http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to conversation about the image filter.
Keegan Peterzell wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
Both the Wikimedia Board and Wikimedia Foundation staff have treated the image filter as a fait accompli. I think downplaying this reality is predictable and lamentable in Sue's post.
Individuals and organizations are free to implement their own filters. The Wikimedia Foundation's goal is to promote and spread free educational content. Focusing on features like an image filter, when features that are critical to Wikimedia's goal are left by the wayside, is mind-boggling. People can't edit wiki pages, but it's a gaping vagina on the front page that's top priority?
The Wikimedia Board has failed the community in passing its controversial content resolution. It caved to political and social pressures rather than defending what Wikimedia is supposed to stand for. The Wikimedia Board knew that an acceptable filter couldn't be implemented given technical and social constraints, but chose to pass a resolution as an empty gesture. Board members have acknowledged as much privately.
The controversial content resolution has done no good, but has done plenty of harm. I think it's fairly shameful on the part of the Board, a very small body of individuals whose primary objective is to protect the projects. Instead, they chose this?
MZMcBride
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/ Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to conversation about the image filter.
This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
- rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and that they should therefore be ignored.
This is somewhat problematic.
- d.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/ Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to conversation about the image filter.
This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
- rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and that they should therefore be ignored.
This is somewhat problematic.
- d.
I read a rock and a hard place. So yeah, problematic. By sound, I meant from her position.
On 29 September 2011 07:40, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This post appears mostly to be the tone argument: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
- rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and that they should therefore be ignored. This is somewhat problematic.
I read a rock and a hard place. So yeah, problematic. By sound, I meant from her position.
The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against any imposed filter is just *weird*. Not mentioning it, and not acknowledging why someone would do that, doesn't make it go away.
As you say, this blog post reads like someone forced to defend the indefensible, hence the glaringly defective arguments. This will convince no-one the post claims to be addressing.
- d.
For anybody interested: I wrote a blog-post full of disagreement :-)
http://asinliberty.blogspot.com/2011/09/sorry-sue-gardner-but-image-filter.h...
regards, southpark
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:45 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 07:40, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This post appears mostly to be the tone argument: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
- rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and that they should therefore be ignored. This is somewhat problematic.
I read a rock and a hard place. So yeah, problematic. By sound, I meant from her position.
The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against any imposed filter is just *weird*. Not mentioning it, and not acknowledging why someone would do that, doesn't make it go away.
As you say, this blog post reads like someone forced to defend the indefensible, hence the glaringly defective arguments. This will convince no-one the post claims to be addressing.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 09/29/2011 04:37 PM, Dirk Franke wrote:
For anybody interested: I wrote a blog-post full of disagreement :-)
http://asinliberty.blogspot.com/2011/09/sorry-sue-gardner-but-image-filter.h...
So basically, we find that there are two different, somewhat incompatible definitions of Wikipedia:
* A project of pure enlightenment, which ignores the biased/prejudiced reader and accepts the resulting limited distribution.
* A project of praxis, which seeks a balance between the goals of enlightenment and the reader's interests, aiming at a high distribution.
-- Tobias
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:45 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against any imposed filter is just *weird*. Not mentioning it, and not acknowledging why someone would do that, doesn't make it go away.
As you say, this blog post reads like someone forced to defend the indefensible, hence the glaringly defective arguments. This will convince no-one the post claims to be addressing.
- d.
It makes some sense. If you come to the conclusion that your constituency for a particularly important decision is a huge and diverse array of people (i.e. the readers), and then further conclude that opposition to your decision is coming from a very narrow and homogenous slice of that array (i.e. contributors)... Ignoring the opposition in favor of the "larger audience" could then be quite reasonable.
Nathan
It makes some sense. If you come to the conclusion that your constituency for a particularly important decision is a huge and diverse array of people (i.e. the readers), and then further conclude that opposition to your decision is coming from a very narrow and homogenous slice of that array (i.e. contributors)... Ignoring the opposition in favor of the "larger audience" could then be quite reasonable.
Nathan
Why aren't more of us, that very narrow and homogenous slice of that array, thinking that way, as publishers?
Fred
Am 29.09.2011 17:00, schrieb Nathan:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:45 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against any imposed filter is just *weird*. Not mentioning it, and not acknowledging why someone would do that, doesn't make it go away.
As you say, this blog post reads like someone forced to defend the indefensible, hence the glaringly defective arguments. This will convince no-one the post claims to be addressing.
- d.
It makes some sense. If you come to the conclusion that your constituency for a particularly important decision is a huge and diverse array of people (i.e. the readers), and then further conclude that opposition to your decision is coming from a very narrow and homogenous slice of that array (i.e. contributors)... Ignoring the opposition in favor of the "larger audience" could then be quite reasonable.
Nathan
If it would be the case, that this is a small minority, then i could agree and accept that as consensus, even if reasonable arguments were ignored. But what the post does is very simple. It describes liberal thinking people as a minority - as an extremist minority - that does not care about the readers or the project. That isn't any better then the "we are not censored, we can do it" argument. It's the plain opposite, but not better or worse. It's the tale about others that might be offended.
What we really need is the discussion if an image is illustrative for the topic. We want to spread knowledge. This does not mean to: a) to leave out illustrative material because is offensive. b) to include offensive material if something else has the same illustrative value.
The image filter, as a tool, is meant to circumvent this question and it's answers. Instead of trying to improve the content or providing better alternatives it's just the same as to say: "we don't care, you have to choose", ignoring all possible negative side effects.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:45 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against any imposed filter is just *weird*.
The intro and footer of Sue's post say: "The purpose of this post is not to talk specifically about the referendum results or the image hiding feature"
She also wrote in the comments: "What I talk about in this post is completely independent of the filter, and it’s worth discussing (IMO) on its own merits"
So it's perhaps not surprising that she doesn't mention the de.wp poll regarding the filter in a post that she says is not about the filter. ;-)
Now, it's completely fair to say that the filter issue remains the elephant in the room until it's resolved what will actually be implemented and how. And it's understandable that lots of people are responding accordingly. But I think it's pretty clear that Sue was trying to start a broader conversation in good faith. I know that she's done lots of thinking about the conversations so far including the de.wp poll, and she's also summarized some of this in her report to the Board:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Sue%27s_report_to_the...
