[Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

[phoebe ayers]

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Achal Prabhala <aprabhala at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Monday 05 September 2011 03:53 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:54:44PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>>> Yes, exactly! You're smart! :-)
>>>>
>>>> Now, one definition of censorship is :
>>>> * Filtering on the basis of prejudicial labels.
>>>>
>>>> We're not actually allowed to censor, because censorship is evil.
>>>>
>>>> If we want to do this, we'll need to figure out a way to make an image
>>> filter
>>>> which does not use prejudicial labels.
>>> Or we just reject that definition as obviously not applicable. If people are
>>> choosing for themselves whether to filter and, if so, what on then it
>>> clearly isn't censorship.
>> [citation needed]
>>
>> I don't see why it isn't applicable. You have a censorship tool (your
>> prejudicial labelling scheme), and you are applying it for its intended
>> purpose (albeit mildly).
>
> Hi Kim, I find your discussion of labelling schemes (and the American
> Library Associations guidelines) extremely useful and interesting. Thank
> you for taking the time to explain this carefully. It has helped clear
> up, for me, similar questions to the kind that Sarah and others raised
> on this list earlier.
>
>> I think that's pretty much sufficient to cross the line into actual
>> censorship. Even if you can't quite see how right now, AMA probably can
>> and has. (I can easily think of some scenarios myself, if you like. In
>> fact, I gave some tangential examples on this list today.)
>>
>> But... even if we can't agree that *that* is actually across the line,
>> the same censorship tool can still be used by others for more sinister
>> purposes. High quality prejudicial categorization would most certainly
>> be a boon for 3rd party censors, in many many ways.
>>
>> So the options you are advocating are either (arguably) actual
>> censorship, or (if we can't agree to that) the enabling of 3rd party
>> censorship.
>>
>> The board themselves in their decision are very careful not to cross
>> those lines. My one issue with the board is merely that I think it is
>> very hard _not_ to cross the line.
>>
>> Of course, some people don't see the danger, and blithely cross
>> the line anyway. (Thus proving my point for me much better than anything
>> I could say myself O:-) )
>>
>> sincerely,
>>       Kim Bruning
>>
>> citation:
>>       http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/labelingrating.cfm
>
>
> In relation to the ALA link (which is an exemplar of concision and moral
> clarity), I have a few related questions.
>
> 1) Would the article rating tool (Good? Useful? Reliable? etc.) or
> indeed any other comparable qualitative rating/ranking (for e.g. GA/ FA
> status) similarly classify as prejudicial labelling? I ask this because
> in the article rating tool, I can see it fitting under the same
> category, but can't see how it would lead to the same results. An
> archive or library would never employ a qualitative rating like we did,
> but it makes sense on a place like Wikipedia, and I guess it's because
> we're not a traditionally constructed archive or library - though very
> similar in some aspects.

Achal -- yes, I believe a strong case can be made that qualitative
rating would fall under the ALA's intent (in traditional libraries, a
book might be labeled as "award winner" -- that's an objective fact.
It would not be labeled as "good".)

The difference lies in our role as active editors (vs the librarian
role as curators), making active choices; a reference work is a
different kind of project from a library. It also lies in a difference
in intent -- what the ALA speaks out about is labeling that is
intended to restrict access. None of our labeling intends to restrict
access to anything for anyone.

-- phoebe