[Foundation-l] Image filter

Fri Sep 23 13:29:59 UTC 2011

Am 23.09.2011 15:01, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
> 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.
How can a filter be beneficial for us, the ones who don't care to have 
one? We only loose resources as soon some admins are forced to control 
the mob at the new battlefield we created aside from articles. Will that 
help the normal editor that ask that admin for help in another topic?
> 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 don't try to run in cycles and I don't belief in god or trust. The 
referendum and the communication process already showed that this 
is/wasn't the case. How can you ask for trust? Trust is made by 
communication and fair progress. The WMF and the board will have to work 
to reestablish what is already lost.
> 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.
If that is already the point and no one has the guts to stand up, then 
it is over already. We need to discus the issues. Only thats the way to 
solve them. What *I* see is a WMF that is not happy with what happend, 
but no one is able to admit mistakes and to start things over, to do 
them the right way. "We made a decision and we won't step down, no 
matter how wrong our initial thoughts were", is no option.
> 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.
Will a filter be a solution for exactly this problem? What do we try to 
achieve with it? The WMF spoke that there is a huge demand for such a 
filter. The most participants don't see a demand for itself, but 
argument that we are geeks and rest of the world would think different. 
Thats a point where we really should insert a big {{citation needed}}, 
because all we have are the OTRS mails and some complaints. But is this 
the opinion of big majority/minority?
> 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 trusted the WMF to this point. I donated my part and i also create 
content (articles, illustrations, etc.). But as soon it was decided, 
that *we* should decide what is seen as objectionable by the readers it 
was over. Thats not *our* job.
> 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.
I'm also in favor to create better content and I'm surely in favor to 
have a good selection of quality as a huge mass of trash. But I'm 
against the removal (hiding or deleting) of content, because it might be 
objectionable.

I'm not really in favor of Bayern München, but im also a fan of 
football. ;-)
> -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
>>
>
>