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

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 18.09.2011 13:56, schrieb Andre Engels:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Tobias Oelgarte<
> tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Am 18.09.2011 09:46, schrieb Andre Engels:
>>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen<
>> cimonavaro at gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Wikimedia *used* to hold the position that we wouldn't aid China to
>> block
>>>> images of the Tianamen Massacre, and went to great lengths to assure
>>>> that chinese users of Wikipedia could evade blocks to viewing. I am not
>>>> sure you are on a right track with regards to our traditions and values
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>> There's a big difference between the two in that the Chinese case was
>> about
>>> people wanting to decide what _others_ could see, the filter is about
>> people
>>> wanting to decide what _they themselves_ would see.
>>>
>> And who decides which image belongs to which category. The one that will
>> use the filter or the one that tags the image?
>>
> On itself the one who tags the image, but we happen to have a system for
> that in Wikimedia. It is called discussion and trying to reach consent. Who
> decides whether a page is in a category? Who decides whether a page has an
> image? Who decides whether something is decribed on a page? All the same.
>
There you have a lot of room for compromise. You might shorten an 
argument or decide to expand another. Most importantly you have 
arguments that you can quote. The decision for including an image is 
(should be) measured by value for illustration.

The filter-tagging is the opposite. You have no room for compromise. It 
does belong to an category or it does not. How would a compromise look like?

Which arguments will be used in this discussions. To expect to see 
quotes/sources to define if this, this particular image, is 
offensive/objectionable or not?

Have a try. I uploaded 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg some time ago. Now 
put neutral arguments on the table, if you would tag it as "nudity" or 
why you would not do so. It's a very simple task compared to others. So 
lets hear your argumentation and what the compromise should look like, 
if you would not come to the same conclusion.

I'm bold. I state as the first argument that it does not belong to the 
category "nudity", because the depicted figure wears clothes.

>> Additionally: Is the reader able to choose if China would use the tags
>> to exclude content before it can the reader? Wouldn't we be responsible
>> it, if the feature is misused this way, since we know how easy it can be
>> misused?
>>
> I don't think it's that easy, and if it were, the best thing would be to
> make it harder to misuse rather than to throw away the child with the
> bathwater.
>
Maybe it would be lot easier to use a contraceptive. Then you won't have 
a child that you might be thrown away with the bathwater.