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

[David Levy]

Stephen Bain wrote:

> And once again, the labelling doesn't need to be perfect (nothing on a
> wiki is) if an option to hide all images by default is implemented
> (which at present there seems to be broad support for, from most
> quarters).

With such an option in place, why take on the task of labeling images
on readers' behalf?  As previously discussed, it would be a logistical
nightmare and enormous resource drain.

Furthermore, I don't regard "If you don't like our specific filters,
you can just use the blanket one." as a remotely appropriate message
to convey to the millions of readers whose beliefs we fail to
individually accommodate.

> The accuracy of filtering can then be disclaimed, with a
> recommendation that people can hide all images if they want a
> guarantee.

Or we can simply accept the idea's infeasibility and provide the
non-broken image filter implementation alone.

Note that disclaimers won't satisfy the masses.  (If they did, we
wouldn't be having this discussion.)  As soon as the WMF introduces
such a feature, large segments of the public will expect it to
function flawlessly and become outraged when it doesn't.

I foresee sensationalistic media reports about our "child protection
filters that let through smut and gore."  (I realize that we aren't
advertising "child protection filters."  Nonetheless, that's a likely
perception, regardless of any disclaimers.)

> And of course artworks are being used as examples because they're
> going to present the corner cases. But all of these discussions seem
> to be proceeding on the basis that there are nothing but corner cases,
> when really (I would imagine) pretty much everything that will be
> filtered will be either:
> * actual images of human genitals [1],
> * actual images of dead human bodies, or
> * imagery subject to religious restriction.
> Almost all will be in the first two categories, and most of those in
> the first one, and will primarily be photographs.
> [1] Which, naturally, includes actual images of people undertaking all
> sorts of activities involving human genitals.

Firstly, I don't know why you've singled out genitals.  People
commonly regard depictions of other portions of the human anatomy
(such as buttocks and female breasts) as objectionable.

Secondly, "imagery subject to religious restriction" (which doesn't
constitute a viable "category" in this context) includes "images of
unveiled women."  You state that "almost all will be in the first two
categories," but I'm confident that we host significantly more images
of unveiled women than images of human genitals and images of dead
human bodies combined.

Thirdly, there's been a great deal of discussion regarding other
images to which people commonly object, such those depicting violence
(whatever that means), surgical procedures, spiders and snakes, to
name but a few.

> On the basis that the community, by and large, is not comprised wholly
> of idiots, I'm sure it will be capable of holding a sensible
> discussion as to whether images of mummies (not to forget bog bodies
> and Pompeii castings, as further examples) would be in or out of such
> a category.

...thereby arriving at an inherently subjective, binary determination
that fails to meet many readers' expectations.

> And again, perfection is not necessary. If someone has "dead bodies"
> filtered and sees the filtered image placeholder with the caption
> "this is an Egyptian mummy", they can elect to show that particular
> image, or decide that they would like to turn off the filter. Or if
> such a "dead bodies" filter is described as not including Egyptian
> mummies, someone could decide to hide all images by default.

Or we could simply provide that functionality alone, thereby enabling
the same scenario.

> This doesn't have to be difficult.

Indeed.

David Levy