[Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

[wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 22 July 2010 16:32, R M Harris <rmharris at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
>> May I just reply to thank Excirial for the excellent suggestions re:formatting contained in his thoughtful reply (I'll look them over carefully) and just to note a couple of things. I'm well aware of the long-standing debates on these issues in the past, and I respect the fatigue with which many might approach yet another discussion of the question. As well, my point in raising the question of Controversial issues in English Wikipedia was not to misrepresent its status, but just to note that this form of categorization of content has been contemplated to be useful in some parts of the Wikimedia universe, a universe, which, while varied, does share certain common principles. And thanks for reminding me of the varied complexity of semi-autonomous principalities with the Wikimedia family.
> 
> 
> I may also note that it will be absolutely impossible for you not to
> be called a Nazi or worse over this, *no matter what you say or do*.
> I'd be hard put to come up with a more poisoned chalice ...


It doesn't need to be like that. However, you cannot sort this out by 
compromise. The fundamental problem is that people will always want to 
shift the lines either towards greater laxity or more restrictions. The 
arguments will never end and you will continue to have rows one way or 
another.

How you can fix this is to have very a few, and I mean a few, broad 
categories. If you have too many categories or you have detailed 
descriptions of what constitutes one category and what constitutes 
another category, you'll have people game the system and endless arguments.

Take as an example the flickr system of categorizing nudity, they have 
three groupings, safe, moderate, and restricted. The official guidelines 
are vague and cutesy, but are something like boobs and butts moderate, 
genitalia or the pubic region, and  sexual acts restricted. Something 
that you'd let your kid take to show and tell safe. Most adults can set 
their viewing filter to unrestricted and see more porn than you can 
shake a stick at. Those that set the viewing filter to restricted see 
almost none. The system allows the user to determine what they are 
prepared to see. If they turn on unrestricted and then get offended tough.

Any flagging needs to be policed and you need to have a specified number 
of people that can make a decision on the borderline cases. The criteria 
should be that if in doubt make the viewing more restricted as people 
can always choice to see it if the want. A page that has an image 
outside of a viewers safety level should have a marker where the image 
would normally be. Users should be able to reveal an individual image or 
a whole page, if they so desire.

You do not want to get into a classification based in educational value 
or worthiness just as flickr won't be drawn into a debate on whether an 
image is art or porn. One needs to classify based solely on what is 
shown. So if you have a category of 'religious figures' then its a 
simply yes/no. Whether it was drawn by a famous artist or caused great 
offense is besides the point.