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

Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com
Fri Sep 16 20:32:09 UTC 2011


> I'd say, drop the idea that the filter is supposed to be perfect. A filter
> that is little-used can get a rough content first time around, preferably
> specified by the person asking for the filter, then people using the filter
> can suggest adding or removing images. Volunteers can go and work on the
> filters if they want, but if they don't, the filter will just be changed by
> such suggestions.
>
> Then again, there is the alternative of only including filters with at least
> a certain amount of expected usage. I see no problem with not having a
> filter for everyone who asks for it. I don't think that doing things
> perfectly and not doing them at all are the only options.
>
I don't except it to work perfectly. Nothing is perfect by default. But 
even if it would perfectly we provide a simple tool (the filter 
labels/categories) to censors, to improve their doing, while we, the 
volunteers, would indirectly support them in doing so.

For example: The head of a group (state, religions group, ...) of people 
is trying to censor Wikipedia, because it might damage it's position. 
What would be easier to comply at the mailing list that a filter for xyz 
is seriously needed. Now he can start to add images to this filter, 
calling for volunteers that have to obey to do so. At the end we 
represent the opinion from the head of the group (not the individuals, 
that fear the head), publish it as consent and help them to justify 
their position.

What would someone living inside such a group think if the content is 
already labeled that way, that he should not look at it. Isn't it social 
pressure put on the free mind, especially if other members of the group 
are around?



More information about the foundation-l mailing list