[Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

[Sydney Poore]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 18:04, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
> > While I'm very interested in hearing the opinion of our current editors,
> I
> > disagree that we will can collect and disseminate information in a
> neutral
> > way to all the people of world if we continue to  listen solely to our
> core
> > group of editors. Our current editors come from much too narrow a
> > demographic group to think that we are making content decision that
> > represent a global view.
> >
> > I realize that change is uncomfortable, but we must find ways to be more
> > inclusive in order to achieve the WMF core mission.
> >
> > A WMF offered content filter is one way that we can reach people who
> > otherwise would not be inclined to read or edit WMF projects. Although I
> may
> > not necessarily agree with the viewing options of some of the people who
> use
> > the filter, I respect their choice because I believe that they know
> better
> > than me what is best for them.
> >
> > I strongly oppose any decision making process that does not look outside
> of
> > WMF for ideas. The surest way for WMF to grow stagnant is to work in an
> echo
> > chamber. And it is imperative for WMF staff, WMF Board, and WMF community
> to
> > welcome diverse views in our discussions.
> >
> > On a final note, I ask our regular community members to be welcoming and
> > tolerant of  people who they think have different ideas from their own.
> > There is no doubt that I have learned the most when I was in dialogue
> with
> > people who had vastly different  opinions from mine.  I think that this
> will
> > be true in our community, too.
>
> I didn't say that we shouldn't look into readers' opinions; I said
> that *decision* is on editors, as it is not the question of life and
> death; not even a high profile question out of right-wing US. (Many
> Muslim countries already filter sexually explicit images; which means
> that it is not their question, as well.)
>

Seeking outside opinions, and outreach efforts to bring more people into our
Communities are high on my list of priorities because WMF contributor base
is too homogeneous for me to be comfortable that our community members are
making neutral decisions.

>
> Contrary to your premises, I don't think that raising number of
> readers and editors lays in filtering any image. All of the numbers
> show that it is about other things, like, for example, that Facebook
> is more attractive than editing Wikipedia. If you have some data to
> support your position, please let us know.
>

1) We have people speaking up publicly saying that they are not able to edit
from some locations because of the presence of some images on our Projects.
Numerous editors have told me this in private, too. 2) We regularly have
people put up "controversial content"  for deletion because they find it
offensive or out of scope. 3) Image filters are commonly available on other
internet website, often by default.

The idea of offering imagine filters on WMF project is much more
controversial than it is on other internet websites. So, I I think that it
is fair to suggest that we examine why we are having conflicts over this
topic when other website don't. One possible reason is that our base of
editors is different from other websites. If that is true, then I think we
need to allow for this difference when we make features to appeal to
readers.

>
> The last issue is the fact that modern encyclopedia is well
> *ideologically* defined. It is positivist phenomenon and its roots are
> in scientific method. Wikipedia has Five pillars and a number of other
> policies which define it ideologically, as well. Those who think that
> such project is unacceptable are free to use other sums of knowledge
> and to build their own ones. It is not possible to be absolutely
> inclusive. Being fully acceptable for ~50% of population is also very
> questionable.
>

On WMF projects images are not collected using anything remotely close to
the "Five pillars" that define content on Wikipedia projects. Much of the
content is self made, low quality, and without out descriptions that would
be adequate to give proper captions for publication in the general media,
and certainly not in a scholarly works.

The way that WMF collects and uses images is one of the biggest differences
between us and other organizations that have a similar mission. Libraries,
museums, universities, publishers of reference works, and other
educationally minded organizations do not solicit for amateur images for
their collections.  Lack of peer review of our images prior to acquisition
is at the heart of the problem and is large part of what is causing the
disconnect between the people who do not approve of our "controversial
content" and our editors who upload the images.

Sydney