging in. So it doesn't suddenly stop working when someone is logged out for whatever reason 3)It allows for a potentially unlimited number of filtering lists 4)The lists don't have to be hosted on wikipedia allowing groups to set up common filters without having to work through us 5)This literally works right now. You could drop that list into an Adblock Plus install and see no giant isopods.
The downside: 1)We would need to check how compatible the filters are with equivalent software on chrome and opera 2)There is no equivalent for internet explorer 3)Phones could be a problem although if there is actual demand I assume someone will produce an app.
I had not realized that Adblock Plus was aa flexible as this--though I use it, it is only for its primary purpose, where it seems a stable and effective program that has no detrimental side-effects. If there is anyone who does want to prevent themselves or the minors under their personal care from seeing certain content, there are much worse programs out there.
And, fortunately, to let people use it, we do not have to do anything ourselves. Anyone may use downstream filters who chooses--that's our required position under the CC license.
We should describe all our images with accurate descriptors, not emphasizing sexual descriptors any more or less than we should emphasize sexual content. Then anyone who cares to develop such filters on whatever non-WMF site they choose can do so, according to whatever principles they choose, emphasizing what they will, whether or not compatible with our basic pillars of uncensored or NPOV.
In suggesting we host such filters, I imagine the intent is to do so simply for single terms or words, in the hope that our single descriptors by themselves will be sufficient. Since it is impossible to developed filters for every conceivable combination of terms, if it will require anything more complex, then it will probably be necessary as a practical matter to tailor for a particular purpose. That must be none of our doing, for that is exactly what is inconsistent with NPOV and not censored.
I do not think the recommendations have dealt with practical implication such as these. Or if they really have, and mean to apply it to sexual content only, there's only one answer consistent with not censored: those who think such content controversial are free to do what they want with it, outside the WMF.
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:07 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
So apparently part of the fallout from the Controversial Content study is a recommendation "that the Wikimedia Foundation develop a feature to allow Wikimedia project users to opt into a system that would allow them to easily hide classes of images from their own view"
Rather than developing a significant new feature I would suggest using Adblock Plus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus
Adblock Plus is under the MPL so a stripped down or streamlined version could be produced if required. Adblock Plus already makes it easy to block predefined sets of images. For example if a user were to dislike pictures of giant isopods they could download the filter that blocked all the giant isopod images. If these filters were to be stored localy we would probably need a new namespace or perhaps project. In the case of the giant isopod filter the content of the filter would look something like:
[Adblock] ! Checksum: l4nEGmZz7f1kh8Pfszr2rg *Giant_isopod.jpg* *Bathynomus_giganteus.jpg* *Bathynomus_giganteus_NOAA.jpg* *Front_View_Isopod_West_Sirius_Rig_GOM.JPG* *Isopod_from_West_Sirius_Rig_GOM.JPG*
although the average user should never see that.
There are a number of advantages to this approach: 1)It is entirely under the users control. They can chose what filters to install, edit any filters they install and turn them off on a page by page basis 2)It doesn't require logging in. So it doesn't suddenly stop working when someone is logged out for whatever reason 3)It allows for a potentially unlimited number of filtering lists 4)The lists don't have to be hosted on wikipedia allowing groups to set up common filters without having to work through us 5)This literally works right now. You could drop that list into an Adblock Plus install and see no giant isopods.
The downside: 1)We would need to check how compatible the filters are with equivalent software on chrome and opera 2)There is no equivalent for internet explorer 3)Phones could be a problem although if there is actual demand I assume someone will produce an app.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org