The broader conversation she's seeking to kick off in her blog post _can_, IMO, usefully inform the filter conversation.
What Sue is saying is that we sometimes fail to take the needs and expectations of our readers fully into account. Whether you agree with her specific examples or not, this is certainly generally true in a community where decisions are generally made by whoever happens to show up, and sometimes the people who show up are biased, stupid or wrong. And even when the people who show up are thoughtful, intelligent and wise, the existing systems, processes and expectations may lead them to only be able to make imperfect decisions.
Let me be specific. Let's take the good old autofellatio article, which was one of the first examples of an article with a highly disputed explicit image on the English Wikipedia (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autofellatio/Archive_1 ).
If you visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autofellatio , you'll notice that there are two big banners: "Wikipedia is not censored" and "If you find some images offensive you can configure your browser to mask them", with further instructions.
Often, these kinds of banners come into being because people (readers and active editors) find their way to the talk page and complain about an image being offensive. They are intended to do two things: Explain our philosophy, but also give people support in making more informed choices.
This is, in other words, the result of reasonable discussion by thoughtful, intelligent and wise people about how to deal with offensive images (and in some cases, text).
And yet, it's a deeply imperfect solution. The autofellatio page has been viewed 85,000 times in September. The associated discussion page has been viewed 400 times. The "options not to see an image" page, which is linked from many many of these pages, has been viewed 750 times.
We can reasonably hypothesize without digging much further into the data that there's a significant number of people who are offended by images they see in Wikipedia but who don't know how to respond, and we can reasonably hypothesize that the responses that Wikipedians have conceived so far to help them have been overall insufficient in doing so. It would be great to have much more data -- but again, I think these are reasonable hypotheses.
The image filter in an incarnation similar to the one that's been discussed to-date is one possible response, but it's not the only one. Indeed, nothing in the Board resolution prescribes a complex system based on categories that exists adjacent to normal mechanisms of editorial control.
An alternative would be, for example, to give Wikipedians a piece of wiki syntax that they can use to selectively make images hideable on specific articles. Imagine visiting the article Autofellatio and seeing small print at the top that says:
"This article contains explicit images that some readers may find objectionable. [[Hide all images on this page]]."
As requested by the Board resolution, it could then be trivial to selectively unhide specific images.
If desired, it could be made easy to browse articles with that setting on-by-default, which would be similar to the way the Arabic Wikipedia handles some types of controversial content ( cf. http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D8%B6%D8%B9_%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%B3%D9%8A ).
This could possibly be entirely implemented in JS and templates without any complex additional software support, but it would probably be nice to create a standardized tag for it and design the feature itself for maximum usability.
Solutions of this type would have the advantage of giving Wiki[mp]edians full editorial judgment and responsibility to use them as they see fit, as opposed to being an imposition from WMF, with an image filter tool showing up on the page about tangential quadrilaterals, and with constant warfare about correct labeling of controversial content. They would also be so broad as to be not very useful for third party censorship.
Clearly, one wouldn't just want to tag all articles in this fashion if people complain -- some complaints should be discussed and resolved, not responded to by adding a "Hide it if you don't like it" tag; some should be ignored. By putting the control of when to add the tag fully in the hands of the community, one would also give communities the option to say "Why would we use this feature? We don't need it!" This could then lead to further internal and external conversations.
I don't think this would address all the concerns Sue expresses. For example, I think we need to do more to bring readers into conversations, and to treat them respectfully. Our core community is 91% male, and that does lead to obvious perception biases (and yes, occasional sexism and other -isms). Polls and discussions in our community are typically not only dominated by that core group, they're sometimes in fact explicitly closed to people who aren't meeting sufficient edit count criteria, etc. For good reasons, of course -- but we need to find ways to hear those voices as well.
Overall, I think Sue's post was an effort to move the conversation away from thinking of this issue purely in the terms of the debate as it's taken place so far. I think that's a very worthwhile thing to do. I would also point out that lots of good and thoughtful ideas have been collected at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en
IMO the appropriate level of WMF attention to this issue is to 1) look for simple technical help that we can give the community, 2) use the resources that WMF and chapters have (in terms of dedicated, focused attention) to help host conversations in the communities, and bring new voices into the debate, to help us all be the best possible versions of ourselves. And as Sue said, we shouldn't demonize each other in the process. Everyone's trying to think about these topics in a serious fashion, balancing many complex interests, and bringing their own useful perspective.
Erik
I'll go by pieces in your mail Erik.
*The intro and footer of Sue's post say: "The purpose of this post is not to
talk specifically about the referendum results or the image hiding feature" (...) So it's perhaps not surprising that she doesn't mention the de.wp poll regarding the filter in a post that she says is not about the filter. ;-)
It is quite surprise yes, since she gave half of the post to de.wiki main page "issue"[1]. And also, if we decide to ABFhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ABFof the other side (like that post pretty much does) I would say that she doesn't mention because would not help her case.
*Now, it's completely fair to say that the filter issue remains the elephant
in the room until it's resolved what will actually be implemented and how.
You forgot the "*IF*": IF the elephant will be or not implemented.
*What Sue is saying is that we sometimes fail to take the needs and
expectations of our readers fully into account
Well, if we consider the "referendum" a good place to go see results[2] we can say that our readers are in doubt about that issue, pretty much 50%-50% in doubt - with the difference that our germans readers are not: They DON'T WANT it.
*Let me be specific. Let's take the good old autofellatio article (...) If
you visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autofellatio , you'll notice that there are two big banners: "Wikipedia is not censored" and "If you find some images offensive you can configure your browser to mask them", with further instructions. (...) And yet, it's a deeply imperfect solution. The autofellatio page has been viewed 85,000 times in September. The associated discussion page has been viewed 400 times. The "options not to see an image" page, which is linked from many many of these pages, has been viewed 750 times. We can reasonably hypothesize without digging much further into the data that there's a significant number of people who are offended by images they see in Wikipedia but who don't know how to respond.
