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

[David Levy]

André Engels wrote:

> We will be putting certain categories/tags/classifications on images,
> but it will still be the readers themselves who decide whether or not
> they see the tagged images.

But _we_ will need to determine the categories/tags/classifications to
use and the images to which they're applied.

As previously discussed, unless we implement an "unveiled women"
category (which is highly unlikely), readers who object to such images
will be discriminated against.

And for a hypothetical "nudity" category, we'll have to decide what
constitutes "nudity."  This will trigger endless debate, and whatever
definition prevails will fail to jibe that held by a large number of
readers.

> We will be putting certain categories/tags/classifications on images,
> There might well be an option to show a certain image even though
> it's under the filter. Apart from that, if we were of the opinion
> that we should do something perfectly or not at all, we would not
> have any of our projects.

As I pointed out to you in a previous reply, an alternative image
filter implementation has been proposed (and is endorsed by WMF
trustee Samuel Klein).  It would accommodate everyone and require no
determinations on the part of the community (let alone
analysis/tagging of millions of files, with thousands more uploaded
every day).

Please see the relevant discussion:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Categories#general_image_filter_vs._category_system
or
http://goo.gl/t6ly5

David Levy