[Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

[MZMcBride]

Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:45 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against
>> any imposed filter is just *weird*.
> 
> The intro and footer of Sue's post say: "The purpose of this post is
> not to talk specifically about the referendum results or the image
> hiding feature"

When you cherry-pick, I don't think it's very unreasonable (or at least not
very unexpected) to be called a cherry-picker. Selectively choosing examples
that bolster your argument isn't really problematic, but in context, it came
off as ill-informed or ignorant at best, and as dishonest and disingenuous
at worst. Whether there are disclaimers or not, Sue speaks as the Executive
Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. And this issue is quite obviously
contentious. Bear-poking is bear-poking, whether intentional or not.

> So it's perhaps not surprising that she doesn't mention the de.wp poll
> regarding the filter in a post that she says is not about the filter.
> ;-)

I think what's sorely lacking right now is a broader overview of the issue.
I think a timeline would help, and I don't think one exists already.
"Controversial content issue timeline" on Meta-Wiki or something. It would
lay out when certain events happened, what their result was, and in what
order. Larry Sanger's comments about child pornography, the controversial
content resolution, the polls at the German Wikipedia, the cartoon
controversy from 2005, the vulva on the German Wikipedia Main Page more
recently, the image filter referendum, etc. all make less sense when thrown
into a jumble. Maybe I'll have some time this weekend to work on such a
timeline.

> We can reasonably hypothesize without digging much further into the
> data that there's a significant number of people who are offended by
> images they see in Wikipedia but who don't know how to respond, and we
> can reasonably hypothesize that the responses that Wikipedians have
> conceived so far to help them have been overall insufficient in doing
> so. It would be great to have much more data -- but again, I think
> these are reasonable hypotheses.

I think we can reasonably hypothesize that the majority of readers know how
to close a browser window. Or hit the back button. Or click a link to a
different page. The ones who are so deeply concerned about seeing
autofellatio on a page about autofellatio can implement their own solutions
to the problem (necessity is the mother of invention, right?). Can you
explain why you feel Wikimedia needs to be involved?

> The image filter in an incarnation similar to the one that's been
> discussed to-date is one possible response, but it's not the only one.
> Indeed, nothing in the Board resolution prescribes a complex system
> based on categories that exists adjacent to normal mechanisms of
> editorial control.

When you make comments like this, it makes it sound as though it was an
organization other than Wikimedia that spearheaded a referendum that made
this image filter (and this particular implementation) a fait accompli. When
you make comments like this, it makes it sound as though it was an
organization other than Wikimedia that proposed specific design plans,
created by one of its employees. People have been discussing a particular
implementation because Wikimedia put one forward. Why does your post make it
sound as though this is surprising or unexpected?

MZMcBride