[Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Alasdair]

I agree that the main obstacle at the moment is that any form of "filter list" proposal is very controversial as many editors feel that this would be a way of "enabling"  POV censorship that users may not want.

One thing I would like to know, which has not been clear to me in discussions is whether there is such a strong objection to any form of  filter which includes in its core design the requirement that it can be trivially overridden on a particular image by asynchronous loading (i.e Images are not shown according to a predefined criterion - but the image is blocked and where the image is a grey square with the image description and a "show this image button"). So that a user who thinks that they might want to see an image that has been blocked by their filter can do so very easily.  

If the feeling is that such a "weak" filter would (regardless of how the pre-populated "filter lists" are created) still attract significant opposition on many projects then I personally don't see how there can be any filter created that is likely to gain consensus support and still be useful - except for one that gives users the option to hide "all" images by default and then click on the greyed out images to load them if they want to see them.  


--  
Alasdair (User:ajbpearce)


On Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 11:37, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:

> Am 29.11.2011 10:32, schrieb Tom Morris:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:09, Möller, Carsten<c.moeller at wmco.de (mailto:c.moeller at wmco.de)> wrote:
> > > No, we need to harden the wall agaist all attacks by hammers, screwdrivers and drills.
> > > We have consensus: Wikipedia should not be censored.
> > >  
> >  
> > You hold strong on that principle. Wikipedia should not be censored!
> >  
> > Even if that censorship is something the user initiates, desires, and
> > can turn off at any time, like AdBlock.
> >  
> > Glad to see that Sue Gardner's warnings earlier in the debate that
> > people don't get entrenched and fundamentalist but try to honestly and
> > charitably see other people's points of view has been so well heeded.
> >  
>  
> There is a simple thing to know, to see, that this wording is actually  
> correct. There is not a single filter that can meet the personal  
> preferences, is easy to use and not in violation with NPOV, besides two  
> extrema. The all and nothing options. We already discussed that in  
> detail at the discussion page of the referendum.
>  
> If the filter is user initiated then it will meet the personal  
> preference is not in violation with NPOV. But it isn't easy to use. He  
> will have to do all the work himself. That is good, but practically  
> impossible.
>  
> If the filter is predefined then it might meet the personal preference  
> and can be easy to use. But it will be an violation of NPOV, since  
> someone else (a group of reader/users) would have to define it. That  
> isn't user initiated censorship anymore.
>  
> The comparison with AdBlock sucks, because you didn't looked at the goal  
> of both tools. AdBlock and it's predefined lists are trying to hide  
> _any_ advertisement, while the filter is meant to _only_ hide  
> controversial content. This comes down to the two extrema noted above,  
> that are the only two neutral options.
>  
> nya~
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org)
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  
>