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

[M. Williamson]

A "dead human bodies" category that excludes mummies "because we're not
idiots" is, by definition, not neutral.


2011/9/19 Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com>

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>