No we can not. With 85,000 views, would be childish to imagine that only 400 people could see the "Discussion" tab over the article. If they got to the article (and the article is not on MP) we need to assume that: 1. They looked for "*autofellatio*" in Google - thefore they knew what they would might find. 2. They placed that into the search box - thefore they know at least a bit how wikipedia works and know what is a discussion page and how to get there. 3. They got to the article by the links in another article. And by the links of "What Links herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Autofellatio&namespace=0&limit=250" feature there are no article no related with sex and sexuality that links to this one, so that reader would know what they would find - like the 1. - and knows how wikipedia works - like 2.
In any of the cases, I can only imagine that 1 has any reason to be offended and don't know how to find the talk page. Even in that case - if we divide by 3 the number of viewers (assuming here that 1, 2 and 3 has exactly the same contribution to the number, that is 28,333 people. Which means that - from the other 56,667 people - only 400 decided to check what is the talk page. Which is 0,7% of the readers. From those, I can only see 3 people complaining, which is 0,75% of everyone who goes in the talk page. Can you see the idea? Only ~0,7% of all people who say that article is offended by it. So, no, we can't assume that people get offended.
*An alternative would be, for example, to give Wikipedians a piece of wiki
syntax that they can use to selectively make images hideable on specific articles. Imagine visiting the article Autofellatio and seeing small print at the top that says:
"This article contains explicit images that some readers may find objectionable. [[Hide all images on this page]]."*
That would indeed be a better idea - to be implemented as a gadget to log in users. - and to be implemented in a way that prevents any kind of "censorship categories"
*Our core community is 91% male, and that does lead to obvious perception
biases (and yes, occasional sexism and other -isms). Polls and discussions in our community are typically not only dominated by that core group, they're sometimes in fact explicitly closed to people who aren't meeting sufficient edit count criteria, etc.*
Yes it is. That does not mean girls get more offend by that. The 9% of the girls are not screaming to tire apart all images, are they? In the opposite, we can see the same 50%-50% pro-oppose in the female community as well. (As example: the only 2 girls who commented here - phoebe and me - are in opposite sides. Have a vagina don't make us more or less offend for see one in the main page.
[1]: Note there a page who was elected featured article be in the main page is not a issue, whatever the subject is. [2]: I don't, for the very simple reason that was badly written, as several people already said. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 30 September 2011 09:44, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:45 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against any imposed filter is just *weird*.
The intro and footer of Sue's post say: "The purpose of this post is not to talk specifically about the referendum results or the image hiding feature"
She also wrote in the comments: "What I talk about in this post is completely independent of the filter, and it’s worth discussing (IMO) on its own merits"
So it's perhaps not surprising that she doesn't mention the de.wp poll regarding the filter in a post that she says is not about the filter. ;-)
Now, it's completely fair to say that the filter issue remains the elephant in the room until it's resolved what will actually be implemented and how. And it's understandable that lots of people are responding accordingly. But I think it's pretty clear that Sue was trying to start a broader conversation in good faith. I know that she's done lots of thinking about the conversations so far including the de.wp poll, and she's also summarized some of this in her report to the Board:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Sue%27s_report_to_the...
The broader conversation she's seeking to kick off in her blog post _can_, IMO, usefully inform the filter conversation.
What Sue is saying is that we sometimes fail to take the needs and expectations of our readers fully into account. Whether you agree with her specific examples or not, this is certainly generally true in a community where decisions are generally made by whoever happens to show up, and sometimes the people who show up are biased, stupid or wrong. And even when the people who show up are thoughtful, intelligent and wise, the existing systems, processes and expectations may lead them to only be able to make imperfect decisions.
Let me be specific. Let's take the good old autofellatio article, which was one of the first examples of an article with a highly disputed explicit image on the English Wikipedia (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autofellatio/Archive_1 ).
If you visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autofellatio , you'll notice that there are two big banners: "Wikipedia is not censored" and "If you find some images offensive you can configure your browser to mask them", with further instructions.
Often, these kinds of banners come into being because people (readers and active editors) find their way to the talk page and complain about an image being offensive. They are intended to do two things: Explain our philosophy, but also give people support in making more informed choices.
This is, in other words, the result of reasonable discussion by thoughtful, intelligent and wise people about how to deal with offensive images (and in some cases, text).
And yet, it's a deeply imperfect solution. The autofellatio page has been viewed 85,000 times in September. The associated discussion page has been viewed 400 times. The "options not to see an image" page, which is linked from many many of these pages, has been viewed 750 times.
We can reasonably hypothesize without digging much further into the data that there's a significant number of people who are offended by images they see in Wikipedia but who don't know how to respond, and we can reasonably hypothesize that the responses that Wikipedians have conceived so far to help them have been overall insufficient in doing so. It would be great to have much more data -- but again, I think these are reasonable hypotheses.
The image filter in an incarnation similar to the one that's been discussed to-date is one possible response, but it's not the only one. Indeed, nothing in the Board resolution prescribes a complex system based on categories that exists adjacent to normal mechanisms of editorial control.
An alternative would be, for example, to give Wikipedians a piece of wiki syntax that they can use to selectively make images hideable on specific articles. Imagine visiting the article Autofellatio and seeing small print at the top that says:
"This article contains explicit images that some readers may find objectionable. [[Hide all images on this page]]."
As requested by the Board resolution, it could then be trivial to selectively unhide specific images.
If desired, it could be made easy to browse articles with that setting on-by-default, which would be similar to the way the Arabic Wikipedia handles some types of controversial content ( cf. http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D8%B6%D8%B9_%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%B3%D9%8A ).
This could possibly be entirely implemented in JS and templates without any complex additional software support, but it would probably be nice to create a standardized tag for it and design the feature itself for maximum usability.
Solutions of this type would have the advantage of giving Wiki[mp]edians full editorial judgment and responsibility to use them as they see fit, as opposed to being an imposition from WMF, with an image filter tool showing up on the page about tangential quadrilaterals, and with constant warfare about correct labeling of controversial content. They would also be so broad as to be not very useful for third party censorship.
