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

[Stephen Bain]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
<tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> We discussed this already and came to the conclusion, that you would
> need hundreds of these categories to filter out most of the
> "objectionable content".

And once again, the labelling doesn't need to be perfect (nothing on a
wiki is) if an option to hide all images by default is implemented
(which at present there seems to be broad support for, from most
quarters).

The accuracy of filtering can then be disclaimed, with a
recommendation that people can hide all images if they want a
guarantee. Coarse-grained labelling is then good enough, and we can
even adopt the position that where there is no consensus, the image
will not be filtered.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:17 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd estimate the chances as pretty high that we're going to get a
> thorough exploration of every possible axis that's measured for a
> filter.
>
> So you're thinking to apply this only to photos, then?

No. And of course artworks are being used as examples because they're
going to present the corner cases. But all of these discussions seem
to be proceeding on the basis that there are nothing but corner cases,
when really (I would imagine) pretty much everything that will be
filtered will be either:
* actual images of human genitals [1],
* actual images of dead human bodies, or
* imagery subject to religious restriction.
Almost all will be in the first two categories, and most of those in
the first one, and will primarily be photographs.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Fae <fae at wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Er, Egyptian mummies are real bodies that would need real photographs.
>
> For a wealth of horrific examples that need to be censored, please
> enjoy viewing http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mummies

On the basis that the community, by and large, is not comprised wholly
of idiots, I'm sure it will be capable of holding a sensible
discussion as to whether images of mummies (not to forget bog bodies
and Pompeii castings, as further examples) would be in or out of such
a category.

And again, perfection is not necessary. If someone has "dead bodies"
filtered and sees the filtered image placeholder with the caption
"this is an Egyptian mummy", they can elect to show that particular
image, or decide that they would like to turn off the filter. Or if
such a "dead bodies" filter is described as not including Egyptian
mummies, someone could decide to hide all images by default. This
doesn't have to be difficult.

--
[1] Which, naturally, includes actual images of people undertaking all
sorts of activities involving human genitals.

-- 
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com