[Foundation-l] Image filtering without undermining the category system

[Thomas Morton]

On 11 October 2011 21:51, Kim Bruning <kim at bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:55:46PM +0100, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> > OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should
> > meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the
> > objections that I'm aware of. Just as importantly it should actually
> work.
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter
>
>
> Hmm, how would it fare against a marblecake attack? ;-)
>
> http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/15/inside-the-precision-hack/
>
>
I agree on the one hand that anything is potentially gameable but:

a) Wikipedia is notoriously gameable and yet, fingers crossed, we have not
had a mass Anon. attack. One day we might; it could be an image filter that
triggers it, or it could be trying to delete non-notable programming
languages (yep - that triggered much discussion, and the IRC rooms we
monitor were awash with suggestions to attack WP for it..).

b) The Time "hack" was rudimentary at every step - no matter how the media
(or this blog) portray it. The root cause of the hack was a technical
ineptness at a several levels in the Time poll which allowed it to be
maninpulated on a number of levels.

On the face of it any such system might be gameable; but no specific
implementation details have been laid out (beyond the basic framework). So
the concern "it might be hacked to force a certain result" is one of the
most easily addressed :)

More problematic with your blithe dismissal is that the proposed
implementation is inherently not all that gameable. This is because, as
described, working out the filter for any individual is a P=NP (travelling
salesman) problem.

This is the more critical problem; assessing similar filter requirements for
individual person->image by comparing your preferences with others is a
non-trivial process that would have to occur on a per-image basis.

That's not to say that it isn't a good idea - I quite like it (because it
addresses the extant issues on both sides). There could be a way to rework
the suggestion to one more capable of quickly deciding whether you wish to
see an image or not (which, of course is the situation we are all striving
for).


Tom