[Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Theo10011 de10011 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 11 01:49:00 UTC 2011

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10 October 2011 21:26, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Risker,
> >
> > The net nanny software could have been doing a keyword filter on the
> > word "Sex", which would reject every page and image in
> > [[Category:Sexual positions]] because it contains the word "sex".
> > That is not a category based filter.  If you believe it was a category
> > based filter, I would definitely like to know the name of the software
> > in order to verify your assertion.
> >
> >
> I don't have the funniest notion what the software is; these are systems on
> which I have no control and no rights above first level user, and they are
> not open systems.
> It may be that they are using keywords, but many obvious keywords are
> legitimately used as category names on our projects. Therefore, it makes no
> difference whether they're using keywords that match our categories, or the
> categories themselves: the effect is exactly the same.
> Risker
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

As long as we're brainstorming, I added this to the page on Meta.

"...,a viable alternative to not relying blindly on the categorization
system, would be implementing a new "image reviewer" flag on en.wp and maybe
in commons. This method would create a list of reviewed images that can be
considered objectionable, that could be filtered/black-listed. The
difference is, 1) this system already works "article reviewer", 2) does not
rely on the existing categorization system and would create 3) a new process
that won't be fool-proof but probably harder to exploit for vandals. The
technical implementation of this would probably be easier too, and the
community can decide on the offensive-ness on its own through a request for
review or something similar, in case of contentious decisions. Whether other
projects can have this should of course remain their decision, they can
choose to completely opt-out of this flag similar to "article reviewer", and
for that very reason, enwp community should vote on this itself- not random
readers but a straight forward vote on wiki."

It's an alternative, albeit a slower process to mark offensive images,
without relying on the current categorization system.



More information about the foundation-l mailing list