[Foundation-l] Controversial Content a feature to allow.....
dgoodmanny at gmail.com
Thu Oct 28 04:04:32 UTC 2010
I had not realized that Adblock Plus was aa flexible as
this--though I use it, it is only for its primary purpose, where it
seems a stable and effective program that has no detrimental
side-effects. If there is anyone who does want to prevent themselves
or the minors under their personal care from seeing certain content,
there are much worse programs out there.
And, fortunately, to let people use it, we do not have to do anything
ourselves. Anyone may use downstream filters who chooses--that's our
required position under the CC license.
We should describe all our images with accurate descriptors, not
emphasizing sexual descriptors any more or less than we should
emphasize sexual content. Then anyone who cares to develop such
filters on whatever non-WMF site they choose can do so, according to
whatever principles they choose, emphasizing what they will, whether
or not compatible with our basic pillars of uncensored or NPOV.
In suggesting we host such filters, I imagine the intent is to do so
simply for single terms or words, in the hope that our single
descriptors by themselves will be sufficient. Since it is impossible
to developed filters for every conceivable combination of terms, if it
will require anything more complex, then it will probably be necessary
as a practical matter to tailor for a particular purpose. That must
be none of our doing, for that is exactly what is inconsistent with
NPOV and not censored.
I do not think the recommendations have dealt with practical
implication such as these. Or if they really have, and mean to apply
it to sexual content only, there's only one answer consistent with not
censored: those who think such content controversial are free to do
what they want with it, outside the WMF.
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:07 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> So apparently part of the fallout from the Controversial Content study
> is a recommendation "that the Wikimedia Foundation develop a feature
> to allow Wikimedia project users to opt into a system that would allow
> them to easily hide classes of images from their own view"
> Rather than developing a significant new feature I would suggest using
> Adblock Plus
> Adblock Plus is under the MPL so a stripped down or streamlined
> version could be produced if required. Adblock Plus already makes it
> easy to block predefined sets of images. For example if a user were to
> dislike pictures of giant isopods they could download the filter that
> blocked all the giant isopod images. If these filters were to be
> stored localy we would probably need a new namespace or perhaps
> project. In the case of the giant isopod filter the content of the
> filter would look something like:
> ! Checksum: l4nEGmZz7f1kh8Pfszr2rg
> although the average user should never see that.
> There are a number of advantages to this approach:
> 1)It is entirely under the users control. They can chose what filters
> to install, edit any filters they install and turn them off on a page
> by page basis
> 2)It doesn't require logging in. So it doesn't suddenly stop working
> when someone is logged out for whatever reason
> 3)It allows for a potentially unlimited number of filtering lists
> 4)The lists don't have to be hosted on wikipedia allowing groups to
> set up common filters without having to work through us
> 5)This literally works right now. You could drop that list into an
> Adblock Plus install and see no giant isopods.
> The downside:
> 1)We would need to check how compatible the filters are with
> equivalent software on chrome and opera
> 2)There is no equivalent for internet explorer
> 3)Phones could be a problem although if there is actual demand I
> assume someone will produce an app.
> 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.
More information about the foundation-l