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

[Andreas Kolbe]

Milos, when I am talking about the possibility of a censored default for IP access, I am talking about the types of censorship Flickr and YouTube are using. They categorise their content on the basis of whether it is moderate or explicit adult content. 

This has not resulted in Serbian YouTube users having to register an adult account to view videos critical of the Serbian Orthodox Church. ;)

But you're right in drawing attention to the potential problem of very small projects' decision-making process being subject to gaming. 

Which categories to offer the projects for configuring IP access should remain the decision of the Foundation, in consultation with the wider Wikipedia community, rather than any small local project. 

For example, I think most people in the wider community would be okay with the idea of Arabic Wikipedia being configured in such a way that its users will not be confronted with images of Mohammed unless they register an account and explicitly "opt in" to seeing them. 

You also mention totalitarian countries. This is a whole other topic. 

What is being proposed here is that any user would *always* be able to override the censored IP default mode, by registering an account and reconfiguring their preferences. The content *would always be there*, but people surfing to it would be told, as they are in YouTube and Flickr, that they need to register an account to view it. 

A totalitarian regime would not be satisfied with that.

A.

--- On Sun, 25/7/10, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am completely unsure how to react after this sentence: to
> laugh or
> to cry. I am serious. OK, it is not so strong emotion to
> loudly laugh
> or cry, but the emotion is in that range.

> POV
> pushers at, let's say, Serbian Wikipedia that nothing bad
> could be
> said against Serbian Orthodox clergy just because Serbia
> has 90% of
> Orthodox Christians formally (including myself, although
> I've never
> expressed that and although if I have to choose some
> religion, I would
> prefer Taoism). In other words "cultural context" is
> usually just an
> excuse for POV pushing of various kinds.

> I can understand the aim that we should adapt content to
> totalitarian
> regimes which filter Internet access, like those in North
> Korea,
> Australia and Apple are, for example. I don't have anything
> against
> creating a censored edition of Wikipedia for all of poor
> people who
> are forced to have internet access via iPad. It is the
> question of
> being accessible there or not. But, in all other cases it
> is about
> allowing POV because of some reason or being overcautious
> toward local
> laws. Strictly following, let's say, Swiss law on Romansh
> Wikipedia is
> not so rational according to the Wikimedia goals. Any sane
> lawyer
> would understand that it has to sue WMF before US court
> after a couple
> of sentences with a representative of WM CH. But I
> understand that it
> is more than rational decision for many other places. Like
> for iPad.
> 
> And if we are really really really willing to go into
> censorship, it
> would eat significant part of our resources. I can imagine
> that I'll
> be overloaded with various complaints about POV pushing and
> "cultural
> contexts" as a steward all over Wikimedia projects. Imagine
> any
> political conflict. We would have to analyze carefully is
> it according
> to the "cultural context A" to present facts about
> "cultural context
> B". For example, I am really willing to know what is and
> what is not
> according to the Afghanistan and Pashto Wikipedia "cultural
> contexts",
> not counting regular issues related to Islam.