the key distinction is that a method for getting a list of files in a
category is a good thing for many purposes, and is morally totally
neutral. The ethical questions depend on what other people do with the
list, and like all intellectual work, it can be used for ends any
person might think
Dear Derk-jan,
As for 1), I think youtube can be compared in populairity and size with
wikipedia, and in videos surpasses commons.
Youtube enables its visitors to tag videos as adult.
see for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA22WSVlCZ4
kind regards,
Teun Spaans
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 6:27 PM, teun spaans teun.spa...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Derk-jan,
As for 1), I think youtube can be compared in populairity and size with
wikipedia, and in videos surpasses commons.
Youtube enables its visitors to tag videos as adult.
I think there is a difference
Presumably you mean nude female breast, and then you are involved with
exactly the nudity definition dilemma you allude to. If you mean
nude or clothed, Every full or half length picture of a woman seen
from the front or side contains a depiction of the female breast.
As another consideration, If
I've read most of the replies in this thread, And i think I should
point out a few things out:
* The omg tagging for any reason is censorship mentality is a
needless, Yes we tag things presently *shock horror* look at the
currently category system.
* Omg adding this to Mediawiki will destroy
Derk-Jan Hartman wrote:
This message is CC'ed to other people who might wish to comment on this
potential approach
---
You asked for comments... Here is one we prepared earlier...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_censorship#ICRA
In other words, we have been here, we have
I am afraid we will never be able to label our content properly. There will be
no chance to keep NPOV regardless how implemented labels will be. Our content
is free. If somebody needs labeled content he can label it himself in his own
copy of Wikimedia projects.
It is a bad idea. Let's not do
Robert Rohde wrote:
Personally, I tend to see ICRA labeling as just another kind of
categorization, albeit one with definitions that were defined
elsewhere.
This is precisely and completely absolutely wrong.
Labeling is enabling censorship. Labeling images
is the worst kind of enablement of
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman d.j.hart...@gmail.com wrote:
This message is CC'ed to other people who might wish to comment on this
potential approach
---
Dear reader at FOSI,
As a member of the Wikipedia community and the community that develops the
software on which
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman d.j.hart...@gmail.com
wrote:
This message is CC'ed to other people who might wish to comment on this
potential approach
---
Dear reader at FOSI,
As a member of
This is the first step towards censorship, and we should not take it.
We have no experience or expertise to determine what content is
suitable for particular users, or how content can be classified as
such.Further, doing so is contrary to the basic principle that we do
not perform original
Greg Maxwell writes:
At the same time, and I think we'll hear a similar message from the
EFF and the ALA, I am opposed to these organized content labelling
systems. These systems are primary censorship systems and are
overwhelmingly used to subject third parties, often adults, to
On 9 May 2010 21:17, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
The tags applied should be clear and fact-based. So instead of tagging a
page as containing pornography, which is entirely subjective, we
should rather tag the page as contains a depiction of an erect penis
or contains a depiction of
On 9 May 2010 21:28, Mikemoral mikemoral...@gmail.com wrote:
By why censor Commons? Should educational material be freely viewed and,
of course, be made free to read, use, etc.
Well, yes. The apparent reason is that Fox News is making trouble.
Categorisation, labeling, etc. won't fix that -
*That's true. But at the moment we have nothing to defend or excuse
ourselves with. If we had decent tagging we could at least say: You
don't want your pupils to see nude people? Add rule XYZ to your school's
proxy servers and Wikipedia will be clean. You can even choose which
content should be
This message was an attempt to gain information and spur discussion about the
system in general, it's limits and effectiveness, not wether or not we should
actually do it. I was trying to gather more information so that we can have an
informed debate if it ever got to discussing about the
Hi Derk-Jan,
Thank you for starting this thread.
There is obviously a range of options -- let's say, on a 10-point
scale, ranging from 0 (do nothing but enforce existing policy) to 10
(completely purge everything that's potentially objectionable to
anyone, anywhere). Somewhere on that continuum
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
This *HAS* been suggested before, and soundly defeated.
Nothing has changed in this respect. I would heartfeltly ask
that folks just quit trying to stuff this down the throat of a
community that simply does not content labeling.
I don't see
*That is why it was addressed to FOSI and cc'ed to some parties that might
have clue about such systems. The copy to foundation-l was a courtesy
message. You are welcome to discuss censorship and your opinion about it,
but I would appreciate it even more if people actually talked about rating
I can think of other concerns.
The main one is that of our competence to form judgements. On some
things we can: though nudity would seem something obvious, deciding on
the various degrees of it is not: I do not think we are likely to
agree on whether any particular nude image is primarily
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Derk-Jan Hartman wrote:
This message is CC'ed to other people who might wish to comment on this
potential approach
---
You asked for comments... Here is one we prepared earlier...
Sue Gardner wrote:
Hi Derk-Jan,
Thank you for starting this thread.
There is obviously a range of options -- let's say, on a 10-point
scale, ranging from 0 (do nothing but enforce existing policy) to 10
(completely purge everything that's potentially objectionable to
anyone, anywhere).
There is no general agreement here that any system of filtering for
any purpose is ever necessary, and I think it is totally contrary to
the entire general idea behind the the free culture movement.
But people have liberty do do as they please with our content, and if
someone wants to filter for
23 matches
Mail list logo