Clearly, one wouldn't just want to tag all articles in this fashion if people complain -- some complaints should be discussed and resolved, not responded to by adding a "Hide it if you don't like it" tag; some should be ignored. By putting the control of when to add the tag fully in the hands of the community, one would also give communities the option to say "Why would we use this feature? We don't need it!" This could then lead to further internal and external conversations.
I don't think this would address all the concerns Sue expresses. For example, I think we need to do more to bring readers into conversations, and to treat them respectfully. Our core community is 91% male, and that does lead to obvious perception biases (and yes, occasional sexism and other -isms). Polls and discussions in our community are typically not only dominated by that core group, they're sometimes in fact explicitly closed to people who aren't meeting sufficient edit count criteria, etc. For good reasons, of course -- but we need to find ways to hear those voices as well.
Overall, I think Sue's post was an effort to move the conversation away from thinking of this issue purely in the terms of the debate as it's taken place so far. I think that's a very worthwhile thing to do. I would also point out that lots of good and thoughtful ideas have been collected at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en
IMO the appropriate level of WMF attention to this issue is to 1) look for simple technical help that we can give the community, 2) use the resources that WMF and chapters have (in terms of dedicated, focused attention) to help host conversations in the communities, and bring new voices into the debate, to help us all be the best possible versions of ourselves. And as Sue said, we shouldn't demonize each other in the process. Everyone's trying to think about these topics in a serious fashion, balancing many complex interests, and bringing their own useful perspective.
Erik
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Overall, I think Sue's post was an effort to move the conversation away from thinking of this issue purely in the terms of the debate as it's taken place so far. I think that's a very worthwhile thing to do. I would also point out that lots of good and thoughtful ideas have been collected at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en
IMO the appropriate level of WMF attention to this issue is to 1) look for simple technical help that we can give the community, 2) use the resources that WMF and chapters have (in terms of dedicated, focused attention) to help host conversations in the communities, and bring new voices into the debate, to help us all be the best possible versions of ourselves. And as Sue said, we shouldn't demonize each other in the process. Everyone's trying to think about these topics in a serious fashion, balancing many complex interests, and bringing their own useful perspective.
Erik
Erik, if you really want to change the focus of the debate, suggest to Sue and the board that they make a commitment: that an image filter won't be imposed on the projects against strong majority opposition in the contributing community. Then you can move on to the hard work of convincing us of its merits, and we can set arguments over authority and roles aside.
Nathan
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Overall, I think Sue's post was an effort to move the conversation away from thinking of this issue purely in the terms of the debate as it's taken place so far. I think that's a very worthwhile thing to do. I would also point out that lots of good and thoughtful ideas have been collected at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en
IMO the appropriate level of WMF attention to this issue is to 1) look for simple technical help that we can give the community, 2) use the resources that WMF and chapters have (in terms of dedicated, focused attention) to help host conversations in the communities, and bring new voices into the debate, to help us all be the best possible versions of ourselves. And as Sue said, we shouldn't demonize each other in the process. Everyone's trying to think about these topics in a serious fashion, balancing many complex interests, and bringing their own useful perspective.
Erik
Erik, if you really want to change the focus of the debate, suggest to Sue and the board that they make a commitment: that an image filter won't be imposed on the projects against strong majority opposition in the contributing community. Then you can move on to the hard work of convincing us of its merits, and we can set arguments over authority and roles aside.
Nathan
Hear, hear!
Nathan wrote:
Erik, if you really want to change the focus of the debate, suggest to Sue and the board that they make a commitment: that an image filter won't be imposed on the projects against strong majority opposition in the contributing community. Then you can move on to the hard work of convincing us of its merits, and we can set arguments over authority and roles aside.
While this seems like a nice idea on the surface, I think it sets a rather dangerous precedent. Would a majority of a contributing community be able to set aside the NPOV policy? What about fair use requirements? The requirement that people be over 18 to obtain private info? Provisions of the privacy policy?
Board resolutions, to have any legitimacy, need to be enforceable. The solution to a bad Board resolution isn't to make a statement saying that it can be ignored if enough people want to. If that's the case, why have a Board at all? It seems to me that the solution is for the Board to clean up its own mess (and resolve to not make future ones).
As I posted earlier, the Board went into this knowing that it was putting forward a divisive, empty gesture. This resolution was an act in bad faith.
MZMcBride
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:36 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Erik, if you really want to change the focus of the debate, suggest to Sue and the board that they make a commitment: that an image filter won't be imposed on the projects against strong majority opposition in the contributing community. Then you can move on to the hard work of convincing us of its merits, and we can set arguments over authority and roles aside.
While this seems like a nice idea on the surface, I think it sets a rather dangerous precedent. Would a majority of a contributing community be able to set aside the NPOV policy? What about fair use requirements? The requirement that people be over 18 to obtain private info? Provisions of the privacy policy?
Board resolutions, to have any legitimacy, need to be enforceable. The solution to a bad Board resolution isn't to make a statement saying that it can be ignored if enough people want to. If that's the case, why have a Board at all? It seems to me that the solution is for the Board to clean up its own mess (and resolve to not make future ones).
As I posted earlier, the Board went into this knowing that it was putting forward a divisive, empty gesture. This resolution was an act in bad faith.
MZMcBride
Your examples are not similar to an image filter. No current core principles are at stake, no major legal threats to the projects, etc. More importantly, your "board resolutions need to be enforceable" principle is not at odds with my suggestion: the board can state a desire for, and an intention to work towards, an image filter while at the same time directly disclaiming the intention to unilaterally impose one.
Nathan
Erik Moeller wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:45 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against any imposed filter is just *weird*.
The intro and footer of Sue's post say: "The purpose of this post is not to talk specifically about the referendum results or the image hiding feature"
When you cherry-pick, I don't think it's very unreasonable (or at least not very unexpected) to be called a cherry-picker. Selectively choosing examples that bolster your argument isn't really problematic, but in context, it came off as ill-informed or ignorant at best, and as dishonest and disingenuous at worst. Whether there are disclaimers or not, Sue speaks as the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. And this issue is quite obviously contentious. Bear-poking is bear-poking, whether intentional or not.
