[Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 30.09.2011 17:06, schrieb Bishakha Datta:
> ...
> **I am also dismayed at the use of the word 'censorship' in the context of a
> software feature that does not ban or block any images. But somehow there
> doesn't seem to be any other paradigm or language to turn to, and this is
> what is used as default, even though it is not accurate. It's been mentioned
> 1127 times in the comments, as per Sue's report to the board, and each time
> it is mentioned, it further perpetuates the belief that this is censorship.
There are two issues why this word is used.

1. The word is used for actual censorship (restriction of access) and it 
is used in context with hiding/filtering features. What is really meant, 
is often hard to distinguish.

2. Categorizing content (images, videos, text, events, ...) as 
inappropriate for some (minors, believers, conservatives, liberals, 
extremists, ...) is instead seen as a "censors tool". That is one of the 
issues with a filter based on categories. It can be exploited by actual 
censors in many different ways. One hard way is to (mis)use the 
categories to restrict access. One soft way would be to influence the 
categorization itself, leaving the impression to the reader that a 
majority would share this view. To understand this issue, you have think 
about readers which see Wikipedia as a valid source for knowledge. If 
Wikipedia (they don't see or care for the single decisions, they trust 
us) labels such content as inappropriate (for some) it will inevitably 
lead to the believe that a vast majority sees it the same way, which 
doesn't need to be the case.

Since this risk is real (the Google image filter gets already exploited 
this way), it is also described as censorship. Not a single word could 
be found inside the introduction of the referendum, that mentioned 
possible issues. Thats why many editors think, that it was intentionally 
put that way, or that the board/WMF isn't capable to handle this situation.

It just left many open questions. For example: What would the WMF do, if 
they recognize that the filter, and the good idea behind it, is exploited?

-- Niabot