[Foundation-l] Image filter

Fri Sep 23 13:01:54 UTC 2011

All that I'm saying is that I THINK the majority of the people on this
mailing list are bored and tired of the conversation and it's the same 10
people who seem to be arguing it and I think that many people on this list
probably have no strong opinion, or fairly mainstream beliefs, about the
filter. Mainstream meaning that the filter can be beneficial to those who
desire it and many of us don't care how it's executed as long as we don't
have to anything technical to make it happen.

Have fun though running in circles! I trust WMF will make the decision on
what to do for the community (god forbid! trust!) and I also trust that
they're taking all of your concerns, citations, facts, arguments, ideas and
concepts into consideration.

I'll be comfortable with whatever is decided on upon by WMF, and usually I'm
not one to give up so easily. But isn't there some old saying about arguing
on the internet? Perhaps someone needs to plan an "Image Filter Conference"
to break it all down offline.

Also, people are extremely rude, in classic poor-manners Wikimedia style,
and *I* believe that many people on this list have no desire to participate,
because, like so much of the environment on Wikimedia, they are
uncomfortable and not-interested in being drilled drilled drilled until they
break down, give in, or can't stand up for themselves anymore. Or be called
a name, or twelve.

And all the data in the world right now is not going to change the way I
feel, and this stuff just frustrates me.  And I'm a researcher for a living
who spends the hours of her day "citing sources" and gathering data and
information. And all the cries of censorship isn't either. I'm also a person
who likes hardcore fetish photography that is illegal in some states, goes
by a pseudonym due to of my hobbies, and who's favorite band is Skinny
Puppy. I saw Marilyn Manson in concert when he was ripping off SPK for
chopping the heads off of chickens on stage and putting partially nude
children in cages (with permission of their parents, heh) during his shows.
The only thing that offends me more on Commons and Wikipedia and whatever is
bad quality porn and self-indulgent cockshots (aka I want better sexual
content that actually is awesome looking and worth using in articles!) And I
know I'm not the only one here.

But, I also don't have a problem with people wanting to control what they,
their kids, their grandmas, their cats, their classrooms, whatevers see. And
I'm not the only one, and again, I'M PUTTING MY TRUST, in WMF to make the
decision. That's what I make donations to the foundation every month for.
That's why I donate my time to contributing to Wikimedia projects.

I'm over commenting about this subject. I'm going to go back to thinking of
ways to have more women and men create better sexual content for Commons as
a project and go attend my "Feminists, Technology and Museums" conference.

-Sarah (Missvain, SarahStierch)
Who would move to Berlin in a heartbeat to be an unpaid intern for
Einstürzende Neubauten. So don't think I don't love my Germans ;-) (and
Bayern Munich is my favorite team!)

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Please don't do the rhetorical trick that a mass of users would support
> some point of view without actual proof. ("You've just posted what many
> of us think and feel.")
>
> The chat was of course dominated by the word "German". It's the one and
> only poll that states the opposite to the view of the board. But you
> could just leave out the comments from Ottava and it would be the half
> amount of use of this word.
>
> The main problems/questions remain:
> * Is the filter any good?
> * Is there a big audience that would enjoy and need a filter?
> * How do we decide what will be hidden considering NPOV?
> * ...
>
> None of this questions where followed before the decision. Actually the
> questions where raised after the decisions in combination with the
> referendum. Thats one of things i really wonder about.
>
>
>
> Am 23.09.2011 14:19, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
> > +1
> >
> > You've just posted what many of us think and feel. I read the transcript
> for office hours with Sue from yesterday and it was the same thing. 45
> minutes of image filter skepticism and more. I'm glad I couldn't attend it,
> seemed like a painful and unintellectual experience to sit through.
> >
> > And if i had a dollar for the mentioning of "Germans" I'd be rich. And
> here people are arguing about lack of coverage about other projects and
> languages. So tired of the "Us vs. Them" mentality.
> >
> > I'd rather talk about GMOs, JFK, Creationism and the end of the world
> next year....at this point.
> >
> > Sarah Stierch
> > Who is never bored and is surely not mainstream, but is happy to be
> called so right now.
> >
> >
> > Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
> >
> >
> > On Sep 23, 2011, at 8:03 AM, me at marcusbuck.org wrote:
> >
> >> After some thinking I come to the conclusion that this whole
> >> discussion is a social phenomenon.
> >>
> >> You probably know how some topics when mentioned in newspaper articles
> >> or blogs spur wild arguments in the comments sections. When the
> >> article mentions climate change commentators contest the validity of
> >> the collected data, if it mentions religions commentators argue that
> >> religion is the root of all evil in the world, if it is about
> >> immigration commentators start to rant how immigrants cause trouble in
> >> society, if it is about renewable energies commentators tell us how
> >> blind society is to believe in its ecologicalness.
> >>
> >> It's always the same pattern: the topic is perceived well in the
> >> general society (most sane people think that climate change is real,
> >> that renewable energies are the way to go, that religious freedom is
> >> good and that most immigrants are people as everybody else who do no
> >> harm), but a small or not so small minority experiences these
> >> attitudes as a problem and tries to raise awareness to the problems of
> >> the trend (usually exaggerating them). The scepticists give their
> >> arguments and the non-scepticists answer them.
> >>
> >> The non-scepticists usually have not much motivation to present their
> >> arguments (because their position is already the mainstream, so not
> >> much incentive to convince more people, just trying to not let the
> >> scepticists' opinions stand unwithspoken) while the scepticists have
> >> much motivation to present their arguments (if they don't society will
> >> presumedly face perdition). This difference in the motivation leads to
> >> a situation where both groups produce a similar content output leading
> >> to the semblence that both groups represent equal shares of society.
> >>
> >> I think the same is happening here. The majority of people probably
> >> think that an optional opt-in filter is a thing that does no harm to
> >> non-users and has advantages for those who choose to use it. (Ask your
> >> gramma whether "You can hide pictures if you don't want to see them"
> >> sounds like a threatening thing to her.) But the scepticists voice
> >> their opinions loudly and point out every single imaginable problem.
> >>
> >> I just want to point out that an idea like a free community-driven
> >> everybody-can-edit-it encyclopedia with no editorial or peer-review
> >> process would never have been created if a long discussion would have
> >> preceded its creation. The scepticists would have raised so many
> >> seemingly valid concerns that they'd buried the idea deep. I'm feeling
> >> that a group of worst-case scenarioists are leading the discussion to
> >> a point where the image filter is buried just because everybody is
> >> bored about the discussion.
> >>
> >> Marcus Buck
> >> User:Slomox
> >>
> >> PS: Please don't understand this as a longish version of "You guys
> >> opposing my opinion are trolls!". I don't think that the points raised
> >> by scepticists should be neglected. But I think that many people
> >> reject the image filter because of very theoretical concerns for the
> >> sake of it completely removed from pragmatical reasons and that the
> >> length of the discussion is in no way indicative of the real
> >> problematicness of the topic.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sarahstierch.com/