So it's perhaps not surprising that she doesn't mention the de.wp poll regarding the filter in a post that she says is not about the filter. ;-)
I think what's sorely lacking right now is a broader overview of the issue. I think a timeline would help, and I don't think one exists already. "Controversial content issue timeline" on Meta-Wiki or something. It would lay out when certain events happened, what their result was, and in what order. Larry Sanger's comments about child pornography, the controversial content resolution, the polls at the German Wikipedia, the cartoon controversy from 2005, the vulva on the German Wikipedia Main Page more recently, the image filter referendum, etc. all make less sense when thrown into a jumble. Maybe I'll have some time this weekend to work on such a timeline.
We can reasonably hypothesize without digging much further into the data that there's a significant number of people who are offended by images they see in Wikipedia but who don't know how to respond, and we can reasonably hypothesize that the responses that Wikipedians have conceived so far to help them have been overall insufficient in doing so. It would be great to have much more data -- but again, I think these are reasonable hypotheses.
I think we can reasonably hypothesize that the majority of readers know how to close a browser window. Or hit the back button. Or click a link to a different page. The ones who are so deeply concerned about seeing autofellatio on a page about autofellatio can implement their own solutions to the problem (necessity is the mother of invention, right?). Can you explain why you feel Wikimedia needs to be involved?
The image filter in an incarnation similar to the one that's been discussed to-date is one possible response, but it's not the only one. Indeed, nothing in the Board resolution prescribes a complex system based on categories that exists adjacent to normal mechanisms of editorial control.
When you make comments like this, it makes it sound as though it was an organization other than Wikimedia that spearheaded a referendum that made this image filter (and this particular implementation) a fait accompli. When you make comments like this, it makes it sound as though it was an organization other than Wikimedia that proposed specific design plans, created by one of its employees. People have been discussing a particular implementation because Wikimedia put one forward. Why does your post make it sound as though this is surprising or unexpected?
MZMcBride
Sorry if this is *too* condensed, but here is one summary of this issue...
First attempt at labeling content was made by Uwe Kils, and his class of students collectively logging as Vikings or something of the sort tagged content not suitable for teenst. Jimbo banned them, but an accomodation was made wherein they promised to not continue tagging articles.
Then we had "Toby" . Again, by acclamation, that was squashed. It was too ridiculous for words.
After that, numerous variations and formulations of filtering or tagging content have been floated, and have pretty much earned their status of the most perennial suggestion to always burn and crash.
And now we have a board/executive that wants to do an end run around all that nasty history and create a fact on the ground. No, I don't think that will fly., '
On 30 September 2011 13:40, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
First attempt at labeling content was made by Uwe Kils, and his class of students collectively logging as Vikings or something of the sort tagged content not suitable for teenst. Jimbo banned them, but an accomodation was made wherein they promised to not continue tagging articles. Then we had "Toby" . Again, by acclamation, that was squashed. It was too ridiculous for words.
Dates for all of these will be useful for the timeline.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 30 September 2011 13:40, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
First attempt at labeling content was made by Uwe Kils, and his class of students collectively logging as Vikings or something of the sort tagged content not suitable for teenst. Jimbo banned them, but an accomodation was made wherein they promised to not continue tagging articles. Then we had "Toby" . Again, by acclamation, that was squashed. It was too ridiculous for words.
Dates for all of these will be useful for the timeline.
I'm not thrilled with the current page title, but it's a start: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content_timeline.
I'd forgotten all about Toby. That was largely a joke, wasn't it?
MZMcBride
MZMcBride wrote:
I'd forgotten all about Toby. That was largely a joke, wasn't it?
Do not try to define Toby. Toby might be a joke or he might be serious. Toby might be watching over us right now or he might be a bowl of porridge. Toby might be windmills or he might be giants. Don't fight about Toby. Let Toby be there. Toby loves us. Toby hates us. Toby always wins.
David Levy
David Levy wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
I'd forgotten all about Toby. That was largely a joke, wasn't it?
Do not try to define Toby. Toby might be a joke or he might be serious. Toby might be watching over us right now or he might be a bowl of porridge. Toby might be windmills or he might be giants. Don't fight about Toby. Let Toby be there. Toby loves us. Toby hates us. Toby always wins.
David Levy
Toby or not Toby? Is that the question?
On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
- rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and that they should therefore be ignored.
Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems quite valid.
Ryan Kaldari
On 30 September 2011 00:28, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems quite valid.
Really, every single response to every single comment?
It suggests communication has already broken down.
What happens when opponents of the image filter stop bothering to say anything to the Foundation, and treat them as an obstacle to be worked around?
- d.
This isn't just about the image filter. Try discussing whether or not porn should be allowed on the Main page of Commons. Let me know if you get any responses that don't cite [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. Somehow the majority of the community there believes that there are only two possible positions on this issue: * Save the children * Protect Wikipedia from censorship If you can't be shoved into one of those boxes, you're just ignored. The tone issue is very pertinent in my view. I'm tired of everyone assuming that every post on this issue has to be either pro- or anti-censorship—as demonstrated by the responses to Sue's blog post. Some people actually have nuanced views, and it's important that these voices aren't excluded from the conversation.
I don't really care much about the image-filter issue, but I'm a big advocate of presenting controversial content in appropriate contexts. Thus I am routinely accused of supporting censorship (despite the fact that I founded WikiProject Wikipedians Against Censorship!).
Ryan Kaldari
On 9/29/11 4:34 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 30 September 2011 00:28, Ryan Kaldarirkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems quite valid.
Really, every single response to every single comment?
It suggests communication has already broken down.
What happens when opponents of the image filter stop bothering to say anything to the Foundation, and treat them as an obstacle to be worked around?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 30 September 2011 00:34, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2011 00:28, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems quite valid.
Really, every single response to every single comment?
