[Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

[David Levy]

Thomas Morton wrote:

> > I confess to not being "on top" of the exact mechanics of this proposal...
> > but why can we not be using normal categories?
> > Ok so for ease of use it is sensible to consider pre-made "bundles" of
> > commonly filtered images (and I can see the issues there, obviously).
> > But for the default use filtering on categories is fine... then we can us
> > the normal Wiki system and stick to neutrality (Don't like English Churches?
> > Fine, add it to your exclusion list :))

David Gerard replied:

> * The category system is constructed of minute subcategories, not
> broad categories that are then combined.
>
> You could then say "this and everything under it." But then you run into:
>
> * The category system is not very consistent.
> * The category system is not free of loops.
> * An image on en:wp could be a local image (one system of categories)
> or a Commons image (a completely different system of categories).

Additionally:

* Our current categorization is based primarily on what images are
about, *not* what they contain.  For example, a photograph depicting a
protest rally might include nudity on the part of someone in the
background, but its categorization won't specify that.  Of course, if
we were to introduce a filter system reliant upon the current
categories, it's likely that some users would seek to change that
(resulting in harmful dilution).

* Many "potentially objectionable" subjects simply aren't reflected in
the current categorization.  An example is the aforementioned
"unveiled women."  I can't speak for every project, but Commons
certainly has no such category.

David Levy