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

[David Levy]

I wrote:

> > You're mischaracterizing the status quo.  We haven't determined that
> > "nothing is objectionable" to anyone;  we rightly assume that
> > _everything_ is potentially objectionable to someone (and refrain from
> > favoring certain objections over others).

André Engels replied:

> Thereby giving those who have objections nothing just because there are
> others who we can't give what they want.

I don't advocate maintaining the status quo.  I support an alternative
image filter implementation (endorsed by WMF trustee Samuel Klein),
which 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

> > Unless we were to create and apply a label for literally everything that
> > someone finds objectionable, we'd be taking the non-neutral position that
> > only certain objections (the ones for which filters exist) exist) are
> > reasonable.

> We don't say they're unreasonable, we say that we don't cater to it, or at
> least not yet.

On what basis shall we determine the objections to which we cater?

Presumably, we would start by weeding out objections held by
relatively small numbers of people.  (This is problematic, but let's
set aside that issue.)

Then what?  To select only certain objections from the resultant pool,
what criterion other than reasonableness (a completely subjective
judgement) remains?

You might argue that we needn't narrow the aforementioned pool, but a
large number of filter categories is unsustainable (both in its
creation/maintenance and in its presentation to readers).

> That may be non-neutral, but no more non-neutral than that one subject has
> an article and the other not, or one picture is used to describe an article
> and the other not, or one category is deemed important enough to be used to
> categorize our articles, books, words and images and another not.

All of those decisions are based — at least in part — on objective
criteria.  More importantly, all of those decisions are intrinsic to
the WMF projects' operation.

Conversely, the image filter implementation that you advocate is
neither essential nor technically feasible.

> Or even clearer: that one language has a Wikipedia and another not. Wid we
> make a non-neutral choice that only certain languages (the ones for which
> Wikipedias exist) are valid languages to use for spreading knowledge?

You're describing an imbalance that exists through misfortune, *not*
by design.  Ideally, we would include every written language utilized
as a primary means of communication.  Sadly, some projects simply
aren't viable (because they lack sufficient user bases).

No analogous situation forces us to treat readers differently based on
their personal beliefs regarding what images are/aren't objectionable.

> > You mentioned a hypothetical "unveiled women" category.  Do you
> > honestly believe that the idea of tagging images in this manner is
> > remotely realistic?

> I'd say it is, provided there are people wanting to use the filter, and not
> minding the fact that in the beginning it will be far from perfect.

So we eventually will analyze millions of images (and monitor the
thousands uploaded on a daily basis) to tag each and every one
containing an unveiled woman?

> > What about images depicting miscegenation (another concept to which
> > many people strongly object)?  Are we to have such a category?

> I'd say if there are people actually wanting to use such a filter, then yes,
> I would think we might well get one.

I admire your consistency, but I regard this approach as stupendously
infeasible.

David Levy