[Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

[Sydney Poore]

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:29 AM, David Levy <lifeisunfair at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sydney Poore wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Websites like Flickr (an example commonly cited) are commercial
> endeavors whose decisions are based on profitability, not an
> obligation to maintain neutrality (a core element of most WMF
> projects).  These services can cater to the revenue-driving majorities
> (with geographic segregation, if need be) and ignore minorities whose
> beliefs fall outside the "mainstream" for a given country.  We mustn't
> do that.
>

Today to be successful organizations; both for-profit and not-for-profit,
must recognize the needs of their global audience.  Offering image filters
where people can set their own preferences and bypass the setting for
individual settings is brilliant way for people with different values to
share the same space. No content is removed, and people can see all images
if they choose to.

This approach is far better than the approach used by most other large
educational institutions which currently control the viewing of
controversial content through their acquisition process.

>
> One of the main issues regarding the proposed system is the need to
> determine which image types to label "potentially objectionable" and
> place under the limited number of optional filters.  Due to cultural
> bias, some people (including a segment of voters in the "referendum,"
> some of whom commented on its various talk pages) believe that this is
> as simple as creating a few categories along the lines of "nudity,"
> "sex," "violence" and "gore" (defined and populated in accordance with
> arbitrary standards).
>
> For a website like Flickr, that probably works fairly well; a majority
> of users will be satisfied, with the rest too fragmented to be
> accommodated in a cost-effective manner.  Revenues are maximized.
> Mission accomplished.
>
> The WMF projects' missions are dramatically different.  For most,
> neutrality is a nonnegotiable principle.  To provide an optional
> filter for "image type x" and not "image type y" is to formally
> validate the former objection and not the latter.  That's
> unacceptable.
>
> An alternative implementation, endorsed by WMF trustee Samuel Klein,
> is discussed here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Categories#general_image_filter_vs._category_system
> or
> http://goo.gl/t6ly5
>

Organizations who share our mission make these type of decisions everyday.
They consider the ideals that frame their mission, and then craft work
policies and procedures that balance all of their ideals. IMO, that is
exactly what the WMF Board and staff have been doing in regard to
controversial content for the last 18 months. Because WMF has a strong,
strong tradition of community involvement at every level practical, the
community is being asked to help craft the policy and procedures.

Various ideas about how to label images for a personal filter have been
floated around for years. The referendum asked the community for opinions
about features that could be included.

I see this as goodness. Evidently, other people disagree given the large
volume of posts and remarks criticizing the referendum.

Some of the criticism is fair, and I'm sure that people involved with
planning the referendum will take it on board.   Being experienced
Wikimedians, I imagine that they will put all the comments in proper
context, even words spoken in the heat of moment. But still, we need to
remember that the people working on this issue as part of their fiduciary
responsibility or employment are doing with the best intentions of WMF in
mind. And they need to be thanked for their work.

Thank you to everyone who has commented in the thread. Through dialogue with
each other on this transparent mailing list, we are showing the world that
it possible to collaboratively collect and disseminate free knowledge.

Sydney Poore

User:FloNight