[Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 16.09.2011 21:01, schrieb Milos Rancic:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 19:56, Tobias Oelgarte
> <tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>> Am 16.09.2011 19:13, schrieb Milos Rancic:
>> You would have to proof that your facts are indeed true. But if you
>> accept it as a huge difference between cultures, how can you impose a
>> filter for a culture that doesn't need it or wants it?
> Differences between cultures are not so relevant if we are talking
> about Wiki[pm]edians. Similar results could be expected everywhere. I
> mean, you won't find that one large enough project shows strong
> cultural differences in comparison to another. Wikipedian/Wikimedian
> culture doesn't necessarily connect people (although it does), but it
> creates common set of values. While communities could differ, the
> reasons behind the difference are the same, but from different POV.
>
This would imply that the referendum indeed asked the wrong questions. 
If all would have equal values, then i must wonder about the strong 
difference in result. We have a referendum which points out that many 
are in favor of this feature (important) and we have a Meinungsbild at 
the German Wikipedia closed with 86% against the filter. This is a huge 
difference. If it is not based on the fact that cultures are so 
different, what would be the reason? The questions and the interpretation?

One of the aspects why I'm so interested in per project raw data and 
overall participation (number of votes per project).
>> How would you expect to find a good compromise in decisions on what to
>> filter and what not? Do you intend to put an extremist conservative Arab
>> and and the most liberal German inside the same room, close the door, go
>> away, come back after two weeks and look if they could find a compromise
>> about Yes or No? How should this work?
> "Extremist conservative Arab" is not likely a Wikipedian. Pan-Arabist
> yes, but "extremist conservative" not. Besides that, there is no
> difference between extremist conservative German and extremist
> conservative Arab, although the first is more likely Wikipedian than
> the second. The main reason for the filter are extremist conservative
> Americans, although majority of Americans share libertarian ideas.
>
> But I agree with you in the sense that more permissive cultures
> shouldn't suffer because of less permissive cultures. But, again, the
> problem is that the Wikimedian culture is dominantly permissive, which
> is the main problem with the referendum.
>
It was just an example (a literal allegation). The current proposal (as 
represented in side the referendum) did not assume any cultural 
difference. My thoughts on this is, how we want to create filter 
categories which are cultural neutral. One common (easy to describe) 
example is nudity. What will be considered nude by an catholic priest 
and an common atheist, both from Germany. Will they come to the same 
conclusion if they look an swimsuits? I guess we can assume that they 
would have different opinions and a need for discussion.

Would we need this discussion until now and for all images?  No we did 
not. We discussed about the articles and would be a good illustration 
for the subject. But now we don't talk about if something is good 
illustration. We talk about if it is objectionable by someone else. We 
judge for others what they would see as objectionable. That is 
inherently against the rule of NPOV. That isn't our job as an 
encyclopedia. We present the facts in neutral attitude toward the topic. 
We state the arguments of both or multiple sides. A filter only knows a 
yes or no to this question. We make a "final" decision what people don't 
want to see. That is not our job!
>>> * It's likely that staff and Board already know that correlation
>>> between the results of German Wikipedia referendum and global survey
>>> could be drawn to support previous two conclusions. Thus, they don't
>>> want to publish that part of data.
>> I doubt that. But if they do, I will call them "assholes for betrayal".
>> Just to make it clear. It would also not suite the story onto who has
>> access to the data and who has not.
> That's not betrayal, but fear. By now, they simply don't know what to
> do because they think that all options are bad. But, that's their
> problem. I would lie if I'd say that I don't enjoy it.
I would also need to lie, but some progress would be nice. We already 
represented different alternative models to Ting at Nürnberg WikiCon 
2011. So far his reaction described exactly what you think. They don't 
know what to do in the current situation. What we could do (i might not 
speak for all German users, but for many) is to implement a very 
simplified approach. A simple button to hide all images or no image.  If 
you think you might read about a topic that could be controversial, you 
could enable this function and display images which you are sure about 
to be not offended. You could represent articles to your children, 
without the fear that some image might slip through the filter. 
Additionally we would have no problems with NPOV, no additional work. It 
would be very easy to implement. We would not play in the hands of 
censors or possible censors and we would solve many of the issues. 
(Mohamed? No image no Mohamed. Children? No image, no child will see 
porn.) No need to invest valuable time in a feature and a big 
categorization progress, with little or big wars inside this new playground.

The only thing this proposal can't do: It won't make "ugly words", words 
you don't want to read, disappear. But that was out of question from the 
beginning.
>>> * There is still significant minority of core editors who want the
>>> filter at any cost.
>> A "significant minority" is a curios choice of words.
>>
>> "A significant minority tries to abolish the constitution by any cost".
>> Now ask yourself if you would follow their wishes. Thats the same
>> sentence, you said, with different actors. Still happy with it?
> Image filter -- as designed for users -- is not a big deal. Thus, I
> don't have strong opinion toward the filter itself. Let them have it
> if they want that so much! But, not on the projects which don't want
> it.
I see the problem, that devil sticks within the details. It is not the 
filtering at the of a project. It is the whole infrastructure (not only 
the technical) which creates the problems. It's prejudice about content, 
it's labeling content as objectionable and so on. This will still 
happen, even if the German community would not participate or use/enable 
the filter.

The basic thought progress behind this whole idea is what _I'm_ opposed to.
>>> * Board is divided and doesn't know what to decide.
>> We don't know what the board thinks. It does not communicate with us
>> (the authors), it did not react to the discussions at Meta, it did not
>> answer serious questions and in general is somewhere between a legend
>> and a forgotten ghost that no one can see, even if present.
> It's not so hard to guess if you followed them for some time:
> * Ting: ambivalent; would be much more happy without the whole drama
> * Jan-Bart: not his business, will support whatever others support
> * Phoebe: in favor
> * Stu: not his business, will support whatever others support
> * Bishakha: slightly in favor tactically, but very hesitant to do
> anything against community will
> * Matt: doesn't know what's going on as he doesn't read Board's
> emails; will support whatever others support, but after phone call
> * Sj: would close one's eye to image filter, but against imposing it
> against community's will
> * Arne: would close one's eye to image filter if it doesn't affect
> German Wikipedia (as German Wikipedia rejected it)
> * Jimmy: in favor
> * Kat: would close one's eye to image filter, but against imposing it
> against community's will
I don't know where you got this information. But I would not wonder if 
it is as it is presented by you. At least in case of Ting and Jimbo you 
should have right. I learned with the time about Jimbo, his attitude 
towards topics and it's understanding. So i have no doubt that he would 
trade intellectual freedom against some more donations.

I saw Ting's reaction at the WikiCon and i have to say that he wasn't 
really prepared and not happy with the drama. But saying that it is 
already decided no matter what the German community would say, was a 
punch in the face of the audience. I guess she will remember that.
>>> I would repeat the best possible solution to end this: Implement it on
>>> English Wikipedia -- you (those who want that filter) have some
>>> numbers which would support that action -- and leave the rest of the
>>> projects alone.
>> That would imply not to implement it on commons. Otherwise the the
>> categorization/labeling/... could be misused by local providers inside
>> regions that didn't intended to use this feature.
> True. But, they would be able to use it even it'd been implemented
> just on English Wikipedia, as it would point to the images at
> upload.wikimedia.org. Interesting...
>
> Anyway, that's to hard for me to think. Fortunately, I finished fourth
> on last election, so I don't have to think about it.
That is my personal main issue with the whole filter thing based on 
arbitrary non-neutral labeling of content and POV as the measure for 
judgment.