It suggests communication has already broken down.
What happens when opponents of the image filter stop bothering to say anything to the Foundation, and treat them as an obstacle to be worked around?
Some time ago in some cases. Problem is the kind of tactics needed to do that tend to be socially damaging and we don't need another pending changes mess.
--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28
On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
- rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and that they should therefore be ignored.
Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems quite valid.
Ryan Kaldari Quite. I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of a rape (perhaps a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to include it in the article on [[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored. That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it should be included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is not censored. That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED requires us to embed them in the biographies of those who were recently beheaded. That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none of men having the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the images of naked women have to be kept, because Wikipedia is not censored. And so on. Andreas
I was on Commons and stumbled across a photograph of a man cumming onto a cracker and then eating it. Turns out this is called a "soggy biscuit." You learn something new everyday.
In the heat of annoyance about "WP:NOTCENSORED" cries, I decided to add the image of the guy eating his cum drenched biscuit on the [[Soggy biscuit]] article.
Well it was quickly taken down!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Soggy_biscuit#Removing_the_article_image
But at least we have plenty of other images of people in sexually deviant situations with their faces shown. :P
-Sarah "You can't always get what you want," Stierch
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28
On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
- rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and that they should therefore be ignored.
Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems quite valid.
Ryan Kaldari Quite. I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of a rape (perhaps a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to include it in the article on [[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored. That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it should be included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is not censored. That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED requires us to embed them in the biographies of those who were recently beheaded. That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none of men having the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the images of naked women have to be kept, because Wikipedia is not censored. And so on. Andreas _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldarirkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldarirkaldari@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28
On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
- rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and that they should therefore be ignored.
Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems quite valid.
Ryan Kaldari Quite. I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of a rape (perhaps a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to include it in the article on [[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored. That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it should be included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is not censored. That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED requires us to embed them in the biographies of those who were recently beheaded. That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none of men having the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the images of naked women have to be kept, because Wikipedia is not censored. And so on. Andreas
I guess you misunderstood those people. Most likely they meant, that there should be no rule against such content, if it is an appropriate Illustration for the subject. Would you say the same, if this[1] or some other documentary film would be put under the CC license? Wouldn't it be illustrative as well as educational?
On 30 September 2011 12:06, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.comwrote:
Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldarirkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldarirkaldari@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28
On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
- rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and that they should therefore be ignored.
Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems quite valid.
Ryan Kaldari Quite. I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of
a rape (perhaps a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to include it in the article on [[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored.
That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it
should be included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is not censored.
That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED
requires us to embed them in the biographies of those who were recently beheaded.
That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none
of men having the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the images of naked women have to be kept, because Wikipedia is not censored.
And so on. Andreas
I guess you misunderstood those people. Most likely they meant, that there should be no rule against such content, if it is an appropriate Illustration for the subject. <snip>
No, I think he understood it just fine. I have seen similar arguments in several places on various projects: not just that it could be acceptable, but that there is a duty to include such information in articles that overrides editorial judgment, regardless of quality, source or other factors.
Risker
Tobias, you be the judge whether I misunderstood my fellow Wikipedians' comments. Here are some verbatim quotes, from different contributors:
"How exactly would you propose to get an appropriately licensed video of a rape? [...] I suppose, in the unlikely even that we were to get a video that were appropriately licensed, did not raise privacy concerns, and was germane to the subject, we'd use it. Why shouldn't we? The specific role of NOTCENSORED is to say "We do not exclude things because people are squeamish about them", and replacing the word "censor" with "editorial judgment" is a simple case of euphemism, and does not change what it means. As to the beheading videos, yes, yes, and most certainly yes. We show graphic images of suffering in articles about The Holocaust, even though that may not be the most comfortable thing for some people. Why wouldn't we do so in an article about another horrific act, if the material is under a license we can use it with?" I would have no issues with videos of animals (including humans) defecating on appropriate articles. I'm sure you were looking for an "OMG THAT'S SO GROSS!" response, but you won't find it from me. [me:] The question is not whether you would be grossed out watching it. The question is, what encyclopedic value would it add? I don't think there is a single human being on the planet who needs to watch a video of a person defecating to understand how defecation works. If that is your real rationale, then why aren't you going to support removal of images from human nose? But your chat about rape and beheading (both subjects for which I'd strongly advocate a video for, if there could be a free, privacy-keeping one) makes me lose WP:AGF a bittle on this grasping at straws of yours. Let me remember that we, as a culture, had to grow up a lot to accept not being censored. Censoring is the exact opposite of "growing up as a culture". It sounded to me like they meant it. Doesn't it to you? They were all established users; one of them an admin. I had a long, and perfectly amicable e-mail discussion about it with him afterwards. Their position is entirely logical, but it lacks common sense and, indeed, a little empathy. Andreas
--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 17:06
Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldarirkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldarirkaldari@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28
On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
- rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and that they should therefore be ignored.
Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems quite valid.
Ryan Kaldari Quite. I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of a rape (perhaps a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to include it in the article on [[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored. That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it should be included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is not censored. That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED requires us to embed them in the biographies of those who were recently beheaded. That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none of men having the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the images of naked women have to be kept, because Wikipedia is not censored. And so on. Andreas
I guess you misunderstood those people. Most likely they meant, that there should be no rule against such content, if it is an appropriate Illustration for the subject. Would you say the same, if this[1] or some other documentary film would be put under the CC license? Wouldn't it be illustrative as well as educational?
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtvuLAZxgOM
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I would prefer to read these comments in context and not in snippets. Can you point me to the corresponding discussion(s)?
