[Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[???]

On 16/10/2011 12:37, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> Am 16.10.2011 12:53, schrieb ???:
>> On 11/10/2011 15:33, Kim Bruning wrote:
>>>    <flame on>   Therefore you cannot claim that I am stating nonsense.
>>>    The inverse is true: you do not possess the information to support
>>>    your position, as you now admit. In future, before you set out to
>>>    make claims of bad faith in others, it would be wise to ensure that
>>>    your own information is impeccable first.</flame>   sincerely, Kim
>>>    Bruning
>> I claim that you are talking total crap. It is not *that* difficult to
>> get the
>> categories of an image and reject based on which categories the image
>> is in are. There are enough people out there busily categorizing all the
>> images already that any org that may wish to could block images that
>> are in disapproved categories.
> I have to throw that kind wording back at you. It isn't very difficult
> to judge what is offensive and what isn't, because it is impossible to
> do this, if you want to stay neutral and to respect any, even if only
> any major, opinion out there. Wikipedia and Commons are projects that
> gather knowledge or media. Wikipedia has an editorial system that
> watches over the content to be accurate and representative. Commons is a
> media library with a categorization system that aids the reader to what
> he want's to find. The category system in itself is (or should be) build
> upon directional labels. Anything else is contradictory to current
> practice and unacceptable:

It is incredibly easy. One justs says any image within Category:Sex is 
not acceptable.
Its not hard to do. An organisation can run a script once a week or so 
to delve down
through the category hierachy to pick up any changes.

You already categorize the images for any one with enough processing 
power, or the
will to censor the content. I doubt that anyone doing so is going to be 
too bothered
whether they've falsely censored an image that is in Category:Sex that 
isn't 'controversial'
or not.




> * Wikipedia authors do not judge about topics. They also do not claim
> for themselves that something is controversial, ugly, bad, ...
> * Commons contributers respect this terms as well. They don't judge
> about the content. They gather and categorize it. But they will not
> append prejudicial labels.


Of course they do: they add categories. Some else applies the value 
judgment as to
whether images in that category are controversial or not. The job of WMF 
editors
just to categorise them.  If Arachnids are 'controversial' then anything 
under that
category goes. Just label the damn things and shut the fuck up.



>> The problem, and it is a genuine problem, is that the fucking stupid images
>> leak out across commons in unexpected ways. Lets assuime that an 6th grade
>> class is asked to write a report on Queen Victoria, and a child serach
>> commons
>> for prince albert:
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=prince+albert&limit=50&offset=0
>>
>> If you at work you probably do not want to clicking the above link at all.
>>
> Worst case scenarios will always happen. With filter or without filter,
> you will still and always find such examples. They are seldom, and might
> happen from time to time. But they aren't the rule. They aren't at the
> same height as you should use to measure a flood.


That are not seldom, they leak all over the place. You can get porn on 
commons by searching
for 'furniture'. Porn images are everywhere on Commons.




>
> To give an simple example of the opposite. Enable "strict filtering" on
> google and search for images with the term "futanari" . Don't say that i
> did not warn you...

Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for 
cumshot. We aren't
talking about terms that have primarily a sexual context but phrases 
like 'furniture' or
'prince albert' which do not.