[Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter - magical flying unicorn pony that s***s rainbows

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 22.09.2011 00:07, schrieb Andrew Gray:
> On 21 September 2011 18:04, Tobias Oelgarte
> <tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>
>>> One of the problems with the discussions about the image filter is
>>> that many of them argue - I paraphrase - that "Wikipedia must not be
>>> censored because it would stop being neutral". But is the existing
>>> "Wikipedian POV" *really* the same as "neutral", or are we letting our
>>> aspirations to inclusive global neutrality win out over the real state
>>> of affairs? It's the great big unexamined assumption in our
>>> discussions...
>> You describe us as geeks and that we can't write in a way that would
>> please the readers. Since we are geeks, we are strongly biased and write
>> down POV all day. If that is true, why is Wikipedia such a success? Why
>> people read it? Do they like geeky stuff?
> ...no, that's really not what I said.
>
> We've known for ten years that Wikipedia editors have systemic biases,
> and we've tried to avoid them by insisting on NPOV. This is one of the
> reasons we've been successful - it's not the only one, but it's
> helped.
>
> But being neutral in text is simple. You give both sides of the
> argument, and you do it carefully, and that's it. The method of
> writing is the same whichever side you're on, and so most topics get a
> fair treatment regardless of our bias.
>
> We can't do that for images. A potentially offensive image is either
> there, or it is not. We can't be neutral by half including it, or by
> including it as well as another image to balance it out - these don't
> make sense. So we go for reasonable, acceptable, appropriate, not
> shocking, etc. Our editors say "this is acceptable" or "this is not
> acceptable", and almost all the time that's based on *our personal
> opinions* of what is and isn't acceptable.
Given that this would be true. Do you expect us to categorize images for 
the filter in a right way, so that we are able to define what is 
offensive or not? Do we have now the option to hide an image or not, 
while being able to be neutral in judgment? Isn't it just the same? Did 
anything change, despite the fact that we are now making global, image 
based (not article based) decisions to show or hide an image?
> The end result is that our text is very neutral, but our images
> reflect the biases of our users - you and me. That doesn't seem to be
> a problem to *us*, because everything looks fine to us - the
> acceptable images are in articles, the unacceptable ones aren't.
If a statement is included in the article is based upon the decision of 
the authors. If some authors disagree they will have to discuss. If one 
author inserts an image in the article that he does find usable and 
another disagrees, don't we also discuss about it? What is the 
difference between the decision to include a fact or an image inside an 
article?
> People are saying we can't have the image filter because it would stop
> us being neutral. If we aren't neutral to begin with, this is a bad
> argument. It doesn't mean we *should* have the image filter, but it
> does mean we need to think some more about the reasons for or against
> it.
>
I personally choose images only based on the fact if they illustrate the 
topic. That means that an offensive image will without doubt get 
precedence over an not offensive alternative image if it depicts the 
subject better. Thats a very simple way. Just leave out moral aspects 
and use the images to describe the topic. If two images have the same 
educational value then we could start to discuss if other aspects 
(quality, moral, etc.) might apply. But I'm not willed to exchange a 
correct depiction of a subject against and imperfect depiction on moral 
grounds. That means to represent the truth, pleasing or not, and not to 
represent pink easter bunnies on soft green with a charming sunset in 
the background.