[Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter

Fri Sep 23 11:03:14 UTC 2011

I gave you a simple example on how easy it would be to use our 
categorization to implement a filter based upon those categories.

The sources on that this actually happens are not rare if we look at 
china or Iran. The problem are many local providers over which you will 
seldom find a report. Many third world Internet users are bound to use a 
single local provider or the access depends at an organization.

You said that we have to concern the point, that Wikipedia might be 
blocked entirely if we don't have such a feature.

This argument is weakend by the fact that the filter (as intended) can 
just be ignored by user. This rises the doubt, that the feature would be 
strong enough for "censors needs" and therefore might not be reason 
against blocking Wikipedia completely.

But lets also think the other way around. Many of this "potential 
censors" aren't blocking Wikipedia entirely since this would most likely 
result in pressure against the decision to "take down" Wikipedia. 
Blocking only selected content is the way censors prefer. It is done in 
a much greater amount of countries. For example even in Taiwan or South 
Korea.

If we provide the categories then this is exactly one of the things what 
could be used to extend censorship without the pressure to take down 
Wikipedia entirely. It is much more acceptable. An option that is not 
present at the moment.

To be fair: We have no numbers on that. It is speculation and it might 
go the one way or the other way. But should we take that risk?

Currently we are promoting free access to information and knowledge. If 
a filter like this has a 50:50 chance to improve or worsen things, then 
we might raise the question: Is it worth the effort or should we search 
for better solutions?

Greetings Tobias

Am 23.09.2011 12:38, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> Tobias,
> That is not quite what I thought we were talking about, because these are set-ups made on an individual computer, rather than restrictions at the internet service provider level.
> For example, I would not have a problem with it if schools figured out a way to prevent access to controversial images on school computers. I might have a problem with it if no one in an entire country were able to view these images; hence my question. I thought that was what you were talking about. 
> If there are countries/Internet service providers that restrict all of their citizens from accessing porn sites, searching for adult images on Flickr, or prevent them from performing Google searches with safe search switched off, then it would be reasonable to assume that they might make an effort to do the same for Wikipedia.
> There was a similar situation in Germany, when Flickr prevented all German users with a yahoo.de address from accessing adult Flickr material, because Germany has unusually strict youth protection and age verification laws. 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickr#Controversy
> However, that was done by the company itself, because they wanted to avoid legal liability in Germany, and not by German Internet service providers. People in Germany with a yahoo.com (rather than yahoo.de) e-mail address were still perfectly able to access adult Flickr material from within Germany, using German internet service providers.
>
> I believe Saudi Arabia has sporadically blocked access to Wikipedia, and blocks access to porn sites at the Internet service provider level: 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Saudi_Arabiahttp://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/27/wikipedia-blocked-in-saudi-arabia/
>
> Wikipedia was also briefly blocked in Pakistan, because of the Mohammed cartoon controversy. So there might be a scenario where countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan figure out how to block access to adult images and images of Mohammed on Wikipedia permanently, using methods like the ones you describe, based on the personal image filter categories. 
> That might be a concern worth talking about. Of course, it has to be balanced against the concern that these countries can block Wikipedia altogether.
>
> Regards,Andreas
>
>
> --- On Fri, 23/9/11, Tobias Oelgarte<tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>
> From: Tobias Oelgarte<tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter
> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Friday, 23 September, 2011, 8:33
>
> Yes we are aware of such pages. Just search for "google safe version"
> and so on. At first you will find plugins from Google for browsers
> itself, that can be used to enable the filter as an default option. If
> you scroll down a bit, then you will find other pages that are using
> Google to perform so called "safe searches".[1] There is a room for such
> tools.[2] Google limited it somewhat by providing the feature trough
> browser plugins itself. But you still find many examples for such pages.[3]
>
> There is already a market for such tools. First someone could check them
> out to see if we really need to do categorization or if this software is
> already good enough. Secondly it's nearly a proven that we would make an
> addition to that market.
>
> [1] For example:
> http://www.uk.safesearchlive.com/
> http://www.safesearchkids.com/wikipedia-for-kids.html
> (Interestingly it does safe-search for Wikipedia trough Googles image
> categorization)
> [2]
> https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/linkextend-safety-kidsafe-site/versions/
> Plugin for firefox that removes even the buttons to disable "safe
> search" from google pages.
> [3] Many Anti-Virus software includes googles "safe search"
> functionality http://forum.kaspersky.com/lofiversion/index.php/t145285.html
> ...
>
>
> Am 23.09.2011 02:46, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
>> Are you aware of any "providers" that use other sites' category systems in that way? E.g. to disable Google searches with "safe search off" for all of their subscribers, disable access to adult Flickr material, etc.?
>>
>>
>> Am 23.09.2011 01:21, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
>>> And where would the problem be? If a user prefers to go to a Bowdlerised site like that,
>>> rather than wikipedia.org, where they will see the pictures unless they specifically ask not
>>> to see them, then that is their choice, and no skin off our noses.
>>> A.
>>>
>> The problem would be simple. The people that depend on one "provider"
>> for internet access would have no other choice then to use a censored
>> version. They type "en.wikipepedia.org", the local proxy redirects them
>> to "filterpedia.org" which provides only the content which is not in one
>> of the pre-choosen categories.
>>
>> It's simple as that. They don't choose to use that site but they will be
>> forced to. *We* would make that possible.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>