I am sorry about the horrible formatting in my last post (any advice
appreciated). I'll try this again.
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhonson(a)aol.com <wjhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
If there is enough of a perceived need for content
filtering, someone
will fill that void. That someone does not need to be
us. Google does
this job with their image browser already without the
need for any
providers to actively "tag" any images. How
do they do that? I have no
idea, but they do it. I would suggest a
"child-safe" approach to Commons,
is simply to use the Google image browser with a
"moderate filter"
setting. Try it, it works.
It doesn't work if you enter Commons through the main page, or an image
page, and then search through its categories. The best-thumbed pages of
library books are usually the ones that have nude images; it's human
nature. Commons is no different if you look at the top-1000.
With respect to minors, the libertarian position that anyone should be able
to see whatever they want to see is simply a fringe position. Every country
legally defines some things as "harmful" to minors* and expects providers
to behave in a way that prevents that harm. Arguing about whether the harm
is real is an idle debate that's of no interest to teachers, say, who are
legally bound by these standards and can experience professional
repercussions if they fail in their duty of care.
I would suggest that any parent who is allowing their
"young children" as
one message put it, to browser without any filtering
mechanism, is
deciding to trust that child, or else does not care if
the child
encounters objectionable material. The child's
browsing activity is
already open to five million porn site hits as it
stands, Commons isn't
creating that issue. And Commons cannot solve that
issue. It's the
parents responsibility to have the appropriate
self-selected mechanisms
in place. And I propose that all parents who care,
already *do*. So
this issue is a non-issue. It doesn't actually
exist in any concrete
example, just in the minds of a few people with spare
time.
As I see it, a working filter system for adult content would relieve
teachers and librarians of the headache involved in making Commons or WP
available to minors. Do we have figures on how many schools or libraries in
various countries block access to Wikimedia sites over concerns related to
content harmful to minors? Is this a frequently-voiced concern, or are we
making more of it than it is?
The most sensible access control system would be one that can be set up on
a physical computer used by minors. (Linking it to user account data would
not work, as IP users should have normal access.) And if the same child is
allowed to surf the net freely by their parents at home, then that is
perfect. It is the parents' choice, and every parent handles this
differently.
If an outside developer were to create such a filter product, that would be
great too. I just wonder how they would cope with categories and images
being renamed, new categories being created, etc. And does anyone actually
know how Google manages to filter out images in safe search?
Andreas
* See the Miller test for minors reproduced at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Pornography