[Foundation-l] Board resolutions on controversial content and images of identifiable people

[Lodewijk]

I think there are definitely some neutral criteria which might be
applicable. And maybe there are some criteria which are harder to neutralize
(yeah, i know - has a different meaning :) )

Take for example nudity. It should be possible to create a category "Images
that show a vagina", "images that show a penis" which can even be
subcategorized into "(...) as main topic of the picture" or "(...) as detail
of the picture". It will require some work and thinking by neutrality
thinkers like you, but it should be possible. And I'm confident that you and
the likes of you will stay close on the topic to help us remember that we
should make it as objective as possible.

The next step is that someone can use these neutral categories to choose
what he/she wants or does not want to see. For example, maybe someone has a
fear of elevators, so that person can hide all images in the category
"images that show an elevator".

Violence is definitely a topic harder to define objectively - but I'm
confident we'll find a way to do that. If people have problems with that, we
shouldn't change the categories (we could add more), but they should change
their filter, and choose other categories to hide/show.

The only truely non-neutral part could be where we suggest which categories
someone might want to hide. Or packages of categories.

Lodewijk

2011/8/26 Kim Bruning <kim at bruning.xs4all.nl>

> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 01:25:32PM +0530, Bishakha Datta wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 6:45 AM, David Goodman <dggenwp at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I want to ask you something else. It's been suggested several times at
> > > various places that the present resolution is justified as a
> > > compromise to prevent a considerably more repressive form of
> > > censorship.
> >
> >
> > This implies that the proposed image hiding feature is a less repressive
> > form of censorship. I do not see the proposed feature as censorship - all
> > the images remain on the site. Nothing is removed. Nothing is suppressed.
> > Everything remains.
>
> The image hiding feature itself is not a form of censorship, as far as
> I'm aware of.
>
> The data used to feed the image hiding feature can be classified as a
> "censorship tool"  (Source: ALA... Read The Fine Thread for details).
>
> Even if we *never* build the image hider itself, but just prepare special
> categories for it, we would be participating in (stages of) censorship.
>
> sincerely,
>        Kim Bruning
>
> --
> [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
> gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
> 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>