[Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Tobias Oelgarte]

I'm tired to reply to this kind of comments since I said anything 
important  multiple times already. So I will keep it as that and only 
write the following:

Sorry, but your comments are total bullshit¹ and you know it.

  ¹ includes strong language, overly repeated selective examples, 
bending of words, bending of facts and accusations that aren't true.

nya~ (said the lobby cat and repeated itself again)


Am 12.03.2012 20:22, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Fae<faenwp at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Strangely enough, searching Commons for "Male figure" rather than
>> "Male human" shows me artwork from the National Museum of African Art
>> and a Michelangelo Buonarroti sketch from the Louvre in top matches.
>> No problem with wading through "100 dicks and arseholes". In fact,
>> carefully checking through the first 100 matches of that search gave
>> me no explicit photographs of naked people or their private parts at
>> all.
>>
>
> Well, if you just search for "male", you still get lots of penises and
> sphincters.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=male&fulltext=Search
>
>
> Bear in mind that this is what students get in schools, too.
>
>
>
>> Having a better optimized search engine is the issue here, not
>> filtering all images of body parts.
>
>
> I agree that a better search engine is part of the answer. Niabot made an
> excellent proposal (clustered search) a week ago, which is written up here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons
>
>
> But I don't think it obviates the need for a filter, which
> is frankly standard even in mainstream *Western* sites that contain adult
> material.
>
>
>
>> Commons has over 10,000,000
>> images, having several hundred images of human genitals is not to be
>> unexpected, or a reason to give up on collaboration and turn to
>> extremes of lobbying multiple authorities and newspapers with claims
>> that the WMF is promoting paedophilia with the side effect of fuelling
>> well known internet stalkers to harass staff and users.
>>
>
> We have had a consistent problem with pedophilia advocates in Commons
> becoming involved in curating sexual images. It is a problem when an editor
> with a child pornography conviction that was prominent enough to hit the
> press, who did several years in jail and was deported from the US, is so
> involved in our projects.
>
> It is a problem when that editor's block is promptly endorsed by the
> arbitration committee on English Wikipedia, but is equally quickly
> overturned in Commons.
>
> It is a problem if a Commons admin says, when being made aware of Sue
> Gardner's statement about Wikimedia's zero-tolerance policy towards
> pedophilia advocacy, that
>
> "You can quote Sue if you want - but Sue is Sue and not us. Sue also tried
> to install a image filter and was bashed by us."
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68051777
>
>
> By the way, that statement of Sue's has now been removed from the Meta page
> on pedophilia:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophilia&diff=3557747&oldid=3546718
>
>
> Now, English Wikipedia has for some time had a well-defined process for
> such cases. They are not to be discussed on-wiki, but are a matter for
> private arbcom communication. That is sensible. However, Commons has lacked
> both an arbitration committee, and any equivalent policy. (There are
> efforts underway now to write one:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Child_protection)
>
> This being so, there has been no other way to address this in Commons than
> to discuss it on-wiki, and it is a problem if an editor who posts evidence
> on Commons proving that the person in question has continued to advocate
> pedophilia online quite recently, and well after their release from prison,
> is blocked for "harassment", while the editor in question remains free to
> help curate pornographic material. But that is Commons for you.
>
> I am afraid that to most people out there in the real world, it will seem
> absolutely extraordinary that an educational charity lets someone with a
> child pornography conviction curate adult material, while its
> administrators block an editor who points out that the person has continued
> to be an open and public "childlove" advocate online.
>
> Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>