[Foundation-l] Discussion Questions forPotentially-Objectionable Content

[David Goodman]

This comment is intended to supplement Alec's, in the matter of labeling.

Those who are interested in restricting information are free to censor
Wikipedia content to meet their requirements, but there is no reason
why Wikipedia should do the job for them in any version of the
project, or by any functionality within the project.   What we can and
should do is give all images accurate factual descriptors , which
benefits everyone, and promotes intellectual freedom by letting people
select the material they wish to see. Like all of our content, it can
also be used for what many of us think less desirable purposes, such
as some people selecting what others will be allowed to see. We can't
prevent it in practice, and by our license we permit derivatives,
including derivative POV labeling. This is as it should be: our job is
to provide information, not tell people how to use it.

But labeling ourselves is directly opposed by NPOV, which applied to
all foundation projects: we do not draw conclusions. We can describe
all pictures of humans by what the people are wearing, by their sex,
their apparent age, the activities they are engaged in. But we
shouldn't do this with sexual concerns primarily in view: If we have a
descriptor to indicate that someone in an image is engaged in
fornication, we should also have one for someone who is engaged in
running or reading. If we say a person in an image has a bare breast,
we should also have a descriptor for having a bare head, and apply
both to all images, male or female. It is reasonable to have
descriptors for humans in far more detail than other animals, because
we have far more pictures and articles about them than any other
species.  We can have descriptors giving legal status--if we know for
a fact that a particular image has been banned   in a certain
jurisdiction, we should say so, but we should not predict whether a
particular image is likely to be banned.

Even if we did want to facilitate censorship, we are not qualified to
do so--the censors set their own rules and apply them in their own
manner, which is rarely fully public. But how can we consider
ourselves able to say that some particular content is pornography?  We
can not make decisions about whether anything is  good or bad, or
beneficial or detrimental--we do report what others say about them. We
can do so here also, with attention to all viewpoints.

If we want a child-safe version, or labeling as child-safe,  the
question arises who is to censor? I do not think it useful to add  to
our current discussions the need to dispute each image proposed to be
in a restricted category. How can I tell someone else what will be
safe for their children? If a parent wants to censor, they are free to
do so. If there is sufficient demand for someone or some group to on
their own establish some sort of browser add-on that translates our
neutral descriptors into a set that will limit the result as they want
it, they are free to do so, even if 99% of us were to disapprove. But
even if 99% of us were to approve, we still should not incorporate
this into our projects.

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Sue Gardner <susanpgardner at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been posting quite a bit today, so I think I'll stop for a while. (I'd hate to trigger the limits ;-)
>
> But Alec, thanks for _your_ note, and don't worry about expressing skepticism (even if it was mostly hyperbole to make a point).  Vigilance is healthy :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:19:01
> To: <susanpgardner at gmail.com>; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions forPotentially-Objectionable
>        Content
>
> Hi Sue--
> Thank you so so much for that reply, it was really really appreciated.
>
>> I also wanted to say -- you know in your post where you speculate about why this is
>> happening now, is it because of the fundraising, has someone offered board members jobs,
>> etc.  (I know you were mostly non-serious about the jobs.)  That is a totally legitimate set of
>> questions.
>
> Well, I think you're being way too charitable with me-- I'm not sure
> even I consider those questions legitimate.   Thus, I did try to
> inject a lot of silliness  (e.g. Extraterrestrials and fundamentalist
> financiers) into those sorts of scenarios because I didn't want to
> convey any genuine-conspiracy-theory of ulterior motives-- I just
> kinda wanted to express a vague sense of exasperation and confusion
> and not-knowing-what-to-think-or-who-to-trust.  Because, ya know, when
> you care about an movement and things get rough, your mind does go
> through all kinds of scenarios to try to make sense of it, and maybe
> sharing those crazy thoughts will help you recognize and intercept
> them when they occur in others. :)
>
> If my concerns seemed legitimate, then I probably owe you and anyone
> else involved a big apology for accidentally making it seem even
> remotely legitimate.  A far better description would be "an
> illegitimate, unfounded concern that crossed my mind cause I couldn't
> make sense of what was going on."
>
> I passed it on because in the hope it might be a little helpful just
> to see where some of our thoughts are going.   The downside in even
> expressing stuff like that is it sort of involves distrusting a group
> of total strangers, most of whose names I don't even know without
> looking them up, all because they agreed to do work for my all-time
> favorite non-profit.   Raw deal for ya'll.
>
> It doesn't get said enough, but thank you to all who have done such a
> wonderful job running things all these years.   I never could have
> done your jobs one-tenth as well as you all have.   In particular,
> last year's fundraising work was just phenomenal, and I really do
> apologize for even suggesting, in passing, and in theory, that that
> work might somehow really be tied to anything negative.   I had no
> basis for such a statement, I didn't sincerely believe it then, I
> still don't.
>
> Thanks again for reply :)
> Alec
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG