[Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[Andre Engels]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com> wrote:

> This would imply that the referendum indeed asked the wrong questions.
> If all would have equal values, then i must wonder about the strong
> difference in result. We have a referendum which points out that many
> are in favor of this feature (important) and we have a Meinungsbild at
> the German Wikipedia closed with 86% against the filter. This is a huge
> difference. If it is not based on the fact that cultures are so
> different, what would be the reason? The questions and the interpretation?
>

There might be a difference because of the differences in voting
requirements - those were very low for the 'referendum', so there would be a
possibly large percentage of people who aren't hardcore Wikimedians, but
people who are mostly readers and at most occasionally edit. On the other
hand, this would also increase the chance of having sockpuppeting. Another
reason could indeed be the questioning: Opponents of the plan could have not
voted on the referendum because the whole issue seemed like it had been
decided anyway. Then again, proponents might be less likely to vote in the
German poll because it is non-anonymous in an environment which seemed
opposed to their point of view.

It was just an example (a literal allegation). The current proposal (as
> represented in side the referendum) did not assume any cultural
> difference. My thoughts on this is, how we want to create filter
> categories which are cultural neutral. One common (easy to describe)
> example is nudity. What will be considered nude by an catholic priest
> and an common atheist, both from Germany. Will they come to the same
> conclusion if they look an swimsuits? I guess we can assume that they
> would have different opinions and a need for discussion.
>

As said before, just get different categories, and let people choose among
them. The priest could then choose to block "full nudity", "female
toplessness", "people in underwear" and "people in swimwear", but not
"images containing naked bellies" or "unveiled women", whereas the atheist
could for example choose to only block "photographs of sexual organs" and
watch the rest.


> Would we need this discussion until now and for all images?  No we did
> not. We discussed about the articles and would be a good illustration
> for the subject. But now we don't talk about if something is good
> illustration. We talk about if it is objectionable by someone else. We
> judge for others what they would see as objectionable. That is
> inherently against the rule of NPOV. That isn't our job as an
> encyclopedia. We present the facts in neutral attitude toward the topic.
> We state the arguments of both or multiple sides. A filter only knows a
> yes or no to this question. We make a "final" decision what people don't
> want to see. That is not our job!
>

I find it strange that you consider this an objection to a filter. Surely,
giving someone an imperfect choice of what they consider objectionable is
_less_ making a decision for them than judging in advance that nothing is
objectionable?


> I don't know where you got this information. But I would not wonder if
> it is as it is presented by you. At least in case of Ting and Jimbo you
> should have right. I learned with the time about Jimbo, his attitude
> towards topics and it's understanding. So i have no doubt that he would
> trade intellectual freedom against some more donations.
>

How are we giving away intellectual freedom with this?


> That is my personal main issue with the whole filter thing based on
> arbitrary non-neutral labeling of content and POV as the measure for
> judgment.
>

What is POV about labelling something as being an image containing a nude
human or an illustration supposed to represent a religious figure?

-- 
André Engels, andreengels at gmail.com