Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I would use indicators like the number and intensity of complaints received.
For profit-making organizations seeking to maximize revenues by catering to majorities, this is a sensible approach. For most WMF projects, conversely, neutrality is a fundamental, non-negotiable principle. > Generally, what we display in Wikipedia should match what reputable > educational sources in the field display. Just like Wikipedia text reflects > the text in reliable sources. This is a tangential matter, but you're comparing apples to oranges. We look to reliable sources to determine factual information and the extent of coverage thereof. We do *not* emulate their value judgements. A reputable publication might include textual documentation of a subject, omitting useful illustrations to avoid upsetting its readers. That's non-neutral. > That does not mean that we should not listen to users who tell us that they > don't want to see certain media because they find them upsetting, or > unappealing. Agreed. That's why I support the introduction of a system enabling users (including those belonging to "insignificant" groups) to filter images to which they object. > I would deem them insignificant for the purposes of the image filter. They > are faced with images of women everywhere in modern life, and we cannot cater > for every fringe group. The setup that I support would accommodate all groups, despite being *far* simpler and easier to implement/maintain than one based on tagging would be. > At some point, there are diminishing returns, especially when it amounts to > filtering images of more than half the human race. That such an endeavor is infeasible is my point. > We need to look at mainstream issues (including Muhammad images). We needn't focus on *any* "objectionable" content in particular. > That would involve a user switching all images off, and then whitelisting > those they wish to see; is that correct? Or blacklisting individual > categories? Those would be two options. The inverse options (blacklisting images and whitelisting entire categories) also should be included. And it should be possible to black/whitelist every image appearing in a particular page revision (either permanently or on a one-off basis). > This would be better from the point of view of project neutrality, but would > seem to involve a *lot* more work for the individual user. Please keep in mind that I don't regard a category-based approach as feasible, let alone neutral. The amount of work for editors (and related conflicts among them) would be downright nightmarish. > It would also be equally likely to aid censorship, as the software would have > to recognise the user's blacklists, and a country or ISP could then equally > generate its own blacklists and apply them across the board to all users. They'd have to identify specific images/categories to block, which they can do *now* (and simply intercept and suppress the data themselves). David Levy _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