-- Niabot
Am 30.09.2011 19:02, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
Tobias, you be the judge whether I misunderstood my fellow Wikipedians' comments. Here are some verbatim quotes, from different contributors:
"How exactly would you propose to get an appropriately licensed video of a rape? [...] I suppose, in the unlikely even that we were to get a video that were appropriately licensed, did not raise privacy concerns, and was germane to the subject, we'd use it. Why shouldn't we? The specific role of NOTCENSORED is to say "We do not exclude things because people are squeamish about them", and replacing the word "censor" with "editorial judgment" is a simple case of euphemism, and does not change what it means. As to the beheading videos, yes, yes, and most certainly yes. We show graphic images of suffering in articles about The Holocaust, even though that may not be the most comfortable thing for some people. Why wouldn't we do so in an article about another horrific act, if the material is under a license we can use it with?" I would have no issues with videos of animals (including humans) defecating on appropriate articles. I'm sure you were looking for an "OMG THAT'S SO GROSS!" response, but you won't find it from me. [me:] The question is not whether you would be grossed out watching it. The question is, what encyclopedic value would it add? I don't think there is a single human being on the planet who needs to watch a video of a person defecating to understand how defecation works. If that is your real rationale, then why aren't you going to support removal of images from human nose? But your chat about rape and beheading (both subjects for which I'd strongly advocate a video for, if there could be a free, privacy-keeping one) makes me lose WP:AGF a bittle on this grasping at straws of yours. Let me remember that we, as a culture, had to grow up a lot to accept not being censored. Censoring is the exact opposite of "growing up as a culture". It sounded to me like they meant it. Doesn't it to you? They were all established users; one of them an admin. I had a long, and perfectly amicable e-mail discussion about it with him afterwards. Their position is entirely logical, but it lacks common sense and, indeed, a little empathy. Andreas
--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 17:06
Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldarirkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldarirkaldari@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28
On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
- rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and that they should therefore be ignored.
Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems quite valid.
Ryan Kaldari Quite. I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of a rape (perhaps a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to include it in the article on [[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored. That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it should be included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is not censored. That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED requires us to embed them in the biographies of those who were recently beheaded. That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none of men having the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the images of naked women have to be kept, because Wikipedia is not censored. And so on. Andreas
I guess you misunderstood those people. Most likely they meant, that there should be no rule against such content, if it is an appropriate Illustration for the subject. Would you say the same, if this[1] or some other documentary film would be put under the CC license? Wouldn't it be illustrative as well as educational?
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtvuLAZxgOM
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 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/ Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to conversation about the image filter.
The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.
So here's one that's particularly apposite:
http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-lett...
He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all manner of names ("who are acting like provocateurs and agitators" that "need to be stopped"), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE.
- d.
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/ Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to conversation about the image filter.
The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.
Yes, Achim and others told me the same. Not a good way to discuss with people.
So here's one that's particularly apposite:
http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-lett...
Read the true story about the vulva men! :-)
He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all manner of names ("who are acting like provocateurs and agitators" that "need to be stopped"), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE.
Achim _was_ a member of the board of WMDE.
Kind regards Anneke (Kellerkind)
On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/ Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to conversation about the image filter.
The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.
Really? What did you say?
So here's one that's particularly apposite:
http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-lett...
He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all manner of names ("who are acting like provocateurs and agitators" that "need to be stopped"), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE.
I don't think Sue necessarily meant Achim. For one thing, I don't think she objects to the article. It's the article (and, in particular, the picture) being on the front page that she thought unwise. Was he the one to make that decision? As I understand it, it was a general consensus of the community. That makes it very difficult to pick out certain individuals to criticise, so I don't think you can guess which, if any, individuals Sue had in mind when she wrote that.
On 29 September 2011 23:45, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/ Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to conversation about the image filter.
The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.
Really? What did you say?
Same stuff as here (word for word). I asked Sue and she said of course she'd approve that. I'm sure it'll be on there eventually. But a discussion where comments get through who knows when isn't a discussion.
http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-lett... He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all manner of names ("who are acting like provocateurs and agitators" that "need to be stopped"), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE.
I don't think Sue necessarily meant Achim. For one thing, I don't think she objects to the article. It's the article (and, in
I'm sure she can make any necessary apologies directly. He certainly feels it was directed at whoever wrote the article.
- d.
On 29 September 2011 23:49, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 23:45, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.
Really? What did you say?
Same stuff as here (word for word). I asked Sue and she said of course she'd approve that. I'm sure it'll be on there eventually. But a discussion where comments get through who knows when isn't a discussion.
Not dealing with pending comments promptly doesn't sound like arbitrary filtering to me...
On 29 September 2011 23:53, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Not dealing with pending comments promptly doesn't sound like arbitrary filtering to me...
Note comments from others in this thread experiencing the same.
- d.
On 29 September 2011 23:55, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 23:53, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Not dealing with pending comments promptly doesn't sound like arbitrary filtering to me...
Note comments from others in this thread experiencing the same.
I'm not disputing anyone's experiences. I'm disputing your characterisation of them.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/ Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to conversation about the image filter.
The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.
So here's one that's particularly apposite:
http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-lett...
He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all manner of names ("who are acting like provocateurs and agitators" that "need to be stopped"), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE.
- d.
For heaven's sake. This is the worst kind of cutting and pasting to make a point I have seen in ages (Kim's experiments notwithstanding)... I can't speak for Sue, of course, but when I read the blog post I see nothing in there that says she is referring to the author of this particular article (she refers only to the decision to put the article on the mainpage, presumably not something that can be traced to a single person).
The quotation you have made stands as a separate point, and is unrelated to the discussion of the de main page above. She simply says: "Those community members who are acting like provocateurs and agitators need to stop." -- not identifying particular people, or even particular topics. When I read this, what comes to *my* mind is some of the recent dialog on Foundation-l -- some of which was certainly intentionally provocative, and some of which did get very personal and personally hurtful, to myself and others.
Sue's post is *not about the image filter*. It's about the dialog around the image filter, some of which has been great and some of which has sucked. It is, indeed, hard to talk to people when they attack you for it. But I don't think there was any attacking in Sue's post.
-- phoebe
On 30 September 2011 01:56, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-lett... He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all manner of names ("who are acting like provocateurs and agitators" that "need to be stopped"), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE.
For heaven's sake. This is the worst kind of cutting and pasting to make a point I have seen in ages (Kim's experiments notwithstanding)...
The worst? The very worst? You're quite sure about that, and not being hyperbolic?
I can't speak for Sue, of course, but when I read the blog post I see nothing in there that says she is referring to the author of this particular article (she refers only to the decision to put the article on the mainpage, presumably not something that can be traced to a single person).
Sue was going on and on about [[:de:vulva]] and the poll surrounding it and saying those things about her opponents (while claiming her opponents were of low tone). He seemed to take it that way, and I see a pile of commenters from de:wp taking it that way. She would have to have been much less aware of her own words than she is to assume it would *not* be.
Saying *after* the fact "oh, I don't mean *you*, I mean all those *other* (unnamed) people" - a variation of the tone argument - doesn't take away from the thrust of her article: that those opposed to her have awful tone and should therefore be ignored.
I've been bending over backwards to try to contribute with substance, but the staff and board attitude, and finally this post from Sue, really make me wonder why I fucking bother.
- d.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 05:56:02PM -0700, phoebe ayers wrote:
For heaven's sake. This is the worst kind of cutting and pasting to make a point I have seen in ages (Kim's experiments notwithstanding)...
:-( That was labelled, and disproved a very specific argument people were making :-/
I'm sorry if that offended people.
I know how I feel about being filtered, and I obviously didn't deliberately wish to invoke those feelings in others.
I merely wanted to illustrate how filtering could be selectively abused. I guess the demo was more effective than intended. :-(
sincerely, Kim Bruning
* Keegan Peterzell wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
I don't think this is contributing much to the discussion. The point in the blog post is basically just that people should discuss how to make articles better. Everybody agrees. That, in the sense of the blog post, the existing decision making processes, including demographies of those who would participate in discussions, is insufficient is asserted but as far as I can tell rather unproven. There are three examples. First:
When an editor asks if the image cleavage_(breasts).jpg really belongs in the article about clothing necklines, she shouldn’t get shouted down about prudishness: we should try to find better images that don’t overly sexualize a non-sexual topic.
I checked out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neckline and it's Talk page. The only edit there since March 2011 was by CommonsDelinker renaming a file (the one in question in fact). The Talk page has not been edited since July 2007 and there is no mention of this image, much less anyone being shouted down about it. The second example:
When an editor writes “you can’t be serious?!” after vagina,anus,perineum_(detail).jpg is posted on the front page, the response shouldn’t be WP:NOTCENSORED: we should have a discussion about who visits the homepage, and we should try to understand, and be sensitive to, their expectations and circumstances and needs.
This discussion took place beforehand, people quite firmly decided the article would be featured and would feature and image on the front page. I am quite sure if you conducted a representative survey among Wikipedia users in D-A-CH these two decisions would be rather uncontroversial. The image selection process did not work so well, but I rather doubt people who would write "you can’t be serious?!" in response would be affected notably by the image choice.
Clearly this is not without friction, but that is by design. Society has a need for this kind of friction, a gray area where you can explore the boundaries, to tell what our current cultural norms are. Monty Python's Life of Brian helped us learn where we stand with satire with respect to religion and politics when it was released, for instance, with friction, a lot, but now it's one of the greatest comedy films of all time.
When we get thousands of angry e-mails about our decision to republish the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, we should acknowledge the offence the cartoons cause, and explain why, on balance, we think they warrant publication anyway.
This case is entirely different. If there was no controversy there would be no fair use rationale. They are published there due to offence. There is no balance, people's sensitivities are what put them there. It's nice to explain this, but has nothing to do with any kind of process failure.
The conference Sue Gardner mentions in the blog posting, to take another example, was accompanied by a presentation where the german article on Arachnophobia was shown featuring some huge spider image. Turns out that was an old revision that had long since been changed.
It is not entirely surprising that those who see a problem that needs to be solved have trouble providing evidence in sufficient quantity, if you can actually persuade the community there is a problem, they will go and fix it. What's left, in turn, going by the argument, is where the normal editorial process has failed, but examples of that cannot be given to the established community as they wouldn't agree there is a problem else it would fall into the first category, unless the problem is so enormous the established community could not hope to address it, in which case we would not be talking about this either as examples would be unnecessary.
So that leaves the argument about the demographics of the established community, saying the established community cannot address the problem because it does not understand it on an emphatic level. This is true of course in as much as there is a problem that cannot be explained.
It is normal and expected that communities reject solutions to problems they are told they cannot understand, especially when the communities are expected to participate in the implementation of the solution which they cannot as they do not understand the problem to begin with. So the image filter proposal is largely kafkaesque in this sense.
I will note in passing that Sue Gardner is quite wrong in my opinion on the distinction between editorial judgement and censorship. We all use and expects others to use some restraint to make living togehter easier. There are laws, there are social norms, we may refrain from expressing ourselves in a certain way due to the sensitivities of others without calling that self-censorship. Laws and widely accepted social normas are authorities in a broad sense of the word. Without authority to consider, deference to the sensitivities of others is self-censorship, harmfully so, as we constantly need to slightly cross boundaries to know where the boundaries are currently, which we need to tell the two cases apart.
In a collective, like a group of editors who decide some article issue, this is more difficult. The collective may, for instance, have standing rules that are not representative of the overwhelming majority's views, so individuals cannot intuitively decide whether something is "okay" per the social norms they are accustomed to for instance. Nevertheless, if they collectively find the best way, say, to illustrate an article $this way is best, but then do not implement that as it might lead to a couple of complaints, then that is self-censorship, not editorial judgement.
Anyway, yeah, it's easy to agree that not everything is perfect, and we should work together, discussing and explaining things, to make things better, but that has always been so and everybody understands this. The blog posting does not help us understand the problem the Board thinks can be solved with an image filter and it does not help us understand how it should be implemented, or allow us to come up with alternatives that would solve the problem, if indeed there is any. There is nothing wrong with that, I am just saying it doesn't help us make progress.
My impression is that the Board, and the people who support the filter, can related to there being sensitivities with respect to images, but no effort has been made to understand what practical problems there are or how they can be solved, and by my reasoning above it cannot be under- stood or solved within existing infrastructure. That means there is no point in continuing the discussion unless and until people come up with substantial new information.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org